He represents ownership. He speaks for Henry and probably should for Werner. If you want to know what the guys signing the checks think, you ask him.
Let's Lay Off That Throttle
- Thread starter soxhop411
- Start date
The team was 56-50 at the trade deadline and in obvious need for starting pitching. They were in the hunt and performing really well and fun to watch. They decided to do absolutely nothing at the deadline and the team crumbled while throwing out no name pitchers in the second half.
2 even major league average starters could have boosted that team to the playoffs.
This offseason we have been told by everyone associated with this organization - Breslow, Cora, Kennedy. EVERYONE. That they were going to get starting pitching. To date that are -1 MLB starter compared to 2023. Minus 1.
And now, we are lead to believe its because the opportunity cost of not letting Josh Winckowski start is too great?
Bullshit.
Winkowski has option, put him AAA where we have absolutely no starting depth. You need more than 5 starters. You need 7, 8, 9 to make it through a season.
The fact this team was so close last year, with a fatal flaw that everyone recognized and now the answer is "we need to kids to develop." It's pathetic.
The Winckowski portion of that article was really fucking tough to read. That's just wish casting to the highest level, there's absolutely no reason that you have to clear a lane for Josh fucking Winckowski to start at the major league level
Not much new reporting in Speier's article, it's kind of a summarizing folo piece that looks at the history of Sox payroll trends in back-to-back years.
Also this:
The way I read the second line is: No, they're not going to trade Mayer, Anthony or Teel for Corbin Burnes. I'm glad about that, personally. Does that mean they're putting too much pressure on the prospects as some are now theorizing? I don't really see it, but I get that some people are in a practice of schismogenesis here, defining their position by whatever feels appropriately oppositional to the Sox executives say and do.
The line about the Sale trade is interesting. I'm not sure why we should see that as strictly a cost-cutting move rather than a good baseball trade. Chris Sale had a substantial contract, it's true. But I don't think that's enough evidence for the case that trading him was an effort to shed payroll.
Speier also makes an interesting comparison of 2024 against the stated "bridge year" of 2010, saying that the Red Sox were willing to "pay for that structural upgrade" between homegrown cores by signing Beltré to a one-year deal, signing Scutaro and Cameron to two-year deals, and signing Lackey to a five-year deal.
The Sale trade could turn out to be a very fine baseball trade by Breslow. On the other hand, it did reduce payroll, and it did remove the team's best starting pitcher when healthy, in an offseason where everyone agreed starting pitching was the primary need. I think a lot of folks assumed that the payroll reduction would be reinvested in acquiring another starting pitcher of a higher caliber than Giolito.
I have no disagreement about last year's deadline. I said (starting with the first opportunity to really say it) that they should a) trade real prospects for a pitcher with term; b) trade guys outside the top 10 for rentals to try and get WC2 or WC3 and if they couldn't / wouldn't do either c) sell anyone that had value and wouldn't be part of the 2025+ core for something that might be.
But I do think that start was a lot of smoke and mirrors the way the schedule allowed them to skate by on a steady stream of openers. It was - like you said - obvious they needed starting pitching and they didn't get it. The fact that they did none of those things is still mind boggling and if it was the proverbial final straw to firing Bloom, I'm glad.
I can't be clear enough about the fact that I don't really think that Crawford is more than a back half of the rotation starter (he could flame out, he could move up to SP2, but I'm saying "back of the rotation" as most likely outcome), and I don't really think you're getting much more than bullpen pieces from Houck, Whitlock and Winckowski. My point isn't that I don't want / don't think they should have acquired some of Nola, Montgomery, Gray, Imanaga, Stroman, Rodriguez or any of the myriad of trades we've discussed - I do. I just have no interest in Mike Lorenzen or HJ Ryu with the rotation anything like it looks today. Because I think there is call it a 25% chance that one of Houck, Whitlock or Winckowski becomes a useful back half of the rotation starter and maybe a 65% chance that between Duran, Rafaela and Abreu you might have two OFs of the future, and i think there is a less than 1% chance that guys like Lorenzen, Soler or the like for one year make what is here presently into a playoff team.
The 2024 team (UNLESS you go out and acquire at least one top half of the rotation starter) is going nowhere. So if you're not going to get that starter, there is no point to the "meh" around the edges. To be clear, I think they should get that starter. But I've also resided myself to the fact that they're not going to. So you might as well see if any (and if so which ones) of Houck, Whitlock, Winckowski, Duran, Rafaela or Abreu can be part of the starting rotation / line up.
Solid post and I agree with most of this. I disagree with your stance that a Lorenzen or Ryu type shouldn't be signed at this point. Mainly because we still need some depth. If the team is largely going nowhere, outside of 50 things all breaking right at once, there is still some value in adding another dumpster dive-type starter just to make sure we are covered for poor performance and or injuries throughout the year because we don't have arms to fill in from Worcester.
I just cannot understand why this has become the narrative. FanGraphs projects the Red Sox has a 82 win team right now.
Imanaga + Teoscar would have gotten you to approximately 84 wins while still staying below the tax with no long term commitments. That's a team that has a real shot at the playoffs. Isn't that the goal? Is pitching Imanaga and DH'ing Teoscar really taking away from some magical development? No.
There was a real path to competition in 2024 without trading prospects, without signing long term detrimental contracts, and while staying below the tax.
Maybe they still go down that path, but boy does it look otherwise. Fans are completely justified in being upset by it.
@NickEsasky - I guess, and you can always trade one of them if they perform. At that point I admit that I just really don't care. 76 wins vs 79 wins doesn't matter to me in the least. On the one hand "it's not my money, so spend it."
However, on the other (at least if I were in charge of baseball ops and I'm clearly projecting my views onto the FO) I'd be telling Henry "The team I inherited isn't good, the farm system has three really good prospects but no pitching, and I'm not going to repeat the mistakes of the guy you just fired and tell you we can compete for the playoffs like this. Sure, we'll be within +/- 3 games of WC3 again but so will all but the 3 or 4 most horrendous teams in the league, and we're a lot closer to those teams than we are Houston, Texas, Baltimore or the Jays.
So I'm not planning to just light $10m of your money on fire for Mike Lorenzen and another $15m for Jorge Soler to go from 76 wins and miss the playoffs to 79 wins and make the playoffs. If you want me to, fine, I will, but that's your choice to waste $25m, not mine. I'd rather see if we can make one of Garrett Whitlock, Tanner Houck or Josh Winckowski into an SP5 for "free" than sign one for $10m because either way it isn't going to materially change the 2024 season. Assuming we can't, hopefully next year when I tell you I want to use that $25m that I saved last year and go get Corbin Burnes, you'll listen, because he WOULD make a difference."
@SouthernBoSox - I just don't think all that much of FanGraphs projections, truth be told. Just like I don't think all that much of their prospect rankings, mostly because I think it's all too focused on hitting and doesn't focus nearly enough on the much more scarce resource - starting pitching. If I were to bet, I'd be loading up on the "under" projections from Vegas (and I think 80 wins is closer than 82).
For the record, I mentioned Imanaga (and in other posts) Hernandez. I wanted them both signed to 3ish year deals. Build a sustainable "middle class" because obviously not all of the prospects will hit. One year deals do nothing to answer questions or provide stability on the present team. That didn't happen, obviously, and there is nobody else out there that is reasonably going to happen.
For what it's worth, I don't at all mind people being pissed off. I'm pissed off (that we're not acquiring a top half of the rotation starter with term), too. I truly don't understand the refusal to sign long or medium duration contracts (last year Bassitt, Tallion, giving Eovaldi what he wanted when he came back and asked for it and not bothering to sign Duvall, etc, Monty, giving Imanaga a better deal than the Cubs, Stroman, ERod, etc). But it exists, so now I'm trying to deal with the realistic choices - which are the one year guys that I don't think matter or seeing what the kids can do.
Put another way - I'd rather stink and feel like you're at least building toward something in 2025+ than stink and watch old guys that are certainly not part of the core.
However, on the other (at least if I were in charge of baseball ops and I'm clearly projecting my views onto the FO) I'd be telling Henry "The team I inherited isn't good, the farm system has three really good prospects but no pitching, and I'm not going to repeat the mistakes of the guy you just fired and tell you we can compete for the playoffs like this. Sure, we'll be within +/- 3 games of WC3 again but so will all but the 3 or 4 most horrendous teams in the league, and we're a lot closer to those teams than we are Houston, Texas, Baltimore or the Jays.
