It would be helpful to those of us who aren't in a position to read your mind to explain in greater detail why you posted these.
Offseason rumors
- Thread starter opes
- Start date
- Status
Some live in a fact-free world. Feel free to put me on "ignore."
For anyone else:
"Do you feel like you were among the finalists for Yamamoto?"
"Yeah, I mean, I think that we were competitive. I think that we put our best foot forward, you know, kind of by all accounts we made a positive impression in terms of what we could offer. You know, we've got a Japanese infrastructure here that I think that has eased the transition for a number of players, you know, over the last 20 years or so. There are a number of Japanese players that have come over and had success, and have made that transition as smoothly and quickly as one can hope. Ultimately, it obviously didn't come together and some of that is potentially within our control and some of it isn't, right? Like we, you know, we can only influence the preferences of others so much. I'm proud of the way our group came together to demonstrate what we have to offer in Boston. Ultimately, it didn't work out, but you know as you kind of just generally think about a player who you know is kind of in the prime of his career and should contribute over a meaningful period of time, that's the right type of player that I would argue we should be targeting. And, you know, I definitely don't want to gloss over the disappointment or frustration that fans feel, you know, in hearing about this or reading about this, and we do as well, you know, in the office. Like, you know I am as competitive in this position as I was as a player. Um, you know, and I think that means that I and others around me, you know, are trying to uncover every opportunity. You know, we just have to, like I said, make sure we're balancing the building around an emerging core of players with the short term impact."
Let the pessimistic word parsing of "I think" and "you know" begin!! If we drill down real far, we can ask if the Red Sox were ever interested at all because he never confirmed they made a bid!
Last edited:
He never said they were finalists. He did say he "thinks" they were competitive which is open to interpretation. He also says he is competitive which is a very different thing. He also says they made a positive impression which is great but is the agent who also represents other players going to say he hates you and you suck or something? For someone who argues about syntax and what words are used as much as you do you need to do better here.
Edit: also what they have to offer probably doesn't mean just money.
No, I think this, what I posted in the other thread.
I think a lot of these guys were not options for us. We can speculate what it might have looked like if we’d wildly overbid on say, Nola — but again, you’re bidding against Dombrowski on a guy who clearly wants to stay in Philly. But I don’t think that the prospect of that abstract scenario having come true is convincing enough to justify the level of grievance and betrayal that we’re seeing.
The irony of all of this is that we did sign one of these guys! There are so many people pretending Giolito is only the guy he was the second half of last year, seemingly so they can stay angry.
One thing he cannot say is that Yamamoto prefers to be on the West Coast, a statement that would have a performative effect and become more broadly true — and factor in future negotiations with other players — once said aloud.
There isn't one. He was asked about it, but didn't really answer the question.
It matters because we have folks here who want to put a positive spin on everything this front office and ownership group does while other folks want to put a negative spin on things. Some folks are in the middle and just want to live in reality where there are gray areas.
This whole discussion is silly but isn’t the answer in how you define finalist? We know he had initial zoom calls with 13 teams. From there he had in person meetings with 5 teams (LAD, NYY, NYM, SFG, BOS). He then visited the first 4 teams in their respective cities. Does being top 5 make you a finalist?
I'm not being snarky here, Nick, I promise, but the last sentence is one of the reasons why I don't think it matters. It's a gray area and we just will never get to the absolute truth so the discussion ends up circular and pointless. I'm just more focused on what's next I guess.
OK. Two points before I sign off and do some work.
1) I assume you didn't actually listen to the full podcast. But if you do, you'll notice him using "I think" and "you know" as cadence-holders for him. He uses them the way some people use "Um." They have as much meaning.
(To be fair, I dropped a couple toward the end of the transcription, so I went back and put them in.)
2) Let's suppose you think they're not cadence holders, but are significant, deliberately chosen. The question is then how do Americans of his generation use this phrase? Most commonly, "I think" essentially means "I believe." Which is the speaker's actual understanding of the thing, acknowledging for some subjectivity.
