Register now to remove this ad

Page 263 of 371 FirstFirst ... 163213253261262263264265273313363 ... LastLast
Results 3,931 to 3,945 of 5552

Thread: A Realistic View at 2020: Part I

  1. #3931
    Go for it now, and not just because I'm old, or that 2021 may be threatened by global warming, a super volcano, solar flare, uncivil war, etc...

    The Red Sox have a future Hall of Famer playing in his salary drive season in 2020, and that prospect looks like much more fun to follow instead of any other acquired prospect who has a 99.9% chance of never being as good.

    And I'm not worried about restocking the farm system, because I think that will be a forte of Bloom's (and if they happen to suck in the next year or two, welcome the higher draft picks). My mug is half-full and I still haven't had a drink all year...

  2. #3932
    Legend S5Dewey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    ME
    Posts
    6,562
    "What if they trade Betts and Price and then win the World Series anyway?"

    "Sure, anything can happen. Sale and Eovaldi might not miss a start between them..."

    "And I might flap my arms and fly to the moon..."


    Yep. And there's about the same chance of both of those scenarios coming true.
    Last edited by S5Dewey; 01-04-2020 at 09:31 PM.
    It's a mere moment in a man's life between the All-Star game and the Old Timer's game.
    -Vin Scully

  3. #3933
    Deity
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    14,571
    Quote Originally Posted by S5Dewey View Post
    "What if they trade Betts and Price and then win the World Series anyway?"

    "Sure, anything can happen. Sale and Eovaldi might not miss a start between them..."

    "And I might flap my arms and fly to the moon..."


    Yep. And there's about the same chance of both of those scenarios coming true.

    Iíd say itís pretty naive to think the Sox have absolutely no chance at winning if they trade Betts and Price. Were you one of those who said the Cardinals had no chance in 2011 when Wainwright went down for the year with Tommy John? And yet they still won it all.

    (For the record, I was among those who said they had no chance when Wainwright went down.)

  4. #3934
    Legend S5Dewey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    ME
    Posts
    6,562
    Quote Originally Posted by notin View Post
    I’d say it’s pretty naive to think the Sox have absolutely no chance at winning if they trade Betts and Price. Were you one of those who said the Cardinals had no chance in 2011 when Wainwright went down for the year with Tommy John? And yet they still won it all.

    (For the record, I was among those who said they had no chance when Wainwright went down.)
    I would never say that a team has no chance of winning any individual game or any series of games. I've seen some very unexpected things happen in MLB.
    But I would say that I'd bet against the Sox winning the WS if both Betts and Price get traded provided, of course, they don't find some way to land Trout and a TOL pitcher - which is quite unlikely in itself!
    It's a mere moment in a man's life between the All-Star game and the Old Timer's game.
    -Vin Scully

  5. #3935
    Deity
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    14,571
    Quote Originally Posted by S5Dewey View Post
    I would never say that a team has no chance of winning any individual game or any series of games. I've seen some very unexpected things happen in MLB.
    But I would say that I'd bet against the Sox winning the WS if both Betts and Price get traded provided, of course, they don't find some way to land Trout and a TOL pitcher - which is quite unlikely in itself!
    Really? You think this team couldn't survive moving Price and Betts? Unless they brought in Trout? And really, what does Price bring to the table anymore that is so irreplaceable?

    That's actually a massive oversimplification.

  6. #3936
    King of TalkSox a700hitter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    63,456
    Quote Originally Posted by S5Dewey View Post
    I would never say that a team has no chance of winning any individual game or any series of games. I've seen some very unexpected things happen in MLB.
    But I would say that I'd bet against the Sox winning the WS if both Betts and Price get traded provided, of course, they don't find some way to land Trout and a TOL pitcher - which is quite unlikely in itself!
    I agree. If they move them both, they would be punting on the season.
    The King of TalkSox has Spoken.

    Quote Originally Posted by a700hitter View Post
    Chaim, you are in the big leagues now. Drawing 10,000 fans a game is not going to cut it, and people donít buy tickets to Fenway to talk about the Farm

    Quote Originally Posted by a700hitter View Post
    Unlike hot streaks and clutch, the ďCliffĒ is a myth. It canít be defined, and itís future existence cannot be proved.

  7. #3937
    Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    9,233
    Quote Originally Posted by S5Dewey View Post
    I would never say that a team has no chance of winning any individual game or any series of games. I've seen some very unexpected things happen in MLB.
    But I would say that I'd bet against the Sox winning the WS if both Betts and Price get traded provided, of course, they don't find some way to land Trout and a TOL pitcher - which is quite unlikely in itself!
    Letting a player like Betts go, would clearly be a money move. Moving Price, the same whether you like him or not. Having a competitive team under those conditions would be very unlikely and very costly. if the team lets a potential generational talent go and replaces him with prospects who don't immediately produce, I would bet that the seats at Fenway would become a lot cheaper. The concept of resetting, restocking, or whatever, while appealing to some obviously, will not fly with many. it might be the right thing to do but it will be a very tough sell to the people paying to go to the games.