So I'm not planning to just light $10m of your money on fire for Mike Lorenzen and another $15m for Jorge Soler to go from 76 wins and miss the playoffs to 79 wins and make the playoffs. If you want me to, fine, I will, but that's your choice to waste $25m, not mine. I'd rather see if we can make one of Garrett Whitlock, Tanner Houck or Josh Winckowski into an SP5 for "free" than sign one for $10m because either way it isn't going to materially change the 2024 season. Assuming we can't, hopefully next year when I tell you I want to use that $25m that I saved last year and go get Corbin Burnes, you'll listen, because he WOULD make a difference."
@SouthernBoSox - I just don't think all that much of FanGraphs projections, truth be told. Just like I don't think all that much of their prospect rankings, mostly because I think it's all too focused on hitting and doesn't focus nearly enough on the much more scarce resource - starting pitching. If I were to bet, I'd be loading up on the "under" projections from Vegas (and I think 80 wins is closer than 82).
For the record, I mentioned Imanaga (and in other posts) Hernandez. I wanted them both signed to 3ish year deals. Build a sustainable "middle class" because obviously not all of the prospects will hit. One year deals do nothing to answer questions or provide stability on the present team. That didn't happen, obviously, and there is nobody else out there that is reasonably going to happen.
For what it's worth, I don't at all mind people being pissed off. I'm pissed off (that we're not acquiring a top half of the rotation starter with term), too. I truly don't understand the refusal to sign long or medium duration contracts (last year Bassitt, Tallion, giving Eovaldi what he wanted when he came back and asked for it and not bothering to sign Duvall, etc, Monty, giving Imanaga a better deal than the Cubs, Stroman, ERod, etc). But it exists, so now I'm trying to deal with the realistic choices - which are the one year guys that I don't think matter or seeing what the kids can do.
Put another way - I'd rather stink and feel like you're at least building toward something in 2025+ than stink and watch old guys that are certainly not part of the core.
Here's a rather lengthy but worthy article about the big picture (and dirty details) of sports team ownership and the ownership of our favorite team, by Dan at Over the Monster. Kind of a must-read for Sox fans right now.
https://www.overthemonster.com/2024/1/25/24045834/the-red-sox-dont-need-john-henry-and-tom-werner-free-agent-rumors-news-liverpool-fenway-sports-group
https://www.overthemonster.com/2024/1/25/24045834/the-red-sox-dont-need-john-henry-and-tom-werner-free-agent-rumors-news-liverpool-fenway-sports-group
Really interesting, thanks for posting. I don't feel like it's really conclusive about anything (and isn't trying to be so that's okay), but gosh it's nice to read something beyond yet another regurgitated "will the Sox ever spend or won't they?" take.
I've long been a proponent of public (fan) ownership of sports teams, like the Packers. I never realized it was so prevalent in Europe. Sadly, it probably won't happen in this country in my lifetime.
What I find most disconcerting is that it’s clear the FO really has no cohesive strategy.
If the desire is to see the younger guys get meaningful playing time, then why did we sign Yoshida a year ago? Why were we even pursuing those FAs that Kennedy said we just didn’t “match up” with financially this offseason?
Was filling in gaps with older players the strategy as recently as 1 month ago, and now that’s been ditched? Seems like that’s the case.
If the desire is to see the younger guys get meaningful playing time, then why did we sign Yoshida a year ago? Why were we even pursuing those FAs that Kennedy said we just didn’t “match up” with financially this offseason?
Was filling in gaps with older players the strategy as recently as 1 month ago, and now that’s been ditched? Seems like that’s the case.
That is awesome. I was on the fence, probably heading there anyway, but will now make a point of not spending a dime. I pay for cable, so they get some that way, but no discretionary spending for gear or tickets.
I think something happened after the full throttle comments. Possibly some financial pitfall for Henry and/or FSG. Or they just very badly misjudged the market.
NBA talent scarcity and contract structures are so different from MLB that it’s not a meaningful comparison. (In support of your argument here).
That piece has many of the same points as “Rethinking Fandom” by Craig Calcaterra. I really enjoyed both. It helps put some things into perspective, especially regarding blind devotion to the home teams.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/01/26/sports/john-henry-red-sox-owner/
Here is from today's Boston Globe for those of you that don't subscribe. I know Shaughnessy is a complete lightning rod when it comes to his opinions, but he basically touches on the feelings of many on herte, both ones who defend this ownership group and those that want them to perish in hell. Although he makes me furious sometimes with his takes, I personally enjoyed the read.
