moonslav59
-
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
-
Like by 2020?
-
Like Devers or Beni good?
-
Who knows. All I worry about with Mookie is losing him. He's the best Sox player I have ever seen. To let him go brings me back to the the days of losing Lynn, Fisk, Burleson...
-
37 is not really that old. The 10 year deal might have just 1-3 years of low production, if any.
-
MLB lists Josh Ockimey as a top five Rule 5 pick. Best 2018 Rule 5 Draft prospects available WWW.MLB.COM Thanksgiving is here and I'm sure we all have things we are grateful for. Family, friends, the usual list that deserves gratitude. Personally, I'd like to share my thanks with the MLB Pipeline staff.There's no need for details, but there have been some challenges to face over the past few
-
I'm sure if the 15 lowest paid players made their demands, the rep would have to honor their position. I think the owners would be okay with it, as long as their years of control does not change. Add more money to the bottom tiers and take from the top. Sounds good in theory, but making it happen will not be easy.
-
I think Cano at 40 is quite different than Betts at 37.
-
Some people misinterpret other's beliefs and feelings. I'm very glad we sacrificed some of our future for a ring (or 2). It was more than "good enough".
-
That's how I see it. I have no issues with what DD did. We won a ring, so it worked. That doesn't mean I have to be happy about the state of our farm, and being concerned about 2021 does not take an ounce away from my happiness about 2018, 2019 and probably 2020.
-
You are right. My original AA statement did sound like a slight. It shouldn't be, but that injury year did set his ML arrival time back to some extent. That was all I meant. He's not really ML ready, now.
-
I get it, and I'm happy the trades got what they were intended to get- a ring (or 2). My point is that some posters are asking me to trust that these far away prospects are going to help the big club someday, but when we traded them for big named players (BTW some were established highly ranked prospects, which we don't have now), we were told they were just lottery tickets and not likely to contribute. I'm just trying to pint out a subtle contradiction.
-
Agreed. I'm glad the Trojan's demise happened in the year we really needed to beat them.
-
Not again!
-
lol!
-
I get that, so then is saying our farm will help us like saying that has the same chance as 10 lottery tickets?
-
I think he could help. The AA remark was meant to convey a point that he hasn't impressed enough to be in AAA by now. I think he'll be in AAA this year and may represent our best chance at some significant infusion in the next year or two. I'd say Hernandez and Dalbec might be our best near term hopes. Feltman is a bit of a long shot, to me.
-
I'd take Mookie at ages 36 and 37 for $10M a year. With inflation the way it is in MLB, $10M may be like $3-5M now. I'd even give him $320M/12.
-
In terms of all the low risk deals vs all high risk deals, I think DD has done better with the low risk ones. Of course, I loved the Chris Sale deal better than any other deal. Yes, the JD trade worked like magic right off the bat. The Price deal looks better now than it did just before the 2018 playoffs. The Kimbrel & Pom deals are also in this group. IMO. I'm guessing we put the Moreland, Pearce and Nunez signings into the low risk category, and maybe the Travis Shaw/ Dubon for Thornburg in there, too. I'm sure there are other not-so-good low risk deals and some so-so like A Reed, Abad, Fister, Kinsler, and others. I didn't mean to imply DD has done poorly with his big signings; he's actually done very well, but I think he seems masterful at the mid range, under-the-radar deals, especially the mid season ones..
-
Yes, right. If the majority of the players banded together and demanded higher minimum wages and a better arb set-up rather than a much higher luxury tax limit, the owners would probably be okay with the deal.
-
To me, the biggest thing the players should push for is to increase the minimum wage and maybe increase the roster to 26 or 27 players. Only a select few benefit from the current system- the owners and the big stars. More players make less than $2-3M than mega deals. They should demand more for the guys who might only last a year or two in the bigs. (I doubt they do this.)
-
We all do. Probably the best way to keep winning is to keep your farm from being near the worst even for one year, but certainly not 2-3 years in a row. We certainly won these rings by spending, but without some great homegrown talent mixed in, there would be zero rings. Every team we had from 2004, 2007. 2013 and 2018 all had several excellent players getting paid way below market value. It's hard to win by only spending. Right now, we have Devers, Beni and Brasier who are pre-arb and looking very good, but we will need more like them starting real soon, and I hate to sound like a pessimist, because I love this team, but I don't see the next Devers or Beni in sight.
-
No disagreement here. Probably most MLB team owners could easily spend $230+M on salaries, if they wanted to do it. Although doing so wouldn't guarantee rings, especially if they all did it at once. It might not even guarantee a major increase in attendance or TV viewership, if some of these teams did win. I remember seeing empty seats in some World Series games a while back. I do think Henry might decide to not reset the luxury tax, and if that is true, a lot of my posts have been based on faulty assumptions, but I still think he'd prefer not to pay these top tax rates every year or acquire the same reputation King George acquired when spending the Yanks to win after win. I think there is a certain amount of pride among owners to show you can manage a team to wins without outspending the next team by $35-40M. I'm thinking this year was a one time deal, as other teams that just reset the tax will come close to us in 2019, so it won't look so bad anymore, but I'm still going to continue to go on the assumption, right or wrong, that we will reset after 2020 or 2019 or almost certainly after 2021.
-
No, that penalty is not bad. I'm not a betting man, but I think we reset after 2020, but it wouldn't surprise me, if we do it after 2019, so we can spend big in 2020 and keep Mookie around. In either case, resetting in after 2019 or 2020 would mean trying to limit any big deals signed this year to less than 2 or 3 years, unless we view the player as a must for the year we reset.
-
They should. The M's are rebuilding. The Mets are creating a window to win now.
-
I wouldn't mind if Henry agrees to never reset the tax and spends and spends, but part of me will think I am being hypocritical after spending all those years lambasting Yankee fans for King George buying rings. I'd prefer we don't get that image, but winning is certainly better than enduring some of the same taunts from Yankee fans I used to hurl at them.
