Jump to content
Talk Sox
  • Create Account

S5Dewey

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    7,043

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 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 S5Dewey

  1. S5Dewey
    There's so much more to it than what's on paper though. As an extreme example, Albert Belle. This guy had a career OPS of >.900 but toward the end he was a keg of dynamite looking to explode. A terrible influence in the clubhouse. An extreme example on the reverse side of the coin is our own David Ortiz. Although he didn't play on the defensive side of the ball IMO he probably contributed more to the clubhouse and the development of our young players than anyone I can remember. But that part of his contribution doesn't show up in the stats. It's something the GM's have to "feel". For a good GM there's much more to it than stats.
  2. S5Dewey
    Then what we're saying is that both the stat geeks and the baseball people can be wrong. I can buy into that. IMO there's room for both and we shouldn't diminish the input from either of them. And BTW, I didn't disagree with their opinion. When you say "win their division" I'm not sure if you're referring to the regular season or the ALDS. The Sox outperfomed what I thought they'd do. I had them for 87 wins +/-2 and I'm pleased to be wrong. OTOH, I agreed with the analysts who said the Sox would get by Cleveland relatively easily and... look how that worked out.
  3. S5Dewey
    Couldda, shoudda, wouldda. Thank you for pointing out - and reminding me - why I'm so skeptical of stat geeks and projections. IIRC we were supposed to have beaten the Guardians with two of their top pitchers gone and the Rangers were supposed to have beaten Toronto too. All of these statistics and projections are just wonderful, just don't forget that they're frequently wrong.
  4. S5Dewey
    I think the more serious fans (like the ones who post here! lol) saw it coming, but the more casual fans believed that these trades/acquisitions had to be a good idea - because the FO did them! And they kept coming to the ballpark even when it became obvious that our Titanic was sinking.
  5. S5Dewey
    The thing is, these things were all predictable, too. The day they signed Crawford I said, "Ok.. but why?" We had a CF and had no place for Crawford to play. IMO Crawford was signed so the Yankees wouldn't get him. Consequently they overpaid for him. Sandoval never was anything more than a slightly better than mediocre 3B who had a good World Series. I believe he was signed so the Sox could make a splash. I never understood signing Castillo, at least not for the money it cost them. Why would you sign a guy who hadn't played baseball in over a year, and even then he wasn't playing at the ML level? I mean, I don't doubt that Cuban baseball is nice, but simply the talent pool from which Cuba had to choose would lead you to believe that the Cuban "stars" would be as good as the MLB stars? And Castillo did get "star' money.
  6. S5Dewey
    Agree, Spud. I can remember saying, "I can't believe this is happening". The Sox gutted their pitching staff, signed a bunch of mediocre pitchers, and then sold it to the fans as having improved the team. They persuaded the fans that Porcillo was every bit as good as the three guys at the top of the Tiger's order - he just didn't get a chance to pitch, Wade Miley was an 'innings eater', and Masterson was going to morph from being mediocre to being a legitimate #2. Even more incredible to me is how many fans bought into it!
  7. S5Dewey
    The only quote I ever saw regarding that came from his agent. He said only that if the Sox insisted on holding Lackey to that contract that he (Lackey) could consider retirement. The radio wags then translated that into "Lackey will retire next year if the Sox try to hold him to his contract". [paraphrased] And it took off from there. Lackey also said after being traded to St. Louis that he'd honor that contract, something the Cards didn't hold him to.
  8. S5Dewey
    WHAT??? You simply cannot move Bogaerts from the SS position. His psyche is so fragile that he won't be able to hit if he has to play 3B. [sorry.. couldn't resist ]
  9. S5Dewey
    ...and you make no mention of his GG-like defense, which only adds to his value.
  10. S5Dewey
    That's called KISS. Keep It Simple, Stupid.
  11. S5Dewey
    Yes. So they can be replaced by other crank theories and hysterical speculation.
  12. S5Dewey
    ?? I don't see us standing pat. With the loss of Papi standing pat essentially means declining and I don't see DD doing that. IMO he'll be active in trying to find a way to replace some of Papi's offense, reload the bullpen, explore getting another starting pitcher, and definitely doing something about the situation at 3B. Even if that means putting Sandoval at 3B that's not really standing pat.
