Offseason rumors

ESPN has the Sox 19th in their power rankings with a projected win total of 79. But the comment in the write up is what stood out to me...it basically says (and I'm paraphrasing since it's an ESPN+ article, "you're the Red Sox. It's obvious you need impact starting pitching. 2 of them are just sitting there for the taking. After 3 last place finishes in 4 years you would think there would be a little more urgency to act like the financial juggernaut that you are."

I don't always like ESPN articles, but I couldn't agree more in this case. There are guys that can help this team not only this year but in the future when Anthony, Teel, and Mayer are ready. Stop acting poor.

Boras is essentially running a mini union.
The best deal that flew under the radar was the Dodgers' Glasnow deal - whose stuff is incredible. At some point they are going to have Ohtani, Glasnow and YY. If that doesn't win them a series I don't know what will.

DLowe 04 Unsung Hero said:

ESPN has the Sox 19th in their power rankings with a projected win total of 79. But the comment in the write up is what stood out to me...it basically says (and I'm paraphrasing since it's an ESPN+ article, "you're the Red Sox. It's obvious you need impact starting pitching. 2 of them are just sitting there for the taking. After 3 last place finishes in 4 years you would think there would be a little more urgency to act like the financial juggernaut that you are."

I don't always like ESPN articles, but I couldn't agree more in this case. There are guys that can help this team not only this year but in the future when Anthony, Teel, and Mayer are ready. Stop acting poor.

Click to expand...

It doesn't make sense. They have done nothing. In '25 the rotation is Bello/Crawford/Houck unless Giolito doesn't perform well. There is nothing really in the pipeline. There is no plan and a 10 year old knew the weakness going into the offseason.

Which is why in the end I think they sign Montgomery.

RS2004foreever said:

It doesn't make sense. They have done nothing. In '25 the rotation is Bello/Crawford/Houck unless Giolito doesn't perform well. There is nothing really in the pipeline. There is no plan and a 10 year old knew the weakness going into the offseason.

Which is why in the end I think they sign Montgomery.

Click to expand...

I agree that signing Montgomery makes sense. There are exactly ZERO long term commitments to that rotation, so it's not like signing Montgomery is limiting other options down the road. Like you said, only 3 "starters" under contract for next year, and 1 of them would be better suited as a closer. I just haven't seen enough consistency from Whitlock or Houck to pencil them into a future rotation. Both could be great bullpen arms. Whitlock the multi inning bullpen ace and Houck a possible closer. And it's not like they are rookies, both of those guys have had multiple opportunities and have been inconsistent at best. Bottom line, outside of Bello and maybe Crawford, this team has no starting pitching options in the pipeline beyond 2024. Signing 1 this year and 1 next year would make a lot of sense.

RS2004foreever said:

Boras is essentially running a mini union.
The best deal that flew under the radar was the Dodgers' Glasnow deal - whose stuff is incredible. At some point they are going to have Ohtani, Glasnow and YY. If that doesn't win them a series I don't know what will.

Click to expand...

And they’ll probably getting Roki hand delivered on a silver platter if he decides to come to the US after this season.

Yo La Tengo said:

A lot of these examples are second tier free agents, but, here is a summary of Boras clients who waited to sign, with the trend being the majority of those players got a lesser deal than was anticipated at the start of free agency:

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2024/01/boras-clients-who-signed-after-january-in-previous-offseasons.html

Click to expand...

Totally fair - and I'm making no predictions about his second (or third tier) FAs like JDM or Ryu or whatever. Boras also may very well have cost his clients some money by dragging it out (notice how I don't think he's going to get projections for Bellinger or Snell https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2023/11/2023-24-top-50-free-agents-with-predictions.html). I'm just saying that I think the narrative that the market has crashed (is crashing) on these guys is overblown - or at least as far as semantics will allow, which is why I put numbers to it.

Someone might say "Snell was projected to get $200m so $175m would be a crash", and I get why they'd say that. I don't think of it that way however, which again, is why I estimated some numbers. I'm still thinking Snell and Bellinger around $175m, Monty around $150m, Chapman around $125m with the caveat of if they end up in no income tax states (realistically Texas and Washington) it might be a bit lower because I admit I'm basing those numbers based off your traditional big markets like those Cal teams, NY teams, Boston, Philly. So somewhere like California you'd be looking at roughly needing 13% more because of their tax rate, as opposed to Texas with none.



@Cassvt2023 - Just for the record, I think it'd be awesome if Boras got it massively wrong. I think that the dragged out off-season hurts the game. It'd be better to have that massive week of activity at the winter meetings and have it be an event the way the start of NBA or NFL free agency is. His methods usually do very well for his clients, which as a fiduciary is his only responsibility - of course it gets murky when what is best for guys like Snell might hurt someone like Ryu, but that's a conversation of BIZ-NIZ ETH-ICKS (in my best Billy Madison voice) and another topic altogether. I just don't think he misread the market so badly as to have to settle for less than that for his top 4 clients, though Chapman is the one I'm least confident on sticking to $125m.

6-5 Sadler said:

Flawless free agent? Probably the closest thing was Arod in 2001. 25 year old shortstop coming off a 10 WAR season, true 5-tool player at the time.

Click to expand...

Good call. Absolutely correct. But to go back a generation kind of illustrates the point of how if you're looking for a flawless free agent to spend on at the top of the market, they're very rare (even if we allow that ARod, Manny, Beltre and lets say Harper and Cole were "flawless").

