Jump to content
Talk Sox
  • Create Account

moonslav59

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    105,199

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    134

 Content Type 

Profiles

Boston Red Sox Videos

2026 Boston Red Sox Top Prospects Ranking

Boston Red Sox Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

Guides & Resources

2025 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker

News

2026 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by moonslav59

  1. moonslav59
    I've never cared much about a lot of K's, as long as the guy gets hits or walks enough. I hate DPs more. I hate mediocre or poor D at SS.
  2. moonslav59
    After I wrote this in June... LOL.
  3. moonslav59
    That's kind of the point I was getting at. Signing Matz instead of ERod in a vacuum looks bad, but it's all about the total money spent.
  4. moonslav59
    I've been saying 3-4, but I was answering Old Red who swears no big deals, so I geared it to that perspective. (He probably thinks the R Iglesias deal is "big.") My point was about his "blueprint" comment. The blueprint was spending $40M, last winter. If we spend the same on just 3 players, someone has to be big. Even 3 at $13.3M/yr is probably bigger than Old Red envisions.
  5. moonslav59
    You know my answer: defense. Be pre-emptive on losing Bogey. When Mayer is ready, Baez can move to 2B.
  6. moonslav59
    It's hard to know their views on Wong, but that makes the most sense. It's highly doubtful we carry 4 catchers on the 40. Vaz ___/Plawecki Wong R Hernandez
  7. moonslav59
    MLBTR estimates $20M x 5 for Baez. To me, that's one of the best value deals out there. Trade Bogey or move him to 2B or 3B (Devers to 1B and trade Dalbec or casas for pitching).
  8. moonslav59
    Wouldn't Seager play SS, Torres 2B and LeMahieu 1B? (Voit in the wings) Why Olsen?
  9. moonslav59
    This is blatant plagiarism.
  10. moonslav59
    It looks that way, unless there is something with the physical.
  11. moonslav59
    If we have a $40M winter spending budget like last winter's "blueprint," and we spend $9M x 3 on Matz instead of $18.4M on ERod, what will matter most is not just how well Matz will do vs ERod, but what we spend the other $9M on- the amount saved by ERod not taking the QO. Are we a better team, if we sign $14M x 4 R Iglesias $9M x 3 Matz $9M x 3 Graveman $5M x 2 Y Gomes (-$2M nontender Plawecki) $3.5M x 2 Iggy
  12. moonslav59
    I think we trade or non-tender Plawecki. We may go with Wong or make a trade for a defense only catcher.
  13. moonslav59
    $60M/3 is pretty "secure," even when compared to $77M/5.
  14. moonslav59
    It's not a strong FA class for what we need: pitching.
  15. moonslav59
    He has some pluses. I don't see him as a net negative player, but I do not think he's worth $7M. Bloom does, and my guess is other GMs do, too. I don't project my feelings on other GMs. I make suggestions on moves based on my opinions- not Bloom's.
  16. moonslav59
    Not a bad deal for the Jays.
  17. moonslav59
    The blueprint might be we spend $40M, like last year, but we literally cannot sign 10 guys, like last winter, so something is going to be different. If we spend $40M on 3 guys, we'll likely go large on one. If we spend $40M on 4-5 guys, maybe it will be more moderate deals, but I seriously doubt the most we spend on one player is $14M/2 like Kike or $10M/1 like Richards. We might, but I doubt it.
  18. moonslav59
    He's 34. Maybe every other day or slightly more?
  19. moonslav59
    They could have traded Vaz or Plawecki and his estimated $2.1M arb and essentially pay $2M a year more for Pina.
  20. moonslav59
    If there is one thing the Sox have been very good at (except for Lester) is valuing their own players when they reach free agency. I don't share your view that this winter will be a frugal one for Bloom. It may be, but I think we may go large on long on a FA or make a big trade.
  21. moonslav59
    Right, you are! Sign 'em all and Turn the Page...
  22. moonslav59
    He might be able to be a bit more than a 1 inning "conventional closer." Maybe he could give us 80-90 innings closing out games or coming in when needed most.
  23. moonslav59
    Agreed. He had like 3 starts in '20 and missed some of '21. Houck's got great stuff and seems to be working on building up his third pitch, but he's so damn good as a 2-5 inning RP'er, in an era where that is becoming more and more important and valuable. Whitlock looks more like a starter, to me, but he still has to prove he can do that, and I worry we'll mess him up be trying to convert him back to a starter.
  24. moonslav59
    I think he got close to what was expected, so in that sense, yes. Contracts don’t seem to be getting any smaller. I did expect more before the opt out. He could have gotten $18.4M/1 and basically got $9.6M for year two.
  25. moonslav59
    Then who? Pete Seager?
×
×
  • Create New...