And what would be the subjectivity? Well, the question is essentially in the constellation of: "Did YY consider the offer? Were you in contention? Was it competetive? Were you a finalist?"
Here, his overall response is focused, not on the financial package, but on the overall pitch (including non-financials) to YY.
He believes, at the end of the day, the entire thing was competetive. But he acknowledges that there's a limit to how much you can impact the preferences of others.
And neither do I, not in the least. But there is a difference between sports and other more important aspects of life like science and legislation and medicine and law. I'm not going to get political but the way they were parsing their words and talking in generalizations is the way almost everyone in politics and business haves talked for decades. What would've really been disturbing is if one of the Sox brass came out and said, " We made (fill in the blank) by far the largest offer. It was the best offer, a beautiful offer and he took it and he used it against me and that not fair because i didn't win the offer".
I don’t think it matters either but if posters are going to make authoritative statements parsing words and language then I want to make sure we’re being factual here. Maybe it’s petty but then don’t start the argument to begin with.
Edit: not saying you’re starting the argument but I am trying to avoid calling people out by name here.
I understand, and nothing you or others have been pushing back with is at all unfair.
The very first word he says is "Yeah," which he then goes on to qualify at length. It's not "Nah, but. . ."
I'm sure some will take him at face value.
I'm sure some will think he's lying.
I'm sure others are really going to argue that a positive response to the question isn't one. And that the long qualification really has nothing to do with them wanting YY and doing their best. Which does not make it a deliberate deception of many untruths strung one after another.
I'm sure others will hold their judgement in abeyance.
(Where is that guy?)
As to the larger import of the point I think it goes something like this: Those who are more inclined to support the FO against those claiming that the FO is not spending as it should argue, in effect, that the team was prepared to pay for YY at the top end of the market, but were rebuffed for reasons other than money. If the Sox were "finalists" on YY this would support the FO defenders claim that Henry et al are not fairly criticized for not being willing to spend. If, by contrast, the team was never really in at the end on YY, and tapped out well under the ultimate price, then this primary argument of FO defenders would be largely refuted.
The Red Sox apparently disagreed, because they were "finalists" in the Lugo bidding.
Chicago offered him four years, The Red Sox offered him two with vesting options. That's why he's in Chicago. It had nothing to do with deep dish pizza.
He rejected a trade to LA because he didn't want to go to the West Coast, then he signed with Arizona. He took the most $$ (and good on him for doing so). If playing for Cora was a non-starter, he would not have taken a meeting with the Red Sox.
Now you're just grasping at straws. The David Price bit is quite the leap. I could invent a similar "they couldn't have signed him" reason for every player ever.
But even if you're right, even if every single pitcher has some built in reason to make his signing not prudent, are there no other ways to spend that $S? Give Teoscar more money than LA did for a single year? Take on a bad one-year to get some prospects? Sign Brandon Woodruff to a two year deal that makes him a relative bargain next year? Extend Nick Pivetta?
The other part of this is, once removed from the rotation, Tanner Houck still gets to be on the team. He becomes a very valuable bullpen piece and depth option for when they need to replace a starter, which as we saw last year, isn’t a far-fetched possibility. Signing a 2 WAR starter isn’t beneath our rotation.
Last edited:
However...I think there's a poster here who's been tracking the top 15 free agent starting pitchers by projected 2024 WAR, and 12 of them are gone.
Quite honestly, I'm only in this for the lying angle.
If you think Breslow responded honestly to the question, it's another set of facts to evaluate this off-season through. They indicate what they indicate.
If you think Breslow responded in a comprehensively dishonest way to the question, it's another fact and says something about him, and the off-season.
Personally I suspect there's a lot of people who have internalized some kind of narrative about "what the FSG is" but like Breslow and so can't really square the two.