SouthernBoSox said:

View: https://twitter.com/billjamesonline/status/1758320725532823697?s=46


Damn, Bill came out of no where with the zing.

Click to expand...

I don't think he's that far off (though only saying 9 players worth keeping as an ostensible big market team is a bit unfair).

Connecting all the dots, I'm becoming more and more convinced that Breslow has seen / believes what at least I'll say I believe. Which is that the organization he took over at the MLB and upper minors levels is pretty darn terrible and a lot closer to the Royals than it is the Braves, and we're at the beginning of a pretty massive rebuild.

Gammons had a Tweet about it recently, something to the effect of "a team that isn't as good as they (FSG) think", which came out right after the Theo news broke. I think people looking at it from the outside (which thankfully Breslow was and Theo was at the time) think there is a LOT of work to be done to get back to being a true contending team (and not just one that will be +/- 5 games of WC3 in August).

Those are two pretty well known names in Boston sports (Gammons and James) that have ties to Theo and that tree now saying the same thing.


Which doesn't mean "hopeless", I'm not saying that. But if this were like the NFL and players could be cut at any time without constricting salary ramifications, what are the players you'd keep on the MLB team that Breslow inherited. For me it looks like this:

C - Wong; 1b - Casas; 3b - Devers; CF - Rafaela; LF - Duran.
SP - Bello, Crawford, Pivetta
Bullpen - Jansen, Houck, Whitlock, maybe Winckowski.

So call it a dozen.

He of course added Grissom (13) and signed Giolito (14) and did add O'Neill (15) though I don't really count the last two because there is virtually no chance they'll be on the team in 2025.

FWIW, I don't think that Story, Yoshida or Abreu are "bad" players, I just think that for the first two I'd rather have the money and roster spaces back and the last I'd rather have a better OF construction, so it's not so much his being bad as opposed to a bad fit for the roster (and someone I have significantly below Duran and Rafaela). I'd also have traded Jansen, but maybe they couldn't because he wouldn't have passed a physical.

jon abbey said:

He is supposedly going to the Padres, Darvish is his idol.

Click to expand...

Well, I guess we NEED to include Darvish in any trades with SD.

From WSJ article:

However, as the winter has dragged on, teams have built up their rosters without Snell, Montgomery, Chapman, and Bellinger, “winnowing their prospective markets to a limited but potentially financially lavish set of teams”

Click to expand...

Does anyone have think of the Sox as being “financially lavish” right now. That they have the resources to be so is a different thing.

Big Papi's Mango Salsa said:

Connecting all the dots, I'm becoming more and more convinced that Breslow has seen / believes what at least I'll say I believe. Which is that the organization he took over at the MLB and upper minors levels is pretty darn terrible and a lot closer to the Royals than it is the Braves, and we're at the beginning of a pretty massive rebuild.

Click to expand...

All the projections seem to have the current Red Sox as a .500 team. An 84 win team made the World Series last year. If the Red Sox had signed a couple of top starters they should be an 85-90 win team.

I don't get the level of pessimism.

HfxBob said:

All the projections seem to have the current Red Sox as a .500 team. An 84 win team made the World Series last year. If the Red Sox had signed a couple of top starters they should be an 85-90 win team.

I don't get the level of pessimism.

Click to expand...

Exactly. We are, imho, one solid starter away from being competitive for a WC spot. No more of that opener, nonsense, better defense overall hopefully Story learns how to hit again. I would not mind one right, handed hitter with power, but I still think that we are a very competitive team, so long as we add to our rotation

HfxBob said:

All the projections seem to have the current Red Sox as a .500 team. An 84 win team made the World Series last year. If the Red Sox had signed a couple of top starters they should be an 85-90 win team.

I don't get the level of pessimism.

Click to expand...

I believe that the Red Sox (and all teams) have their own models and don't rely on Fangraphs / Steamer whatever. FWIW, it sounds like Bill James has them pegged a lot lower too (and if I were to venture a guess, I'd say the models that the Theo tree - in this case Breslow - use follow a lot more to James than public sites we have access to.)

Anecdotally (or conjecture) when you look at a team that

1) Sells off pieces (and to be clear, I think that the Sale trade was absolute genius and I was begging for him to be moved and even mentioned Grissom as a target, though I didn't think it was realistic to get that much for Sale; and I think getting a good SP prospect for Verdugo was also an excellent baseball move).

2) Is ostensibly trying to sell more (Jansen).

3) We hear over and over is going to spend less. Believe that if you want or not. I happen to believe it.

4) Has made known that they don't plan on selling.

5) Refuses to spend on free agents to buttress the core.

Makes me think that they're a lot more "uncertain" as to whom the core actually is. Or, put another way, they don't know what it is they actually need because they don't really know what they can bank on (outside of I'll assume Casas, Devers, Bello and now Grissom).



I don't disregard the possibility that their models COULD in fact be saying "we're good with what we have, we don't need FA help". It's possible and just as fair a stance to take.

But when you fire your GM, then have Gammons saying that the team isn't as good as "they" think, then have James saying something even more damning, it starts to paint a picture to me of a new hierarchy (thank God) that doesn't think highly of what the old regime had in place. Which, by the way, I think is progress. I don't think Bloom did a good job, so I'm of course biased to look for evidence that supports that, which I admit. But it does make some sense connecting all the scattered dots we've gotten throughout the off-season.


Also to be clear - I personally agree that if you sign a real starter, you're a legitimate contender for WC2 and WC3 (and not just in a group with a bunch of teams that don't completely suck). But I think that makes a massive difference and without adding said top half of the rotation starter, you're talking about more like 75 wins than 85 wins.


Maybe they don't believe that (or maybe they believe they're already around 85 wins too). I think their actions have been a lot more consistent with an organization that doesn't think it's at all close (75 wins) vs one that thinks its right on the cusp (85 wins), however.

RS2004foreever said:

It doesn't make sense. They have done nothing. In '25 the rotation is Bello/Crawford/Houck unless Giolito doesn't perform well. There is nothing really in the pipeline. There is no plan and a 10 year old knew the weakness going into the offseason.

Which is why in the end I think they sign Montgomery.

Click to expand...

Like them or not, there actually are other options for '25. They might be trying to extend Pivetta. They might try to extend Giolito. They might look for next year's version of Giolito. It's totally fair not to like the '24 rotation if you so choose, but worrying about the '25 rotation now seems quite premature.

Big Papi's Mango Salsa said:

Anecdotally (or conjecture) when you look at a team that

1) Sells off pieces (and to be clear, I think that the Sale trade was absolute genius and I was begging for him to be moved and even mentioned Grissom as a target, though I didn't think it was realistic to get that much for Sale; and I think getting a good SP prospect for Verdugo was also an excellent baseball move).

2) Is ostensibly trying to sell more (Jansen).

3) We hear over and over is going to spend less. Believe that if you want or not. I happen to believe it.

4) Has made known that they don't plan on selling.

5) Refuses to spend on free agents to buttress the core.

Click to expand...

What do we need to do to get past this idea that they've "sold off" players? That they're shedding payroll for the sake of it?

I recognize that it's been made manifest because it confirms people's frustrations about the team, but that doesn't make it factual. Not picking on you specifically, but it seems ridiculous to keep hammering it like it is! We traded Sale and Verdugo, two guys anyone on this board could supply plenty of reasons why it'd be better to swap out their value for future value. Jansen doesn't have the baggage that they do, but as a replaceable bullpen arm, the situation is not far off. Why are we clinging to this notion that those were salary dumps?

Does there have to be some secret scandal here? Doesn't it seem overwhelmingly more likely that Breslow doesn't think the upgrade from Tanner Houck to Jordan Montgomery is worth $150-175 million?

chawson said:

What do we need to do to get past this idea that they've "sold off" players? That they're shedding payroll for the sake of it?

I recognize that it's been made manifest because it confirms people's frustrations about the team, but that doesn't make it factual. Not picking on you specifically, but it seems ridiculous to keep hammering it like it is! We traded Sale and Verdugo, two guys anyone on this board could supply plenty of reasons why it'd be better to swap out their value for future value. Jansen doesn't have the baggage that they do, but as a replaceable bullpen arm, the situation is not far off. Why are we clinging to this notion that those were salary dumps?

Does there have to be some secret scandal here? Doesn't it seem overwhelmingly more likely that Breslow doesn't think the upgrade from Tanner Houck to Jordan Montgomery is worth $150-175 million?

Click to expand...

Moving Sale and Verdugo are in fact selling pieces off your MLB roster. I didn't say they were bad moves (I think the Sale move was brilliant, I think the Verdugo move was good and made sense).

I also have never once claimed that they're shedding payroll for the sake of it. Never once - others have - not me. I'm arguing something much different than "they're selling because they're cheap out with the pitch forks!" (I'm saying they're selling because they realize the team is more of a high mid 70s win roster than a mid 80s win roster and needs a massive overhaul.)



As to the budget, I've said this many times, that I think they have a budget - my guess remains roughly LTT(.97) - and they'd try to balance it. That's roughly been their MO for something like 80% of the seasons they've owned the team. It's not a massive change and it's not really "news", aside from the fact that Wener said something dumb. Or at least it's not news kind of like it's not news saying "We project Massachusetts to receive snow this winter." Sure, it might not happen once in a while, but the vast majority of the time, it does.

Now, in this circumstance its like Werner came out and said "72 and sunny all winter Boston, book it!!!!" and everyone else has had to walk that back to "nah, it's going to be pretty much the way it's always been" but it's news this year because someone said something different.

There is a massive difference between saying they are shedding payroll for the sake of it (they're not) and shedding it to balance a budget / make other moves, which is what I always maintain.




The thing that I think is different about this year vs other years is that you don't see them making many moves to supplement what they have. Could it be like you said (Breslow doesn't think the upgrade from Monty to Houck is worth it?) Of course. He might think the current roster is good for 88 wins and adding Monty for Houck makes it 89 wins (just guessing).


However, when you look at the aggregate of what they've done (or not done) this year. When you figure in they fired their GM. When you see that they're open to sell. When you see they have netted out -1 starter (out go Sale and Paxton, adding Giolito) and they made a choice (and a good one, I think) to work on building up Grissom for the long term vs targeting someone like Polanco or Drury (Grissom is much better long term, I think either of those guys will probably be better in 2024, and would have cost a lot less), etc. Then when you have Gammons tweeting that team isn't as good as they think (but, God bless him and he's lost his fastball and change up - though still knows more about baseball than I ever will) and even more damning Bill James saying that the Sox have basically 8 guys on their roster...

My opinion, the anecdotal evidence paints more a picture of a front office that says "this team is a long ways off, so we're not spending massive money until we get to a point that we might actually contend."

