The difference is very obviously the innings count. Houck's ERA the third time through the order goes over 12, Montgomery's stays under 4.
Let's Lay Off That Throttle
- Thread starter soxhop411
- Start date
The issue is not whether Jordan Montgomery is better than Houck. It's whether a pitcher with a career bERA+ of 116, and who's had only one season exceeding that mark, is worth a 5/150 contract. I'm personally am skeptical that paying $30M/yr for a good, not close-to-great, pitcher's inevitable decline years is a prudent baseball decision.
That's a reasonable question. In my mind though Montgomery's value to this team lies beyond whether he's an "ace" or not; it's in his ability to stabilize a volatile staff that is currently relying on multiples of Crawford/Houck/Whitlock(/Winckowski?) going full years as starters. None of them have proven to be 180 IP guys like Montgomery, and that's been a serious tax on the bullpen two years running.
Is Montgomery worth 30 million by $/WAR alone? Almost certainly not. Can he still be worth it for his overall effect on the rest of the rotation? I'd personally say yes. Would spending that 30 million prevent them from doing other things that would be even more valuable? I have no idea.
Is Montgomery worth 30 million by $/WAR alone? Almost certainly not. Can he still be worth it for his overall effect on the rest of the rotation? I'd personally say yes. Would spending that 30 million prevent them from doing other things that would be even more valuable? I have no idea.
Yes, but the point is not to compare the two but rather to say that we aren't talking about a guy who would normally be looking at a payday like this if not for a postseason run and massive scarcity on the free agent market.
I think he would. He's been a top 20 guy in baseball over the last 3 years by IP and fWAR. He's a different sort of investment from a Snell or Rodon or DeGrom but the value is definitely there.
For an individual pitcher, that's fine. Maybe there's one guy who isn't worth the money that he's asking. But as we see all of the top pitchers sign somewhere else, maybe it's not as much of a them problem as it is an us problem.
@chawson - truly appreciate you answering the question. I admit that I disagree pretty strongly with your interpretation of the information we have available to us, but I understand your argument better.
Regarding Jansen (or Martin) it depends to me on what you get back. As an example, I think that if the Red Sox ate a significant portion of the deal for Jansen (read, make him free) they'd get a pretty nice return back from somebody in terms of something that fits a lot better in the 2025+ window. If they move Jansen and Team X pays all his salary and the Sox get some lottery ticket prospect, then I'd argue it's shedding payroll just to save money. If they on the other hand eat the entire deal(s) to get back something pretty useful for the long term, it's a different scenario, at least to me.
Or, put another way, they'd be "spending" salary in 2024 to purchase something they can't on the open market - controllable pieces, likely in terms of prospects or young players.
Forgive me if I'm not understanding your question completely. But in summation - to me at least - there would be a massive difference between something like scenario a) trading Jansen and covering none of his salary to the Dodgers for a single A prospect and b) trading Jansen, Martin and Abreu while covering 70% their salaries to the Marlins for Max Meyer, even though they're both shedding payroll.
As to the Montgomery discussion, I think we're talking about him more because of the pretty much revolving door of suck that has been the Red Sox starting rotation from most of 2020-present and the fact that there really isn't anyone in the pipeline we should depend on fixing that any time in the next 2-3 years. He's not an Ace, and I wouldn't even argue he's an SP1. He's also consistently above average (another way to look at him only once having bettered the ERA plus posted above, which is totally accurate, is that the only time he's had an ERA+ below 112 were his seasons directly surrounding Tommy John Surgery. He's been incredibly consistent in terms of being a 2/3 type starter, which not only the 2024 Red Sox (but also the 2025+ Red Sox) desperately need.
I think he's an opportunity to sign "Hiroki Kuroda" and I think the Red Sox are making a massive mistake in not doing it (I think there is a less than 1% chance he signs with Boston).
Edited down for clarity of response, but as to the first point, I don't necessarily think so. Example, Seattle moving Kelenic and Gonzales to the Braves for nothing is something that I think of as cutting payroll for the sake of cutting payroll. Same for Miami when they dealt Stanton to NYY.