This was before it was clarified that Breslow was only talking about trading prospects, not free agents. When I saw that I agreed it was a click-bait job.
Why would we expect any baseball CBO to be fully honest, especially at this stage of the offseason? It can obviously put them at a disadvantage in the marketplace.
RR I understand you are trying to turn this into a question of whether people think Breslow is "lying" when he said they were finalists, when the narrow point that has been raised is about whether he actually said they were "finalists" on YY. Those are two different things, no?
And yeah, I interpret his "yeah" at the outset of his response as more of a cadence holder.
And yeah, I interpret his "yeah" at the outset of his response as more of a cadence holder.
I should have mentioned this above, but I think your general framing on the scrumming aspect of this re: arguments is correct.
I won't quibble with your interpretation of "Yeah", mostly because I think the greater issue stands. He was asked about YY. He responded extensively. He's obviously limited in terms of what he can say about the negotiations, but he's raising specific points in his response.
Overall, it really is an issue that goes to your general framing on the scrummers: were the Sox sincere in their pursuit of YY? Were they competetive? Did they really try? At the end of the day did other factors weigh out? Are they lying cheapskates, or were they just unable to match LA?
Breslow either told the truth about a complete package that he was proud of and was well received, or he lied. He either told the truth about there being things that were outside of his control with YY, or he lied. He either told the truth about YY being exactly the kind of player they would go after and try to land, or he lied.
The reason the "finalist" comment fiasco matters to me is that it's more proof that ownership is saying whatever it needs to get people in seats buying merch without having to back it up. Breslow and Werner have both already had to walk back comments about how the Sox are going to do this year and what expectations will be, as well as the avenues to get there. Breslow saying he thinks the Sox were finalists for YY does exactly what it was intended to do: makes it seem like the Sox are doing everything in their power to build the best team possible, without having to show any results to back it up. It lets the pro-ownership fans feel good about what the team is doing, without ownership having to do anything.
And since it's coming up, I don't think Breslow is lying - "competitive" covers a pretty broad range. Without knowing what it was, I am sure the Sox put in a generous (but not top-end offer), got to the point where YY was at least taking their call and... that's it. Of course that can be construed as competitive. Not competitive enough to win, but better than no-showing.
And since it's coming up, I don't think Breslow is lying - "competitive" covers a pretty broad range. Without knowing what it was, I am sure the Sox put in a generous (but not top-end offer), got to the point where YY was at least taking their call and... that's it. Of course that can be construed as competitive. Not competitive enough to win, but better than no-showing.
How could Breslow possibly know for sure if the package was "well received"?
I think we’ll know a lot more about that at the end of the offseason. It would not have been unreasonable for the FO to say, in public, that we want to acquire multiple SP, thinking that this is like a #1/2 type and a #3 type. We’ve added a decent #3 type in Giolito; Lugo or Imanaga might have been another decent shot for that lane.
As for the #1s, we’ve missed on Yamamoto and Nola, but there are two #1/2 types still out there in Montgomery and Snell. Their negotiations are dragging out, so we’ll see.
How does anyone know anything about the consciousness of the other? How does Breslow know that an evil Demon hasn’t deceived him into believing in the existence of Yoshinobu Yamamoto?
The first question is one of the great philosophical questions.
Human beings have a fantastic capacity for deceit, I think most serious observers of the species would agree with that.
Ffs, move on. We made an offer. He accepted another. Unless you’re CHB’s secret account you should be better than this.
He has played first, but not since 2018. I don't know if that's just a function of his teams' needs, or his inability to do it well.
Who really knows. Reporting is constantly changing. What happened to the wife going to med school in Boston rumor's a couple months ago?
Thank you. I've been waiting to see how long it would take to make this simple point. For those hung up on the word, please define finalist. And if I might add, I honestly don't understand this debate as it really appears to me that his destination was pretty much pre-determined by the Ohtani deal.
So we signed Renfro. Who wound up in California before getting released. And now Duvall might wind up in California. There are both similar players.