Which - by the way - I think would be a far more logical response if you think the team stinks then you think they're a piece or two away.



*Also, I want to make this clear. I agree with pretty much every move Breslow has made this off-season. I probably wouldn't have bothered to add O'Neill, but he gave up nothing to roll the dice on him having a contract year push, so why not. I think they were the right moves for the franchise. I also think they were geared toward 2025 and beyond, and I think they also look like the moves of someone who thinks that the team is probably not going to be good this year. Which is fine. I'm glad that someone finally realizes that what they have isn't good (or at least that's how I look at it - and I think these are moves that I'd have made with that backdrop, so yes, I'm projecting my views onto Breslow).

If we look just at the big league roster..

IN: Giolito, O’Neill, Grissom, Criswell, Campbell, Slaten
OUT: Sale, Verdugo, Paxton, Turner, Duvall (?), Rodriguez

So not much has happened. Whether that’s good or bad, who knows.

Big Papi's Mango Salsa said:

Which doesn't mean "hopeless", I'm not saying that. But if this were like the NFL and players could be cut at any time without constricting salary ramifications, what are the players you'd keep on the MLB team that Breslow inherited. For me it looks like this:

C - Wong; 1b - Casas; 3b - Devers; CF - Rafaela; LF - Duran.
SP - Bello, Crawford, Pivetta
Bullpen - Jansen, Houck, Whitlock, maybe Winckowski.

So call it a dozen.

He of course added Grissom (13) and signed Giolito (14) and did add O'Neill (15) though I don't really count the last two because there is virtually no chance they'll be on the team in 2025.

Click to expand...

Wong is pretty fungible and probably a bench catcher on a majority of teams

The roster is devoid of solid top end talent outside of Devers, Martin and probably Casas. I would say after those three Crawford, Bello, Grissom, and Houck have the biggest potential. Duran is all tools and Rafaela is probably high end utility player.

Whitlock, Pivetta, and Winckowski have potential upside but are probably fungible roster pieces. Yoshida, Refsnyder, Abreu, and Jansen perfectly capable roster filler. O'Neill, Giolito, and Story are long shot return to glory players with Giolito probably having the best odds.

All and all not quite the Cleveland Indians from Major League but close enough.

chawson said:

Does there have to be some secret scandal here? Doesn't it seem overwhelmingly more likely that Breslow doesn't think the upgrade from Tanner Houck to Jordan Montgomery is worth $150-175 million?

Click to expand...

It's not an upgrade from Houck to Montgomery. It's an upgrade from Houck to Montgomery and Houck. It's having more good pitchers.

TomRicardo said:

Wong is pretty fungible and probably a bench catcher on a majority of teams

The roster is devoid of solid top end talent outside of Devers, Martin and probably Casas. I would say after those three Crawford, Bello, Grissom, and Houck have the biggest potential. Duran is all tools and Rafaela is probably high end utility player.

Whitlock, Pivetta, and Winckowski have potential upside but are probably fungible roster pieces. Yoshida, Refsnyder, Abreu, and Jansen perfectly capable roster filler. O'Neill, Giolito, and Story are long shot return to glory players with Giolito probably having the best odds.

All and all not quite the Cleveland Indians from Major League but close enough.

Click to expand...

When I mentioned that I was "about as pessimistic as possible" about the organization based off the last 4 seasons as anyone, you were whom I had in mind that disliked it more!

Also, nobody wants to see JWH in a leopard skin dress / peeled section resultant bikini.

I don't disagree with a lot of what you said. I just lumped together "players I'd keep if I could cut anyone and have no salary ramifications" since the post was long enough as it was. Though, if I were tiering MLB roster.



Tier 1 - guys I think are core building blocks that I wouldn't realistically trade - Casas, Devers, Grissom, Bello.

Tier 2 - guys I'd keep because the defense is so good - Rafaela.

Tier 3 - guys I'd keep because they're cheap, have shown something at the MLB level and have potential - Duran, Crawford.

Tier 4 - keep them, but not in the roles they're in - Houck, Whitlock, Winckowski should all be bullpen arms if the team is trying to be good. Abreu (too good to dump, but I think of him more like a Brandon Moss type than a core building block).

Tier 5 - trade them if you can get legitimate prospects but wouldn't dump them because they're valuable and might get you something at the trade deadline - Jansen, Martin, Pivetta.

Tier 6 - stays because he's cheap, is fine as a C while you see what you have in Teel - Wong.

Tier 7 - good players, but I'd rather have the money back - Story and Yoshida (though to be clear, I wouldn't in any way trade either one if you have to eat more than 10% of their remaining salary, they're too good to pay to play elsewhere).

Yaz4Ever said:

Exactly. We are, imho, one solid starter away from being competitive for a WC spot. No more of that opener, nonsense, better defense overall hopefully Story learns how to hit again. I would not mind one right, handed hitter with power, but I still think that we are a very competitive team, so long as we add to our rotation

Click to expand...

This is where I am as well. IMO they need one more starter to be better than .500. I understand an 84-win team made the WS last year, but not all divisions are created equal and 84 wins has you fighting for last place in the AL East. Without another starter, I’m not sure the Sox will be better than that.

TomRicardo said:

Wong is pretty fungible and probably a bench catcher on a majority of teams

Click to expand...

This is one of these judgments that really depends how you evaluate catcher defense.

