Offseason rumors
- Thread starter opes
- Start date
- Status
Totally. Getting the abysmal Yoshida off the field is a huge step in the right direction.
Montgomery isn’t signing for 7 years.
What are you saying? When will it be appropriate to sign free agents? When they are in Tier 2? 1?
Why are they not in on any short term option? Which avoids any and all future budgetary issues.
The Sox were -47 OAA through July, -3 the rest of the year. The biggest changes were replacing Hernandez with Story (-12 to +8 at SS), Devers recording -9 OAA through July and 0 the remainder of the year, improvement by Valdez from -4 in his first stint to +1 in September. The SS is of course quite small, but overall there was the seeds of improvement on defense from players who are returning.
https://baseballsavant.mlb.com/leaderboard/outs_above_average?type=Fielder&startYear=2023&endYear=2023&split=no&team=BOS&range=year&min=10&pos=&roles=&viz=show
You can play with the parameters here.
Uh. Lets not forget no Kiké at short this year.
That change alone will improve our defense (and pitching) tremendously compared to last year.
Because the ownership group wants payroll lower. It sucks for fans but there’s nothing we can do about it. I’m just trying to be realistic on how they can move forward now that, to use a hockey phrase, they’re obviously a budget team now an not a cap team.
In my opinion, it’s that they really didn’t do all that much to “jumpstart” the rebuild over the past four years. Thus, they’ve just kind of been a waste.
They did nothing to add to the MLB rotation long term in that time frame nor have they made any SP gains at the minor league level (Bello, Crawford, Houck, Gonzalez and Perales were all in the organization before then). I suppose one can say Pivetta, but he’s gone after this year anyway.
On the offensive side, what they’ve added hasn’t really netted much gain, if any. The cornerstones of the line up were already in the organization (Devers and Casas). The third most exciting offensive player was already here also (Duran). They in essence downgraded from Bogaerts to Story at SS. They‘ve gone down consistently in RF (Betts to Renfroe to Verdugo - about the same as an Abreu/O’Neill platoon). At DH they’ve downgraded from Martinez to Yoshida. I guess we’ll call Vazquez to Wong a wash - is that fair - maybe a slight edge to Wong.
They’ve added 3 really good prospects (ATM), a middle reliever, and then nothing that is either producing at the MLB level nor worth much on the trade market.
So the two biggest deals they’ve signed from outside have been significant downgrades to what they had, they’ve done nothing for the rotation at the high levels, the defense stinks, and for all we hear about the system, most sites are putting it in the middle of the pack (really, who cares) but much more damning is that they’re not really able to get anything in trade for it, and there are only question marks from it at the MLB level.
Thankfully they’ve (I think) addressed the middle infield issues (Grissom; I don’t think Story is better than Bogaerts, but I have to believe he’s better than what he’s been in Boston) and at least finally added some SP prospects (Fitts). But there is a looooooon way to go. Both because moves that were made have resulted in (to this point at least) lesser players AND because other than simply making their picks each year, nothing has really been done to increase their prospect pool.
Thus, I think they’re a lot closer to the “start” of a rebuild then they are nearing the culmination of a rebuild, if that makes sense.
I find it hard to think you believe the farm isn’t better than 4 years ago. It’s notably better but heavy on hitters. But it’s all luck?
Last year people complained that the prospects were below AA. Some of the potential is being realized as they now have promoted multiple guys, in premium positions in the top 50 rankings. Too many hitters is true but look at some of the big name, stud pitchers that have stalled… Leiter and Rocker to name two.
A draft hit takes a little luck on top of a lot of development.
I'm so tired of this nonsense. And I don't mean this personally. I see it a lot.
Per Spotrac, the Sox payroll has fallen all the way to 11th, a fungible middle reliever away from 10th.
If, as most people here believe, the Sox are a middling team with little chance of being a serious contender, why would you spend a ton of money to improve now? The Sox' record in 2024 is extremely likely to be between the 10th best and 20th best in MLB. FOUR of the teams ahead of the Sox also live in the AL East. That makes it much harder to eke into a wild card spot and maybe get lucky.
