|
Post by swingingbunt on Jan 3, 2018 11:40:53 GMT -5
Isnt the second part of that statement where WAR falls apart? Because for it to be true, we could add together all WAR in baseball and get a sum of 0.0 WAR, which I doubt is true.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Dec 30, 2017 22:14:41 GMT -5
If Machado is the guy you want to spend big for, based on his previous comments about the organization, you almost have to trade for him this year in order to give him time to change his mind. I don't really share that feeling, but I guess it makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Dec 29, 2017 9:45:48 GMT -5
And THAT'S why Smart is more valuable than Bell. Go watch Bell play he's just like Smart. So that makes no sense. What does "just like Smart" even mean? That Bell has the defensive chops that Smart has? Talk about not making sense...
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Dec 28, 2017 22:51:58 GMT -5
And THAT'S why Smart is more valuable than Bell.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Dec 26, 2017 21:49:20 GMT -5
The reason Hill had a chance of having a good stretch of games was because the rotation that you're describing had already failed and they had to sign Hill. It's not hindsight that people wanted to keep him. There were PLENTY of people (on this board - and others) that thought he was absolutely worth putting in the rotation. Just because you didn't like their arguments then doesn't make it hindsight now.
Edit: I remember this because I argued a few years ago the same thing you're arguing now. That Hill was a waste of time and he wouldn't be worth the money or rotation spot. I was wrong then just as you're wrong now
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Dec 24, 2017 15:34:39 GMT -5
This has been the slowest off-season I can remember, so I did a little digging. Assuming no players will be able to completely finalize a contract prior to the start next year*, only 5 players have EVER signed a contract in excess of $80M this late in the off-season. And all but one of those players (Justin Upton) were represented by Scott Boras.
*Mark Teixeira, for example, decided to join the Yankees on December 23 but didn't have his contract finalized until January 6.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Dec 22, 2017 21:49:35 GMT -5
Does MLB still do waivers based on league first, or did Owens make it to the last team before he was claimed?
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Dec 22, 2017 12:36:43 GMT -5
Now Jim Bowden is saying that the deal for Cole to the Yankees is very close on the MLB Network Sirius station. I take most of what that guy says with a grain of salt though as he seems to be wrong much more often than he is right. I've never known Ralph to mess up a story.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Dec 21, 2017 23:03:52 GMT -5
Frazier and Meadows being in the same outfield will almost make this trade worth it for me.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Dec 19, 2017 20:51:38 GMT -5
So we did go over last year?
EDIT: To clarify, there was a tweet that said the Sox owed luxury tax money this year. It has since been deleted. We did not go over...
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Dec 19, 2017 1:15:57 GMT -5
I think the union and the clubhouse will not abide restricting a nominally healthy Hanley's at-bats (unless and until there have been a couple hundred pretty bad ones). So we are looking for a platoon DH/corner outfielder. This is not so bad though, we have a lot of players who need to bounce back. If most do, we don't need much. If most don't, a new 1st and DH would have us contending down to the wire for the second WC (a poor use of $237 plus million) We can wait until early May, see if we really need 1st, DH, or starting pitching. We will have to overpay for it then, but it will be available. And much less of an overpay than Hosmer or JD. What is the union supposed to do about Hanley not getting the playtime he wants? He had a negative WAR last year, and has been worth a LOT less than Moreland over the last 3 years. Last I checked there is nothing that says players with large contacts are guaranteed a spot in the lineup each day.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Dec 17, 2017 22:27:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Dec 15, 2017 14:39:31 GMT -5
I’d like to hear from our ardent Dombrowski supporters how this Santana deal affects the alleged pursuit(s) of Martinez and/or Hosmer. Can you ask your question in a different way? 'Cause I'm not sure I know what you're getting at...
