Let's Lay Off That Throttle

Big Papi's Mango Salsa · Feb 8, 2024

John Marzano Olympic Hero said:
Bloom also turned down a Sale trade to the Rangers because he was quibbling over prospects. He could’ve snapped that tether but for whatever reason couldn’t.

This job was much too big for Bloom. I think Henry finally realized that sometime last year.

Right, once Bloom turned down an offer to get rid of Sale, that burden become his to own.

Also, Bloom signed Story to a longer and more lucrative deal than Gausman, as well as Yoshida last year to far bigger deals than many of those I mentioned.

I find it incredibly difficult to believe that Henry would have said “no, you can’t sign Bassitt for $69m, Taillon for $76m or Senga for $85m - you must spend more money on Yoshida than on any of them.” (FWIW, I bumped each up by $2m/yr from what they signed assuming the deals would need to have been beaten, at minimum.)

Or - you can’t give Eovaldi the money he came back and asked for - you must give it to Duvall, Turner and Adalberto Mondessi instead.

Henry certainly might not have allowed mega deals like those given to Cole, but I find it very tough to believe he wouldn’t allow lesser dollar deals like those I mentioned in the middle tier. Especially when Bloom was allowed the money to sign Story and Yoshida.

Moving on from Bloom, I really hope Breslow doesn’t make the same decision to do nothing but exclusively dumpster dive on starting pitchers with so many warts they can only take one year deals. On the one hand, I’m cautiously optimistic he will expend more high level assets for starting pitching (he already did in trading for Fitts), but on the other it is a concern that the only deal for a starting pitcher is - one year (Giolito). So it’s of course to be determined…

chawson · Feb 9, 2024

We just saw a very solid (imo) return for a non-injured Sale. I don’t think it was reported what the Rangers had offered, but IIRC it was more of a salary dump.

Why is it such a bad thing that we held on to him long enough to reestablish value? With the acknowledgment that we don’t know the Texas deal, isn’t it pretty likely that having Grissom is better?

HfxBob · Feb 9, 2024

chawson said:
We just saw a very solid (imo) return for a non-injured Sale. I don’t think it was reported what the Rangers had offered, but IIRC it was more of a salary dump.

Why is it such a bad thing that we held on to him long enough to reestablish value. With the acknowledgment that we don’t know the Texas deal, isn’t it pretty likely that having Grissom is better?

Seems like a fair point to me.

John Marzano Olympic Hero · Feb 9, 2024

chawson said:
We just saw a very solid (imo) return for a non-injured Sale. I don’t think it was reported what the Rangers had offered, but IIRC it was more of a salary dump.

Why is it such a bad thing that we held on to him long enough to reestablish value? With the acknowledgment that we don’t know the Texas deal, isn’t it pretty likely that having Grissom is better?

Right but that wasn't being argued. The OP said, "Good lord, they were tethered to Chris Sale and clearly weren’t giving Bloom the okay to add a long term contract. I’m not 100% defending him as he made a few major goofs but the guy was screwed by Henry."

Which reads to me that if the Sox were able to unload Chris Sale, then Henry would have given the green light for a different long-term contract. In other words, since the Sox already were getting screwed on the Sale contract, Henry was gunshy about adding another one until the Sale contract was gone. This may or may not be true. Personally I think that Henry is done giving long-term contracts, which is an issue because stars demand long-term contracts but that's neither here nor there.

You're right, we don't know what the prospects that the Rangers were offering, but I believe that they were going to take on a vast amount of his salary and Bloom had agreed to the transaction. Then all of a sudden he got cold feet and wanted other players which pissed Chris Young off. So the Sox could have gotten rid of Sale a year earlier, which meant they would have gotten rid of his contract a year earlier and received two prospects. Now Grissom may be good, I'm happy for the return, but let's pump the brakes on whether he's "better" than the two unnamed prospects that the Sox were going to get. For all we know it could've been the Red Sox sliding door version of the Rangers getting a young Jon Lester as a throw-in to the proposed ARod to the Sox deal.

Big Papi's Mango Salsa · Feb 9, 2024

@John Marzano Olympic Hero beat me to it. But that was my point @chawson.

Once Bloom turned down the right to get rid of Sale, ownership of the contract fell to him (at least in my opinion). I'm not even arguing whether it was or was not a good choice or that it worked out for the best or did, just that once that happened, he wasn't "tethered" to Chris Sale, he made the choice to keep Sale, for better or worse.

