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
    A tad off topic here, but that's why umpires should be VERY judicious in allowing a batter to call a late time-out. I've long been an advocate of the pitcher "accidentally" throwing AT the batter when that happens. Not head-hunting, but at the hip area. Send the batter the message that if he's going to risk an injury to you then he needs to be aware of what might happen.
  2. S5Dewey
    I was on board with this until i learned that Santana served an 80 game suspension for PED usage. Now, not so much. I think my position on signing suspended PED users is pretty well known.
  3. S5Dewey
    I've got two more words: Ryan Dempster.
  4. S5Dewey
    Interesting comparison in terms of salary. Santana is guaranteed $13.5M in 2017 and Clay gets $13.5M if we exercise his option. Santana then gets $13.5M in 2018 & $14M in 2019, but there's a $1M buyout in each year depending on IP the previous year. I see Santana as what he is and Buch as someone who may benefit from a change of scenery. I've been a big Buch supporter but I'm done with that gamble. If the Sox can work out something with the Twinkies I can be on board. How about if we give up Buch and a PTBNL, depending on how Buch does in Minnesota?
  5. S5Dewey
    Interesting. I heard an unsubstantiated rumor (from a friend) yesterday that the Sox were in talks with the Twins and I asked who they have that we'd want? But the trade rumor involved Buch, which makes more sense now.
  6. S5Dewey
    Anyone who's here from "that other place" knows that I railed on long and loud about that trade - and still do on occasion - but you're right, the bottom line on that trade was Clay's inability to stay on the field. We're paying this guy $13M/year but covering that guy's ass has cost the team a lot more than that.
  7. S5Dewey
    Uhh... nope. You're not misreading it. I f***d it up! Thanks!
  8. S5Dewey
    It would depend on who the other team's pitcher is. When a pitcher is "on" you swing at the good pitches when you get them. Something I started noticing last year (ok, maybe a bad example, but still...! LOL) is that there are certain RS hitters who always get a fast ball strike on the first pitch because the pitcher knows the hitter is going to take that pitch. That works for the hitter as long as they're not facing a pitcher with excellent control but to face a control pitcher and allowing yourself to go 0-1 digs a big hole. I did some pitching in my demented youth and something I realized early-on is that this game is A LOT easier for a pitcher when they start 1-0 than when they start 0-1.
  9. S5Dewey
    I'm not even sure if that's a compliment.
  10. S5Dewey
    Ya. I agree with that. The past paragraph of my post was more of a 'sidebar' comment. In addition, since the WC game comes on the day after the last regular season game the Y's would have to be uncannily lucky to have it be in Tanaka's spot in the rotation and with full rest. No - or at least very few - worries.
  11. S5Dewey
    Quote form MVP's link: "Meanwhile, we can all rest assured that if the Blue Jays or Orioles do finally bite the bullet and try to help their own rotations, they'll be paying a heavy price if they want to make a significant improvement with Hill." That way my initial reaction, too. That if this is what the market is going to be for mid-season pitching then we got a bargain, and anyone else who tries to get a pitcher now is going to pay dearly for it with players they don't want to give up. This only works in our favor. Given the fact that DD probably knows a lot more about being a GM than I do
  12. S5Dewey
    Yep. I hadn't thought about it in that context but you're right. Running up the pitch count is actually counterproductive when the guys who are going to be replacing the starter are harder to hit than the starter! This is a strategy that could really backfire in the playoffs when we're not facing a team's #4 or #5'. Of course the good news is that the team the Sox played last night most likely aren't going to make the playoffs. And a slight continuation here... It has occurred to me that the Y's may be the one team you don't want to face in a one-game playoff because they can do exactly what they did last night. Get 6 good innings out of their ace and then and finish the game with their three relievers. In that scenario they may be close to unbeatable. But in a 3, 5, or 7 game series they're very vulnerable.
  13. S5Dewey
    There's a word for it. "Desperation". It's said that anything is worth what a willing buyer will pay a willing seller in an arm's length transaction. The Sox are in the middle of a pennant drive and the desperately needed a pitcher. They also have (or had) the resources to pay for him so BB went to the team with the deepest pockets - The Sox - and the Sox probably overpaid for him in an arm's length transaction. It's what happens this time of year.
  14. S5Dewey
    Today is only Sunday and IMO this is the post of the week. We're beyond "lucky" to have JH as the principal owner. JH has brought three World Series Championships to Boston, a town that hadn't had ONE in 80+ years. He also saved an icon of baseball - Fenway Park - from being replaced by something newer, brighter, and shinier. But without the tradition. I would posit that the landscape for baseball in Boston would look a whole lot different if it weren't for JH, and we'd still be hearing those obnoxious Yankee fans talking about all those rings and how may years it has been since the Sox had a WSC. Now all the have to talk about is ancient history. Thanks, JH.
  15. S5Dewey
    f***ing mud in front of home plate! Grrrr
  16. S5Dewey
    Dave, will you PLEASE shut up about the no-no!
  17. S5Dewey
    Yes, the Babe is most definitely a Victim.
  18. S5Dewey
    I don't think it was intended that way when the process was set up, but without doing the research I think you're right. Arbitrators are reluctant to set new precedents.
  19. S5Dewey
    This has been my concern with Price ever since Day 1. He has a history of not exactly becoming "Big Game David". However, in order to win it you have to get to it and having Price gives us a better chance of getting to it. After that we hope for the best, I guess.
  20. S5Dewey
    Given the way arbitration is conducted it'll be interesting to see what Bora$ has for an arb figure for Bogaerts. IMO the whole procedure is a game of chicken. The player has to be careful to not set the price so high that the arbitrator rules against him, but at the same time the team has to have a price high enough to not offend the player if the arbitrator rules in favor of the team. My guess is that Bora$ will set a figure at ~$6M and the Sox will be at ~$3.5M. $6M is a bargain for Bogaerts but it would be risky for XB to set his price much higher.
  21. S5Dewey
    That's two things DD & I have in common. We both put a lot of stock in defense too.
  22. S5Dewey
    All true, but he was traded for a guy who's never sniffed anything above Class A yet. At least Pomeratz has a track record. I haven't seen Espinoza pitch and I was 'fired up' about him based on what I heard, but at the end of the day he's still a prospect. Granted, a good prospect, but he got traded for an established ML player, someone who's proven he can at least get to the ML's. This trade may turn around and bite us on the ass in five years. Who knows? But for right now we got an established pitcher and gave up one who's three steps below Major League Baseball. Given the failure rate for prospects that's a gamble I'm willing to take.
  23. S5Dewey
    And he's still playing better than The Fat Man, whom the Sox ultimately picked up to fill that spot on the left side of the IF, and for a lot less money. My point is that we agree on this one thing: The Sox didn't get enough in return for the players we (individually) liked.
  24. S5Dewey
    Let's not color this with 20-20 hindsight, ok? We traded away the runner up Rookie of the Year SS, a player who had essentially everyone everywhere raving about his defense and was hitting >.300 with an OPS approaching .800 at the time of the trade. I hated it then and I still hate it. If the FO was hell-bent on trading Iggy they still didn't get enough for him. How he has performed in the past few years is a patently unfair comparison because we don't know how Espinoza will fare in the next few years. A lot of these highly touted minor leaguers flame out. Let's pump the brakes a bit before we start thinking that we traded away the next Cy Young award winner. A lot can happen in the next few years. And... if history means anything everyone will be saying that the trade was "worth it" regardless of how Espinoza pans out if the Sox win the WS.
  25. S5Dewey
    Interesting. That's the same perspective I had a few years ago when we traded a certain SS. I hope this one works out as well.
×
×
  • Create New...