Is there any combination of players currently available that changes this fundamental fact?
Maybe, but if there is, it's not a reasonable scenario.
If you agree with that assessment of the Red Sox, not spending on big ticket free agent pitchers when there are a bunch of better pitchers slated for free agency next year is not just reasonable, it's probably optimal.
Based off of this response, you don’t think that the Sox are a middling team? Dont you think that signing a good free agent would help the current team be better?
EDIT: You’re using his point against him, yet you make no actual point of your own. Do you think they’re a contender? Do you think they should rebuild? I’ve read your posts and I would guess that you think they could be a contender. If I am right, then this post is absolutely mind boggling
Last edited:
They're generally pegged as the 3rd highest revenue team. So you could make a pretty good argument that they are indeed a budget team in that their payroll to revenue ratio is probably below the league midpoint. High revenue teams have inherent advantages in the MLB system and recently the Red Sox have stopped using those advantages. If you are a high revenue team you shouldn't need 5-8 year rebuilds, you should be able to leverage your economic advantages in various ways. The Red Sox have not in part because they don't want to spend like a top revenue team because they are prioritizing certain profit goals over wins. Which they are of course free to do, but fans are also free to complain about it.
I think I was specifically expressing frustration with the idea that “signing Soler” (or a different dedicated DH) and “improving the pitching” are often suggested as if they weren’t opposing directions. One of Casas, Dever or Yoshida filling the DH spot (with Yoshida being the most likely) is a huge step in the right direction and easiest way to improve the defense. Happily, Breslow seems to agree with this. The other big reason for hope is that, at least for now, the Sox have a healthy Story.
On the down side, they lost Dugie, who is strong defensively and -extremely durable- and replaced him with O’Neil, who is probably one of the more fragile players in the league, so this is likely a downgrade.
What is preventing them from signing Montgomery this year and a Burnes/Fried type next year? It is pretty unrealistic to think they’ll win out for 2 elite pitchers in the same FA period against teams who are much more willing to be aggressive in FA.
Signing Montgomery makes them better in 2024 and doesn’t do anything to compromise future year spending, as they’ll have a ton of space to do so even with him and especially so if his market softens like it appears to be doing.
They have a pretty good lineup. The rotation has guys who could be good, if things break well. The pen should be good, if they don’t trade Martin/Jansen. There are incremental moves that could be made that don’t harm their future plans.
Something positive! Right until you threw water on it with the investment comment. I wish they'd sign Monty too if the price was right, but they *did* invest in the pitching infrastructure. Let's see if it bears fruit.
Of course it does. They’ll still have space so it doesn’t mean they have zero to spend. But factor in a couple of signings and/or extensions, and yes, the hypothetical presence of a non-effective Montgomery would mean $25 mil or so that can’t be spent elsewhere.
Which doesn’t mean they shouldn’t do it. But the downside is very real. It could mean, for example, signing a starter and a closer instead of a starter, a closer, and an outfielder.
There is downside risk to every FA deal but the fact remains that payroll flexibility isn’t an issue for this team even if they sign him to a 5/125 deal. There is a lot of space available and even moreso if they don’t use the CBT level as a hard cap.
They also are, presumably, trying to win this year too, no? This team has a very cloudy rotation picture after 2024. Giolito may be gone. Pivetta may be gone. Adding a reliable piece has considerable value.
If they, for whatever reason, don’t think Montgomery will be that good in the next 3-4 years, then that’s fine. But if they think he will hold up and they don’t want to sign him due to payroll concerns, well, they had better reel in some big fish next offseason to make it worth forgoing a season of Montgomery and locking up a rotation spot for 3-5 years with a pitcher who figures to be pretty good.
This is exactly what I've been thinking. It would, at the very least, prevent this year from being disastrous. I'm generally a glass half full guy but this could be bad.