  8. #3938
    Legend S5Dewey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    ME
    Posts
    6,562
    Quote Originally Posted by notin View Post
    Really? You think this team couldn't survive moving Price and Betts? And really, what does Price bring to the table anymore that is so irreplaceable?
    I think the team would "survive" if they traded both Betts and Price. They'd still be there at 4 Jersey Street, Boston, MA 02215, but I don't think they'd win the WS. In fact, I'd bet against it.
    It's a mere moment in a man's life between the All-Star game and the Old Timer's game.
    -Vin Scully

  9. #3939
    Deity Bellhorn04's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Halifax
    Posts
    24,682
    Trading Betts to the Dodgers, IMO, brings in the risk that they will sign him to an extension. The Dodgers are just the team that could pull that off.
    Championships since purchase by John Henry group: Red Sox 4 Yankees 1

  10. #3940
    Deity Bellhorn04's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Halifax
    Posts
    24,682
    Quote Originally Posted by S5Dewey View Post
    I think the team would "survive" if they traded both Betts and Price. They'd still be there at 4 Jersey Street, Boston, MA 02215, but I don't think they'd win the WS. In fact, I'd bet against it.
    I think most would agree that if the Sox have a chance to win it all without Betts and Price, they have a better chance to win it all with Betts and Price.
    Championships since purchase by John Henry group: Red Sox 4 Yankees 1

  11. #3941
    Deity
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    14,571
    Quote Originally Posted by S5Dewey View Post
    I think the team would "survive" if they traded both Betts and Price. They'd still be there at 4 Jersey Street, Boston, MA 02215, but I don't think they'd win the WS. In fact, I'd bet against it.
    Betting against it doesnít mean anything. Youíd also be smart to bet against the team as it stands right now with Betts and Price. In fact, unless you got really good odds, youíd be stupid to bet on this team winning the World Series right now. Really, really, really good odds.

    But if you think removing Betts and Price makes this team completely hapless - which you clearly do - thatís actually all the more reason to trade Betts and Price ASAP...
    Last edited by notin; 01-05-2020 at 09:16 AM.

  12. #3942
    Deity
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    14,571
    Quote Originally Posted by Bellhorn04 View Post
    Trading Betts to the Dodgers, IMO, brings in the risk that they will sign him to an extension. The Dodgers are just the team that could pull that off.
    Are they really? The Dodgers do have a habit of coming up just short when it comes to free agents.

    Outside of giving Kershaw a 7 year $215 million deal when he was their own 26yo pitcher still under team control, how many times have they really given out a mega contract?

  13. #3943
    Deity Bellhorn04's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Halifax
    Posts
    24,682
    Quote Originally Posted by notin View Post
    Are they really? The Dodgers do have a habit of coming up just short when it comes to free agents.

    Outside of giving Kershaw a 7 year $215 million deal when he was their own 26yo pitcher still under team control, how many times have they really given out a mega contract?
    The current Dodgers ownership hasn't been in place that long. And of course the first thing they did was the crazy Punto trade.

    The chances of it may not be high, maybe only 10%.

    But I think it's fair to say that the Dodgers are in as good a position or better than any other team to do it. They have the money, it's a good place to play, they're loaded with prospects etc.
    Championships since purchase by John Henry group: Red Sox 4 Yankees 1

  14. #3944
    Deity
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    14,571
    Quote Originally Posted by Bellhorn04 View Post
    The current Dodgers ownership hasn't been in place that long. And of course the first thing they did was the crazy Punto trade.

    The chances of it may not be high, maybe only 10%.

    But I think it's fair to say that the Dodgers are in as good a position or better than any other team to do it. They have the money, it's a good place to play, they're loaded with prospects etc.

    And they also seem to avoid those type of long term deals. Even their latest extension to Kershaw was only 3 years.

    Could they afford it? Sure. But first of all, Betts is dead set against extensions. If he actually does sign one in LA after adamantly refusing to sign one in Boston, then trading him was the right move, because it means he doesnít want to be in Boston. The only mistake is attaching him to Price as a salary dump (which is a mistake under any circumstances). Get something for him.

    But Iíd bet against the Dodgers extending Betts. They donít seem to do long term deals very well...

  15. #3945
    Deity Bellhorn04's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Halifax
    Posts
    24,682
    Quote Originally Posted by notin View Post
    Could they afford it? Sure. But first of all, Betts is dead set against extensions. If he actually does sign one in LA after adamantly refusing to sign one in Boston, then trading him was the right move, because it means he doesn’t want to be in Boston.
    But we don't know what offers the Red Sox have made to Betts other than the one for $200 million a couple of years back.

    Maybe their subsequent offers have been a little on the lowball side.
    Championships since purchase by John Henry group: Red Sox 4 Yankees 1

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •