Jump to content
Mariners-Red Sox game thread is live — talk the game with us! ×
Talk Sox
  • Create Account

Hugh2

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,264

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

 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 Hugh2

  1. Hugh2
    Yes, and after three years you will have to pay for Crochet and Alcantara. So you're looking at a 3 year window. I would prefer to not of had to put up with 5 years of suck for a 3 year window. At some point you have to pay someone.....you have to pay someone!!!! If not, then your reality is 2-3 year windows followed by several years of stink. I'm sick and tired of making excuses for this team not spending money. It's not like they were losing money when the Sox were winning. I dont' want cheap ownership, I want a front office that is interested in building a perennial winner, year in and year out. Yes, that means you trade sometimes, it also means you take a chance on your own guys so you can go out and afford to take a chance on free agents. Sox got their nice shiny trade toy in Crochet, now go spend the money on a free agent.
  2. Hugh2
    I'd rather go FA route, I don't mind trading prospects, but I certainly don't want to get trade happy and start emptying the system. I can stomach the Crochet trade, but if they do a lot more I'd be upset. I'd rather trade for a closer and sign Burnes.
  3. Hugh2
    I think there's a very good chance all 4 of those guys make the majors. Someone like Meidroth might even compete for an opening day spot. I still don't hate the trade.
  4. Hugh2
    This guys upside is high. That's why it cost you your #4 and #5 prospect (both top 75 prospects in all of baseball). But your concerns are real and that's a very real risk. That's why it didn't cost you one of the big three.
  5. Hugh2
    No, there's a lot more risk with Crochet than there is with someone like Sandy Alcantara. Alcantara would cost you more
  6. Hugh2
    I don't agree with the narrative that a team is "giving up" on a guy just because he traded them. You have to give something to get something. Catcher was an area of need, and Elmer was very redundant, yes the Sox lake top end pitching talent but they have a plethora of guys in Elmer's range; no plus pitch, not a lot of swing and miss might be better as a reliever. Also Elmer had been in the Sox system for 3 full years, it's not like Breslow just picked a guy out of a hat, I'm sure his decision to value Elmer as a trade piece was largely built by the internal evaluations of the guys in the Sox development staff who've been here and watching Elmer for those three years.
  7. Hugh2
    That's fine, overall I don't disagree. But you just traded your last two 1st round picks who were #`12 and #14 Ideally, you're not picking there but rather you're picking in the 26-30 range. Gets a little tougher to do that consistently. Teams without money pop, but teams who can draft, develop, and spend stay on top. Sox used to do all 3 very well.
  8. Hugh2
    Also, Barry Bonds was never given the nickname of Kristian Campbell......kids going to be a stud.
  9. Hugh2
    But then gave up their #4 and #5 prospect guys ranked #25 and 54 in all of baseball. That's a lot of systems #1 and #2 guy, plus another top 10 guy in your system. All for a guy who has pitched more than 54 innings once in his career. Sandy Alcantara has a Cy Young.
  10. Hugh2
    Perhaps, but having one more premium arm would certainly go a long way.
  11. Hugh2
    True, Grissom isn't much of a power guy. Campbell is, not like Bobby but the kid has pop
  12. Hugh2
    I would still like to raise the bar on the rotation. If it's not Burnes, I would like a Buehler or maybe even a Flaherty.
  13. Hugh2
    I want both, give me both and now you got a LEGIT 1-2 punch at the top of your rotation
  14. Hugh2
    I was going to make the same argument BUT he supposedly did say last year that any team trading for him better offer him an extension if they want him to pitch in the post season. He might be open to an extension. It's also very possible that this deal was done with Boston KNOWING what it would take to extend him and we can expect an extension announced at some point this offseason. Or not.
  15. Hugh2
    I think there's a good chance he's extended by opening day.
  16. Hugh2
    Once again, as I've been saying over and over again and even today in another thread. People will not like the cost to trade for elite cost controlled talent. You also won't like what it will cost to pay someone like Burnes. I guarantee you will hate it a lot less when this team is in the playoffs
  17. Hugh2
    Are AAA stats predictive of what a guys MLB career will be? Bobby Dalbec is calling....he wants his MVP.
  18. Hugh2
    Because they're developing Clayton Kershaws, Julio Urias, and Walker Buehlers. If Tanner Houck, Bryan Bello, and Crawford were on that level do you think we'd be sitting around here having the same conversation? Every teams needs are different but the strategy is sound. Lock up your young talent, invest in free agency where you have holes. If you don't want to be the highest bidder then be ok eating s*** for dinner, because that's all you'll get......left overs. Or Garret Crochet, lets see what the extension looks like.
  19. Hugh2
    People are still going to be shocked when Pivetta gets $60 million plus.
  20. Hugh2
    Oh, but to answer your question. It's 12 years and that was just last year.
  21. Hugh2
    Are you seriously trying to make the argument that the Dodgers don't spend heavily on free agency???
  22. Hugh2
    Yes and LA actually pays free agents premium money too. Corey Klubers are a lot easier to hide when you also signed Max Frieds of the world.
  23. Hugh2
    No. I recognize that teams that win have more than one good player on them. Even teams like LA have young cost controlled talent around their premium paid stars. And if I'm trading those guys I want control, or a guy who is going to sign an extension. Given how low their payroll got this offseason coupled with having a top heavy MLB ready strong farm (#1 by some measure) It makes all the sense in the world to me to go out and just pay guys. WTF would I want to trade all my prospects for a guy I'm just going to have to pay anyways? If people want to justify Henry's penny pinching and champion never signing premium free agents then that's their prerogative, but I'd like to be competitive again. What makes you think Cambell and Grissom are the same? Also, why give up on Grissom? he's still young, but what was his highest ranking?
  24. Hugh2
    You said we don't have to give up top prospects for 1-2 years for a pitcher. I disagree, certainly for two years I disagree. For two years, someone is giving up one of their top prospects.
  25. Hugh2
    The A's have to get their payroll up to $110 million I believe. Their situation is certainly unique, and a bad point of comparison but still.....how s***** would it feel to lose Corbin Burnes to the A's. It's really starting to feel like we are getting s***** presents under our Christmas tree this year.
×
×
  • Create New...