Jump to content
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
    John Henry went through pennie-pinching years back then too in between his gluttony, why do people have any reason to believe differently his time around? What is different? Sox are going to spend big this offseason, and I'd be willing to bet heavily on that.
  2. Hugh2
    What about IFA? Sox take more pitchers than position players there. That's where they got guys like Devers and Bello, are people just going to ignore the fact they've been taking more pitchers there in recent years?
  3. Hugh2
    In your opinion? So you're well versed on the farm system of all 30 teams and travel the country watching MILB games every single day? The Sox system is obviously on the up and up, and according to most publications has 4 top 100 prospects in all of baseball. Heck some have 4 in the top 50!!!!
  4. Hugh2
    Agreed. Hopefully John Henry learned his lesson, you have to either extend these guys when they're younger and you can get them for cheaper, or be willing to set the market with them.
  5. Hugh2
    If we judge a trade by a players stats AFTER he signs an extension past his control years then the following would be true. The cost trade for 1 year of an ACE would be roughly the same as 3 years. This is not the case. WIth every single pro scouting department in ALL OF BASEBALL. Adjust your opinions accordingly.
  6. Hugh2
    Saying you don't want a guy traded doesn't have to be mutually exclusive from properly evaluating the trade. It can still suck that he was traded either way.
  7. Hugh2
    Exactly. That's my point. Complaining about drafting too many shorts stops is inehrently the wrong argument, when one should say "they draft too many position players" But f*** it, stick to what you're good at. If the Sox drafted more pitchers the last 5 years they likely would have the same exact record right now and the farm system could be 1/2 as good as it is now. Then Moon would have no prospects left to trade for a pitcher anyways. Also, the Sox go very pitcher heavy in the IFA market and its' starting to show with Bello and many of their top pitching prospects being IFA guys. I'd like to see more of that.
  8. Hugh2
    So, the only way a team can get there is by trading 3 of their best assets for an ACE? No other team in the history of baseball has ever built a team that can, they have always traded for aces because no aces exist until you ever trade for the ACE? Thought experiment, has there ever been a fringe .500 team, that traded away their farm for an ACE and won the world series the next year? follow up question to that, how did that franchise fare in the years to come? did they falter or have sustained success? I'll repeat what I said to Moon. It's a sound strategy, but the timing is wrong. And as is with life......timing is everything.
  9. Hugh2
    That's also three years worth of picks, many of those guys either already have moved off position or will. It's been said many times, and it's a point that eludes many around here and I know you're NOT one of them but most highschool position players drafted are going to be short stops.
  10. Hugh2
    We are a mediocre team, and you want to add an ACE by taking away a future and current slugger? so at best we become marginally better with less future assets. It's like pulling the chicken out of the oven when it's still pink in the inside. It's NOT the time to sell your assets for pitching. You don't have enough assets to be a championship-caliber team, you trade from surpluss. The Sox had a top farm and a first-place team I'd agree......that was the EXACT position they were in when they traded for Sale and it got them a world series. If you add a healthy Sale onto this team......it doesn't get a you a world series, and even worse under your scenario you're subtracting Casas and Mayer. Your suggestion is valid, I'm arguing that your timing is off.
  11. Hugh2
    Man, you guys have zero imagination.
  12. Hugh2
    *sigh* THey didn't draft 5 short stops.
  13. Hugh2
    Trading Casas is just bananas, and should be a conversational ENDER.
  14. Hugh2
    Add: It's not a matter of me liking it or not, it's the fact that it is an incorrect way to evaluate a trade.
  15. Hugh2
    as a fan, pros don't do that, evidence by a many things. Regardless my POINT was IF you do that you have to factor in what 30.4 million gets you. Which is an impossible task for us to agree on and to be fair you nor me have zero ideal. So, from that perspective, it makes properly evaluating the trade IMPOSSIBLE. That doesn't mean we have to like the trade, or that we can't miss Mookie, or that we wouldn't should rather want him here. I know I do. Mic dropped.
  16. Hugh2
    agreed, on both ends. A trade can be good from a value perspective and that doesn't inherently make it the right decision.
  17. Hugh2
    You'd rather have Mookie in Boston is what you're saying? Spoiler alert, so would I? again not my point, and our feelings for love for Mookie and desire for him to still be on this team does'nt change how trades should be evaluated.
  18. Hugh2
    I don't disagree, but this conversation has evolved way past my point on the futility of evaluating the Betts trade from a fan's perspective.
  19. Hugh2
    Did they sign him because they didn't sign Mookie? or is that because they didn't sign Bogaerts. One is 3 years closer than the other.
  20. Hugh2
    No, I did not, or you completely missed my point. We can argue, or we can argue about the arguing. or perhaps we can argue on the frame in which we will argue about the things we are arguing about and how we argue. My point is, it's inappropriate to evaluate a trade by weighing a guys value AFTER his team controlled years are up. Team do not do this, fans do. There's a reason why they do not do it, and the subjective matter that throws in vast scenarios only proves my point. I'm only attacking from one angle to show from a certain vantage point the Sox have done much better in that trade with the money they spent. That doesn't make me right, but it certainly doesn't make me wrong, and you nor I have any ideal how the roster would be different if Betts was resigned. Making my OP more valid than ever.
  21. Hugh2
    WHy are people insistent on trading all our cost controlled youngsters for pitching when the FA market is flush with it next year? You spend money on that and fill your roster out with cost-controlled young studs because developing them is what the Sox do best. Yeah, you can trade Casas/Mayer away for a stud, but now you're paying that stud AND you have to pay someone to replace Casas/Mayer. You create more future holes and inflate your budget. Also, the move you're talking about is what you do when you have close to WS roster. Sox didn't trade for a Chris Sale type in 2014, they did it after they were already a 1st place team for a few years. Trading away young talent for a pitcher now would not only be dumb, it would be a slap in the face to the fans who have endured this "build the farm" scheme only to blow it all up before it reaches fruition. Don't you think we've suffered enough?
  22. Hugh2
    But Yoshida should be your DH in a year or two. I know you will say you like him, and I don't disbelieve you, but your willingness to trade Casas is a repeating theme. He's turning into one of the best hitters in baseball and still growing into the position and he's COST CONTROLLED. He's the definition of a guy you do not trade.
  23. Hugh2
    no, I did not, and will not ever say that. I'm merely pointing out the fate of a franchise doesn't depend on one player no matter how good they are. You still need a 26 man roster to win.
  24. Hugh2
    Yes, and I said exactly that in my OS, which is why I said it's a futile argument. Who are you (or me) to say how the roster would have played out differently? This is why people only weigh team control years, which given the return on players vs. how many years of team control they have it seems this plays out between MLB teams and the actual transactions they make, so that makes a strong argument for subtracting contract years when evaluating a trade. I was merely playing devil's advocate.
  25. Hugh2
    and over the next decade, what is the 30 million getting you? If the Sox sign a 30 million-dollar player next year and he outperforms Mookie in his 30's then I win again.... Again, subjective and I'm playing devils advocate, but this all just proves my point.
×
×
  • Create New...