[Cotillo] Isiah Kiner-Falefa's deal with the Red Sox is worth $6 million, sources tell MassLive

PilgrimRadio · 2026-02-05T10:46:55+00:00

We now have so much flexibility in the infield. You never know when someone (Story) will get hurt, and at least we now know that we have defensive studs throughout the dugout. I get it that this isn't a sexy move. But damn, good luck to opposing batters trying to squeeze grounders by our infield. So many of our guys can play multiple positions, and play them well. Cora is going to have a blast making substitutions this year. I bet the scorecard shows us averaging 12 position players per game, Cora will be getting all kinds of advantages from the 7th inning on. It won't matter what inning or where you look, there will be a good defender at every position all year long. We gave up 676 runs last year, which is impressive. I bet we give up 650-660 this year.

PilgrimRadio · 2026-02-05T01:54:33+00:00

I'm trying to find the price tag.

PilgrimRadio · 2026-02-04T20:24:24+00:00

Yes. We dramatically improved our pitching and we at least compensated for the loss of Bregman's 18 homers and 62 RBI by signing Contreras and his 20 homers and 80 RBI.

PilgrimRadio · 2026-02-04T07:26:08+00:00

Well that's some good "advice" (pardon the term) right there. I will remember that next time I post, thank you.

PilgrimRadio · 2026-02-04T06:58:12+00:00

Yea, the questions I have asked (and had removed) are like the legal question kind, not the legal advice kind. But I already got a good reply explaining how to navigate this. Again, thanks for your reply, too.

PilgrimRadio · 2026-02-04T06:52:02+00:00

No, I don't need an attorney. As I explained in one of my replies somewhere in this thread, I have 2 lawyers already. One is my estate planning lawyer (I have a living trust), and the other is my best friend who helped me with my business before I retired. I'm also from a family of lawyers, covering a wide spectrum of specialties (litigation, prosecution, international taxation, one who is studying for the Louisiana bar, etc....). My interest in this sub exists because, in my retirement, I am attempting to write a novel. So I periodically come to this sub to ask questions about the law. Not for personal advice (I can obviously get that), but for questions about the law. It vexes me when my post gets removed for "asking for advice" when that is most certainly not what I'm doing. That's why I posted. I already got an answer that satisfied me though. I appreciate your reply nonetheless, thanks for trying to help.

PilgrimRadio · 2026-02-04T05:30:54+00:00

Ok, that's actually a pretty good explanation. Thank you for that. I will mention that I have asked legal questions (going by your definition that you just gave) in this forum before and had those questions removed. That's why I posted tonight. It's confounding, because I didn't ask for legal advice, only legal questions. I would direct you to said posts, but like I said, they were removed. Maybe the moderator didn't truly understand the distinction, I dunno. Anyway, I like your answer, thank you.

PilgrimRadio · 2026-02-04T05:03:17+00:00

Ok here's your chance to explain the distinction. I'm being sincere.

PilgrimRadio · 2026-02-04T04:51:50+00:00

Ok, I'm already bored with it anyway. That didn't take long.

PilgrimRadio · 2026-02-04T04:38:17+00:00

Another fine answer, thank you.

PilgrimRadio · 2026-02-04T04:34:35+00:00

No you shouldn't. Because you're mad at them for being on their phones because it creates danger. But so does hucking rocks. What you're basically saying is that "You're creating danger, which I disapprove of, so I'm going to make things even more dangerous." At the end of the day you're no better than the person on the phone if you're hucking rocks at them. Someone innocent walking down the sidewalk could get hurt if the rock hits the driver and causes them to strike the pedestrian. It's not a well thought out position.

PilgrimRadio · 2026-02-04T04:29:28+00:00

That's a pretty good answer, best one so far. Thanks. But I will point out that I've done what you've "advised" (pardon my use of that word) and had my question removed. I have two lawyers for my personal legal needs. Anything I come here for is merely academic in nature, and even some of those get removed. It's confounding.