Regarding Jansen (or Martin) it depends to me on what you get back. As an example, I think that if the Red Sox ate a significant portion of the deal for Jansen (read, make him free) they'd get a pretty nice return back from somebody in terms of something that fits a lot better in the 2025+ window. If they move Jansen and Team X pays all his salary and the Sox get some lottery ticket prospect, then I'd argue it's shedding payroll just to save money. If they on the other hand eat the entire deal(s) to get back something pretty useful for the long term, it's a different scenario, at least to me.
Or, put another way, they'd be "spending" salary in 2024 to purchase something they can't on the open market - controllable pieces, likely in terms of prospects or young players.
Forgive me if I'm not understanding your question completely. But in summation - to me at least - there would be a massive difference between something like scenario a) trading Jansen and covering none of his salary to the Dodgers for a single A prospect and b) trading Jansen, Martin and Abreu while covering 70% their salaries to the Marlins for Max Meyer, even though they're both shedding payroll.
As to the Montgomery discussion, I think we're talking about him more because of the pretty much revolving door of suck that has been the Red Sox starting rotation from most of 2020-present and the fact that there really isn't anyone in the pipeline we should depend on fixing that any time in the next 2-3 years. He's not an Ace, and I wouldn't even argue he's an SP1. He's also consistently above average (another way to look at him only once having bettered the ERA plus posted above, which is totally accurate, is that the only time he's had an ERA+ below 112 were his seasons directly surrounding Tommy John Surgery. He's been incredibly consistent in terms of being a 2/3 type starter, which not only the 2024 Red Sox (but also the 2025+ Red Sox) desperately need.
I think he's an opportunity to sign "Hiroki Kuroda" and I think the Red Sox are making a massive mistake in not doing it (I think there is a less than 1% chance he signs with Boston).
Last edited:
I saw the $225m home page summary # on Cots for 2023. But I was/am a little unclear how it actually gets there from the $216,772,500 I see listed within the actual breakdown chart (or maybe I'm just a dummy and reading this thing wrong).
I think it’s fine to not spend if you don’t think the right assets are available. I think it’s fine to wait another year for the core to develop.
But making your park one of the top expensive places to visit in the league - and continuing to raise prices is not okay. They’ve priced out casual visit and now it’s like Disneyland where you need to save up to go.
If you’re going to charge top dollar you have to spend top dollar. Or at least act like a team that will.
Once again though - it’s the messaging being conveyed. It doesn’t feel like an ownership trying to win anything but their return on investment and that’s annoying.
Being a bad team that tries is better than whatever it is we are watching.
But making your park one of the top expensive places to visit in the league - and continuing to raise prices is not okay. They’ve priced out casual visit and now it’s like Disneyland where you need to save up to go.
If you’re going to charge top dollar you have to spend top dollar. Or at least act like a team that will.
Once again though - it’s the messaging being conveyed. It doesn’t feel like an ownership trying to win anything but their return on investment and that’s annoying.
Being a bad team that tries is better than whatever it is we are watching.
Sure, I mean clearly you're not alone in your disagreement.
What makes you so sure? How do you reconcile the fact that the 2024 payroll is currently at $201.88 million while we're reportedly one of the final teams in the running for Montgomery — whose salary will easily clear $20 million AAV and likely then some — and planning to acquire "a right-handed bat, particularly one that has some positional versatility," as Breslow directly told Rob Bradford on his podcast last week.
I believe that report indicates the Sox are still in contact with Montgomery; I didn’t see anything about them being a “finalist”, or even any indication that JM has narrowed the list of the teams he’s speaking to.
Simple: they have no intention of signing Montgomery to a $20M+ annual deal. They just want to be seen as “in the running”. Or if his market collapses, get a bargain deal.
Just to answer the questions, and not to belabor the point.
Q1) - I trust Speier and McCaffery.
I also look at their actions and inaction. It's also something that I've kind of assumed for a while about how they operate. Keep in mind, I don't even think it's a BAD idea to have a budget of $LTT(.97) on a given year. When there is so much circumstantial evidence of a pattern of behavior, I believe it's more than coincidence.
Q2) - That's why I asked about your stance on if it was to reduce payroll for the sake of it or if there is a budget.
The way I reconcile that is the budget (in my mind) is roughly $LTT(.97). Lets say Monty would fit come in at 7/$175m (just because that is the number I've personally been saying since November is what it will take him to choose the Sox offer over Texas and whatever other teams might be in on him) and it's $25m per year. That puts them at roughly $227m. Leaves them around $5m to add a bench bat somewhere between O'Neill and Refnsyder in salary.