  13. S5Dewey
    Ahhh yes. One of my pet gripes. It does seem like some people forget that two teams are playing and just because one of them plays well it doesn't mean that the other team "sucks". I've always wondered why it is that when the Sox only score a run or two in a game it's because "these guys can't hit", but when the other team only scores a run or two it's because our pitchers had a good outing. or When we score a lot of runs it's because the Sox have such great hitters, but when the other team scores a bunch of runs it's because our pitchers sucked. Maybe it's human nature, but some people seem to want to find fault when things go badly without considering the outside circumstances that may have caused it. Just random ramblings....
  14. S5Dewey
    There! Somebody who 'gets it". Thank you!!
  15. S5Dewey
    I'm sorry. Did anyone say we should be dealing Xbo?
  16. S5Dewey
    I agree with 'streaky' and for some players being young and streaky is a good thing. Those hot streaks give an indication of what that player's ceiling might be. If here were average defensively I'd say yeah, get rid of him, but there's no way we should trade away GG type defense with that huge an upside.
  17. S5Dewey
    And I DO NOT want to trade Bogaerts. I just want people to keep some perspective on this thing!!
  18. S5Dewey
    OK. How about this? He just hit 26 HR with an .835 OPS and he's one of the best CF'ers in the game at age 26. He's just coming into his prime. And people want to trade him. Hell, he's not a guy you trade. He's a guy you trade FOR - or keep if you've got him - if you're smart.
  19. S5Dewey
    Which brings us back around to what I said originally, that the [only = bad choice of words] thing Bogaerts has going for him is that we don't have anyone to replace him. We have Young and Holt who can play LF, and finding a cheap LF addition is much easier than finding a decent SS. It usually is not a good plan to trade a 3.7 to 4.7 WAR position player and then have to go out and replace him. But some people want to go out and trade a CF - one of the critical defensive positions - with a 4.8 WAR and weaken ourselves someplace else. There has to be a better option than that.
  20. S5Dewey
    It is. I'm not disputing that. But a 4.8 is better.
  21. S5Dewey
    And BTW. I would consider either one of them to be as untouchable as the other.
  22. S5Dewey
    Again, one of my problems with WAR. Fangraphs has him at 4.7 while BR has him at 3.7. One would think that if something is going to be a calculated number then everyone would either use the same calculation or the same designation for the end calculation. And BTW, Fangraphs also has Bradley with the better WAR, 4.8 vs. 4.7. But that's beside the point. My point is that while there's a lot of clamoring to include JBJ in a trade nobody is mentioning Bogaerts, while JBJ is the better player at their respective positions.
  23. S5Dewey
    Warning! Blasphemy ahead!! I don't see all the love for Xander Bogaerts. He's beginning to look to me like one of those players who had a tremendous upside - that he'll never reach. As much criticism as JBJ has gotten here and as much as some people 'want' for JBJ to be used as trade bait, JBJ is better at his position than Xbo is at his position, and JBJ's OPS is higher. For you fans of WAR, JBJ's WAR for 2016 was 5.3 while Bogaerts WAR was 3.7. The ONLY thing Bogaerts has going for him is that we don't have another player whom we think can take XBo's place.
  24. S5Dewey
    But now we bring a new question into the equation. I could see the rationale for letting him walk if we got that high quality starting pitcher because he then wouldn't be worth the $13M to us, but some other team looking for pitching would snap him up in a heartbeat, possibly in a shorter time deal, for more than $13M. FWIW I'd exercise the option anyway just because "you can't have too much pitching".
  25. S5Dewey
    Hey, we're completely in agreement here. Baseball is like any other product in that the owners/sellers will charge whatever the market will bear and right now the market is bearing $100+ for the best seats in Fenway just as the market is bearing prices of $1000+ in Yankee Stadium. My only point was that the owners would prefer that salaries hadn't escalated the way they did so they could pocket more money for themselves. OTOH, the owners must somewhat 'like' the publicity the player's salaries get because it gives the owners public justification for the ticket prices. I'm with you all the way - the players should definitely get their share of all that money, and there IS a lot of money out there.
×
×
  • Create New...