All this is assuming that the market on him has softened (4-5 years). He seems like a pretty good bet on still being effective a few years down the road.
Redbird Capital owns 11% of FSG, correct? It's a huge chunk of money, but still, it's very much a minority ownership. I'm not clear how an 11% owner would wield the kind of power you're suggesting, that they would essentially be able to dictate that the Red Sox lower payroll.
Exactly. The starting pitching isn’t a one year problem. Right now it looks like they are hoping 2024 creates more in house options develop with Houck, Whitlock, Fitts and Wink become viable options.
Right now the 2025 rotation has Bello and a Crawford. They are in a world of hurt there. Are they really gonna sign 3 starters next year?
The simple answer is they don’t wield much power. They don’t dictate anything to Henry/FSG. They would have to participate in capital calls in the event they’re necessary but I doubt there are too many of those given that the Red Sox are presumably a profitable business although I don’t know about the other parts of the portfolio. They’re also not likely to be a major part of the inner workings of the operation as LPs.
I deal with this for an NBA team as part of my work and the LPs take part in quarterly board meetings and basically get courtesy heads up on major items. They’re not part of the decision making process at all. FSG might operate differently though so can’t definitively rule it out.
I agree with all of this and would add that being in the mix for the Wild Card spot this year makes the sales pitch to a top free agent next year so much easier, as compared with another last place finish.
I suspect the brain trust would prefer to trade for Cease, who is four years younger and has much better stuff than Montgomery and is under contract for two years, with the plan to sign him to an extension, but I'm not convinced that would be possible without parting with at least one of the anointed three.
Based on the status of their minor league pitching, their current roster, and the hope to start to become competitive in 2025 (if not this year), the Sox simply have to spend money on free agent pitching.
I'd like to see them sign Montgomery with the plan to pursue Cease mid-season with the option to pivot to the free agent pool next winter.
Yeah, it all seems so obvious, frankly. It seems irrational for a big market team to be thinking of kicking it down the road when:
a) they have a team that's projected to be about .500 as is.
b) adding a Montgomery should add a few wins.
c) an 84-78 team made it to the 2023 World Series after knocking out the 100 win Dodgers.
Next year's crop of free agent pitchers will all have flaws of their own, if we consider age, price tag and risk to be flaws...
That's the thing, right?
(I had some time and this turned into some more general thoughts on where we are.)
Montgomery has had one year (2023, his age 30 year) where he's been "very good." His two prior "pretty good" years have an ERA+ that's identical to Nick Pivetta last season. It's not nothing, but I wouldn't back the truck up for him. And I certainly wouldn't if there's a decent chance he's locked into our rotation as a starter who is "not pretty good" when the current Sox prospects come up and are having their better years. Twice as certain if he's still commanding a "primo 2024 starter's salary" and so sucking up a chunk of the budget. Thrice if it's a backloaded deal of some kind.
People want the Sox to compete this year. I get that. I want it too. But I don't want it unconditionally or absolutely.
Mongtomery assuming he wants to sign here at all moves them close to competing next year. No doubt. But while good, he's not a generational talent, and they might be able to do that anyway with their in-house options, a short term signing, or a trade.
Ultimately, we just have to be patient. The Sox could front-load their competition window right now by throwing a boatload of money at Montgomery and trading Keel and Mayer and Roman for another starter and a key bat (say, Mayer and Duran for Kim for 2B, who is only under control for 2025, at $25M). That probably gets them to being a solid WC contention team this year and the next. But that GFIN window would immediately have a foreseeable have a closing point with a depleted farm, and control over players lapsing as they approached FA or started commanding much larger salaries in arb. (Much like 2019-2020 was.)
Maybe that comes in 2027, when:
A 30 YO Devers is a DH struggling at 3B at $33M.
A 34 YO Story has lost a step or two and is a very average 2B at $25M.
A 34 YO Yoshida is cemented in the DH spot and has also slipped a bit.
Kim (and Mayer and Duran) are memories.