Again, I'm not saying they're reducing payroll to reduce payroll or anything like that. But do think $LTT(.97) is basically their budget for a year, and those moves stay under that. I think they COULD get Monty in under that number easily. I also don't think for a second they're going to do it (as in give the money to Motnty) because...
The main reason I don't think they're going to do it is because the last time they gave big money to a pitcher over 30 that wasn't given out by DDski was Lackey in 2010 and when they have had (at present) 5 "GMs" since that time frame (Theo, Cherington, DDski, Bloom and now Breslow) and the only one to give out that kind of deal was DDski (once, to Price). Nearly 15 seasons of data is a lot of "evidence" to not take into account, at least in my opinion.
*When it's all said and done, I think they're probably going to have a payroll of around $224m this year. I think they'll probably sign a RHH and some junk heap starting pitcher, that I'll call James Paxton (could be Lorenzen, Ryu or whatever). It'll be spent on two players with one year deals that do nothing (my opinion) in terms of making the team closer to a playoff contender in 2024 nor in 2025 and beyond. But I think it will be spent, and it will be below the LTT. FWIW, I think those two moves will also be, in essence, lighting $24m on fire.
Last edited:
I agree with this. That is where Montgomery's value lies. The question, I think, is whether the front office considers that a worthy enough consideration to spend $25-30M on for the 2024 Red Sox. The 2024 Red Sox definitely have a need for that kind of guy, but will the 2025 and 2026 Red Sox if Bailey and Breslow are able to bring some more pitching in, or develop what is already here? Will Montgomery still be that guy in 2025 and 2026, or in 2027 and 2028 when he'll probably still be under contract? I think Montgomery would help the 2024 Red Sox a decent bit, and might even be able to get them into the postseason. I'm not sure about how likely a postseason berth is even with Montgomery, and if Breslow feels that giving Montgomery 5 years to help the 2024 Red Sox isn't worth the questions about how his contract would impact the future teams, then I can understand that.
Part of my frustration is the luxury tax threshold and the situation surrounding it.
In 2022, they managed to stay over the threshold while not improving the team on the field. The Vasquez trade was positive, but the team still went over the mark and also finished last in the division.
I am not sure if this was explicitly said, but personally I thought that resetting that tax threshold meant they were in the market for high-end talent. Maybe I was connecting dots that were not meant to be connected, but going into the offseason it seemed like they were poised to spend without putting themselves in another luxury tax bind.
Now we have the message that payroll will be lower this year. Even with that, there is some daylight to spend more now and still have a lower payroll. Again, this has been a messaging issue for those of us who do not know the "real" limit or budget.
The part that I can't get past is the comments about ticket prices, citing the "attraction of Fenway" like its a theme park, and cheap tickets for students. Nothing about the premium price being tied to watching a premium product. Yikes.
In 2022, they managed to stay over the threshold while not improving the team on the field. The Vasquez trade was positive, but the team still went over the mark and also finished last in the division.
I am not sure if this was explicitly said, but personally I thought that resetting that tax threshold meant they were in the market for high-end talent. Maybe I was connecting dots that were not meant to be connected, but going into the offseason it seemed like they were poised to spend without putting themselves in another luxury tax bind.
Now we have the message that payroll will be lower this year. Even with that, there is some daylight to spend more now and still have a lower payroll. Again, this has been a messaging issue for those of us who do not know the "real" limit or budget.
The part that I can't get past is the comments about ticket prices, citing the "attraction of Fenway" like its a theme park, and cheap tickets for students. Nothing about the premium price being tied to watching a premium product. Yikes.
Again: not snark. It’s true that people can “think and feel whatever they want.” It’s also true that some of the posts in the last 24 hours are so untethered from reality that assuming good faith is the uncharitable approach. Here's an example.
There is no reporting in the linked article that we are a "finalist" for Montgomery.
Well I guess we'll see. The obvious question is if he wants to go to the Rangers so badly, and they want him back, why is it taking so long? Comparable situations this winter (Nola, Gray) signed 6-8 weeks ago.