I was also arguing against the idea that even with Sale on the roster, that FSG would have prevented Bloom from signing mid tier pitching (ie Senga, Bassitt, Taillon, Stroman, etc). If FSG would greenlight the deal to Story and the deal to Yoshida, it seems a stretch for sure to say that they wouldn't have approved smaller expenditures instead (case in point, Henry would really say "no, you absolutely cannot pay $68m for Bassitt, you must pay $22m more for Yoshida instead.")

simplicio · Feb 9, 2024

I think this was the thread we were last discussing farm rankings; Keith Law bucked the downward trend and bumped us up to 8 (from 23 last winter):

8. Boston Red Sox
The Red Sox’s system had a hell of a 2023, even with their top guy (Marcelo Mayer, No. 8) getting hurt again. Roman Anthony (No. 22) is one of the big development success stories in all of the minors, with a remade swing that’s one of the best in the minors and the team’s recognition that he was too good for Low A even when he wasn’t performing stat-wise. Their 2023 draft worked out better than they might have hoped, with Kyle Teel (No. 54) falling to their first pick and then the very high-upside athlete Nazzan Zanetello coming with their second pick. The big knock I had last year is still here, though — they do not have pitching, with nobody in full-season ball I’d project as a major-league starter, and at some point that will have to change via trade or a different approach in the draft.

chawson · Feb 9, 2024

John Marzano Olympic Hero said:
Right but that wasn't being argued. The OP said, "Good lord, they were tethered to Chris Sale and clearly weren’t giving Bloom the okay to add a long term contract. I’m not 100% defending him as he made a few major goofs but the guy was screwed by Henry."

Which reads to me that if the Sox were able to unload Chris Sale, then Henry would have given the green light for a different long-term contract. In other words, since the Sox already were getting screwed on the Sale contract, Henry was gunshy about adding another one until the Sale contract was gone. This may or may not be true. Personally I think that Henry is done giving long-term contracts, which is an issue because stars demand long-term contracts but that's neither here nor there.

You're right, we don't know what the prospects that the Rangers were offering, but I believe that they were going to take on a vast amount of his salary and Bloom had agreed to the transaction. Then all of a sudden he got cold feet and wanted other players which pissed Chris Young off. So the Sox could have gotten rid of Sale a year earlier, which meant they would have gotten rid of his contract a year earlier and received two prospects. Now Grissom may be good, I'm happy for the return, but let's pump the brakes on whether he's "better" than the two unnamed prospects that the Sox were going to get. For all we know it could've been the Red Sox sliding door version of the Rangers getting a young Jon Lester as a throw-in to the proposed ARod to the Sox deal.

Big Papi's Mango Salsa said:
@John Marzano Olympic Hero beat me to it. But that was my point @chawson.

Once Bloom turned down the right to get rid of Sale, ownership of the contract fell to him (at least in my opinion). I'm not even arguing whether it was or was not a good choice or that it worked out for the best or did, just that once that happened, he wasn't "tethered" to Chris Sale, he made the choice to keep Sale, for better or worse.

I guess I just don't believe that Henry isn't giving out long-term contracts anymore. I don’t think it’s necessarily true that they clearly weren’t giving Bloom the okay to add a long-term contract (besides Devers, Story, and Yoshida).

I would imagine that institutionally, the Red Sox have a heightened reticence about long-term contracts after so many of them over the last decade haven't worked out (Hanley, Sandoval, Lackey, Price, Sale, Crawford, Gonzalez, Castillo, Story so far). It would make sense to figure out why! But it seems speculative to assume that any directive coming from Henry directly and not just general team-building risk aversion by the CBO/GM/GMs.

The evidence we have against the Henry austerity narrative seems pretty strong, to me: the Devers contract, of course, Story too, plus well documented interest in Yamamoto, which would have been a huge long-term contract by any measure.

HfxBob · Feb 9, 2024

Kennedy said the payroll will probably be lower than last year, and Sox writers like Abraham and Speier, who are not normally doomsayer types, seem to be thoroughly convinced that the Red Sox will not be pursuing Montgomery or Snell and will be making a couple of minor moves at most.

If the next month or so proves these things to be wrong, we'll all have a different narrative to work with.

