Jump to content
Will the Red Sox get back to winning after yesterday's housecleaning? Join the conversation! ×
Talk Sox
  • Create Account

moonslav59

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    103,046

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    127

 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

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by moonslav59

  1. moonslav59
    Yeah, it is. I'm not usually one to blame the manager, and I was one of the last ones to agree that Bobby V needed to go. I'm not a big JF fan at all, but I'm not sure I'd go so far as to call him a "weakness". I know some here do. I would not call him "strength".
  2. moonslav59
    I don't disagree, but I think it was more than just resetting the tax. It was about our finances beyond next year. We are looking at being seriously squeezed when it comes to keeping our best young talent once they reach the end of their team control years. Yes, the tax factors into our finances beyond 2018, but I think we may not have signed EE even if we could have rest the tax this winter due to the effect it might have had on future signings and extensions being restricted.
  3. moonslav59
    ...Or, no other GM liked Travis more than DD did.
  4. moonslav59
    So, is John Farrell a weakness on this team?
  5. moonslav59
    It's a nice problem to have-- a super strong 25.
  6. moonslav59
    We also need guys that can play. I'm hopeful Smith can help us by mid season, and we do need some quality low cost players to offset our big star contracts and sunken costs.
  7. moonslav59
    With Travis probably near ML ready once he's rehabbed enough and Devers 1-2 years away, it never made sense to me to sign EE long term, especially when you look at how tight the budget will be when we want to start extending our young stars.
  8. moonslav59
    EbenezerBatflip 10:37 Which relief pitcher should Boston fans be most excited for in 2017, Thornburg, Carson Smith, Joe Kelly, or another guy? Jeff Sullivan 10:37 Smith, if he's at 100% 1) We can be pretty sure Smith will not be at 100% to start the season, and I've heard some say June could be his ETA. 2) Last full seasons: 2016 Thornburg 67 IP/ 2015 C Smith 70 IP WAR 2.0 2.1 WHIP 0.94 1.01 ERA- 50 60 xFIP 3.28 2.36 K/BB 3.60 4.18 K/9 10.5 11.8 Pretty close, and pretty darn good!
  9. moonslav59
    Beyond our very good 4th OF'er (Young), we have guys that can play "out of position" like Holt, Swihart or Moreland, but after that cue the sound of crickets.
  10. moonslav59
    If Devers is ready to contribute in a meaningful before 2019, which I think is the time we should plan on, then we can always move Pablo to DH or even 1B, if Travis has not worked out by then.
  11. moonslav59
    I agree. Both only have one really good season under their belt, and we all know RP'ers can be very up and down.
  12. moonslav59
    Well said.
  13. moonslav59
    Thanks. I misread her statement.
  14. moonslav59
    Our lack of deep organizational depth at the OF position might keep Castillo's name in the mix, but he's going to have to really step up his game to get any chance at breaking out of his contractual purgatory. He's probably just not good enough to do that, but his winter numbers are encouraging. He's got a steep road to climb from here.
  15. moonslav59
    Welcome, Poppy. You might want to be careful starting new threads. Hope to see you contribute on some Sox threads soon. Again, welcome!
  16. moonslav59
    Nobody says you have to call 40 for 50 equal to 10 for 50. We are just saying the sample size is not large enough to definitively label either of them "clutch" or "choke". I'm fine with someone saying, "That 40 for 50 guy has sure been clutch." But, to label him a clutch player is another matter, to me. One is describing his performance or an event. The other is calling somebody something based on enough evidence to warrant it. If you went oh for 1 in a WS, would you like to be labeled a "choke"? If you went 1 for 1 with a big hit, everyone would say, "That was a clucth hit!" But, should you be called a "clutch player" based on 1 AB? I'd say no. Personally, I'd say no to 369 PAs as well, if that were all we were looking at.
  17. moonslav59
    Actually, they don't. Is Papi's 369 PA post season sample size a large enough sample to be truly definitive?
  18. moonslav59
    They should be considered but within the context of their sample sizes and in conjunction with their regular season High Leverage and late & Close numbers. Now, the sample sizes might look large enough to debate their validity. Then, we get back to the skill vs random debate.... again.
  19. moonslav59
  20. moonslav59
    20.
  21. moonslav59
    I couldn't have been clearer. I give up.
  22. moonslav59
    Then, when you see the list of recent prospect graduates and young players added to the prospect list, it looks even more amazing. By age: 18: Kopech, Groome, Espinoza, 19: L Basabe, L Allen 20: Devers 22: Benintendi, Moncada, Dubon, V Diaz, Margot 23: F Montas, Travis 24: Betts, Bogey, ERod 25: Swihart, C Asuaje
  23. moonslav59
    Agreed.
  24. moonslav59
    I'd love to see stats like that: L-R splits Late & Close Late & Close in the playoffs or key games in Sept. Stuff like that.
  25. moonslav59
    I explained it already, and once again, you misunderstood my position. And you wonder why I need 80% more words.
×
×
  • Create New...