Offseason rumors

Status
Not open for further replies.

Yo La Tengo

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
923
A couple of things:

  • Xander is moving to 2B with Kim to play SS. This is a year or two earlier than I expected.

  • Looking at the American League, this year is exactly the time to try and squeak into the playoffs and then take a run at the ALCS:
    • Orioles have two injured starters and will be missing Bautista, the most dominant pitcher in baseball last year. There young guys will presumably have some growing pains and the new owners will start spending big money in 2025.
    • Rays are in a down cycle
    • Toronto is running back the same under-performing crew as has fallen apart the last few years (I actually think Justin Turner could help with this problem).
    • Yankees are depending on big performances/health from Rodon, Stroman (less than 140 innings each of the last two years), Rizzo, Stanton, etc and Judge has only played 112+ games twice in the last six years
    • Rangers may have a great rotation by the playoffs but there are a ton of question marks right now
    • Unfortunately, the Astros should be very good, but, Valdez is on the decline and Verlander is already injured

  • I'm talking myself into the idea that Montgomery is the right type of pitcher to extend in his 30s. He's pitched 158, 178, 188 innings the last three years and the Sox really need competent innings. Compare this consistency to Snell, who has pitched more than 130 innings twice in the last eight years or Rodon, who has cleared 130 innings (actually 132) once in the last 7 years.
    • How much would the Sox have to pay to get Montgomery to accept a 4 year deal?
 
Last edited:

6-5 Sadler

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
218
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
I don’t want to turn this into another doubting reporters discussion but if this were true, wouldn’t it be a serious breach of Boras’s fiduciary responsibility to Montgomery?
 

MuppetAsteriskTalk

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2015
5,421
I don’t want to turn this into another doubting reporters discussion but if this were true, wouldn’t it be a serious breach of Boras’s fiduciary responsibility to Montgomery?
It could be that Boris thinks getting Snell signed first means significantly more for Montgomery, and Montgomery could be well aware and on board with the plan.
 

astrozombie

New Member
Sep 12, 2022
409
Yeah, I don't see how this is an ethical/fiduciary dilemma... he's trying to do the best by both clients and believes that having Snell signed first is in the interest of both of his clients. If JM wanted to, he could tell Boras to engage with someone else at a lower price point and just get signed. But that is typically not why players sign with Boras.
 

Sox Pride

New Member
Nov 25, 2005
108
The Triangle
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.
2023 MLB season Statistics:

xFIP SIERA
Pivetta 3.55 3.36
Whitlock 3.74 3.67
Winckowski 3.89 3.84
Bello 4.02 4.18
Houck 4.07 4.33
Crawford 4.32 3.93

Giolito 4.45 4.21


Montgomery 4.01 4.23


Note - I'm not saying your wrong - that JMont wouldn't help the team. But I'm not sure you can say there's "no baseball-based argument against signing Montgomery."
 

Sox Pride

New Member
Nov 25, 2005
108
The Triangle
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
Sorry - didn't see this when I posted... (almost the literal exact same thing)
 

RS2004foreever

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 15, 2022
670
I don’t want to turn this into another doubting reporters discussion but if this were true, wouldn’t it be a serious breach of Boras’s fiduciary responsibility to Montgomery?
Note if Boras disclosed the potential conflict (which I am sure he has). It would be an issue if he wouldn't discuss an offer, but not wrt to acceptance.
 

6-5 Sadler

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
218
It could be that Boris thinks getting Snell signed first means significantly more for Montgomery, and Montgomery could be well aware and on board with the plan.
Right and that’s kinda my point. I seriously doubt Boras is turning away potential Monty suiters. It’s likely Monty has a broader market (say 2-3 potential offers) than Snell so Boras feels comfortable letting the Snell market settle first.
 

RS2004foreever

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 15, 2022
670
2023 MLB season Statistics:

xFIP SIERA
Pivetta 3.55 3.36
Whitlock 3.74 3.67
Winckowski 3.89 3.84
Bello 4.02 4.18
Houck 4.07 4.33
Crawford 4.32 3.93

Giolito 4.45 4.21


Montgomery 4.01 4.23


Note - I'm not saying your wrong - that JMont wouldn't help the team. But I'm not sure you can say there's "no baseball-based argument against signing Montgomery."
That's a baseball argument. Winck's numbers are in the pen, Houck was useless past the 5th inning and Whitlock was hurt.
They need innings - the guys in your list for the most part can't provide that. So I don't agree with the argument.
It's reasonable though.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,716
I don’t want to turn this into another doubting reporters discussion but if this were true, wouldn’t it be a serious breach of Boras’s fiduciary responsibility to Montgomery?
That assumes that Montgomery isn't aware of the plan. It would only be a breach if Montgomery were in the dark. And I'm pretty sure that players sign with Boras to get the best deal possible.
 

Dewey'sCannon

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
871
Maryland
How much would the Sox have to pay to get Montgomery to accept a 4 year deal?
I suspect that four years is probably the sweet spot for the Sox and Montgomery. He's probably looking for 5-7, but the fact that he's not signed may be an indication that he's not getting it. Maybe there's someone out there that's willing to go to 5 years, and that's where he'll end up if so, but maybe not. I doubt the Sox want to go for five years guaranteed, but I could see 4/92-108 (23-27 AAV) with an option, with maybe an opt-out after three. Try to go at the lower end of the AAV with some incentives based on IP, starts, Top 5 CY, playoff starts, etc.

If Montgomery is stuck looking at three-year deals, more teams will be involved and will likely offer more, or he'll find these teams more attractive.

Or maybe Boras has teams that are willing to go for 5-7 years on Montgomery, but he's just waiting to get Snell signed first so he can squeeze out every last dollar for Montgomery. But that raises the question: what's the market for Snell? Is there anyone out there that's willing to pay him around 30m for 6-7 years? MLB TR had a story the other day asking if he might consider a short-term deal, but that's clearly not what they want, and the QO attached to him would seem to affect his value on a short-term deal (not wanting to give up a pick for a guy you would or might only have for a year or two), unless you are really in an all-in GFIN mode. Snell has the higher ceiling for sure, but the risks seem to be higher. At this point I have no idea where he'll go or what he'll get.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,692
Rogers Park
Cutting the Gordian knot of this negotiation is what made me consider inking both Snell and Montgomery the other day.

Offer Snell 2/$50m, with like $35m of it paid in year one, and an opt-out that vests if he makes 25 starts and doesn’t end the year on the IL. Yes he has a QO; yes that sucks.

Offer a normal deal to Montgomery: 4/$100m or whatever. Tell Boras that you’ll only take Snell if you get Montgomery; and remind him that this would be some legendary mystery team shit that he could milk for a decade.

Trade the expensive relievers to duck back under the LT, and give Houck and Whitlock late-inning roles.

Go win a pennant.
 
Last edited:

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,483
I suspect that four years is probably the sweet spot for the Sox and Montgomery. He's probably looking for 5-7, but the fact that he's not signed may be an indication that he's not getting it. Maybe there's someone out there that's willing to go to 5 years, and that's where he'll end up if so, but maybe not. I doubt the Sox want to go for five years guaranteed, but I could see 4/92-108 (23-27 AAV) with an option, with maybe an opt-out after three. Try to go at the lower end of the AAV with some incentives based on IP, starts, Top 5 CY, playoff starts, etc.

If Montgomery is stuck looking at three-year deals, more teams will be involved and will likely offer more, or he'll find these teams more attractive.

Or maybe Boras has teams that are willing to go for 5-7 years on Montgomery, but he's just waiting to get Snell signed first so he can squeeze out every last dollar for Montgomery. But that raises the question: what's the market for Snell? Is there anyone out there that's willing to pay him around 30m for 6-7 years? MLB TR had a story the other day asking if he might consider a short-term deal, but that's clearly not what they want, and the QO attached to him would seem to affect his value on a short-term deal (not wanting to give up a pick for a guy you would or might only have for a year or two), unless you are really in an all-in GFIN mode. Snell has the higher ceiling for sure, but the risks seem to be higher. At this point I have no idea where he'll go or what he'll get.
Agreeing with this.
I made up some stupid ceiling/floor number for starters and had Snell as a 1/5 and Montgomery as a 2/4. But with Snells’s high end dwindling each season and his floor quickly being “Chris Sale”….and Montgomery’s likely to remain at 2 for longer (and his floor at 4 longer). So they could be paying Montgomery for say 5 seasons…. Two of which he’s worth it and 3 giving you basically what Crawford did last season…. But IMO… he’ll likely make every start so he’s still quite valuable.
Perhaps during years 3,4 and 5…. Bello is extended for $20M and turns into an ace…. Crawford continues to develop into a good no.3 type at minimum/arb raises and one of Wikelman or Perales at league minimum makes the jump in ‘25 (reasonable). That’s an affordable rotation and overpaying for Montgomery isn’t hurting you.
 

LogansDad

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
29,806
Alamogordo

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
1,202
MLBTR had Merrifield pegged for 2/$18m/$9m AAV; FG crowdsource was at 2/$16m/$8m AAV.

The market could very well be "crumbling" for guys that aren't good enough to command multi year deals, like Whit Merrifield But I don't think that applies to Snell, Monty, Bellinger or Chapman. We'll see.
 

ngruz25

Bibby
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
19,061
Pittsburgh, PA
2023 MLB season Statistics:

xFIP SIERA
Pivetta 3.55 3.36
Whitlock 3.74 3.67
Winckowski 3.89 3.84
Bello 4.02 4.18
Houck 4.07 4.33
Crawford 4.32 3.93

Giolito 4.45 4.21


Montgomery 4.01 4.23


Note - I'm not saying your wrong - that JMont wouldn't help the team. But I'm not sure you can say there's "no baseball-based argument against signing Montgomery."
Does Montgomery have a track record of outperforming his xFIP/SIERRA?

His Savant page doesn’t scream “top of rotation stuff,” but all that Montgomery has done is consistently and reliably perform for multiple seasons. I’d certainly bet on him for 30 solid starts over the volatility of Giolito or Pivetta.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,767
Montgomery
2021: 157.1 ip, 3.83 era, 3.69 fip
2022: 178.1 ip, 3.48 era, 3.61 fip
2023: 188.2 ip, 3.20 era, 3.56 fip

I mean, I want someone to make the argument that the Sox - who have plenty of money available, mind you - couldn't use a starting pitcher like this.
 

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
1,202
Does Montgomery have a track record of outperforming his xFIP/SIERRA?

His Savant page doesn’t scream “top of rotation stuff,” but all that Montgomery has done is consistently and reliably perform for multiple seasons. I’d certainly bet on him for 30 solid starts over the volatility of Giolito or Pivetta.
Yes - at least xFIP. On average by about half a run each season (ish). At least depending on if one considers 2020 a real season or not (I do not, YMMV).

https://www.fangraphs.com/players/jordan-montgomery/16511/stats?position=P
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,274
Montgomery
2021: 157.1 ip, 3.83 era, 3.69 fip
2022: 178.1 ip, 3.48 era, 3.61 fip
2023: 188.2 ip, 3.20 era, 3.56 fip

I mean, I want someone to make the argument that the Sox - who have plenty of money available, mind you - couldn't use a starting pitcher like this.
Because they would be paying for his 2028 season (and maybe beyond).

That's what this comes down to, right? I'm sure the Sox would love to have Monty in 2024. How far beyond that is the question.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,767
Because they would be paying for his 2028 season (and maybe beyond).
If they give him a 6-year, $150m deal, that's $25m a year. 180 innings at 3.40 era is well worth $25m these days. If he does that for three years in a row (and his pitching style should support that pretty well, barring injury), then starts to see decline, his 2028 and 2029 seasons won't be great, but also $25m 5-6 years from now isn't going to really "cost" that much.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,274

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
12,317
If they give him a 6-year, $150m deal, that's $25m a year. 180 innings at 3.40 era is well worth $25m these days. If he does that for three years in a row (and his pitching style should support that pretty well, barring injury), then starts to see decline, his 2028 and 2029 seasons won't be great, but also $25m 5-6 years from now isn't going to really "cost" that much.
Sure, but isn’t this exactly what happened with David Price? And the team seemed to think it was a problem. John Henry doesn’t want to give out long, high AAV deals to pitchers over 30. As frustrating as it is, especially when the trade market is dormant, he’s probably right. I don’t think the org is looking to get into the same situation they just got out of.
 

Yaz4Ever

MemBer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2004
11,292
MA-CA-RI-AZ-NC
Cutting the Gordian knot of this negotiation is what made me consider inking both Snell and Montgomery the other day.