The Rangers have $107 million tied up in their starting pitching right now in deGrom, Scherzer (with NYM covering $30M), Mahle, Eovaldi, Gray, Heaney, and Dunning. They've also got the Bally Sports dilemma. I can only speculate what they're gonna do, but it's reasonable to think they might pause before adding another long-term $25 million AAV contract to that. Maybe they can offload Gray and Heaney pretty easily? I don't know.
Anyway, I have no doubt the Sox interest is genuine, and it's hardly a crime, or evidence of scandal, to wait out a Boras client's asking price. Montgomery has a 3.79 xFIP over his last three seasons. As a free agent, he's very comparable to Eduardo Rodriguez when he hit free agency a couple years ago. Rodriguez got 5/$77 two years ago and then 4/$80 this winter. Robbie Ray's deal with the Mariners is another comp, and he got 5/$115 (which is looking awful). I understand there's some inflation, but an 100% +/- inflation rate in two years seems a little high.
I'm more or less asking somebody to make the math actually work there behind any claim that the Sox appear to be making a concentrated effort to cut payroll from last year. At least in a more detailed manner that ultimately isn't dismissing away the most visible suggestive evidence to the contrary we actually have in favor of simply running with the (thus far) strictly vague insinuations coming out of the current media pile on.
I mean in all due respect to the media reports and their sourcing (Speier is a personal fav of mine), it's not like they have offered up anything of substance there that actually squares with the fact the Sox have by all accounts been actively pursuing guys on the tier 2 market level (that still adds payroll), and/or with the a trade like Sale happening that in essence is the exact opposite of what you'd expect to see out of a team actively trying to cut payroll. I personally need more then " we hear the Red Sox are listening to offers for Masataka Yoshida, but a trade isn’t seen as especially likely" before I'm willing to make my final FU to the FO stand and let my fandom die on that hill.
Square it for me in a scenario where some of these tier 2 guys take those contracts. Telling me you believe the Sox turn around afterwards and dump salary for the primary goal of dumping salary in the event that would have or (in the case of Soler) does happen squares it. Telling me "it depends" on what happens afterwards doesn't. For me trying to have it both ways there seems to be just as guilty here of doing what people are claiming Chawson is within his own desired narrative.
Chawson didn't say finalist (implying Montgomery has narrowed down the suitors), they said final teams in the running, which I think is fair; certainly the Dodgers aren't in on him, the Yankees got Stroman so they're probably out, what are his likely destinations? Texas, Boston, SF, ??? I get that Chawson has takes at odds with most of the board's opinions, but being in the minority doesn't mean the rest of us should all just put them on ignore.
And accusing posters of carrying water for ownership or polishing their resume or whatever is never going to further discussion.
Is it beyond the realm of possibilities that Kennedy said payroll would “probably be lower, I don’t know for sure, we don’t talk about specific payroll numbers” because it currently is lower? And that saying otherwise would effectively serve as an instruction to Breslow? Or a promise that isn’t his to make?
I realize he could have said nothing at all (and should have). I also don’t know the wording of the question that was posed to him or the setting (though I’m imagining a staged press gaggle before the public). He didn’t say the budget was lower. He said the payroll was. And it is! It’s the safest thing to say if you have to give an answer at all.
I know a lot of your minds are made up here, hut to me the full quote seems more of a non-statement/deferral than a definitive one. I’m considering the fact that we’re reportedly in on Montgomery and a RHB bat, and given the other statements from Breslow about ownership giving him their “full blessing” whenever he’s presented a path forward. Without having heard the tone and context, Kennedy’s statement seems to me like it could be a cousin to the typical exec response to “we don’t discuss free agents or players who are not on our team.” They were also very careful not to mention Giolito at the presser before his official announce even though it had been widely reported.
I realize he could have said nothing at all (and should have). I also don’t know the wording of the question that was posed to him or the setting (though I’m imagining a staged press gaggle before the public). He didn’t say the budget was lower. He said the payroll was. And it is! It’s the safest thing to say if you have to give an answer at all.
I know a lot of your minds are made up here, hut to me the full quote seems more of a non-statement/deferral than a definitive one. I’m considering the fact that we’re reportedly in on Montgomery and a RHB bat, and given the other statements from Breslow about ownership giving him their “full blessing” whenever he’s presented a path forward. Without having heard the tone and context, Kennedy’s statement seems to me like it could be a cousin to the typical exec response to “we don’t discuss free agents or players who are not on our team.” They were also very careful not to mention Giolito at the presser before his official announce even though it had been widely reported.