Fangraphs doesn't love Wong's defense, giving him decent positive value that is all but entirely eroded by his negative offensive value. They have him as a 0.5 WAR player in ~400 PA in 2023, and their 30th best catcher.

Savant is even more sour on his defense. If Savant is right, then you're right that he's not starting caliber.

But baseball-reference loves his defense, to the point that he is on their 2023 top-10 leaderboard for dWAR in the AL: not among catchers, among players. So they have him as a 2.2 WAR player in 2023, and their 13th best catcher.

So, yeah. The truth is in there somewhere. Obviously the throwing is elite — great pop times, great caught stealing numbers — but the blocking and framing are somewhere from average to way below average. So I guess the difference of opinion depends on how you weight those factors.

Hopefully he'll get one more year starting, then split time with Teel, and then have Teel take over the main job.

nvalvo said:

So, yeah. The truth is in there somewhere. Obviously the throwing is elite — great pop times, great caught stealing numbers — but the blocking and framing are somewhere from average to way below average. So I guess the difference of opinion depends on how you weight those factors.

Hopefully he'll get one more year starting, then split time with Teel, and then have Teel take over the main job.

Click to expand...

This is something I assume and hope Breslow and co are all over. Given the emphasis on pitching and the fact that they have brought in defense-first catchers for the minors, reportedly to help sustain pitcher development, I'd have to guess they have strong opinions on pitch framing. I wonder if we will see any movement on that, either in trying to work with Wong, an increased role for McGuire, or brining someone else in.

Big Papi's Mango Salsa said:

Moving Sale and Verdugo are in fact selling pieces off your MLB roster.

Click to expand...

No, moving Sale and Verdugo is in fact moving pieces off your MLB roster. The word "selling" implies that the "moving" was financially motivated. You're entitled to make that argument, although I would contend that if such were the case, they wouldn't have subsidized $17M of Sale's contract (and accepted a lesser prospect than Grissom in return) or replaced Verdugo's $6.3M salary from last year (by trading for Tyler O'Neil's $5.85M figure for this one).

nvalvo said:

This is one of these judgments that really depends how you evaluate catcher defense.

Fangraphs doesn't love Wong's defense, giving him decent positive value that is all but entirely eroded by his negative offensive value. They have him as a 0.5 WAR player in ~400 PA in 2023, and their 30th best catcher.

Savant is even more sour on his defense. If Savant is right, then you're right that he's not starting caliber.

But baseball-reference loves his defense, to the point that he is on their 2023 top-10 leaderboard for dWAR in the AL: not among catchers, among players. So they have him as a 2.2 WAR player in 2023, and their 13th best catcher.

So, yeah. The truth is in there somewhere. Obviously the throwing is elite — great pop times, great caught stealing numbers — but the blocking and framing are somewhere from average to way below average. So I guess the difference of opinion depends on how you weight those factors.

Hopefully he'll get one more year starting, then split time with Teel, and then have Teel take over the main job.

Click to expand...

Pretty much exactly right.

Could you do better at catcher than Wong - absolutely. Would I rather have the open roster spot and his salary (because he's really cheap). Absolutely not.

He's fine as a catcher right now and (assuming he doesn't get too expensive) would be a great back up to Teel. There are a lot of problems / holes / unknowns (if one wants to be optimistic) at the MLB, AAA and AA levels. Wong is not one of those.


@pjheff - is it though? Or, I guess I should say, is it necessarily a bad thing.

Selling something because you get excess value (or something more valuable) is still selling, is financially motivated, but isn't necessarily bad. But it's still selling.

I mean, say you have a vacation house is worth $750k and you'd be giving it up in a year anyway. Someone that can use it more offers you $300k for each of the next 6 years for it because they don't want to pay $2,500,000 for another vacation house. You'd be selling your house. It'd be financially motivated. It would be the right thing to do and would make sense for both parties. This is the Sale trade, at least in my opinion.

allmanbro said:

This is something I assume and hope Breslow and co are all over. Given the emphasis on pitching and the fact that they have brought in defense-first catchers for the minors, reportedly to help sustain pitcher development, I'd have to guess they have strong opinions on pitch framing. I wonder if we will see any movement on that, either in trying to work with Wong, an increased role for McGuire, or brining someone else in.

Click to expand...

A big part of the pitching resurgence in San Francisco is Patrick Bailey, who hits worse than Wong but is quite good defensively in a lot of different ways. I'm confident Andrew Bailey is tuned into that.

pjheff said:

No, moving Sale and Verdugo is in fact moving pieces off your MLB roster. The word "selling" implies that the "moving" was financially motivated. You're entitled to make that argument, although I would contend that if such were the case, they wouldn't have subsidized $17M of Sale's contract (and accepted a lesser prospect than Grissom in return) or replaced Verdugo's $6.3M salary from last year (by trading for Tyler O'Neil's $5.85M figure for this one).

Click to expand...

I can buy this POV if they used the savings in cash to upgrade the rest of the roster, but to date, they just haven’t.

Big Papi's Mango Salsa said:

Pretty much exactly right.

Could you do better at catcher than Wong - absolutely. Would I rather have the open roster spot and his salary (because he's really cheap). Absolutely not.

He's fine as a catcher right now and (assuming he doesn't get too expensive) would be a great back up to Teel. There are a lot of problems / holes / unknowns (if one wants to be optimistic) at the MLB, AAA and AA levels. Wong is not one of those.

Click to expand...