Offer Snell 2/$50m, with like $35m of it paid in year one, and an opt-out that vests if he makes 25 starts and doesn’t end the year on the IL. Yes he has a QO; yes that sucks.

Offer a normal deal to Montgomery: 4/$100m or whatever. Tell Boras that you’ll only take Snell if you get Montgomery; and remind him that this would be some legendary mystery team shit that he could milk for a decade.

Trade the expensive relievers to duck back under the LT, and give Houck and Whitlock late-inning roles.

Go win a pennant.
Yes
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,767
Sure, but isn’t this exactly what happened with David Price? And the team seemed to think it was a problem. John Henry doesn’t want to give out long, high AAV deals to pitchers over 30. As frustrating as it is, especially when the trade market is dormant, he’s probably right. I don’t think the org is looking to get into the same situation they just got out of.
Yeah, I'm not saying the Sox will sign Montgomery. It's just that they have a glaring, glaring need in the rotation, and Montgomery is GOOD. Like, actually really good. And he's available. And the Sox have plenty of money available. Well, maybe not available if the owners have that money allocated for other, non-Red Sox, projects.
 

RHS

New Member
Dec 14, 2006
4
If they give him a 6-year, $150m deal, that's $25m a year. 180 innings at 3.40 era is well worth $25m these days. If he does that for three years in a row (and his pitching style should support that pretty well, barring injury), then starts to see decline, his 2028 and 2029 seasons won't be great, but also $25m 5-6 years from now isn't going to really "cost" that much.
But nothing in his underlying metrics suggests he's reliable for a 3.40 era. Looking at his metrics (xFIP, SIERA, swstr%, CSW%), they all suggest a reasonable expectation is a 4.00-ish ERA in year 1 of the contract. Given where he is on the aging curve, it only deteriorates from there. That's why he's not signed. Boras is trying to sell him as an elite pitcher worth a 5 year contract or longer. But his underlying numbers suggest he's more like a low-end #2 pitcher in year one and likely a #3 or worse going forward that is not worth $25m for anything more than a couple years. Also, look at pitcher aging curves --- he's not likely to reproduce what he was at 30 years old for three more years. The deterioration for the average starting pitcher begins at 28/29 and then accelerates starting at 30/31.

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Pitcher_Curves_Starters.png
 

Dewey'sCannon

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
871
Maryland
Montgomery is good, but I don't think he's 6/150 good. 5/125-130 is as far as I'd go guaranteed, and that's really pushing it - would prefer that fifth year to be an option year, maybe that vests based on IP or some other performance proxy in the 4th year - and willing to give an opt-out after the third year to keep the guarantee to 4 years.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,767
But nothing in his underlying metrics suggests he's reliable for a 3.40 era. Looking at his metrics (xFIP, SIERA, swstr%, CSW%), they all suggest a reasonable expectation is a 4.00-ish ERA in year 1 of the contract. Given where he is on the aging curve, it only deteriorates from there. That's why he's not signed. Boras is trying to sell him as an elite pitcher worth a 5 year contract or longer. But his underlying number suggest he's more like a low-end #2 pitcher in year one and likely a #3 or worse going forward that is not worth $25m for anything more than two or three years. Also, look at pitcher aging curves --- he's not likely to reproduce what he was at 30 years old for three more years. The deterioration for the average starting pitcher begins at 28/29 and then accelerates starting at 30/31.

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Pitcher_Curves_Starters.png
I really don't understand why the metrics would say this. Look at his last three years. He's, like, legitimately good. I don't know how those metrics are calculated, but one good year may be a fluke. Two may even be iffy. Three in a row where he's just performed really well - especially given the number of innings he's pitched - and you're no longer looking at some weird thing. You're looking at a guy who is just a good major league pitcher, regardless of projections.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,767
In any event, I am convinced the Sox won't sign him so I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to post about him. Looks like they've got what they've got.
 

RHS

New Member
Dec 14, 2006
4
I really don't understand why the metrics would say this. Look at his last three years. He's, like, legitimately good. I don't know how those metrics are calculated, but one good year may be a fluke. Two may even be iffy. Three in a row where he's just performed really well - especially given the number of innings he's pitched - and you're no longer looking at some weird thing. You're looking at a guy who is just a good major league pitcher, regardless of projections.
That’s a good question. Montgomery has outperformed his underlying metrics by a bit over the past few years but I’m skeptical it would continue with Fenway as a home park and the Red Sox defense behind him. I feel like Sox have offer out to him for something like 4-years and $90m million but that probably wont get it done.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,540
Hingham, MA
Montgomery has been very good but nothing in this profile screams ace.

https://baseballsavant.mlb.com/savant-player/jordan-montgomery-656756

His most similar pitchers include guys like Pascual Perez, Garret Richards, Chase Anderson, Jack Flaherty, but also Zach Wheeler. So who knows.