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Dec 15, 2017 14:25:11 GMT -5
Machado more likely than Hosmer to Sox. Machado to Sox for Bogaerts, Johnson or Shawaryn (who pitched at Maryland and would give them all 6 years and fully optional control) and Buttrey or one of our other high octane relief arms (or a lower end guy like Hembree from our current MLB roster who would give them an arm to enable them to deal a higher end guy like Brach or Britton or O'Day for much more value) would give them very solid return without negotiating window and yet cost us players we could afford to give. We should not give up more without a window to negotiate an extension. I read something to the effect that Peter Angelos wants it in writing that whichever team he trades Machado to will not flip him to an AL East team so unless that changes, I find it pretty impossible to believe. There's no way that I give up Bogaerts for 1 year of Machado. They are looking for at least two young starters, which would probably be something like ERod and Groome. You wouldn't trade 2 years of Xander for 1 year of Machado?
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Dec 15, 2017 10:25:34 GMT -5
And he hasn't really been all that good the last 5 years. Much less the next 5 years... Don't you think Kauffman stadium is a big part of that though? Hosmer has a .352 average career lifetime at Fenway. He has taken the ball to the opposite field 29 percent of the time in his career. There is a good reason to believe that the next 2-3 years should be better than the last 3, at least. In his career, his home/away splits are basically nuetral and he is pretty medicore when you look at stats that account for park factors. Sure, he might get a Fenway boost, but then again he hits the ball on the ground so much that he may not. I hope the Sox don't spend $100M more than some of the alternatives to find out.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Dec 15, 2017 9:53:59 GMT -5
And he hasn't really been all that good the last 5 years. Much less the next 5 years...
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Dec 15, 2017 9:06:38 GMT -5
Boras needs this rumor to exist, because once the Sox sign their guy, the market for the other goes down. Wouldn't be surprised to see the Sox sign one of the two pretty soon.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Dec 14, 2017 16:42:22 GMT -5
Should we be happy nobody from the Red Sox was chosen? Or should we feel like this was an indicator of how far the farm system has fallen? Why not both!
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Dec 13, 2017 23:44:43 GMT -5
Actually we don't know that. Seems obvious ownership set a goal to be under the cap last year and he did what he thought was best given the constraints he had.
He's obviously not perfect, but we can't blame him for literally everything wrong with the Sox.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Dec 12, 2017 14:35:55 GMT -5
Stanton's steep decline will most likely happen well into his contract, or at least likely beyond his 2020 season. It wouldn't be surprising at all to see him opt out and look for bigger $, especially once the market gets reset. So I do think you a strong HOF performance over the next 3 years barring impactful injuries, which is a caveat for all players. I think the WAR projections beyond those three years could be absolutely meaningless if he opts out for the team that has him now. You seem to keep overlooking the fact he gets injured more often than an average player. You just expect 3 great years in a row, when he has never come close to doing that. One of his injuries was getting hit in the face. Can you make the case that he is more prone than other players to get hit in the face again with a baseball?
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Dec 12, 2017 13:27:40 GMT -5
As I said, I searched the entire board and only found, in total, two mentions of Stanton being generational (and they mostly referred to his power being generational - not him as a player). Maybe the other posters are using a different word, but almost no one is calling Stanton generational much less 20 plus times. I just searched another thread and got like 8 hits on the word generational. No offense but you didn't search the entire board. Then the search function on mobile is broken....but at this point it doesn't matter. Enough has been said about the phrase.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Dec 12, 2017 12:16:17 GMT -5
I searched the board and found two posts that referenced Stanton's "power" as being generational. Let's not build a strawman here. Maybe only two about power, but there has to be 20 plus post calling Stanton Generational in some form over the last 3-4 months. Which is the point, it just keeps happening. As I said, I searched the entire board and only found, in total, two mentions of Stanton being generational (and they mostly referred to his power being generational - not him as a player). Maybe the other posters are using a different word, but almost no one is calling Stanton generational much less 20 plus times.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Dec 11, 2017 22:34:49 GMT -5
Woof
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Dec 11, 2017 18:57:54 GMT -5
I searched the board and found two posts that referenced Stanton's "power" as being generational. Let's not build a strawman here.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Dec 11, 2017 12:14:01 GMT -5
Not quite. If he opts out, the Yankees don't get any money from the Marlins. Their payments don't start until after Giancarlo has his opt out.
|
|