A little consistency would be nice. Someone can say they have no doubt of something like, for example, Red Sox interest in Montgomery being real and it's just accepted reality at this point. Another poster can say that they worry the interest is only real if it comes in under market value, based on reporting no less, and they get snarky replies for that belief. It's fine to have opinions but don't expect yours to just be accepted if you're going to poo poo others that are just as valid because it's all speculation at this point.
Chawson says: "we're reportedly one of the final teams in the running for Montgomery." The linked article does not say anything of the sort. It's a claim made up out of thin air and should be understood as such.
Making up claims to support one's point is not exactly in the service of "furthering discussion."
The article below clearly lists the Red Sox as one of four likely remaining suitors, along with the Rangers, Giants and Angels. I am not sure how that is anything other than "one of the final teams in the running".
MLBTR Poll: Jordan Montgomery's Market - MLB Trade Rumors
He was pressed on the payroll and declined to answer a few times...he finally gave the "probably be lower" line. After that he gave context and said we don't talk about specific payroll numbers.
My read of that is that he realized he shouldn't have caved and answered with "probably be lower" after declining to answer a few times and then tried to cover his ass a bit after.
I really think you are ignoring the context of all of this. Kennedy knew he was walking into the lion's den with this Winter Weekend. They don't want to give fans any more reason to boo them. If anything, the "probably be lower" seems like it was a slip up by Sam into their real budgetary plan.
There is a ton of smoke around the payroll going down. In addition to the media reports that have been covered here extensively, Gammons tweeted that FSG lost money and Breslow didn't have the payroll he thought he would when he accepted the job.
I understand that you want to be optimistic but you are trying to parse all of these quotes that aren't great into something positive and it's just not there
The article does not "clearly list the Red Sox as one of the four likely remaining suitors." Instead, it discusses the Red Sox's chances along with other teams; the pertinent sentence reads: "The Red Sox have also been connected to Montgomery in recent weeks, though the club’s payroll limitations likely mean they’d need to move salary to make room for an arm of Montgomery’s caliber."
If you can find textual evidence in the article that describes the Red Sox as a finalist, please share.
There are lots of discussions about "standards" on this site. One good standard would be: When false claims are advanced, they are retracted.
Well that's up to the poster doing the claiming, so while I agree that would be ideal, it's out of our control. But by all means they should be challenged and debunked, vigorously if necessary. Readers can see what's happening. That's not limited to any one poster or any one thread, either.
And honestly, calling it a false claim in this particular instance is maybe a bit much, but it is certainly stretching the truth and adding its own spin. Not that that's a whole lot better, and it's kind of ironic, really.
Personally, I'll be glad when the logjam on deals finally breaks and we can talk about real things rather than the subjective interpretations of reporter gossip.
Ah, fair. I'll let someone else do that because I'm not making the claim they're actively trying to cut payroll. I don't think they necessarily are. I think they're trying to keep to a budget, which I call $LTT(.97). Major difference.
I do have one question though - and maybe this is from being a long time lurker but short time poster and I just didn't read closely enough - where did this idea that the Red Sox were going to splurge in the off-season in 2024, or ever just blow through the luxury tax before the season starts even come from. They've owned the team for two decades, and have pretty much always adhered to a luxury tax budget. Somewhere along the line (and this was before Warner's Full Throttle comment) this alternate reality where they'd spend massive money going into a season became accepted, and I don't know where or why. They're never really done that.
I'm using Cots because it nicely lays out previous year's payrolls, if this is not a valid site, someone correct me.
If formatting doesn't come out well, I have year, Luxury Tax Threshold, Sox budget to start the year (the ** are for years that the payroll ended the season above the LTT threshold).