Would love for the Sox to sign him, but also will be pretty nervous if they do.
And no one is saying he should be paid like an ace. We aren't talking about like an 8 year $300M contract here.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,504
deep inside Guido territory
Sure, but isn’t this exactly what happened with David Price? And the team seemed to think it was a problem. John Henry doesn’t want to give out long, high AAV deals to pitchers over 30. As frustrating as it is, especially when the trade market is dormant, he’s probably right. I don’t think the org is looking to get into the same situation they just got out of.
If he doesn’t want to pay for FA pitching, but at the same time they allocate the least amount of resources in the draft to pitching then I’m not sure how he expects to win.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
12,317
If he doesn’t want to pay for FA pitching, but at the same time they allocate the least amount of resources in the draft to pitching then I’m not sure how he expects to win.
Well, I think he wants to do whatever the Rays have done- they don’t spend a ton of money on pitchers, but tend to always have pretty good pitching. A combination of identifying the right players and acquiring them (via draft, trade, free agency, etc.) as well as better development. Easier said than done, but I don’t think just throwing money at the highest priced FA was ever part of the plan. Breslow and acquired a fair amount of pitchers this year already, hopefully in a few months we are talking about how smart he was in doing so.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,678
Are we sure that it’s John Henry and not Craig Breslow who doesn’t want to spend that money? Pretty much everything they’ve said, and has been reported in years past, points to the latter.

It’s Henry’s money of course, but getting a big FA signing wrong, and immediately, is not a great way to start a tenure in a role that’s seen a lot of turnover.

Apprehension about signing starting pitchers well into their 30s doesn’t sound outrageous or anomalous, whosever it is. Pitching injuries are more frequent than ever. Pitchers throw harder than ever. Montgomery and Snell are quite good — and I think their size gives them more durability than most — but beyond a certain point, doesn’t it become a poor use of resources?
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
12,317
Yeah, I think it probably is the right move. Look at the list of highest paid pitchers and the most valuable pitchers and there’s not a ton of overlap. It’s frustrating as a fan to see a team that hasn’t improved much, on paper, but the path to contention is getting better production out of the guys we already have, which certainly seems possible, even if many / most of us are skeptical after the last few years.

Like, signing Montgomery or Snell probably makes us feel better about our chances, right? But does it really make the team significantly better? I dunno. There’s this weird dichotomy where we want the team to spend more…but spending on free agents isn’t really terribly efficient, usually.

I’m kinda just ready to start the season and have real games to talk about.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
71,219
If you go back to the thread I started here in November asking people to guess how many of the Nola/Snell/Montgomery/Sonny Gray/E-Rod quintet will earn their upcoming contracts, the overwhelming answer here was just 1 or 2 of the 5, and I'm guessing Nola was a lot of that.

https://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?threads/how-many-of-these-fa-pitchers-will-earn-their-upcoming-contracts.40881/

So given that the 30 people actually making decisions are probably on average a bit more knowledgable on these topics than us (heh), it's not a complete surprise that the two SPs who did not quickly jump to a single favored suitor (E-Rod maybe played the field a bit) are still out there. I certainly wouldn't have predicted it but also it seems like collectively we knew something in November before this all played out.
 

Sox Puppet

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2016
728
Restraint is all well and good, but then what's the point of paying 2/$38.5M for Lucas Giolito and his 4.88 ERA/5.27 FIP? I get that he's an innings-eater, but that's small consolation when the innings being eaten are barely above replacement level. For that level of production, I'd rather have just re-signed Michael Wacha and patched up the innings difference with a strong bullpen. (And yes, I get that we're gambling on a return to form for Giolito, but that speaks to risk rather than restraint).
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
5,298
We've spent the last two seasons doing exactly that. It hasn't exactly gone well. A "strong bullpen" doesn't do anything when you've ground them into dust by August cause your Wachas keep breaking.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.