Here is from today's Boston Globe for those of you that don't subscribe. I know Shaughnessy is a complete lightning rod when it comes to his opinions, but he basically touches on the feelings of many on herte, both ones who defend this ownership group and those that want them to perish in hell. Although he makes me furious sometimes with his takes, I personally enjoyed the read.
The bolded line is ridiculous. Banking on all of your top prospects hitting before you commit to spending bigger again is a fool's errand. The odds of all of Mayer/Anthony/Teel hitting the big leagues in a year or so combined with not needing an adjustment period is really low. This position is definitely not opposing what the Sox are doing or saying. It's rooted in reality which is something I really don't know this FO/ownership is living in. The best teams blend in free agent/trade acquisitions with in-house developed talent.
On the bridge year, how many bridge years are there going to be? It's been 4 years now since the FO sold the fans on the money saved by trading Betts would allow the rest of that young core to stay. That didn't happen. Getting below the LT last season should have led the team to making significant upgrades this offseason. Has not happened yet. What's to say they don't do this again next year and the year after that because the prospects didn't pan out exactly how they thought they would?
I don't know, I think if you remove the bluster, the offseason might be shaping up to be a fairly typical one, and right in line with what a lot of posters expected back in September/October.
Here’s how I see it: The Sox wanted a #1-2 starter and a #3-4 starter. They were in on YY for a six-week window; he went elsewhere. They've also been in on one of Montgomery or Snell (almost surely the former) the whole time, knowing that Boras would draw things out. No guarantees, but there are enough national reporters (Passan, Feinsand, Heyman) to establish that they're in.
Meanwhile, they bid on Lugo, modestly, to fill a slot that eventually went to Giolito. That’s the #3-4 guy they were looking for, and they got one, though Giolito has some recuperable upside.
Rather than swing a stopgap deal for Drury or Polanco or Edman, they traded Chris Sale — an ace, a spare part, a symbol of previous era’s frustrations — for a promising young 2B. Good move.
They’ve also been searching for a RHB the whole time, and it’s looking like they’ve read the DH market nicely. Sensing fan restlessness, some reporters seized on the fact that we didn’t “line up” on Téoscar's ask, but it looks a lot more clear now that his 3/$60-80M (rumored) asking price is really high relative to other substandard OAA outfielder/DH types who are signing now and still available. (Hoskins signed as a first baseman.) Pederson just went to ARI for 1/$9.5 with a mutual option. Now there's Soler, Turner, J.D. Martinez, Belt, Duvall, Meadows, Vogelbach, Hicks, Winker, Pham, Choi, Cooper and Gary Sánchez who all need spots, and there's a pretty robust group of similar hitters potentially available for trade (Josh Bell, Polanco again, Ty France if the Guardians trade for Naylor, Morel, India, Drury, Dylan Carlson, Vargas, Conforto, probably others). We'll probably get one of the right-handed ones of those, and for far less than the $60-80M rumored for Téoscar. (Remember, Breslow said in November that Yoshida being the full-time DH is unideal, so we're just looking for a 120 wRC+ DH who can cover some extra positions.)
That brings us to the #1-2 starter. I’m not saying we’re sure to sign Montgomery, but it really does look possible, doesn't it? Are the Rangers going to pump another $125-150 million into that all-world rotation that currently includes “eight solid starters” (deGrom, Scherzer, Eovaldi, Mahle, Gray, Heaney, Dunning, Bradford, White)? Remember that they’re one of two teams who could sign Kershaw, and the other one just added three aces. Would they rather sign Montgomery at 5/$135~ or sign Kershaw at 1/$15~ and just roll with Cody Bradford for 10-12 starts until he’s healthy? Plus, they’re currently over the CBT and have to figure out their TV deal.
Who else? Do the Yankees drop $125-150 million to upgrade Schmidt/Warren/Beeter/Hampton to Montgomery? The Cardinals have a rotation of five FAs totaling $80 million in 2024 AAV. The Cubs? Angels? Giants? They'd all seem to me much more likely to sign one of Boras’s other clients.
Of course I’m not sure, but I do lean that we end up with Montgomery now, and I didn’t a month ago. If we do, it’ll really look like Breslow stuck to the plan and rode out the Boras clock, while everyone breathlessly reported that the impression around the league was that we were a small-market team.