Jimbodandy · Feb 9, 2024

simplicio said:
I think this was the thread we were last discussing farm rankings; Keith Law bucked the downward trend and bumped us up to 8 (from 23 last winter):

So Law and Fangraphs like the system and BA doesn't. Where do the other prospect services come in?

Big Papi's Mango Salsa · Feb 9, 2024

chawson said:
I guess I just don't believe that Henry isn't giving out long-term contracts anymore. I don’t think it’s necessarily true that they clearly weren’t giving Bloom the okay to add a long-term contract (besides Devers, Story, and Yoshida).

I would imagine that institutionally, the Red Sox have a heightened reticence about long-term contracts after so many of them over the last decade haven't worked out (Hanley, Sandoval, Lackey, Price, Sale, Crawford, Gonzalez, Castillo, Story so far). It would make sense to figure out why! But it seems speculative to assume that any directive coming from Henry directly and not just general team-building risk aversion by the CBO/GM/GMs.

The evidence we have against the Henry austerity narrative seems pretty strong, to me: the Devers contract, of course, Story too, plus well documented interest in Yamamoto, which would have been a huge long-term contract by any measure.

I actually agree completely. But my point has always been a belief that I think FSG gives every single one of their GMs a "budget" and that it's roughly speaking $LTT in a given year. I really don't think FSG cares how that is spent, so long as that is what IS spent, if that makes sense. They'll listen if a GM wants to go over it, but then they're on the line for the results of that choice - which I think is a totally fair way to run a business.

They probably occasionally will "chop" the budget for a year to ensure they reset (ie the apparent $225m mandate last year) but otherwise, I think it's roughly $LTT(.97). Outside of DDski, this is how they've roughly set a budget for 20 years.

Is it possible something happened this off-season and they have mandated a payroll lower than $LTT(.97), sure, of course. It's also possible they haven't. I don't know.

My point is more that I think whatever the budget "is" that FSG doesn't really care how it's arrived at. (Or put another way, I don't think FSG gives two craps if it was $20m spent to have retained Eovaldi and signed two MLB minimum bats or $20m spent between Duvall, Turner and Mondessi, they just care that it's $20m.)

HfxBob · Feb 9, 2024

Big Papi's Mango Salsa said:
My point is more that I think whatever the budget "is" that FSG doesn't really care how it's arrived at. (Or put another way, I don't think FSG gives two craps if it was $20m spent to have retained Eovaldi and signed two MLB minimum bats or $20m spent between Duvall, Turner and Mondessi, they just care that it's $20m.)

Well, I think future payroll liabilities matter to them too, so a 5 year/$50 million contract is looked at differently from a 1 year/$10 million contract.

Big Papi's Mango Salsa · Feb 9, 2024

HfxBob said:
Well, I think future payroll liabilities matter to them too, so a 5 year/$50 million contract is looked at differently from a 1 year/$10 million contract.

You could be right. None of us know.

But even if so, that would have made them more likely to have wanted Bloom to have spent on lets say Senga, Bassitt, Taillon or Eovaldi last year (certainly more than Yoshida) and Gausman more than Story before 2022 since in each scenario the pitchers in question signed for less in terms of dollars spent and in terms of years.

Which again, is just my overall point, you don't even have to have only "cheap" pitching to build a good team for a $230m budget. You actually can spend some money and do something other than dumpster dive and only dumpster dive.

They apparently are holding their executives accountable to build a decent team with $230m, that isn't outlandish. It does make it more difficult when a massive contract is entirely whiffed upon (which to a certain extent both Sale and Story have been whiffed upon - though they jury is of course still out on Story).

Rovin Romine · Feb 9, 2024

Big Papi's Mango Salsa said:
My point is more that I think whatever the budget "is" that FSG doesn't really care how it's arrived at. (Or put another way, I don't think FSG gives two craps if it was $20m spent to have retained Eovaldi and signed two MLB minimum bats or $20m spent between Duvall, Turner and Mondessi, they just care that it's $20m.)

Perhaps if you were only talking about 1 year contracts. But most expensive contracts involve multiple years.

Ownership is pretty clearly concerned about handing out long term high AAV contracts that can cripple the club in the years to come. The risk from those tends to fall in two buckets: 1) catastrophic injury removing the player for a long period and/or degrading their performance; 2) age related decline for long term contracts (whether or not the player delivers value in the first few years.)

