moonslav59
-
Posts
109,002 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
164
Content Type
Profiles
Boston Red Sox Videos
2026 Boston Red Sox Top Prospect Rankings
Boston Red Sox Trade & Free Agent Rumors
Boston Red Sox Fan Guides & Resources
2025 Boston Red Sox Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Boston Red Sox News, Rumors & Analysis
2026 Boston Red Sox Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by moonslav59
-
I agree, but by not giving a second- more reasonable offer- it forced the drag out public unpleasantness.
-
Agreed, so why not counter with that or even $320M/10?
-
I agree. We should have made a second offer we would have paid. (Hopefully, that first offer was not close.)
-
Cause, what's only $6M more, and so on...
-
He sure seems to feel entitled.
-
Agreed, and they did comeback with a sizably higher offer with Lester, much later. In defense of Sox management, Lester did say he was willing to take a "hometown discount." It's hard to know exactly what that means. many felt Pedey took way less than he could have gotten, and maybe they looked at the Pedey contract as a comp. That being said, I do think it was insultingly low.
-
The initial $30M still counts and was viewed as a trade-off. Adding $6M tilted the balance to a know. How about another $6M? And then another? (I'm actually not even sure they wanted him at their initial offer they knew he'd refuse- same as Lester.)
-
Easier said than done. I'm fine with the argument about preferring Betts over Price, or more realistically, choosing not to extend Sale, Eovaldi or Bogey, so we could keep Betts, but I'm a firm believer in the idea that Henry insists on re-setting before we ever reach the 3rd year mega tax, and his history shows he likes to stay under for 2-3 years at a time- not just one. I'm fine with disagreeing with that plan, but within that framework, signing Betts would have meant serious budget complications for at least 3 years, especially since it also meant keeping $16M of Price's deal. maybe we could have dumped Price's $16M elsewhere, but I doubt it.
-
I said I will never criticize him about checkbook opening. I'm not saying nobody else has the right to or not. I just don't get it. Criticizing one of MLB's biggest spending owners for not spending enough invites pushback. Criticizing him for hiring or firing GMs is open season. Again, just my opinions.
-
OPS Against 2021 (PAs) .319 Whitlock 48 .351 Barnes 50 .368 Valdez 40 .577 Andriese 52 .603 Pivetta 104 .606 Ottavino .633 Sawamura .643 ERod 89 .669 Eovaldi 119 .773 Richards 109 .803 Perez 83 .806 Houck 45 .837 Brice 28 .921 DHern 35 1.039 Taylor 46 -
Looking at the team 3.66 ERA, I was kind of surprised to see that it's also 3.65 over the last 14 days. The team leaders have flipped, but still... Last 14 days: Listed by IP 2.70 Richards 2.45 Pivetta 3.46 ERod 6.35 Eovaldi 7.36 Perez 0.00 Whitlock 5.14 Barnes (that one pitch!) 0.00 Andriese 1.50 Ottavino 3.38 Valdez (All others with less than 5 IP)
-
You really think spending $30+M a year on someone has no affect on what you spend on several other players? (maybe even more than 5)
-
It's easy to sit back and think Henry can and should spend like the Dodgers, if needed, but the guy has spent and improved this club like no owner before. I can never even come close to thinking I should criticize him for not opening up his checkbook more. I'm fine with criticism on how we spend it, but that's more on the GM not Henry, despite Henry hiring and firing them.
-
Made of rigid, inflexible muscles.
-
I doubt we ever get near that, even in a year we view as the one to "go for it" like 2018, but I do think we go over again, and by a lot. I'm guessing we always try to stay under the $20M over line, and we continue to avoid the 3rd year mega tax. We've never reached 3 straight years.
-
True, but those costs will be worth it and still an underpay vs FAs. His first of 3 arbs in 2022.
-
I don't disagree, and we could have "afforded" him. The point I try to make is that, agree or disagree- like it or not, we do have restrictions on spending, at least every 2-3 years (re-sets). Spending big on anyone, and I have no issues with arguing Betts was worth it over guys like Price and even Sale, JD, Eovaldi and Bogey, means spending less on other positions. With a farm as weak as our was, at the time of choosing what to do with Betts, the choice of signing Betts and not having cheap but good prospects filling open slots would have meant having a very unbalanced team going forward, and when the re-set years came up (every 2-3 years), we'd be a mess. I agree, though. A team like the Sox should be able to afford any one player they want- and even more, but the fact is, we already had several big-priced players on the books.
-
One nice thing going for us, and it's no accident- Bloom planned it this way, is that our most likely high need areas, this summer, are also the areas we have the best internal depth, including top prospects nearing MLB readiness: P: Houck, Bazardo, Seabold and others 2B: Downs, Santana, Arauz, Munoz, Chavis OF: Duran (Munoz/Santana) 1B: Chavis, Casas (Ockimey) Note: our internal OF depth is not deep, but Duran is likely our best AAA prospect nearing ML readiness, and we do have Kike, Marwin, Santana, Munoz and maybe even Chavis able to play OF.
-
Context. Betts and 5 scrubs or Verdugo, 2 prospects and 5 decent players.
-
I don't disagree, but his contract was part of the Betts equation and trade.
-
The only real point against that is that Renfroe only hits lefties well, and that's the smaller platoon side. He can play RF, so I like Renfroe, too. If Santana is called up, he's a switch hitter who is pretty even v L (.697) & v R (.727), but not really spectacular. In his big 2019 season, he hit nearly identical vs lefties (.856) and righties (.858).
-
I think many of these "over achieving" teams will likely come back to earth. It remains to be seen, if the Sox are in that group. I don't think any of us expect us continuing a .640 winning %, but making the playoffs or even squeaking by with a divisional crown do not seem all that absurd.
-
This Royals team is reminding of the ones that went far two years in a row back from 2014 to 2015.
-
The main two reasons I lobbied for Kike in CF was that his metrics showed he was the best defensive CF'er we have- by far and that we had way more choice at 2B than OF: Arroyo, Marwin, Chavis, Arauz, Munoz, Downs, Santana... Maybe the third reason was to keep Cordero & Renfroe in platoon-only mode and in LF only. Marwin's defense was never even an after thought, but I still think the 2B job is now Arroyo's. Marwin is seriously challenging Renfroe & Cordero for the FT LF job. When Danny Santana's opt out time is up (he agreed to extend it into May), we may see Cordero or Renfroe demoted.
-
Since the Mookie thread has been moved up, let's change the subject for this thread... The Sox and Dodgers are now tied for the second best record. The best record, by percentage points is not the Padres. It's not the surprising Giants. It's not the surging A's, and we all know it ain't the Yanks! It's the Royals! Danny Duffy has a 0.39 ERA! Singer is at 2.95 but is 1-2. The pen has been great, but only Carlos Santana has an OPS over .792. Out of their 10 batters with 35+ PAs, 6 are below .700. It must be Beni's clubhouse influence!
