moonslav59
-
Posts
109,029 -
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
-
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.
-
No. It sounded like you were saying these specific team are only competitive in short periods of time and can't remain consistently competitive. I think the Rays and A's have been more competitive than many teams that always spend more than them, so in a way, I guess I am saying they do better than some bigger spenders, but of course spending big makes most team much better and more able to go beyond just being "competitive". Winning it all almost always takes money. It seems strange that the rays & A's have not won a ring since the early 70's and a team like KC won once. I guess finishing worst so many years can help you build your farm. The Rays got some top picks before they started their fairly decent run at being pretty competitive for over a decade. I totally agree that spending is tied to success, but many teams spend big and never win and a few teams have shown they can spend little and do better than some who spend a lot more. It's not a cut and dried correlation.
-
Exactly. Watching him continue his greatness for 10 years with another team would be very sad and depressing.
-
I could be wrong, but I think his body type is the kind that ages well. Yes, he may get hurt crashing into walls, but I think he will be very good into his late 30's. To me, h is main skill is his reflexes and his "twitch responses" are off the charts good. I'm not sure there is a comparable comp in MLB history, but personally, I think that will help him as he ages. Besides, 37 is the new 35.
-
Where did I ever say or imply I wanted this for the Red Sox? Where did I ever say these teams should be the models of success? I just pointed out how some low spending teams have been, more or less, consistently competitive. They are not flash in the pan one or two year wonders like KC. I'm not sure where you think I'm coming from. You made it sound like these teams can compete once in a great while, but they have done better than that, despite not winning any rings. Of course, I would not want us to follow their model, although I wish we had some of their talent evaporators in our system.
-
It's not really a close comp. 1) The 10th year of Cano's deal he will be 40. Betts would be 37. 2) Betts has hit .897, .803 and 1.078 in his last 3 years with 2 more to go before he reaches free agency at age 28. Cano hit .914, ,882 and .899 the 3 years before he became a FA at age 30. 3) My opinion here, but Betts has the tools that age well.
-
I'd sign him to 10 years right now, but I admit giving him 10 after he becomes a free agent in 2 years is much more risky.
-
To some extent, yes, but the Rays and A's have been competitive quite a few seasons. The Rays made the playoffs in 4 of 6 seasons not too long ago, and they won 90 games this year. They've won 80 or more games in 9 of the last 11 seasons. That's pretty damn good for one of the lowest spenders in MLB. The A's have made the playoff in 9 of the last 19 seasons, They've also avoided being horrible and getting top draft picks. They've long won less than 74 games twice in the last 21 seasons. Minnesota has made the playoffs in 7 of the last 17 seasons and won over 83 games in 10 of 17 seasons.
-
Well, ND almost beat Georgia last year, and we're better this year. Georgia came close to beating Alabama, so there is a sliver of hope.
-
I get the 2019 argument, but signing Eovaldi will likely cause us to lose Porcello or Sale. I don't see it as a "hedge". It's a replacement.