Several corollaries flow from this. Most of which we've seen this season. The first is being willing to hand out a long term high AAV contract to the right kind of player (YY). The second is not to spend for spending's sake alone, should there be an internal option; and even there the preference would be on short-term deals that won't bind the club's hands moving forward.

John Marzano Olympic Hero · Feb 9, 2024

chawson said:
I guess I just don't believe that Henry isn't giving out long-term contracts anymore. I don’t think it’s necessarily true that they clearly weren’t giving Bloom the okay to add a long-term contract (besides Devers, Story, and Yoshida).

I would imagine that institutionally, the Red Sox have a heightened reticence about long-term contracts after so many of them over the last decade haven't worked out (Hanley, Sandoval, Lackey, Price, Sale, Crawford, Gonzalez, Castillo, Story so far). It would make sense to figure out why! But it seems speculative to assume that any directive coming from Henry directly and not just general team-building risk aversion by the CBO/GM/GMs.

The evidence we have against the Henry austerity narrative seems pretty strong, to me: the Devers contract, of course, Story too, plus well documented interest in Yamamoto, which would have been a huge long-term contract by any measure.

Devers is an anomaly. I think that a lot of that was based on the hue and cry from the fanbase about losing Betts and Bogaerts. I don't think the Sox wanted to sign Devers, but felt that they had to. As far as Story goes, he got a long-term contract at a very reasonable price because Boston was literally the only place that wanted him. The offseason that he signed was the shortstop offseason, there were a few teams who needed a shortstop and like five premium shortstops and Texas signed two of them. Story was the odd man out and signed for a deal below what many people thought he was going to get. Yoshida, on the other hand, got more money than people thought but only signed a four-year deal. I guess we can quibble on whether a four-year deal is a long-term one or not, but I don't think it is. So by my count, that's two long-term contracts since 2018. That's not very many.

And I agree, the Sox have been bit by long-term contracts, so I don't blame them for not signing players to LT deals. It doesn't make much sense, becuase the ROI usually sucks. Unfortunately, they're in the business where top talent demands long-term contracts at high values. So there's your answer right there. The Sox won't sign players to long-term deals unless a. they get a good deal or b. outside activity "forces" them to.

I really think Yamamoto was a pipe dream. The Sox weren't going to blow him out of the water with the crazy offer needed to sign him. Just like they're not "keeping the powder dry" for next year's boffo free agent. This is how the Boston Red Sox operate and we should all really get used to it.

Auger34 · Feb 9, 2024

John Marzano Olympic Hero said:
I really think Yamamoto was a pipe dream. The Sox weren't going to blow him out of the water with the crazy offer needed to sign him. Just like they're not "keeping the powder dry" for next year's boffo free agent. This is how the Boston Red Sox operate and we should all really get used to it.

I think this bears repeating.

I have no doubt the Sox really wanted YY. I bet you that they were willing to go above what they would for a normal FA. But, in the end, I don't think they were interested in giving him what the market said he was worth.
And I don't understand why this won't be something that continuously happens. The Sox don't want to sign your typical FA because of where they are on the age curve...but if a "unicorn" comes along like YY, the market is going to be crazy expensive...which they also don't want to pay.

To go back to YY. it seems like he preferred LA as well, which also matters. But I do find it hard to believe that the Sox would have even matched what LAD gave him, let alone given him a decent amount more to convince him to come to Boston.

chawson · Feb 9, 2024

John Marzano Olympic Hero said:
As far as Story goes, he got a long-term contract at a very reasonable price because Boston was literally the only place that wanted him. The offseason that he signed was the shortstop offseason, there were a few teams who needed a shortstop and like five premium shortstops and Texas signed two of them. Story was the odd man out and signed for a deal below what many people thought he was going to get.

The Mariners were heavily interested in Story, to name one team.

John Marzano Olympic Hero · Feb 9, 2024

chawson said:
The Mariners were heavily interested in Story, to name one team.

Okay. How about his market was very limited which allowed the Red Sox to swoop in and get him for bargain basement contract? Better?

chawson · Feb 9, 2024

John Marzano Olympic Hero said:
Okay. How about his market was very limited which allowed the Red Sox to swoop in and get him for bargain basement contract? Better?