I don’t think there are a ton of holes offensively as much as there are a lot of spots filled with ok, low upside players like Wong. The team has a lot of 1-2 win players, but not many 3+ win players.

Petagine in a Bottle said:

I can buy this POV if they used the savings in cash to upgrade the rest of the roster, but to date, they just haven’t.

Click to expand...

This argument will land much more forcefully if we do not acquire another starting pitcher before opening day.

Big Papi's Mango Salsa said:

When I mentioned that I was "about as pessimistic as possible" about the organization based off the last 4 seasons as anyone, you were whom I had in mind that disliked it more!

I don't disagree with a lot of what you said. I just lumped together "players I'd keep if I could cut anyone and have no salary ramifications" since the post was long enough as it was. Though, if I were tiering MLB roster.

Tier 1 - guys I think are core building blocks that I wouldn't realistically trade - Casas, Devers, Grissom, Bello.

Tier 2 - guys I'd keep because the defense is so good - Rafaela.

Tier 3 - guys I'd keep because they're cheap, have shown something at the MLB level and have potential - Duran, Crawford.

Click to expand...

I am higher on Casas, Houck, and Crawford then most of the board and I am probably lower on Bello (I think he ends up being a strong middle of the rotation pitcher which is super super valuable, I just don't see him having ace potential, though I could be wrong). I think Casas is an elite bat. I wish he could field better especially with Yoshida on the team but he is clearly an exceptional bat.

It is hard for me to get excited for Giolito, Pivetta, Jansen, O'Neill, and Martin. I just can't see FSG signing any checks to keep these players if they succeed so the best case scenario is trading them in July. O'Neill actually could fit in the best to go between Casas and Devers in the lineup.

Duran is super frustrating because he is a five tool player that plays so much worse than his skills. And it is wildly inconsistent in what set he is not utilizing on any given day. His arm is probably the most bizarre as sometimes it just looks like he is not throwing correctly which is insane for a Major Leaguer. It is like he never realized that you should throw at an angle to make the ball go farther?

I really really really like Rafaela as a super utility player. I am getting scared that is not how they will use him but outside of Grissom, Devers, and Casas I would have preferred a fluid line up with even those guys getting reps at DH for rest.

I am also insanely into Blaze Jordan to become a bench corner RHH for baseball and non baseball related reasons. Blaze is the best guys.

TomRicardo said:

I am higher on Casas, Houck, and Crawford then most of the board and I am probably lower on Bello (I think he ends up being a strong middle of the rotation pitcher which is super super valuable, I just don't see him having ace potential, though I could be wrong). I think Casas is an elite bat. I wish he could field better especially with Yoshida on the team but he is clearly an exceptional bat.

It is hard for me to get excited for Giolito, Pivetta, Jansen, O'Neill, and Martin. I just can't see FSG signing any checks to keep these players if they succeed so the best case scenario is trading them in July. O'Neill actually could fit in the best to go between Casas and Devers in the lineup.

Duran is super frustrating because he is a five tool player that plays so much worse than his skills. And it is wildly inconsistent in what set he is not utilizing on any given day. His arm is probably the most bizarre as sometimes it just looks like he is not throwing correctly which is insane for a Major Leaguer. It is like he never realized that you should throw at an angle to make the ball go farther?

I really really really like Rafaela as a super utility player. I am getting scared that is not how they will use him but outside of Grissom, Devers, and Casas I would have preferred a fluid line up with even those guys getting reps at DH for rest.

I am also insanely into Blaze Jordan to become a bench corner RHH for baseball and non baseball related reasons. Blaze is the best guys.

Click to expand...

Personally, I think Bello has ace potential, but agree that we might never see it. Tons of guys have ace potential and never fully get there, but a home grown solid 2/3 is a good place to start from.

I agree 100% on O'Neill. I think people severely underestimate just how good he was in 2021, and while he hasn't replicated it due to injuries, I think Fenway is as a good a place as any for him to maybe see a resurgence.

I disagree on Rafaela, though. I think he is way too valuable in CF to make him a super utility guy and have him playing all over the field. He has the potential to make both the LF and RF better every day he is out there. That isn't a guy you move all over the field to spell guys. I think he should be in CF the majority of the time, with O'Neill spelling him occasionally, and the LF/Rf spots worked out between Duran/O'Neill/Abreu. If Duran is at even 75% of what he showed last year, that is a solid outfield. I also don't think Refsnyder is going to be on this team on Opening Day.

I think the infield is set, with Devers/Story/Grissom/Casas, and if Story rebound even a little with the bat I think that is a good to very good infield, both offensively and defensively. I hope they focus on making the routine plays for Devers this spring, because I have a feeling that the disaster that was Boston Shortstops the first half of last season had a serious detrimental effect on his play at 3B. Much like Rafaela, I think a full season of Story at SS has a serious potential to solidify the entire infield defense. He is not just a very good defensive SS, he is absolutely elite.

Jordan is only 21, but I agree with you and I think he is quietly one of the more important prospects in the system. Anthony/Mayer/Teel are all LHH's, Rafaela has the obvious approach issues and Bleis is behind now after his disaster of an injury season last year. If he turns into the RHH corner infield backup by 2025, it would be absolutely huge for the entire organization.

There is no baseball-based argument against signing Montgomery. There is no super secret oh we are going to wait until next year because the FA class is better. That is nonsense. Human beings don't have that kind of foresight.

