moonslav59
-
Posts
105,557 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
136
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 Tracker: Picks & Bonuses
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by moonslav59
-
I agree, and I probably shouldn't try to speak for Nick. I don't think any of us want to trade Dalbec for a middle pack RP'er. I might trade Chavis for a slightly upper-middle pack RP'er who is dependable or who can give 70+ IP.
-
notin came up with this one on trade simulator: BOS: Fisher, Gaviglio, Giles LAA: Dalbec TOR: Marsh Here's another he made, but I swapped Dalbec for Chavis: BOS: Hader, Ramos NYM: Houck MIL: Dalbec, Smith, Vazquez
-
Well said, and if we really want Betts back after trading him, we could tell him that. We could offer him a great deal now, and say, if you don't take it, we may trade you, so we can be better when we bid for you next winter. We want you back. If it's all about money, then we'll have to make the best offer. If it wasn't about the money (unlikely), then we did well by trading him.
-
I get your point. The 3-way deal makes sense. if we don't want prospects for Betts. In theory, no team trading for 1 year of Betts would want to give up equal ML talent, since they want to win in 2020. They want to give prospects. If we don't want prospects, we find a 3rd team that will take the prospects, since they are in rebuild mode. They give us the ML talent we want and need.
-
Maybe he meant ML RP'er. In theory he may be worth a top prospect RP'er.
-
I like Dalbec a lot. I like him more than Chavis. However, I think his greatest value is at 3B, and I think moving Devers to 1B might create issues we shouldn't mess with. Devers at 1B and Dalbec at 3B makes the most sense to me, on paper, but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. I'm not for trading Dalbec because I don't like him or I want to weaken the farm. I'm thinking that trading him (maybe as part of a package) for a higher need area prospect or young player might be the best plan.
-
I'm glad we were able to keep Osich & Marco and reduce our budget slightly.
-
Oh, I agree, but our unique situation and the roster being expanded to 26 next year might change the equation enough to make a go at rule 5.
-
Trading Dalbec with a vet for a young cost-controlled player who plays a position we actually need someone to play is as good as building the farm. IMO, Dalbec has more value to another team than ours. We have a 3Bman. We could trade Dalbec for another prospect that pitches, plays 2B or CF (assuming we trade JBJ).
-
No matter what you say in the intro, of course people are going to examine the names, and your example was lop-sided. Yes, a 3-team trade may be the best way for us to get what we want for Betts, since we may not want prospects- a 3rd team would want.
-
The rankings are out. 1. Ohio St. 2. LSU 3. Clemson 4. Georgia 5. Utah (I had OK here.) 6. Oklahoma 7. Baylor 8. Wisconsin (I don't get this at all.) 9. Florida 10. Penn St. 11. Auburn 12. Alabama (I had them 9th) 13. Oregon 14. Michigan (Too high.) 15. Notre Dame 16. Iowa 17. Memphis If Utah and Oklahoma win, and Georgia loses to LSU, I think OKL should be #4. If Baylor wins, it might come down to who looked better in their wins. (Oregon should not go, if they win.)
-
With our roster depth looking weak- both the 26 and 40 man, keeping a non-ML ready player in that extra 26th slot might be worth a gamble.
-
I just noticed I called you an " a hole guy" Sorry!
-
I thought you were a hole guy.
-
Yes, so 30% not 20%.
-
Donuts cost over a dollar, these days... good ones anyways.
-
Looking at the Dodgers: Pollock is owed $51M/3 counting the buyout for 2023. He has negative trade value and would greatly offset the cost of Price ($96M/3). Looking at Price, for a cost of $45M/3 is not so bad. He might even get that as a FA this winter, assuming he was one. Joc Pederson might get about $10M in his last arb year. While that's way less than Betts, it does knock the cost of Betts to $18M not $28M. All-in all, the money part of the deal works for the Dodgers, IMO. The sticking point might be the prospect we want added to the deal (or maybe add Chris Taylor- assuming we dump JBJ & Kenta Maeda). From the Sox point of view, we see these budget savings: 2020: $35M ($60M Price+ Betts- $25M Pollock + Pederson) 2021: $14M ($32M Price- $18M Pollock) 2022: $19M ($32M Price- $13M Pollock) Total savings: $68M The Lux tax hit is even better: 2020: $35M ($31M Price+$28M Betts- $12M Pollock+$10M Pederson) 2021: $19M ($31M Price- $12M Pollock) 2022: $19M ($31M Price- $12M Pollock) $73M total Lux Tax savings
-
Dalbec has a higher trade value than Chavis on the trade simulator site. I agree with that assessment. I also think we lose some of his value by forcing him to play 1B. We lose his plus D at 3B, and his bat will be harder to meet 1B expectations than 3B expectations.
-
They reset, so their tax would e just 20% for 2020.
-
I think they figure in min salaries for all remaining slots.
-
Parking in a handicapped spot calls for an immediate assembly of a firing squad.
-
That was before losing Leon & others right? $3.5 Leon 1.0 Osich 0.7 Marco All are still listed on Cot's. Now, those players are replace by $600K min wage player ($1.8M total) and the difference might be about $3.5M for the 3. That leaves us about $10.5M over, which trading JBJ would even out. We could subtract another $1M by DFA'ing or trading Hembree.
-
We actually made payments to the Dodgers until CC's contract ran out. $3.9M x 3 years plus $1.25M x 2 for Beckett $857K x 5 for AGon $857K x 5 for Crawford All total, it came to about $15M, and one could assume it was all really geared towards paying for CC's contract, since the others were not really "salary dump" players. That would knock about $3M/yr off CC's $20.9M a year deal. $18M x 5 for Crawford vs $32M x 3 for Price is close to even.
-
We could kick in $2-3M a year and still save bigly.
-
Death penalty, here.