I guess my question is, how do we know that? We've got evidence that at least two teams were in on him at $125 million — which, I know we've grown accustom to these numbers, but that's a lot! I can't imagine other teams wouldn't have been at slightly lower values.

I don't know for sure, but my point is that it feels logically off to say that a player signed for $140 million because literally no one else was interested. Obviously you're speaking in relative terms, but that doesn't make sense to me.

John Marzano Olympic Hero said:
I guess we can quibble on whether a four-year deal is a long-term one or not, but I don't think it is. So by my count, that's two long-term contracts since 2018. That's not very many.

Devers, Story and Yoshida would be three long-term contracts, if we're saying more than four years apiece.

I don't have time today but it'd be interesting to look at how many 5+ year contracts teams have signed since 2018.

mikcou · Feb 9, 2024

chawson said:
I guess my question is, how do we know that? We've got evidence that at least two teams were in on him at $125 million — which, I know we've grown accustom to these numbers, but that's a lot! I can't imagine other teams wouldn't have been at slightly lower values.

I don't know for sure, but my point is that it feels logically off to say that a player signed for $140 million because literally no one else was interested. Obviously you're speaking in relative terms, but that doesn't make sense to me.

Devers, Story and Yoshida would be three long-term contracts, if we're saying more than four years apiece.

I don't have time today but it'd be interesting to look at how many 5+ year contracts teams have signed since 2018.

Obviously as price goes down, teams will become more interested. No one was interested in him on a superstar or even a tier below that deal. He signed a deal towards the high end of the mid market from the one team willing to go there.

$125M - $140M is a pretty small amount for a guy who put up the following fWAR from 2018 to 2020: 4.6, 6, and 2.3 in the COVID shortened seasons and who was an above average defensive shortstop. Now, he had the elbow problem and a not great 2021 that foreshadowed the offensive issues we saw in ~550 PAs in Boston, but I dont think anyone on the outside expected Story to settle for what he did. Hell, his top choice gave him $140-$150M offer earlier in the offseason to play second that he turned down as not sufficient so he fully expected to get signficantly more.

It was a value play where Bloom bet that the elbow and single season hitting downturn weren't as big issues as the rest of the market felt they were. So far, he was wrong on both.

John Marzano Olympic Hero · Feb 9, 2024

chawson said:
I guess my question is, how do we know that? We've got evidence that at least two teams were in on him at $125 million — which, I know we've grown accustom to these numbers, but that's a lot! I can't imagine other teams wouldn't have been at slightly lower values.

I don't know for sure, but my point is that it feels logically off to say that a player signed for $140 million because literally no one else was interested. Obviously you're speaking in relative terms, but that doesn't make sense to me.

I'm going on memory here (which can be dangerous) but from what I recall, the shortstop market was basic Economics 101 in 2021-22. There was a glut of really good shortstops, there were a few teams that needed them and there were a bunch of other teams that did not have a need or had the cash to acquire them. The Sox obviously didn't need a SS, they had Bogaerts, but they needed a second baseman. Story wasn't too keen on playing second, he thought of himself as a SS (probably rightly so) and tried to sign with the Rangers as a SS (that's where he's from and that's where he wanted to go) but was rebuffed when they signed Seager and Semien. Correa signed with the Twins and Baez signed with the Tigers. Story was considered, rightly or wrongly, to be the odd man out.

You're right, $140M is a hell of a consolation prize, but that's the way things go when there's a lot of supply and not much demand. Incidentally back when free agency started, A's owner Charles O. Finley wanted there to be one-year contracts for everyone--essentially making every player a free agent every year because he understood supply and demand. Marvin Miller was terrified of this because he also understood how the free market works, but all of the other owners hated Finley so much they told him to sit down and STFU.

chawson said:
Devers, Story and Yoshida would be three long-term contracts, if we're saying more than four years apiece.

I don't have time today but it'd be interesting to look at how many 5+ year contracts teams have signed since 2018.

Even if we're being generous, three in six off-seasons isn't great for a team that's considered a large market one. Which lends credence to my theory that Henry and the FO have made a shift in signing long-term deals--and that's a problem if you like stars on your team.

Rovin Romine · Feb 9, 2024

John Marzano Olympic Hero said:
Even if we're being generous, three in six off-seasons isn't great for a team that's considered a large market one. Which lends credence to my theory that Henry and the FO have made a shift in signing long-term deals--and that's a problem if you like stars on your team.