Casas is in his arb 2 year and is making $15M, and nobody seems to be there to replace him. Bello is A3, and Crawford and Winckowski are at A2.
And you know, we'd have (hypothetically) a very overpaid 34 year old Montgomery in 2027. . .who might be as productive as Sale and Paxton were for us last year, in their age 34 seasons. But with less history of upside.
***
In another world where they signed YY and went over the cap, I'd say they'd have a good chance to be competitive this year, as is. And YY (assuming he pitches as wished-on) would give them a young reliable arm over the next 5-6 years. Or as reliable as you'd ever get. Deep starts in the post-season too, perhaps. I think in that situation, a bit of judicious front loading this off season (or next if YY proved to be all that) wouldn't have gone amiss.
But that fantasy sort of assumes all the other coin-flips come up positive anyway - Yoshida, Grissom, Story, O'Neill, Duran, Abreu. Going 4 for 6, or even 3 for six might be enough. And on the pitching side - Giolitto, Bello, Pivetta, Houck, Crawford. Those may be less of a coin-flip given Breslow and Bailey retooling what they're doing.
So I think it comes down to the Sox FO just looking at the current roster. It may compete. It may not. Do you sink a chunk of your 2024, 2025, 2026, 2027, 2028(?) resources into a single pitcher to front-load your competition chances for 2024 and 2025? Who may or may not be as good as Nick Pivetta?
***
If they don't sign anyone to a long-term contract, it will be the 4th season of a short-term strategy. It worked in 2021, in part because the GM traded talent for Schwarber, and COVID forced them to grab a handful of players that worked well. 2022 was derailed by epic in-season injuries to just about everyone. 2023 was a story of shitty assessment (Kluber/Hernandez), poor preparation (stumbling out of the gate), and ongoing injury.
Both the 2022 and 2023 teams never really got into the GFIN mode of 2021, but we have a new GM now. So we'll see.
We also have more appropriate internal development options for 2024 than we did in any of the previous years in 2021-23. Some are retreads in a sense, but still young enough to improve, like Winckowski did last year:
2021 - Houck, Whitlock, Dalbec, Arroyo. Dalbec's hit tool was exactly as advertised - marginal at the MLB level at best. We were hoping Arroyo's upside was average competence and multiple position utility. There were other prospects like Casas on the radar, but not at the "will step in this season" level.
2022 - Injury forced Winckowsi, Bello, Crawford, and Duran up early, while sidelining Arroyo, Whitlock and Houck (and Casas at AAA).
2023 - We get Casas, Bello, Winckowski, Crawford, and Duran contributing probably at their proper level of development, and with the benefit of some of the lost 2022 as seasoning. And they're good, although injury and adjustment are factors. Houck and Whitlock are again troubled by injuries. (But the season overall failed due to the implosion/ineffectiveness/injury/unreliability of the older (expensive) players: Sale, Story, Hernandez, Kluber, Paxton, Duvall.)
2024 - We should have more young (or cost-controlled) internals as regulars than the prior years: Casas, Grissom, Duran, Rafaela, Abreu, Wong. Bello, Crawford, Houck, Whitlock, Winckowski, (plus Kelly, Bernardino, Campbell, etc.)
And, to conclude this ramble, I think one of the consequences of that is that we're seeing fewer FA being signed because we have more internal younger options, to the extent FAs may not be clear upgrades. We've now grown used to short term FA signings, given the 2016-2019 window, and the 2021-23 churn. But maybe we just don't need as much of that anymore? Or certainly not every season.
They lost and got high draft picks. Imagine how great our farm system will be if the Red Sox keep losing! The Process Part Deux! Now in a sport it makes very little sense to do unless you are purposely trying to rip off the other owners and have very little respect for your fans!
Edit - They don't even have an above average farm system for their division. It is better but it isn't good enough to fill the hole they dug over the last four years. Also it is more likely to get worse than better over the next three years.