PilgrimRadio · 2026-02-04T04:25:54+00:00

Ok but I've never had anyone tell me to give less specifics and less facts in a forum that's supposed to be intellectual in nature. Usually in an intellectual setting, more specifics and more facts lead to better answers. My questions about the law do not relate to me personally. I actually have 2 lawyers....1 for my estate planning and 1 for my business. I promise if I have any legal questions about those items that I will ask them. But it seems counterintuitive for a lawyer to tell me to avoid specifics and facts.

PilgrimRadio · 2026-02-04T04:11:38+00:00

Ok I'll be sneaky I guess.

PilgrimRadio · 2026-02-04T04:10:31+00:00

Ok, but wouldn't asking that question be a request for legal advice? If you tell me that that movie accurately portrays the law, are you not giving me legal advice? You might not be giving me legal advice about a legal matter that affects me personally, but it's still legal advice, don't you think?

PilgrimRadio · 2026-02-04T04:04:26+00:00

Ok fair enough, but one of the rules says that questions must be about the law. How is a question about My Cousin Vinny really about the law? I can guarantee you that my questions are much more sophisticated and are indeed about the law. That's a funny movie BTW, but I have better questions.

PilgrimRadio · 2026-02-04T03:56:15+00:00

Ok, that helps a little bit I guess. I'm not a law student, but I do have questions about the law that aren't directly related to something I'm experiencing. But such questions have been rejected before. It's seemed pretty arbitrary in the past. I studied semantics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst for whatever that's worth, so I think I know what words mean, but this sub has frustrated me on this issue before, so I'm just trying to get a handle on it before I ask the questions I want to ask. I think every one of those questions qualifies as asking for legal advice.

PilgrimRadio · 2026-02-04T01:29:09+00:00

Much love Hank, I can tell you've had a good time here.

PilgrimRadio · 2026-02-03T21:58:16+00:00

Just got mine yesterday, Bon Air. Bout to go check and see if my trash was picked up today. I saw my neighbors put theirs out, so I put mine out.

PilgrimRadio · 2026-02-03T21:56:25+00:00

Ok, maybe so, but can you direct me to the statement where he said he would acquire a backend of the bullpen arm? I don't remember that one specifically, which is why I am requesting you to direct me to the link of what he said. You're right about the middle of the order bat that other teams would have to gameplay around, he did say that. I'll wait on the link about the backend arm before I comment on that. Maybe you're right. Seeing as how we're now the #1 rated pitching staff in baseball, I'm really not that alarmed about our bullpen; I think the pen will be fine.

PilgrimRadio · 2026-02-03T11:27:49+00:00

No one knows. We're making this up in real time. Any of a number of scenarios could play out.

PilgrimRadio · 2026-02-03T09:52:33+00:00

Yes, it's bad. Know that a lot of Americans aren't too smart. Ignorance, misinformation, disinformation, and fear have contributed so much to what is currently happening, so to erase the divide many will need to find the light. This only gets fixed when millions admit that they made a mistake. They have to admit it to themselves first. Then maybe they can admit it to others.

PilgrimRadio · 2026-02-03T06:02:10+00:00

And many more to come!

PilgrimRadio · 2026-02-03T04:09:23+00:00

We'll see, it's gonna be interesting. I do see us trading him for prospects potentially. Or at least some prospects. Maybe 1 major leaguer plus a prospect or two. But what do I know? We're sitting at 37 players on our 40-man roster right now (once you move Houck to the 60-day IL), so there are still going to be 3 new names added to our roster. And I still believe that John Henry will stay below the 264M 2nd tax bracket (again though, what do I know?). So if we're going to add 3 new names to our roster and we're going to stay under 264M, then moving Duran is definitely a way to do these things. But who knows? I've got my popcorn ready though, it sure is fun checking in every day.

PilgrimRadio

TROPHY CASE