2003 - LTT = $117m; RSP = $99.9M; (Below 1)
2004 - $120.5; $127.2 (Above 1)**
2005 - $128M; $123.5 (Below 2)
2006 - $136.5; $120.1 (Below 3)**
2007 - $148m; $133.3 (Below 4)**
2008 - $155m; $133.4m (Below 5)
2009 - $162m; $121m (Below 6)
2010 - $170m; $168.1m (Below 7)**
2011 - $178m; $163.8m (Below 8)
2012 - $178m; $175.3m (Below 9)
2013 - $178m; $154.5m (Below 10)
2014 - $189m; $156.4m (Below 11)
2015 - $189m; $184.3m (Below 12)
2016 - $189m; $197.9m (Above 2)**
2017 - $195m; $197m (Above 3)
2018 - $197m; $233.7m (Above 4)**
2019 - $206m; $236.2m (Above 5)**
2020 - Not sure how to properly calculate that because of the prorated numbers, we all know they were (in)famously at this point below, however - Below 13.
2021 - $210m; $180.2m (Below 14)
2022 - $230m; $206.6m (Below 15)
2023 - $233m; $187.2m (Below 16)
So in the past 20 seasons, they've started the season below the luxury tax limit 16 times, above it 5 (every season with DDski and 2004).
Further, over the past 20 seasons, they've finished the year below the Luxury Tax Threshold 13 times, above the luxury tax limit 7 times (including 3 of the 4 seasons with DDski).
Generally speaking, they start they year below it 80% of the time, and finish below it 65% of the time. So again, where on Earth did this idea that they'd just blow through it (or that they don't have a pretty general budget of starting the year below the Luxury Tax Threshold) even come from?
Luxury Tax Thresholds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Baseball_luxury_tax
Sox Payrolls https://legacy.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/al-east/boston-red-sox/
I am all for trading Jansen. Having a high priced closer on a team that seems to have resigned itself through official statements and potentially reduced payroll to be stepping backwards temporarily in the competitive AL East, seems to be an unnecessary luxury.
Going to be interesting to see how they pull it off if they do go in that direction.
1. Fully or close to fully subsidized Jansen for a legit younger piece should be well received.
2. Partially subsidized Jansen for a lesser prospect will not be lauded.
3. Non-subsidized Jansen for salary savings that are reinvested in club should be applauded, but they may have to eat some more horrible press if the reinvestment of funds is not very soon after the jettisoning of Jansen.
4. Non-subsidized Jansen and no reinvestment of funds= pitchforks.
Going to be interesting to see how they pull it off if they do go in that direction.
1. Fully or close to fully subsidized Jansen for a legit younger piece should be well received.
2. Partially subsidized Jansen for a lesser prospect will not be lauded.
3. Non-subsidized Jansen for salary savings that are reinvested in club should be applauded, but they may have to eat some more horrible press if the reinvestment of funds is not very soon after the jettisoning of Jansen.
4. Non-subsidized Jansen and no reinvestment of funds= pitchforks.
I think the idea came from the team's needs (starting pitching) lining up perfectly with the FA market (the strongest starter FA class in ages, at least before Urias expelled himself and Nola went hometown discount and Ohtani killed his elbow again), the cap reset last year and money coming off the books in 2025, and the overlap of the window lining up with the expected graduation of prospects over the next year.
I guess. But even with cap resets when they've happened before, it hasn't led to massive spending during the off-season, at least 80% of the time, with a large sample size.
Someone might have looked at the above (what you mentioned) and surmised it, but if so they just completely disregarded two decades of spending patterns by the same ownership group to do it. Which, of course, is anyone's choice to do, it's just not grounded in looking at the pattern of behavior in any substantive manner.
Side bar, they're probably not gonna do it in 2025, 2026, 2027 and 2028 either. They might do it ONE of those years in sticking with their pattern in 20 years of ownership, but likely not more than that, and not without reducing spending back down the following year(s). Sticking to the $LTT as rough budget is an action we've seen repeated over and over (and one that, excepting the past 4 years, has generally worked really freaking well).
Thanks for this post.
Along with @simplicio 's post above, I think it also has to do with the fact that there is quite a bit of payroll coming off the books next season as well, so if they spend this year it should be an easy reset next season, especially assuming the prospects develop as expected. Cot's has them at ~$98M on the books next (before arbitration estimates) so if there was going to be a year where they went over, this would be a really good one to do it.
I also think it was assumed on here at the end of last season when they fired Bloom. He was the guy tasked with getting under a certain threshold after the more freewheeling DD days. He was also looked at as a TB Rays type guy and they aren't big spenders. So most people assumed that the Sox were once again going to zag from the Bloom zig after DD. Then the new guys comes in and states that they want to add two starting pitchers. Then over the course of the last couple weeks, Lucy yanked the football away from Charlie yet again.