Last edited:
The Gammons tweet grabbed me. I have been researching John Henry’s business career, and he has gotten whacked every time interest rates have risen more than a little, as they have done now.
The Over the Monster article fleshed out some possibilities. I don't follow the team details as closely as I once did, but I can't remember Gammons ever being very far off base.
It’s been a week since that Gammons tweet and no follow up from anyone. I wonder what the deal is?
There are some very large ifs in play.
If they do end up with Monty it will put a whole different light on the offseason.
But what if the price on Monty turns out to be quite reasonable and the Sox still pass? That would (arguably) make the offseason look even worse than it already does.
I view it the same way since actions carry more weight than words – with me anyway.
Correct or not, it seems to me that JH and FSG would not want to get into a public discussion about their finances – and that attitude would likely be more insistent if there was financial stress.
The Athletic in the spring of 2021 reported on the RedBird deal – 10% of FSG for $735 million. It and others commented first on the implications for FSG’s Liverpool issues, which may or may not be significant, but it might mean soccer was the primary driver.
The Athletic also wondered, “If years from now, Henry or his co-owners ever decide to sell the team, would Red Bird pursue a larger stake?”
JH is 74 and finishing in last place is a lot less fun than the earlier years. He could be getting tired.
https://theathletic.com/4218418/2021/03/31/liverpool-red-sox-owners-fsg-confirm-redbird-investment-now-valued-at-7-35bn/
This slightly older article mentions that RedBird founder Gerry Cardinale has been trying for a while to get a piece of FSG and that a SPAC (Special Purpose Acquisition Company) led by him and Billy Beane had been negotiating early in the year with an offer of $575 million.
So it looks like JH held out for more money and that he really did feel the need to raise cash.
edit - forgot this link...I m getting old too!
https://www.sportico.com/business/finance/2021/redbird-to-buy-fenway-sports-group-stake-1234623645/
As a Red Sox fan, I am less than encouraged by the fact that the RedBird opening web page for its group of companies boasts a large picture of Joe Dimaggio and Mickey Mantle.
https://redbirdcap.com/companies/
Last edited:
I’d be absolutely shocked if it was anything other than a financial reworking.
You don’t just do this for the fun of it. Something has changed. I have no idea what. But there is very little doubt something changed.
You could still have a smart long term plan for the team and spend to the LT…and beyond (best buzz light year voice).
From various accounts the Red Sox are a very profitable business and they could easily spend more. They could also lever some of the $4+ billion they’ve pocket in the increased value (for something besides the next rooster fighting ring in Managua)
It’s pretty clearly coming from outside and they are just slithering along waving hands and pointing fingers.
C’mon Breslow shut me up and give me the Full Monty !
Pretty amazing that the story of the Sox offseason now revolves around a man that the Yankees not so long ago traded for Harrison Bader.
Yep...John Tomase is often too polemical for my taste, but back in October he wrote about John Henry’s disengagement from the Sox. Something is driving that.
https://www.nbcsportsboston.com/mlb/boston-red-sox/john-henry-stormed-98-5-studios-red-sox-need-that-guy-back/558506/
If the 2024 payroll stays where it is, about $200 million for tax purposes and $35 million or so under the first tax line, how can the front office possibly justify it? It would be very difficult for them to credibly argue that the money under that line is being held onto to be invested in the team later.
If it does come to that, they are really going to have some 'splainin' to do.
If it does come to that, they are really going to have some 'splainin' to do.
I feel like I am maybe on thin ice running his far on a single Tweet by Gammons – although I have long respected what he says – but I am also wondering about the piece that said “Breslow doesn't have payroll he thought.”
If this all has some substance, was Breslow kept in the dark during interviews?
I feel he might well have what it takes to accomplish a more protracted rebuild on a lower payroll anyway, but what is his down deep attitude if Gammons is correct in all details?
Here's the quote from Breslow, with the eyebrow-raising part bolded:
“As I’ve gotten to know this organization better through the conversations I’ve had with ownership, they absolutely are still supportive of assembling a World Series team as quickly as we possibly can," Breslow told Abraham. "But I think the reality is that it’s going to require a step forward from the young position players. It’s going to require the build-out of a talent pipeline of arms that we can acquire, we draft, and we can develop internally."
What the heck? Eyebrow-raising?
He’s new to the team. You could have easily bolded what followed and used that as a positive.