Contracts for 4 years or more, by years the contracts begin:
2018 - JD Martinez 5 years
2019 - Eovaldi 4 years
2020 - Sale Extension 5 years, Boegarts Extension 6 years.
2021 - 0
2022 - Story 6 years
2023 - Yoshida 5 years, Whitlock 4 years, Devers 10 years (to begin in 2024?)

John Marzano Olympic Hero · Feb 9, 2024

Rovin Romine said:
Contracts for 4 years or more, by years the contracts begin:
2018 - JD Martinez 5 years
2019 - Eovaldi 4 years
2020 - Sale Extension 5 years, Boegarts Extension 6 years.
2021 - 0
2022 - Story 6 years
2023 - Yoshida 5 years, Whitlock 4 years, Devers 10 years (to begin in 2024?)

Again, I don't think four years is long term so I will add Sale and Yoshida. The Bogaerts extension was technically six years, but we all knew (even the Sox did) that he was going to opt out as soon as he could, unless he broke his leg or was hit by an asteroid. And I was starting with the 2018-19 offseason, not the 2017-18 season, so I'm taking JD out of the equation. You also forgot 2023-24 off season.

Rovin Romine · Feb 9, 2024

John Marzano Olympic Hero said:
Again, I don't think four years is long term so I will add Sale and Yoshida. The Bogaerts extension was technically six years, but we all knew (even the Sox did) that he was going to opt out as soon as he could, unless he broke his leg or was hit by an asteroid. And I was starting with the 2018-19 offseason, not the 2017-18 season, so I'm taking JD out of the equation. You also forgot 2023-24 off season.

I've just listed the longer term contracts they committed to. You can argue a pattern from that if you wish, but that's what they did.

John Marzano Olympic Hero · Feb 9, 2024

Rovin Romine said:
I've just listed the longer term contracts they committed to. You can argue a pattern from that if you wish, but that's what they did.

Thanks?

RedOctober3829 · Feb 13, 2024

View: https://twitter.com/alexspeier/status/1757465117250211890?s=46&t=IVL2VrlFgLlpc3mjGGto8Q

RedOctober3829 · Feb 13, 2024

View: https://twitter.com/bossportsgordo/status/1757469157249982670?s=46&t=IVL2VrlFgLlpc3mjGGto8Q

PayrodsFirstClutchHit · Feb 13, 2024

Can we get the usual suspects to parse what the meaning is of “a time will come”? I am reading that as “not this off-season” but I am willing to hear arguments against.

HfxBob · Feb 13, 2024

PayrodsFirstClutchHit said:
Can we get the usual suspects to parse what the meaning is of “a time will come”? I am reading that as “not this off-season” but I am willing to hear arguments against.

The beauty of it is that it could mean any time. Craig has already mastered this stuff.

chawson · Feb 13, 2024

PayrodsFirstClutchHit said:
Can we get the usual suspects to parse what the meaning is of “a time will come”? I am reading that as “not this off-season” but I am willing to hear arguments against.

Alex Speier appeared on the FanGraphs Effectively Wild podcast a few days ago and talked about this.

Speier:

This is an aberrational period now for them in the context of the entirety of the ownership period, right? The Red Sox have virtually always been a top-five, top-six spending team in Major League Baseball based on the luxury tax threshold. [explains the history of them going over and dipping under]

This is weird, it's different. It feels like — and this is as much perception as it is anything that I've that I've heard from anyone within their organization — it feels like there is enough of a sense that larger-ticket free agent signings have had disappointing returns that there's a greater desire to to see more internal development, [to] see young players take steps forward and then add to that group with finishing pieces, rather than trying to jumpstart that. The last time that they tried to jumpstart, that they tried to put high-cost major-league talent in front of a core, was the infamous offseason of 2014-2015 when they signed Pablo Sandoval and Hanley Ramirez. And that did not go well! They ended up being a last-place team in 2015, and they ended up digging out of that because their core emerged over the latter half of 2015. But the success of that core occurred in spite of the, whatever, like, $150-170 million they dropped on those two dudes. So it feels like there's there is a different path being charted this time around. Everything I've been told is that this isn't the new reality for the Red Sox, that there will come a time when they're ready to spend again, but right now that time hasn't arrived.