Happy to. I've always operated on (and talked about) fitting things into the construct of the $LTT budget and just kind of assumed it happened so much it was accepted as fact, but I guess it wasn't (you know what they say about assumptions...)
To the last point (a really good year to do it) I think past history shows that there really ISN'T a time they're going to do it. The DDski years read more to me like the clear outlier (and of course 2004 which I think we'd all agree was a different time in Red Sox history). By and large, they just plain old don't do it.
Keep in mind, I'm not saying they won't spend. That is not my argument at all. I'm saying "they wont spend over the $LTT" starting the year, and generally they're a lot more apt to go over it during the year if the team is good, but not start the year over it.
Again - it's worked for them. So I'm not really arguing they should spend more than $LTT, I've just kind of hated they way they've spent it recently.
You seem to be doing the same thing and just on the opposite side of the spun narrative spectrum. So I'll again ask and this time to you specifically. Make the actual math that needs to end up supporting your claim that the Sox are making a concentrated effort to cut payroll from last year work for me.
Do you believe the Sox FO put that contract in front of Imanaga with an accompanying intention to dump contract value elsewhere in the event he signed it? If so are you claiming the same thing will happen if we sign Soler?
I understand you want to be pessimistic but you also are trying to parse all of these strictly vague media insinuations into something more negative and it's just not there imo.
No one wants to be pessimistic about the Red Sox. Based on both their actions for the last 4 years, as well as their public statements, they have lost all benefit of the doubt that A) they are willing to spend to win and B) they are attempting to field a championship (or even playoff) level team. They are guilty until proven innocent at this point.
I am confused as to what you are even getting at. Did you read my post? Some of the stuff you are throwing into this I never even mentioned. I honestly feel like I am going crazy reading posts like this.
It's not a "narrative". It's not "strictly vague media insinuations". I don't need to do any math either. It's the fucking President of the baseball team saying that the payroll will probably be lower in an environment where he is getting booed off the stage.
I have no idea what will happen if they signed Imanaga or if they sign Soler. I never once claimed they did. I am talking about the statement made by Sam Kennedy at the Winter Weekend.
Once again, this is a direct quote from Sam Kennedy. This isn't an off the record thing from an agent or a "vague media insinuation". Sam Kennedy responded to a question, after prodding, saying that the payroll will probably be lower than last year.
EDIT: And to be more specific, the line you are quoting in my post to Chawson, I was referencing Kennedy's quote specifically. That may be where the confusion lies (on both ends)
Last edited:
You are 100% correct, but he also said "I'm not sure". To me if it was going to be significantly lower, he would damn well know it. It seems there's room to think it will actually end up close to the same if he's "not sure" of the actual numbers.
Bottom line he said probably lower, but nothing about how much lower, and given the context, I don't think it necessarily implied anything drastic. YMMV, but there's daylight for interpretation there.
That's fair but I do think the context pushes it more towards "the payroll will be lower and he knows it".
This is my interpretation here. Maybe I am crazy but here it goes:
Kennedy is basically FSG's flak jacket. They send him out there to deliver bad news. He's a human being, I am sure he doesn't like doing that. He was the first person introduced at this event where they knew that they were going to get booed. IMO, if he had anything positive to say or thought there was a chance that the payroll would be increased his quote would have been different.
This is from Jen McCaffrey in The Athletic about his quote:
"Part of the frustration stems from a reduction in spending in recent years, and in speaking with the media, Kennedy was asked about the 2024 payroll. At first, he repeated a line noting he would not get into specific numbers but later acknowledged that they expect a lower payroll than the $225.8 million payroll in 2023."
Werner also later talked about how teams that spend money don't necessarily win and cited teams that didn't spend a ton of money that did end up winning.
I will say this, if I am wrong and Kennedy is negotiating with Boras through this event or if the payroll ends up higher in 2024, that man has got balls of steel and I am incredibly impressed with his moxy. I know I wouldn't have opened myself up to the ridicule and boos that he did.
I'm honestly just sick of the whole ownership discussion. I'm on record as thinking they are a complete clown show and can't get a coherent thought out, and keep tripping on their dicks, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are going to cut payroll significantly just for the sake of doing so.