It doesn't. The process needed to be modified to build the infrastructure to better focus on finally developing MLB-caliber pitching (which they are doing with the impressive behind-the-scenes moves). Chaim did part of the job but failed miserably on the pitching side, and Breslow will now attempt to build on the strong (but not perfect) position player depth his predecessor left him with. It's understandable to be frustrated about the current position of our team, but the posts acting like the last four years were a waste of time and led to absolutely nothing are just tiresome.
Last edited:
fWAR last 3 seasons:
Montgomery
2021 3.2
2022 2.7
2023 4.3
Total 10.2
Pivetta
2021 2.3
2022 1.5
2023 1.9
Total 5.7
Montgomery's fWAR over the last 3 seasons is 79% better than Pivetta's.
I appreciate the thought in this post and I hope your fingers aren’t sore!
I think most of us agree that the Montgomery stuff really does depend on price but it just feels like he’s moving away from Nola territory and will probably get closer to a shorter deal like Sonny Gray. If the latter does, indeed, materialize, I would be all over that kind of deal. I suspect several other teams would as well. Not signing Montgomery to a reasonable deal won’t ruin my year but it’ll be another signal to me that they really are focusing more on 2025 and beyond and not 2024. The problem for me with waiting until next year is that Burnes, Fried, etc. will be even more expensive and Roki will probably be hand delivered to the Dodgers. We could be in a similar spot next year as we are today. In the meantime, I hope our own guys develop and make things look more rosy than they currently do.
fWAR is a counting stat that for pitchers is based off of FIP. And FIP itself is something of a best guess of effectiveness that, for example, penalizes groundball pitchers in relation to strikeout pitchers. (It is, for example, almost completely blind to a pitcher's ability to induce weak contact to begin a double-play.)
WAR is useful, but noisy and approximate - the idea you can do a % comparison is inherently silly.
Yes, yes there are players that would have made a difference. If the Sox had signed two quality starting pitchers and one right handed power bat, they would have had a team that would have contended for the post season, IMO. Do we have to list who those players are? I mean, they've been discussed all winter long. Most of those players would have only cost money and not prospects (well, with Snell a pick, too) ...not sure why that would be unreasonable. Spending this way is something the team currently finds undesirable, but it isn't unreasonable. After all, the team under Henry has always had a top 3 in baseball payroll, until 2022. Do we see the Sox teams from 2002-2021 to be unreasonably constructed?
FWIW, I'm someone that mostly agrees with you - however I do admit that I think the projections for the team around 80 wins are too rosy. I personally look at them more like a 75/76 win team (because I think the starting pitching is horrendous, the defense is not good and the line up has a lot of unknowns). That said, I also think the addition of a top half of the rotation pitcher (ie Montgomery) would get them to about the 82 / 83 wins that Fangraphs is currently projecting and gets them right into legitimate contention for WC2/3 (as opposed to being one of 5 or so teams within 5 games of WC3 around the ASG, which it's pretty difficult NOT to be).
However, I think we all agree that baseball teams (all of them) have a lot more internal projection systems and prospect rankings than we have access to (ie, Craig Breslow isn't looking at FanGraphs to see what he projects the team as, nor what the farm system is like). What if he has come in, gotten a chance to look at the current roster and state of the system and says "there is no way this team is getting 80 wins, 75 is probably too high, I think it's more like 72", then all of a sudden, adding a Montgomery "only" gets them to 78/79 wins and still missing the playoffs by lets say 7 games.
Again, I'm in the camp that is on the "about as down on the last 4 years as possible for a fan" and even I think adding JM gets the roster to around 82/83 wins, but if Breslow looks at the rest of the organization and says "this is a 72 win team with no pitching in the minors to bolster it" then it would make a ton of sense NOT to add just one 30ish year old SP.
I didn't even want to contemplate it being that bleak, but it would also coincide more with the way they've acted (or not acted) this off-season. But if someone comes in from outside, looks at the organization and says "this group isn't good enough to win in 2024 or 2025, maybe it starts to come together in 2026" then I wouldn't sign JM either.
