Jump to content
Talk Sox
  • Create Account

notin

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    54,621

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    53

 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 Tracker: Picks & Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by notin

  1. notin
    People who get offended by the word “subset”?
  2. notin
    But that’s a personal choice. Honestly, I’d prefer a tanking team over one that made poor decisions. But a team that sucked due to rampant/key injuries might be understandable, albeit frustrating…
  3. notin
    Ok. How does that make tanking not a subset of sucking? I fully acknowledge making poor decisions is also a subset of sucking. And there are many other subsets. Rampant/key injuries and bad luck, for example…
  4. notin
    I’m not a huge boxing fan, but I am aware that the professional boxing world is rife with fighters whose sole job is to lose fights to bolster the records of their opponents. This is perfectly legal in that world. And the wins and losses count. The Astros admitting they ranked is legal, too. But no one has been saying they didn’t tank. My only point was they showed that it’s not always effective because of the complete crapshoot of getting even the overall number one pick. That they succeeded in other ways doesn’t change that fact…
  5. notin
    It’s a tough call. The advantage to tanking is there is a hopeful ending. An expensive flop can carry on for as long as Mike Trout and Anthony Rendon’s contracts drag your team down while watching Shohei Ohtani as a visiting Ranger (not a prediction, but certainly a possibility Angels’ fans would hate to see).
  6. notin
    But are they incorrect? Not even sure how this post I’m quoting is even relevant or what point it is supposed to be making. And how exactly is calling tanking a subset of sucking offensive? Also, nicely deployed use of “just” to further emphasize the insensitivity…
  7. notin
    Typo. Typing too fast and not checking. Those were the set of reasons for LOSING a fight. Not throwing a fight. I did say “not limited to,” leaving the door open for other reasons. Bottom line - team trying and sucking vs not trying and sucking both have the same net result - sucking. How much difference does it really make to fans at the time? Neither one bolsters ticket sales over the other. The trying time might get more before the season, but as the season wears on, they will see a sharp decline in interest. Which do you prefer as a fan - a tanking team hoping to provide hope for tomorrow? Or an expensive flop? Which do you drop cash down to go watch?
  8. notin
    I see no point in talking deadline until we know the team cannot compete, which we will mot know until we see the team play, which we won’t be able to do until long after we know who is even on the team. But it is possible to trade a veteran MLB player and not mean giving up the season. The Sox traded Benintendi prior to the 2021 season. How many people called that a tank? I mean, they did fail to make it to game 7 of the ALCS…
  9. notin
    YES!! Throwing a fight is absolutely a subset of losing!! How does throwing a fight appear on the boxer’s record? The set of reasons for losing a fight includes (but is not limited to): 1. Overmatched 2. Poorly prepared 3. Didn’t try (aka tanked). So if that is the set of reasons, is it or is it not a subset? Agree or disagree?
  10. notin
    So you’re saying the Bregman pick was compensation and NOT a result of tanking. I mean, if they went 92-70 in 2014, they still that pick, right?
  11. notin
    They didn’t suck; they were tanking…
  12. notin
    How bizarre of me to limit the tanking to the 3 year stretch where the Astros failed to win even 55 games in a season…
  13. notin
    I don’t because that’s a personal matter between me and Alex…
  14. notin
    It would seriously help a lot if people would stop thinking that July/August is the only time MLB roster players get traded, and that every time a player off the MLB roster is dealt, it obviously means selling and tanking…
  15. notin
    I’d be surprised if they didn’t extend him. But until they do, he remains one year left. And because it’s one year left, it does affect what San Diego can get for him. And the Dodgers didn’t trade for 12 years of Mookie. If Mookie had 12 years left, the Sox wouldn’t have traded him. He had one year left, the Sox could have not traded him and he still might have wound up in LA for 12 years…
  16. notin
    They did fine with some draft picks. They did better with IFA..
  17. notin
    That’s exactly what I said and you refuted it…
  18. notin
    But not so much for, say, the Reds…
  19. notin
    It’s a type of sucking. All tanking teams suck. Not all sucking teams are tanking. Deliberate or not, do you think fans care?
  20. notin
    This sounds personal…
  21. notin
    Right. So tanking is always worth it…
  22. notin
    Of course typically winning 70 doesn’t get you a #2 pick…
  23. notin
    Ok. So you’re saying it isn’t a subset of sucking? Do teams tank and NOT suck?
  24. notin
    Soto is a perfect fit for the Yankees. The only downside - that his defense won’t cover that cavernous left field - is absolutely no reason to not pursue this. The question becomes - can the Padres get Jasson Dominguez in this deal? It’s just for one season (barring extension), but even then it’s certainly worth it…
  25. notin
    Was it worth tanking to get Mark Appel and Brady Aiken?
×
×
  • Create New...