Jump to content
Talk Sox
  • Create Account

Hugh2

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,725

  • 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

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by Hugh2

  1. Hugh2
    That's stupid If John Henry was making fake bids and an agent caught on to it no agent would do business with him aga......OMG maybe this is why we can't sign anyone!!!!!
  2. Hugh2
    My guess is it's an extension like the Bogaerts extension. It's going to buy out his team controlled years and take on a few extra. It will be lower AAV than pitchers signing in this years free agent market but significantly more than what he's getting now. Maybe in the 25 million AAV range. He will probably have an opt out in there around year 5. This will allow him to get one more payday at age 30. That's my guess
  3. Hugh2
    My point was I'm not a gambler, and I thought the you said 100 chances at winning 50 million? tickets cost $2 each. That's $200. I'd assume with those prices each individual chance at winning is significantly lower than 1% again....I don't gamble and I'm confused now.
  4. Hugh2
    And yet you still need them, because prospects turn into MLB players. You can't have a 26 man roster you traded for or all FA. Even teams like LA, they're augmented by homegrown talent. Also, the hit rate for BA top 25 looks a lot better the past 20 years than it did in the early 2000's and prior. Scouting methodology has got better, much better, it will NEVER be perfect because no one can predict the future. But I think a prospect ranked #25 today is more valuable than a guy ranked #25 20 years ago.
  5. Hugh2
    Well, I don't gamble so....I'd take my $200 and put it in the bank. But my point was, I don't think Crochet was traded for because they plan on not resigning him. I think there will be an extension.
  6. Hugh2
    If everyone thought they couldn't outbid the Mets, why would the Mets even offer 765? When they easily could have bid less? Eventually the bidding would come down to a point to where other teams would jump in. This is generally how bidding works, and like you said, I'd prefer they bid than not bid at all.
  7. Hugh2
    I think I would need to know the odds of every chance to win 50 million dollars. A loto ticket can have a 33% chance of paying something out, or a .01% chance. Just like a top 25 prospect in all of baseball probably has a much better shot at returning MLB value than a guy who doens't rank does.
  8. Hugh2
    It doesn't matter whether I think they could, or they thought they could. I don't believe people make offers they're not prepared to have the other side accept. Actually, I'd be willing to be rather heavily on that, that's just not how business is conducted.
  9. Hugh2
    I don't really believe this at all. Saying 3 $250 million dollar players is the same as Soto is just lazy. Also, that 700 would have been spread out over 15 years. You're not signing other guys to 15 year deals or signing them in their 20's but rather their 30's. The AAV is around 46 AAV is really like going out and signing 2 guys to 7 year 163 million dollar deals. That would be more par for the course, but I don't think people would view two 163 million dollar men the same.
  10. Hugh2
    Two thoughts on a few things being said on this board that just seem flat out wrong to me. A.) THE RED SOX $700 MILLION DOLLAR SOTO OFFER WAS A SHAME - I'm almost entirely certain that is just non-sense. If the Sox legit operated like that people wouldn't do business like that. There's a language to business, and I'd like to think I speak it well. There's certain things that just don't happen. Consider this hypothetical conversation. Breslow "Hi Scott, it's Craig, we've come up on our offer and we are now sitting at 15 years $700 million" Boras "Hi Craig, so I've talked it over with Soto, and we really like it in Boston, the Mets offered more but we believe in your future and we were looking for at least $700 million. Juan is very exceited" Breslow "ohhhhhhh, well.......this is actually akward. Ummmm, you see I don't actually have the money. You see this was just a shame offer to make us look good to the fans.....year we're backing out" I'm sorry but the above ^^^^^ that s*** doesn't happen. B.) The Red Sox traded for Crochet because they will not spend $ on pitchers I actually disagree with this one as well. I think it all comes back to age. There's a reason they were in on Soto, there's a reason why they let Bogey walked and signed Devers and it's the same reason they traded for Crochet. They want to pay younger guys, they want to pay for a guys prime and not his 30's as much as they can. It's been widely speculated that Crochet would seek to extend with any team that signs him. I don't think it's a slam dunk.....but I would expect an extension before opening day.
  11. Hugh2
    I hear you, can’t argue against that, thanks for clarifying. I’ve taken the John Henry math route myself at times
  12. Hugh2
    There's risk on both sides, sure, you won't have a guy break down on you or give you junk like David Price. You will also never have guys like Justin Verlander and Max Scherzer either. Good pitchers tend to find a way to stay good in their 30's. Yes some guys break down, but most either remain very good, or if healthy at least valuable. You gotta swing somewhere. I have ZERO interest in emptying the farm to go on a run for a few years. I'd rather see them spend the money. Because guess what? if they're unwilling to spend the money now, that means they're unwilling to spend the money in a few years. Which means this team is doomed to repeat it's past mistakes. I'm talking trading away Duran/Casas/Roman Anthony/Campbell. At some point in three years from now when they're going to have start paying these guys and the payroll is inflated they will start shedding payroll again. And their window will be closed.....because that's who they are. The team who doesn't spend, doesn't swing, doesnt' take chances. That team had 3 last place finished the last 1/2 a decade. I'm very un interested in that philosophy. And just trading guys without taking at least ONE big FA swing makes me believe they have not changed their tune.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. Hugh2
    No, there's a lot more risk with Crochet than there is with someone like Sandy Alcantara. Alcantara would cost you more
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. Hugh2
    Also, Barry Bonds was never given the nickname of Kristian Campbell......kids going to be a stud.
  21. 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.
  22. Hugh2
    Perhaps, but having one more premium arm would certainly go a long way.
  23. Hugh2
    True, Grissom isn't much of a power guy. Campbell is, not like Bobby but the kid has pop
  24. 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.
  25. Hugh2
    I want both, give me both and now you got a LEGIT 1-2 punch at the top of your rotation
×
×
  • Create New...