Of course, if I did think that, I'd certainly trade Sale for a young middle infielder; trade Verdugo for the best pitching I could get; probably not bother to protect the organizations ostensibly "best" starting pitching prospect from the rule 5 draft and basically be starting the rebuild over by making anyone and anything that isn't part of 2026 and beyond available (and actively shopping) for trades.
*It's also of course possible that their internal systems say "FanGraphs is wrong and we think this is already an 85 win team." However, were that the case, I think they would have added some more short term pieces and would not be listening on the back half of their bullpen.
Thanks - I type quickly but poorly. Thank God for spell check.
Yeah, we could end up in exactly the same spot. Like you, I'd be happy to see Montgomery on a fair deal. . .but I'm not sure how signing Montgomery to an overpaid deal significantly changes the outlook for the next off-season. In short, he's not a must-have. (And even "must-haves" have limits. . .so it's never "must.")
The Sox really do have to develop internally and then augment when they're ready to compete. In most competitive years, Montgomery would be that kind of acquisition.
And how were they to best the farms in division over last 4 years?
Why is it expected to get worse?
This is sort of an either/or framing of the issue.
It's more likely Breslow has a more nuanced view of their competitiveness, that the Sox internal modeling suggests a range of possible outcomes and their probability. If that's the case, which is is almost certain to be, there's no incongruity between:
1) Having a moderate or decent chance to be competitive, and:
2) Trading an unreliable and polarizing Sale to potentially fix 2B for this season (where we had no one ready) and for years to come. Trading Sale also lets you commit to using another pitcher in a dedicated starting role if you believe Sale will be out a portion of the year or needs extra rotation skips. Because they should have learned that bobbing players in and out of a SP role mid season tends to be sub-optimal with their roster.
3) Trading the only player whom the manager publicly goads and disciplines (Verdugo), who had one year of control left, and in a way that allows you to replace him with his RHH version (O'Neill).
***Lastly, "Again, I'm in the camp that is on the "about as down on the last 4 years as possible for a fan"" is, nowadays, a pretty extreme statement.
Because there are a few about who not only see the glass as half-empty, but as poisonous.
On the flipside, Philly's one of the few spots that would effectively be paying a 50% tax on Montgomery's 2024 AAV, barring considerable changes to their roster.
Boras has been seeding the idea that Philly's going to swoop in for a couple weeks now. We all know Dave, so it's hard to dispute, but it doesn't make a ton of sense, especially if they're locking down Wheeler.
Doesn't the question of "Does signing Montgomery (or anyone else) to a 4 or 5 year deal at 25M per hurt you in future years?" really depend upon the expected budget or payroll amounts in those future years?
That is, if the expectation or plan is to have payroll at or around the CBT threshold, then according to Spotrac we currently have an estimated 125M to spend for 2025 ,145M to spend in 2026, and more in 2027 and 2028 (when Story and Yoshida contracts finally lapse). With arb and pre-arb players reasonably expected to cover much of the starting lineup, it seems highly unlikely that adding a contract at 25M per annum through these years would hamstring the team's ability to build out the rest of the team by taking on more contracts. For instance, even if they spend 25M on Montgomery (whose flaws I acknolwedge) the team would still have 100M to spend on 2025's team. In other words, unless overall payroll is going down, I struggle with the claim that investing in this way now practically trades future wins for current wins.
If, by contrast, the bottom line payroll number is being significantly reduced not just this year but for 2025 and 2026 well below the CBT threshold, then it follows that spending 25M per annum in these years will eat up more of the payroll room available. That is more a function of the decision to reduce payroll than the singing of Montgomery though.
Broadly you could think of it this way: The team was faced with two broad options: 1. spend wisely but aggressively up to or around CBT in the next year or 3 trying to get team to realistic 86-92 win level, OR 2. save the money on FA purchases this year, and likely next, let the payroll drop accordingly, and wait until the team gets better, without significant FA acquisitions, before increasing payroll again. It seems they are telling us that they have chosen option 2 but time will tell. My main concern is that if they hold to this option 2, we could wait a long time before we get "good enough" to again justify buying some established players (ie pitchers) to get better.