You can read it many ways. But it does fit the idea that what Craig was initially told about the plans was different from what he was subsequently told about the plans, especially when you look at what follows: "they absolutely are still supportive" - why did he use the word "still" there?
I don't think that was any offhand statement. He's a very smart guy and he knows his every word is being dissected.
To be fair, it depends on context of the question, which I don’t think we know.
”Craig, do you think FSG is still supportive of spending to win titles or more concerned with their bottom line?”
”They absolutely are still supportive.”
My best guess on the Gammons part. Other execs (like posters on this board) THOUGHT FSG would blow past the luxury tax. FSG told Breslow, like others, “your budget remains ~ $LTT (.97).”
It fits with a) what other executives thought would happen b) them being surprised - like many on here, c) what has actually been reality for 80% of their tenure and d) isn’t exactly nefarious.
I don’t think they gave Breslow a “budget” and then pulled back, but I absolutely think the budget that they told Breslow IS lower than what people thought / hoped it would be.
I didn't find the bolded part alarming at all. I really don't see how everything can be covered in the interviews. Out in the non-baseball world they rarely are, in my experience. They have a pretty good pipeline of position players and now it's time to turn more attention and resources to developing pitching.
I interpret this to mean that the team isn't going to rely mainly on pitching FA acquisitions to get them over the lack of pitching hump. They are going to use a combination of FA pitchers, if the cost in AAV and years works for the team, and also young players from trades and the draft to develop to fill out the lack of pitching talent in the minors.
You realize you've basically defined confirmation bias here, right? We all tend to read things the way that fits our views/worldview. It's human nature. Places like this aren't immune as we see time and time again. It's pretty fascinating sometimes, generally seeing people argue that the same statement means/can mean two completely different things is a pretty big tell.
As far as Breslow's "they absolutely are still supportive" it seems to me that it was "full throttle" damage control. Telling folks that yes, they are still fully committed, but redefining what that means after the gaffe. I mean it's a shitty place to have to be, but with the timing and the context of the quote, that's exactly where Werner put him. I don't think in this case it's any more complicated than that.
Yes, I do realize there's confirmation bias involved here. But someone raised the matter of the tweet by Gammons about Breslow's budget being less than what he was initially led to believe, and in that context, those words of Craig's absolutely fit. It seems like he was trying to convey that "something changed" from his initial understanding, and he was trying to be truthful about it, but in a carefully framed way.
Where does it say the budget will be lower? Where is the context? Meaning…
- What was the original budget?
- Did that budget include YY?
All I’ve seen is a “probably lower” comment and that seems reasonable if they want to sign BS or JM but understand those guys might not choose to play in the northeast.
If Montgomery signs with the Sox, I would think this offseason was a huge success. But something tells me the Full Throttle narrative is going to be the gift that keeps on giving.
Side note…. I didn’t realize JWH was 75. Maybe he is getting tired.
- What was the original budget?
- Did that budget include YY?
All I’ve seen is a “probably lower” comment and that seems reasonable if they want to sign BS or JM but understand those guys might not choose to play in the northeast.
If Montgomery signs with the Sox, I would think this offseason was a huge success. But something tells me the Full Throttle narrative is going to be the gift that keeps on giving.
Side note…. I didn’t realize JWH was 75. Maybe he is getting tired.
I don’t think it’s untrue. I’m just surprised that it hasn’t been updated.
I'm glad you see it. Do you challenge it in your own mind before you post? I've found that helps me when I fall into it. I'm not being snarky at all, it's fucking insidious. I mean it's on full display every single time a player signs with a team that's not the Sox, regardless of all the other contributing factors. It just confirms the view for the many that already feel the Sox are simply cheaping out, and we get a page or two of absolute garbage. That garbage also includes the responses to it, it all becomes just noise. This place is exists so we can discuss things and challenge ourselves to maybe look at things a little differently than if we stay in our own heads.
One question is what would Breslow have to gain by even intimating anything like that to the press? Who would it benefit? It seems to me, after looking at it from several angles, that it is quite a bit more likely that it's what it looks like on its face, which is that Breslow was cleaning up Werner's mess, and pulling back on "full throttle"while reaffirming commitment.
Gammons' stuff sitting out there is interesting, and I tend to think there could very well be something there, I don't know, but looking to these Breslow comments for confirmation just seems to be quite a stretch.
Last edited:
+1
I've always felt waiting until the very end of MLB free agency is the best way to stretch a budget.