Jump to content
Talk Sox
  • Create Account

moonslav59

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    109,016

  • 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

  1. moonslav59
    If we sign Betts after 2020, and he opts out after 3 years, we'd have him through age 31, not 32. 28 2020 last arb year 29 2021 yr 1 30 2022 yr 2 31 2023 yr 3 (He'd turn 32 Oct 7th.)
  2. moonslav59
    I think most of Red Sox nation was disgusted by 2019 and knows our pitchers are high injury risks and not likely to lead us to a ring in 2020. I may be wrong, and I don't live in New England anymore, but Sox fans aren't dumb, in general. Most might be fine with 2020 being viewed as a rebuild year, as long as they feel we'll be back in contention by 2021 or 2022. BTW, any trade of Betts that I would go along with would have to be for a decent return. To me, it doesn't have to be ML ready studs in return, as long as Bloom shows an over plan that gets us back to the top within 1-2 years. Also, I have said many times, if I trade Betts, I'm still going all out to re-sign him in 2021. To me, that would be the best of both worlds. Get something very good for him and then bring him back. (If we lose out on the bidding, let Bloom take the $30+M and spend on multiple lower cost bargain signings.)
  3. moonslav59
    I could see these type of deals maybe happening: Betts + Price or Eovaldi for scraps, then Bloom working his magic with lower cost signings and trades. Betts for a $10-13M cost decent player (to lessen the financial hit on the accepting team) plus better prospects due to less money cost of the deal. Betts for very good but far away prospects, then Bloom flips them for under-the-radar ML players.
  4. moonslav59
    I could see $120/3 with opt out plus $210/7 for the remainder. Total: $330M/10 getting the job done. If contracts keep going up and the new CBAn is more favorable to the players, Betts can opt out at a decent age to get one last big deal (bigger than $210/7).
  5. moonslav59
    I think we also got spoiled when we had a short period when a lot studs came up at the same time. We hard a lot of, "Don't worry, we'll rebuild the farm in no time."
  6. moonslav59
    You're forcing me to say it: how about a 3-way deal?
  7. moonslav59
    Betts & the Mets? Mets should trade for Mookie Betts or Francisco Lindor WWW.MLB.COM Nothing gets the rumor mill churning like talk of a superstar on the trade block -- and that's what's happening with Red Sox outfielder Mookie Betts and Guardians shortstop Francisco Lindor. Both players are approaching free agency -- Betts is one season away, Lindor two -- and they're only going
  8. moonslav59
    I think the rule states only Houston proper- not the burbs.
  9. moonslav59
    1) I said "arguably" ...the best. 2) Getting rid of CC alone for nothing made it a top 5 Sox trade. Beckett was apparently a cancer and went 8-14 in 2.3 yrs in LA. As it turned out, even the AGon part of the deal worked out for us. He ended up with a .793 OPS while making big money. 3) It wasn't ever about what we got back, although Webster and DLR were viewed as decent young pitcher. It was about freeing up budget space, and Ben spent wisely on Vic, Uehara, Napoli and Drew and there's no way we win the ring in 2013 without that trade and those signings. (True, we didn't trade for those guys, but the trade made their signings possible.) 4) I have no issue with calling the Pedro trade the best ever, and maybe even the Schilling trade second best, but I rank the Dodger dump an all time top 3 Sox deal with a significant case to be made it was number one.
  10. moonslav59
    I get the point, but Vic was signed while he was already in decline. Basically, we signed him to 3 years post prime and 0 years in prime. I'm not sure that sounds much better than signing a guy to 5 years prime and 5 years post-prime.
  11. moonslav59
    Yes, from their side, that's what it looks like, and from our side, Pearce is labelled "clutch."
  12. moonslav59
    Yes, it's all nonsense.
  13. moonslav59
    I don't see it that way. We're already looking for ways to cut salary. I was suggesting we might want to trade him before we even found out he declined the opt out. It's probably easier to trade him than Price or Eovalid. I also want to keep Betts beyond 2020. If bringing the budget down helps with that, then there's more reasons to trade JD. If this whole Pedey nonsense comes to fruition, where as he becomes the near FT DH, then to me, trading JD makes a hell of a lot of sense. His value as a DH to the CWS seems higher than to us as an Of'er. That lays the foundation for a trade. I also think it's better for the team and JD that he play almost exclusively DH. JD will likely opt out after 2020 and go for a bigger and longer deal. An injury would hurt his earning power immensely. An injury would hurt our chances at winning, as well. His defense would hurt our chances at winning. There may even be more reasons than these.
  14. moonslav59
    I don't see how Bloom shaking his bootie is going to help us at all, and certainly any November shaking will accomplish very little.
  15. moonslav59
    I'd trade him before I made him play more than a handful of games in the OF.
  16. moonslav59
    ...and if they groove one to Pearce, because they rather he beat them than Betts, then maybe it wasn't so much Pearce was "clutch" but rather he was the beneficiary of being in the right place at the right time with the best strategy against him in place.
  17. moonslav59
    Yes, 50-50 is a huge risk, and I didn't dive deep into the rating, but I think the ones that were signed younger did better. BTW, which ratings do you disagree on? (Also, the 50-50 was on all contracts over $20M/yr. The mega deals- $25+M worked out better than 50-50.)
  18. moonslav59
    While Vic declined sharply afterwards, it was only for 2 years after 2013 not 5 or 6.
  19. moonslav59
    He also drafted Ty Buttrey and signed IFAs: Espinoza, D Hernandez & Gerson Bautista. (More may end up developing into ML pitchers in the next few years.)
  20. moonslav59
    And, all the bad signings after 2013 made people forget about Vic, Uehara, David Ross, Napoli I and Drew I signed for the 2013 championship (None became 5 year albatrosses). Plus, he arguable made the best trade in Red Sox history when he dumped CC & Beckett on the Dodgers (and AGon declined sharply not long afterwards, too).
  21. moonslav59
    That's a great example or what can happen in small sample sizes. On the flip side, maybe some other players "looked clutch" because pitchers chose to not "pitch around" them, instead. Also, so much of this game is about millimeters, so when we are looking at a short period of time, it's hard to definitively call anyone a choke or clutch because one or two plays might have been decided by 1 millimeter one way or another. BTW, I told my wife before the series, that it would be won by Bregman. I was wrong, but possibly because the managers felt the same way, and made sure he didn't (or couldn't) beat them.
  22. moonslav59
    During hazing week.
  23. moonslav59
    MLBTR reports he got the job, too.
  24. moonslav59
    Every stat is, really. No player in MLB history has ever player more than 158 games in the playoffs, total. Only 5 players have over 100 games played in the PO's. Only 3 pitchers have over 200 IP.
  25. moonslav59
    I'd say the 13 IP (and 22 as well) is way too small to make any definitive judgement about. It could be just one bad pitch over 13 innings.
×
×
  • Create New...