The only argument against signing Montgomery is financial. Period. And it isn't about keeping your powder dry for the future. It's about profit at the expense of the team now. Period.

'These excuses are irritating.

RS2004foreever said:

There is no super secret oh we are going to wait until next year because the FA class is better. That is nonsense. Human beings don't have that kind of foresight.

Click to expand...

Sure there is! We're saving money so that next year we can sign Trevor Bauer Max Scherzer Jacob DeGrom Yoshinobu Yamamoto Roki Sasaki! Chess not checkers.

RS2004foreever said:

There is no baseball-based argument against signing Montgomery. There is no super secret oh we are going to wait until next year because the FA class is better. That is nonsense. Human beings don't have that kind of foresight.

The only argument against signing Montgomery is financial. Period. And it isn't about keeping your powder dry for the future. It's about profit at the expense of the team now. Period.

'These excuses are irritating.

Click to expand...

Normally I think this ownership is pretty good about team building and they've obviously been highly successful over the last 20 years. But I agree with your post here. They have a desperate need for starting pitching - it was the single most glaring need going into this offseason. If the owners had any desire for this year's team to be truly competitive, they had to acquire more good starting pitchers. They haven't done that at all. An argument can easily be made that they're WORSE off in that department. Yes Giolito might perform better than Sale, who has been hurt a ton. But Giolito is not at all a better pitcher than Sale, and it's possible Sale is healthy this year and has a much better season than Giolito. But that's not really an improvement in the rotation, and if they want to compete they need more than that.

And sitting out there are two very good starting pitchers. The Red Sox have the money to be able to sign them. Or at least ONE of them. Montgomery makes more sense from the standpoint of the QO and resulting loss of a draft pick if Boston signs Snell. But either way, acquiring either guy would dramatically improve the rotation. Which is their biggest need.

To not do it when signing either of them won't even come close to handicapping you for the future makes zero baseball sense. It can only really be explained by $$. Or if somehow Sox' brass thinks that neither Montgomery nor Snell are actually any good. Which would be weird but ok.

Well, the owner of the team is on record as not thinking that long term deals to pitchers older than 30 are a good idea. I know the prevailing thought is that once they were done with Sale / Price, they’d dive back into that market….but might it be as simple that Henry just hasn’t changed his opinion?

RS2004foreever said:

The only argument against signing Montgomery is financial. Period. And it isn't about keeping your powder dry for the future. It's about profit at the expense of the team now. Period.

Click to expand...

Perhaps. But a financial argument against giving Boras whatever he wants can be a perfectly reasonable argument. These things are rarely black and white. In the absence of info on exactly what Boras wants, who knows? Why hasn’t anyone else signed them?

Unless we’ve entered the realm of “it’s not my money”/”The money doesn’t matter”, then this discussion is really moot.

I guess we’ll know soon enough.

Petagine in a Bottle said:

Well, the owner of the team is on record as not thinking that long term deals to pitchers older than 30 are a good idea. I know the prevailing thought is that once they were done with Sale / Price, they’d dive back into that market….but might it be as simple that Henry just hasn’t changed his opinion?

Click to expand...

So then if you don't draft pitchers and you don't sign pitchers over 30 - what do you do? Try to trade for Freddy Peralta, Pablo Lopez, Dylan Cease?

RS2004foreever said:

There is no baseball-based argument against signing Montgomery. There is no super secret oh we are going to wait until next year because the FA class is better. That is nonsense. Human beings don't have that kind of foresight.

The only argument against signing Montgomery is financial. Period. And it isn't about keeping your powder dry for the future. It's about profit at the expense of the team now. Period.

'These excuses are irritating.

Click to expand...

Maybe Craig Breslow sees something in him that he doesn't like (or at least doesn't like at the salary Scott Boras is demanding). It's still financial, but minus the mustache-twisting nefarious intent.

Or it may just be that the story in the WSJ is true and Boras isn’t discussing Montgomery until he can get someone to give him his desired deal for Snell.

RS2004foreever said:

There is no baseball-based argument against signing Montgomery. There is no super secret oh we are going to wait until next year because the FA class is better. That is nonsense. Human beings don't have that kind of foresight.

The only argument against signing Montgomery is financial. Period. And it isn't about keeping your powder dry for the future. It's about profit at the expense of the team now. Period.

'These excuses are irritating.

Click to expand...

The baseball-based argument is that in order to have Montgomery on your team in 2024 and 2025, you're likely contractually obligated to have him on your team in 2026-2028 when he may be much worse.

nighthob said:

Or it may just be that the story in the WSJ is true and Boras isn’t discussing Montgomery until he can get someone to give him his desired deal for Snell.

Click to expand...

Montgomery tells him what to do.

Max Power said:

The baseball-based argument is that in order to have Montgomery on your team in 2024 and 2025, you're likely contractually obligated to have him on your team in 2026-2028 when he may be much worse.

Click to expand...

Is Chris Sale on the Red Sox? And again that is a financial argument and not a baseball argument. The hole in the argument is that it assumes it is possible to build a rotation without 3+ year contracts. And unless you are the Rays I don't think it is.

There is no cavalry coming from the Farm. Moreover I went back and looked at the top 40 prospects from 2018 to 2021 in Fangraphs. The failure rate for TOP pitching prospects is well over 50%. If the Red Sox are lucky they MIGHT generate another Bello.

I will repeat - there is no baseball based argument for not signing Montgomery.

bosockboy said:

Montgomery tells him what to do.

Click to expand...