Duvall slumped badly in September IIRC.
Gotta say, I don’t get the interest in any OF on a one year deal. For LHH you already have Yoshida, Duran and Abreu. For RHH you already have O’Neill and Refsnyder. Not to mention a prospect that (while his approach may not work against MLB, or it might, I have no idea) is learning nothing and not being challenged by AAA pitchers, and thus aren’t able to force him to make any adjustments.
Another one year OF just makes two incredibly redundant players (O’Neill and RR) even more redundant, and takes at bats and development away from younger players.
Only way it makes sense is if Breslow thinks Abreu and Rafaela are just AAAA level players.
Maybe someone would take RR or O’Neill for a PTBNL or some such, I suppose. But overall, I really don’t get adding another RHH OF for one year.
Another one year OF just makes two incredibly redundant players (O’Neill and RR) even more redundant, and takes at bats and development away from younger players.
Only way it makes sense is if Breslow thinks Abreu and Rafaela are just AAAA level players.
Maybe someone would take RR or O’Neill for a PTBNL or some such, I suppose. But overall, I really don’t get adding another RHH OF for one year.
… I mean who among has not thought our package was more impressive and better received than it actually was?
Yea, I think they need a right handed bat that can cover first and third. I’ve said this before but right now, Bobby Dalbec is 100% on the 26 man. No one can back up first right now.
I think a right handed power oriented bat who can DH/1B/3B makes much more sense with the current outfield. Allows you to sit Casas, Durán, Abreu and Yoshida at the same time against certain lefties.
Turner makes a lot of sense in a lot of ways. I trust him to put up great at bats between Devers and Casas. I think they need to manage his at bats better and not run him into the ground like last year. But he seems like a better fit.
Hoskins is the perfect fit, not a great defender but can play 1b and lf (although he hasn’t done the latter in a while). RH bat who crushes lefties. He’s only 30, though, so imagine he either wants a long term deal or if a short term deal, a guarantee of more playing time. But seems like they could find enough at bats for him at 1b and dh, no?
Breslow specifically said “position versatility” so I don’t think DH and maybe first maybe really fits.
I think the best fit is most likely via trade. But I do think Turner is the most logical guy in FA.
Duvall tore the cover off the ball to start last season before he was injured, so if you mention September as if it means something, that should be mentioned too.
Renfroe signed a two-year deal in KC, so the cluster he was involved with with the Angels last year is kinda moot. We all know how desperate the Angels were to shed salary right then. No doubt he had a very down year though.
They actually aren't all that similar, except on a very surface level. Renfro's career OPS is .778, and in 2021 with Boston he hit .259/.315/.501 with 31 home runs and 33 doubles in 144 games, for an .816 OPS. He is a corner outfielder who seems to be better as part of a platoon. Last year he was bad, he hit .233/.297/.416 with 20 HR in 498 AB's for an OPS of .713., and had a -0.6 WAR. I don't have time to look at defensive stats, but he's not a plus defender. He terrified me in right at Fenway. He is 31 years old. https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/renfrhu01.shtml
Duvall comes in with a .763 career OPS and last year was overall very good when healthy. He hit .247/.303/.531 with 21 HR for an .834 OPS in 92 games last year and had a 1.6 WAR. He can play all three outfield positions and is very passable in center. Baseball Reference lists him as a LF/1B, and he's played 43 games at first, though it's been over five years (as was cited earlier), but seemingly could do it again in a pinch. He is 35 years old. https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/d/duvalad01.shtml
Anyway, not sure why both having a connection to the Angels means anything, but I think for the needs the Sox have, Duvall's outfield versatility and at least basic competence at first base in a pinch, would be a much better fit than a Renfroe type, especially if you look at the way they each trended offensively last year. Duvall was a legit beast in April. 35 isn't over the hill. He loves Fenway. I wouldn't hate it.
.
Last edited:
- Status