We'll see the payroll numbers when the product is finished, until then this whole conversation is basically worthless.
I've been reading your posts. Kinda hard to miss since the more negative toned ones tend to stick out to me.
Again, I was just asking if you could make the supporting math work for me as somebody who was seemingly pushing the hardest here on the claim that the Sox are making a concentrated effort to cut payroll from last year. Which for the record is *not* the same thing as what Sam Kennedy said when put in it's actual context.
You obviously have no interest in doing that with a "I don't need to do any math" response. Since apparently such payroll math would have no relevance in any such discussion equation for you. So I'll just move on and leave it at.
Both Cots and Spotrac have the 2024 projected payroll - based on the team as constructed - lower than the 2023 one. All the Sox have to do is not sign another free agent, claim that they were in on everybody but just lost out at the last minute for whatever reason (the FA wanted another year, only ever wanted to pitch in a city next to the Pacific, etc), tout that Bailey is going to supercharge the current crop of pitchers and... that's it. They can save money and appear to save face by selling the fanbase that the existing team is good and just needed a few tweaks. I am not sure that Giolito replacing Sale, then adding O'Neil and Grissom are going to fix the problems of last year, but that is something FSG can certainly try to sell. Personally, with everything that has transpired, I see this as plausible if not likely. That seems dependent on messaging and they have proven to be inadept at that, but it's certainly an option.
As for Imanaga and Soler specifically, it certainly is possible that after signing them the idea would have been to dump somebody. But I also think it's possible that Imanaga got more security from the Chicago contract and for Soler, I have no idea if the Sox are in on him. I know that some pundits thought he would be a good fit for the Sox, but he is mentioned a lot less frequently as a target on these boards for reasons that people smarter than me have.
ETA: for clarity with regards to Imanaga, I mean that the Sox made an offer, Imanaga liked the Cubs one better and the Sox went "whelp, ok!" and that was the end of it. I don't know, but I would not be surprised if the Sox had no interest in matching or exceeding the Cubs offer.
Last edited:
I am not trying to be snarky but I am still confused as to what you are asking and what you are getting at.
I’ll just recap my stance here I guess…
I don’t think the Sox came into this offseason with a hard and fast rule that they need to cut payroll. I think that they aren’t willing to pay the free agent prices that has been set with this market. Ergo, the payroll will be lower this year.
Earlier you brought up Imanaga. If they signed him I don’t know what the next domino to fall would have been. None of us do, so I can’t really provide any sort of math or answers there.
I thought it was pretty well established and that all of us knew that the current payroll is lower than last years. I didn’t realize that needed to be pointed out explicitly again.
If they sign a high priced free agent, maybe they will have to move salary. I don’t know. I don’t believe that they are going to sign a high priced free agent so that point may very well end up moot.
That proves nothing, certainly nothing about where payroll might end up. It's a bored writer tweet. What the hell are we doing here?
I would actually take that question a step further. Why is the most simple explanation of all at the core here not even being considered in favor of all these more elaborate and drama filled explanation to our downfall narratives?
I don't see a FO that is doing or saying anything different then they have since day 1. I don't see any concentrated effort within our approach to reduce the payroll happening. Putting our own valuations on guys and walking away when the market exceeded that isn't breaking any new ground here. Neither is the latest variation of the "spending smart with an eye on the future" speech. Neither is being mostly regulated to a side note in every very top end FA bidding war over the last 20 years that didn't see the yankees sitting on the sideline AND the LAD positioned far over the LT. These are long time staples in our approach, and an approach that was widely cheered on for a decade and half mind you.
As I've hit on in other threads all i see here is a same ol same ol approach, happening in a now drastically changed landscape that didn't evolve in our favor, and which simply does not work or pay out nearly as well as it once did. With THAT being the real fundemental problem playing itself out here.
The point is that @chawson took the earlier article as "proof" the Sox were in on Montgomery. If you read this tweet, it is the exact opposite.
As I wrote upthread, the front office has lost all benefit of the doubt. Until and unless they sign a significant free agent, we should not believe they will. For 4 years they have not shown a willingness to spend, or a willingness to put a truly competitive team on the field. They are guilty until proven innocent. We all hope that changes. But they do not deserve any faith right now. Zero.