Jump to content
Talk Sox
  • Create Account

moonslav59

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    103,987

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    129

 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
    Without Pablo & HRam we'd have been under the luxury line while paying Price $31M, JD $22M and Porcello $21M. If we didn't have Pablo & HRam, we could have paid Betts $31M and not had Porcello and been under the tax line.
  2. moonslav59
    We paid Pablo & HRam $41M this year and still won a ring. $35M does not mean all you can afford are scubs. Plus, if we extend now, maybe we can keep his luxury cost to $31 or 32M.
  3. moonslav59
    The Miggy deal is so different from an extension offered to Betts 2 years before his control is up. Can we move on?
  4. moonslav59
    As you all know, I'm a huge JBJ fan, but I'd rather keep Betts than JBJ & Bogey combined.
  5. moonslav59
    This year, Kimbrel saved 42 in 47 opportunities. The team went 46 for 66 (a misleading stat of 69.6%). Chapman went 32 out of 34 (a better save % than CK) and the team was 49 for 67. Jansen saved 38 out of 42 (about the same rate as CK) and the team went 48 for 72. Now, let's look at the closer by committee 2003 season as a possible worst case scenario. Kim saved 16 out of 19. Lyon 9 out of 12. The team saved 36 out of 57 (63.2%). The total team save % from 2018 to 2003 was 6.4% better. If you apply the .632 to 66 save chances, we'd have 42 saves in 2018 not 46, a loss of 4 saves. I know this is not an accurate portrayal of what might have been, but it does give some evidence that things might not have been too bad.
  6. moonslav59
  7. moonslav59
    I don't "believe in WAR" as an absolute determining factor. I do think we win the division and the WS without Kimbrel. Due to Sale's injury, we might have won without him (but not both him and Kimbrel).
  8. moonslav59
    I'm not sure either, but I think we would have. I don't want to get into hypotheticals, but if we had no Kimbrel, we'd have had his money to pick up someone better than Workman and Poyner.
  9. moonslav59
    Because he's the best player we've ever had in my lifetime. The opt out after 6 is better than no opt out for Betts. Plus, he gets more money in the first 6 years, especially his arb years, so if he invests it well, he can make much more money than just the salary. What we gain: We have the best player in Red Sox history (since Teddy) for 12 more years. We front load his money, so if he opts out, he might make more at age 32 and we don't have to worry about his post prime decline. Front loading also makes it easier to trade him late in his career.[ Our Luxury tax hit is just $31M for the last 10 years, not $35M. We make a ton of money off the marketing value Mookie brings to us. I'm sure there are more pluses I've not listed.
  10. moonslav59
    Best manager ever. Best RF'er ever. Best team balance ever- pitching, offense and defense. YES!
  11. moonslav59
    It has nothing to do with WAR or replacement value. For one, we would not replace Kimbrel with a closer having a zero WAR. KImbrel certainly helped us last year, but I feel we probably would have still won it all without him, and I'm not even getting into his playoff performances.
  12. moonslav59
    I'd say about $31-32M x 12, including the buy out years. Betts is likely to make $45M in his last 2 arb years. That's $25M less than $35M a year, so if you take that off the next 10 years, it's $2.5M from $35M or $32.5M x 12. I'd think offering him $31M x 12 might do it. He gets more security and we save $23 over 12 years. $45M (arbs)+ $350M($35M x 10)= $395M over 12 years $31M x 12 years= $372M Or, offer him $31.5M x 12= $378M - a savings of $17M. $32M x 12= $384M - a $11M savings. Give him an opt out after 6 years.
  13. moonslav59
    WE might have still won without Kimbrel.
  14. moonslav59
    Or, we could sign Mookie for what we paid Pablo & HRam per year. BTW, for those who think you can't field a team while paying someone $35M, we paid Pable & HRam over $40M this year.
  15. moonslav59
    Somebody has to play for the M's. Maybe he just felt like all Sox fans do: anyone but the Yankees!
  16. moonslav59
    There is also a large Asian population on the west coast.
  17. moonslav59
    so right!
  18. moonslav59
    I was thinking Brasier from the bottom shelf, Moreland, Pearce and Nunez from the middle shelf.
  19. moonslav59
    If you plan on flying back a lot, 5 hours is a lot.
  20. moonslav59
    H a p p y N e w Y e a r !
  21. moonslav59
    Well put.
  22. moonslav59
    Check your temperature for a fever or something.
  23. moonslav59
    I agree, but an issue may arise with options, especially if we pick up a RP'er or two without trading a pitcher with options. I have all 3 making the opening day roster with Velazquez starting in AAA. This assumes no injuries (doubtful) and no new additions (doubtful).
  24. moonslav59
    True, but Johnson starts. Wright may never be back. Trading Johnson leaves just Velazquez and Shawaryn as starter depth.
  25. moonslav59
    I get it, but people are looking at all the failed 8+ year deals and assuming Mookie's will, too. Yes, it can. It's a huge risk. One thing to notice is that many of the failed 8+ year deals went to ages 39-42. A 12 year deal right now would go to age 37. I realize $35M a year can be spent differently, and the risk reward being put on just one guy is scary, but to me, Betts is the best Sox player I've ever seen. (Pedro is close.)
×
×
  • Create New...