moonslav59
-
Posts
103,389 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
128
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
-
That was worse than losing Betts. Fisk Lynn Burly Also, Cecil Cooper, Bill Lee, Tiant Also before that, Reggie Smith, George Scott and others.
-
Maybe no parade, but a funner season to watch.
-
notin & GG are two of my favorite posters. Can't we all just get along?
-
I don't dispute ERod pitched better, when he pitched. Others did, too. I still think the 4 years of Nate were a clear okay. I'd say it was more on the good side of okay than the bad. I wished he'd have pitched more than 73 games out of about 110 available in those 4 seasons. The 2019 season was bad. After that he was good. All-in-all, he was okay. In some ways, his 4 years were like Porcello's, but Rick pitched more often- just not as well, except for the one year (like Nate.) We aren't counting his 2018 1/2 season and playoff heroics, and that will always be a happy remembrance.
-
You didn't mention the missed starts by Nate? You did say this, which sounds like you are not counting ERod's missed 2020 season, but count nate for 4 years... ERod only pitched 2 seasons in that stretch and accrued more WAR (by either metric) than Eovaldi did in four. So, because Nate spread out his missed starts, it counts as 4 seasons to 2?
-
Having those 3 pen guys that can all go 2-3 IP, if needed would be a huge boost to the other 5 RP'ers expected to go just 1 IP per appearance.
-
Exactly. You dinged Nate for missing starts, but gave ERod a free pass for 2020.
-
The horror!
-
He's been a horse, the last 3 years. He's not old. He's not getting the 7 years Price got. We need to get over Price.
-
Monty has been really good for 3 straight seasons: '21 30 GS 3.83 ERA '22 32 GS 3.48 ERA '23 32 GS 3.20 ERA 2021-2023: 6th in GS (94) just 3 GS from #1. 17th in IP (524) just 3 IP from 15th 17th in fWAR at 10.2 - just 1.0 away from 10th. 20th in ERA- at 84 among SP'ers with 400+ IP- just 5 from top 15. (12th among SP'ers with 500+ IP/ 11th in just straight ERA at 3.48) 3.79 xFIP 1.18 WHIP The guy has been a top 30 SP'er over a 3 year period. He's not HOF, but he's not chump change, either.
-
I do think there is some bravado with some owners to try and win without being the mega spenders.
-
$98M/4 with buyout for year 5. That may be the highest offer on the table, right not. Personally, I'd go $100M/4 or $120M/5.
-
That's what I felt. After all, April, May and most of June are still in "spring."
-
If we can't use the fact that Nate was better than almost everyone else, then you should not use the fact that others were better than he was in '22. He had an ERA of 94 in 20 starts and 12 RP games. I'm sticking with my "Okay" label, despite the 1.0 fWAR and 1.5 bWAR. Bad in 2019 OK in '20 (missed 25% of starts) Great in '21 OK in '22 All combined: okay.
-
ERod was on the team for 3 of those years, not 2. You can't ding Nate for missing time, then not count ERod's missed 2020 season.
-
I agree, and I also think if the plan is to go for it in 2025 or 2026, there is a good chance Monty will still be plus.
-
I think how many of these guys we have to cycle through will be telling number for how good our pen will be. For every new pitcher we use, if means someone failed or got hurt. If we can keep the amount of RP'ers to a minimum, it will most likely mean we found the 12-16 who do okay, and did not need replacing. Instead of 7 guys over 40 IP, make it 8-9. Instead of 7 guys from 20 IP to 39 IP, make it 8-9. Instead of another 9 guys from 6 IP to 19 IP, make it 2-4. Instead of using 25 RP'ers with 2.1 or more IP, like in 2023, use 16-20.
-
I do consider him a hero. I do think the 4 year deal after that heroic season was okay. I'm defending Nate.
-
I keep saying OK, which is not "good."
-
I agree with your point, but how many SP'ers were on the Sox for all 4 years of the sample we are looking at? BTW, ERod had a 7.1 bWAR from 2019-2022 to Nate's 7.0 bWAR. ERod missed 2020, but thats till counts. He was with DET in 2022, otherwise, he'd have had a higher bWAR than Nate. (Note: in just 2 seasons: 2019 and 2021, he had a higher fWAR than nate's 4 seasons.) Sale was here for the 4 years, but missed time. All the others have 1-2 year sample sizes in that 4 year stretch, so the statement, "highest WAR" in 4 years rings a little hollow, or needs some serious context, IMO. fWAR 2019-2022 7.6 ERod 7.4 Nate 6.9 Sale +Price or 6.3 Pivetta + Price Cobble together some 1 year guys: 2.3 Price in '19 0.4 Perez in '20 1.8 Houck in '21 1.8 Hill in '22 6.3 Total, which is pretty close to nate's total. Using bWAR 2.1 Sale in '19 1.3 Houck in '20 (just 3 GS) 2.5 Pivetta '21 3.3 Wacha in '22 9.2 total to Nate's 7.0 bWAR
-
The signing was okay- not good. Most deals like this, you figure the last year will not be worth it. You hope for 3 good years out of 4. The 2020 season was a mess, so it's hard to judge that year. (He started 9 of 2 starts.) He basically had 2 good year out of the 3. 2020 was not bad. 2022 was not bad. Missing 16 out of 45 possible starts. That's not good, at all, but his ERA+ those years were 129 in '20 and 109 in '22. 2019 was bad. Only 12 GS with 9 RP games and an 81 ERA+. From 2020-2022, he started 61 out of 77 games with an ERA+ of 120 and an FIP of 3.43. That is pretty good. The 2019 makes the whole deal just OK.
-
How good would they have been with the Sox D, last year?
-
I hope you are right. I think he might take a 4 year deal with a hefty buyout on the 5th year option. Maybe $90M/4 with a $8M buy out on a $20M 5th year option. Essentially: $98M/4 or $110M/5
-
What worries me, is the Sox history of sticking to a value number and not being willing to counter a higher offer. If another team offers just slightly more, and we don't budge an inch, I'll be even more pissed than I am, now, with JH.
-
If the money is such a scary thing, just demand that there be no "no-trade" clause.