That is, if the expectation or plan is to have payroll at or around the CBT threshold, then according to Spotrac we currently have an estimated 125M to spend for 2025 ,145M to spend in 2026, and more in 2027 and 2028 (when Story and Yoshida contracts finally lapse). With arb and pre-arb players reasonably expected to cover much of the starting lineup, it seems highly unlikely that adding a contract at 25M per annum through these years would hamstring the team's ability to build out the rest of the team by taking on more contracts. For instance, even if they spend 25M on Montgomery (whose flaws I acknolwedge) the team would still have 100M to spend on 2025's team. In other words, unless overall payroll is going down, I struggle with the claim that investing in this way now practically trades future wins for current wins.
If, by contrast, the bottom line payroll number is being significantly reduced not just this year but for 2025 and 2026 well below the CBT threshold, then it follows that spending 25M per annum in these years will eat up more of the payroll room available. That is more a function of the decision to reduce payroll than the singing of Montgomery though.
Broadly you could think of it this way: The team was faced with two broad options: 1. spend wisely but aggressively up to or around CBT in the next year or 3 trying to get team to realistic 86-92 win level, OR 2. save the money on FA purchases this year, and likely next, let the payroll drop accordingly, and wait until the team gets better, without significant FA acquisitions, before increasing payroll again. It seems they are telling us that they have chosen option 2 but time will tell. My main concern is that if they hold to this option 2, we could wait a long time before we get "good enough" to again justify buying some established players (ie pitchers) to get better.
Edited down for sake of response, hopefully nothing is taken out of context - please tell me if so.
Probably right - and of course I have no idea what their modeling looks like. I didn't want to put "numbers" on it because then it becomes more of a "where do you get those numbers" as opposed to something general.
If I WERE to make a guess, at least they way I look at the current roster is that there is a 50% chance (highest likelihood) they end up around 75 wins. A 15% chance they end up above 80 (least likely) and a 35% chance they end up below 72 wins. I agree that you're right that its more nuanced. But if I looked at a team and said "there is an 85% chance we end up at (lets say) 77 wins or less" and a "15% chance we end up with more", then I wouldn't sign Montgomery either (and keep in mind, I WANT THEM TO SIGN MONTGOMERY) but that would be my argument / rationale for not doing as such and what would make NOT doing it rational.
Fair about the view of the fanbase. I was trying to keep it to SoSH, where I think we're more nuanced and informed than general fan. So I'll amend that to "about as down as possible on the last 4 years as possible for someone that takes the time to post on SoSH and knew who Vaughn Grissom and Dickie Fitts were before they became the signature moves of the off-season."
True. Maybe we'll see how good DD is at squeezing money out of his owner.
Last edited:
So is your point that Pivetta and Montgomery are essentially the same value as a pitcher (as you heavily implied in the post he was responding to) because fWAR is flawed? Are you saying that fWAR is penalizing Pivetta because he is a groundball pitcher (which he is not) or was it random hand waving? The percentage was not showing an calculation of absolute value, which would be flawed, but instead showed the massive gap in relative value. I know numbers especially counting losses aren't your thing but it is absolutely appropriate to call out a bullshit comment like Pivetta is essentially as valuable as Montgomery by showing the sizeable gap in their relative value. The exactness of 79% is probably not needed because it is just an estimation of relative value but it is no where near as lazy or misplaced as saying "[Montgomery] may or may not be as good as Nick Pivetta?"
Because the Red Sox continue to lose and have less talent pipelining in than the teams that beating them.
The top end of the market is just riddled with flawed players. It's such an odd year overall.
Why don't you read my original post? The answers to all your questions are there.
View: https://twitter.com/mike_petriello/status/1758150214685176214
The O's have not had a good morning..
Bunch of injuries just announced
The O's have not had a good morning..
Bunch of injuries just announced
- Status