Sure, but the article basically reported that multiple sources have reported that Boras isn’t willing to discuss Montgomery until Snell signs. How are you supposed to even make an offer under those circumstances?

Petagine in a Bottle said:

Well, the owner of the team is on record as not thinking that long term deals to pitchers older than 30 are a good idea. I know the prevailing thought is that once they were done with Sale / Price, they’d dive back into that market….but might it be as simple that Henry just hasn’t changed his opinion?

Click to expand...

But he said that BEFORE they signed Price, so why should we think it's an actual rule?

RS2004foreever said:

Is Chris Sale on the Red Sox?

Click to expand...

They're paying $17M for zero production from him, is one way to look at it.

nighthob said:

Sure, but the article basically reported that multiple sources have reported that Boras isn’t willing to discuss Montgomery until Snell signs. How are you supposed to even make an offer under those circumstances?

Click to expand...

The article also offers the rationale that Snell signing higher would mean Montgomery can sign higher.

SirPsychoSquints said:

They're paying $17M for zero production from him, is one way to look at it.

Click to expand...

Who is playing second and how did the Red Sox acquire him?
I mean it is kind of a smart aleck reply - but guys usually have value at the back end of these contracts.

The Red Sox starting pitching situation is not great, but the perception of its awfulness far outpaces the reality, in my opinion.

The defense was exceptionally bad last year, and that's been largely addressed. We also play in the second-most hitter friendly ballpark in the majors, which affects our perception relative to other teams' pitchers and their ERAs. And don't forget that the standards around ruling balls in play changed dramatically. There were fewer errors called last year than any time in modern baseball. Instead, those were called hits, which impacts ERAs. Doesn't explain everything, and of course — that was league wide and not just the Sox — but that sort of thing can affect how we view our staff's ERA vs. prior years.

But look at this. They say the most predictive indicators of ERA are SIERA and xFIP. As a team, the 2023 Red Sox starting rotation ranked 5th in all of baseball in SIERA (4.10), and 8th in xFIP (4.08) — and that includes the eminently hittable late-era Corey Kluber (5.29 SIERA, 5.63 xFIP) and pre-revolution Pivetta (5.73 FIP). As a ballclub, the entire pitching staff was middle of the pack in these marks, 13th in SIERA (at 4.10 again) and 15th in xFIP (4.23), which owes to a good amount of innings thrown by the flotsam we suited up when everyone got hurt, and are no longer in Boston (Garza, Ort, Barraclough, Lamet, Dermody, Llovera, Scott)

What about ERA, you ask? Let's not talk about it! Just kidding, but yes, it's much less rosy. Sox starters were 22nd overall in ERA (4.68) and 21st overall as a team (4.52). That's what matters, of course.

But what do we do with the information that an advanced metric (Skill-Interactive Earned Run Average) says our 2023 rotation was fifth-best in baseball at preventing runs? It says something, doesn't it? And now, we can add to it that we've got a much better defense and a really impressive new pitching development staff.

I'm not saying our team couldn't benefit from having Jordan Montgomery on it. Of course we could. But at what cost? And at what opportunity cost to developing pitchers, say a guy like Chris Murphy?

Here's where Jordan Montgomery's 2023 SIERA slots in among our own SP depth chart.

2023 SIERA
Pivetta - 3.36
Whitlock - 3.67
Winckowski - 3.84 (*used as a full-time reliever)
Murphy - 3.88 (*used as a bulk reliever, mostly)
Crawford - 3.93
Bello - 4.18
Giolito - 4.21
Montgomery - 4.23
Houck - 4.33

2023 xFIP
Pivetta - 3.55
Whitlock - 3.74
Winckowski - 3.89 (*)
Montgomery - 4.01
Bello - 4.02
Murphy - 4.07 (*)
Houck - 4.07
Crawford - 4.32
Giolito - 4.45

TomRicardo said:

I am higher on Casas, Houck, and Crawford then most of the board and I am probably lower on Bello (I think he ends up being a strong middle of the rotation pitcher which is super super valuable, I just don't see him having ace potential, though I could be wrong). I think Casas is an elite bat. I wish he could field better especially with Yoshida on the team but he is clearly an exceptional bat.

It is hard for me to get excited for Giolito, Pivetta, Jansen, O'Neill, and Martin. I just can't see FSG signing any checks to keep these players if they succeed so the best case scenario is trading them in July. O'Neill actually could fit in the best to go between Casas and Devers in the lineup.

Duran is super frustrating because he is a five tool player that plays so much worse than his skills. And it is wildly inconsistent in what set he is not utilizing on any given day. His arm is probably the most bizarre as sometimes it just looks like he is not throwing correctly which is insane for a Major Leaguer. It is like he never realized that you should throw at an angle to make the ball go farther?

I really really really like Rafaela as a super utility player. I am getting scared that is not how they will use him but outside of Grissom, Devers, and Casas I would have preferred a fluid line up with even those guys getting reps at DH for rest.

I am also insanely into Blaze Jordan to become a bench corner RHH for baseball and non baseball related reasons. Blaze is the best guys.

Click to expand...

As much as I’ve appreciated Tric post-MSPaint content, I can’t believe how much I agree with this post.

nighthob said:

Or it may just be that the story in the WSJ is true and Boras isn’t discussing Montgomery until he can get someone to give him his desired deal for Snell.

Click to expand...

On the face of it, that sounds like it would be a violation of his professional ethics.