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/effectively-wild-episode-2123-season-preview-series-red-sox-and-padres/

The whole episode is worth listening to, but he addresses this specifically, along with a lot of other stuff, including interesting stuff about Dombrowski, Giolilto, Story, Bloom (with some context of other teams' frustration with trading with the Red Sox during the Bloom era).

There's a bit that they do for the first half hour and then Speier gets going around 33 minutes in. They first talk about the Netflix thing.

RedOctober3829 · Feb 16, 2024

View: https://twitter.com/nbcsboston/status/1758662099356508332?s=46&t=IVL2VrlFgLlpc3mjGGto8Q

DeadlySplitter · Feb 16, 2024

Tomase must be licking his chops on what he'll write this season. Huge grain of salt with anything he says.

LogansDad · Feb 17, 2024

The fact Tomase still gets linked here in a way that infers anything he says should be trusted more than a dentist trusts a polar bear is a traveshamockery.

Sandy Leon Trotsky · Feb 17, 2024

chawson said:
Alex Speier appeared on the FanGraphs Effectively Wild podcast a few days ago and talked about this.

Speier:

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/effectively-wild-episode-2123-season-preview-series-red-sox-and-padres/

The whole episode is worth listening to, but he addresses this specifically, along with a lot of other stuff, including interesting stuff about Dombrowski, Giolilto, Story, Bloom (with some context of other teams' frustration with trading with the Red Sox during the Bloom era).

There's a bit that they do for the first half hour and then Speier gets going around 33 minutes in. They first talk about the Netflix thing.

What does adding a Montgomery/Snell do that would hinder long term development of a core?
They’re deep in position prospects but IMO need a veteran starter that can bridge into the Mayer/Teel/Anthony core in say ‘25/26.
There’s little pitching depth so adding Montgomery doesn’t crowd out Perales or Wikelman if they’re more optimistic on them than most others….
It also doesn’t crowd out Bello or Crawford. So the only take away is that the FO is that bullish on Houck/Whitlock/Winchowski as potential long term mid rotation guys or better. I don’t think that feeling is shared by anyone here other than Chawson(joking poke in the ribs).
Houck is the only guy with mid rotation ceiling but he hasn’t really earned that spot yet and to me looks like he’d best be employed as a closer or 2-inning BP ace.
Whitlock seems to not be able to stay healthy except when he’s in the role he dominated in in ‘21.
Winchowski doesn’t really have as good an arsenal as Houck

chawson · Feb 17, 2024

Sandy Leon Trotsky said:
What does adding a Montgomery/Snell do that would hinder long term development of a core?
They’re deep in position prospects but IMO need a veteran starter that can bridge into the Mayer/Teel/Anthony core in say ‘25/26.
There’s little pitching depth so adding Montgomery doesn’t crowd out Perales or Wikelman if they’re more optimistic on them than most others….
It also doesn’t crowd out Bello or Crawford. So the only take away is that the FO is that bullish on Houck/Whitlock/Winchowski as potential long term mid rotation guys or better. I don’t think that feeling is shared by anyone here other than Chawson(joking poke in the ribs).
Houck is the only guy with mid rotation ceiling but he hasn’t really earned that spot yet and to me looks like he’d best be employed as a closer or 2-inning BP ace.
Whitlock seems to not be able to stay healthy except when he’s in the role he dominated in in ‘21.
Winchowski doesn’t really have as good an arsenal as Houck

I get that you're kidding, but you really don’t think anyone here besides me is optimistic about Houck, Whitlock and/or Winckowski developing into a mid-rotation arm? With a new deployment plan implemented by a new and highly regarded pitching development braintrust?

The Red Sox pitching development is going to be good. We're maybe not going to see the results in April, but all signs point to it being a difference maker.

I'm less optimistic about Winckowski, but he, Houck and Whitlock all have really solid stuff. We've already seen Crawford's development take him from a guy on no one's Top 60 prospect list into a solid, buzzworthy #3-4 starter, and Bello make a jump from a C-prospect to a #2-3. It's worth a shot to see what these guys can do with this new coaching, largely because we've already got each of them for the next 4-5 years.

uncannymanny · Feb 18, 2024

chawson said:
The Red Sox pitching development is going to be good. We're maybe not going to see the results in April, but all signs point to it being a difference maker.

Which signs?

NDame616 · Feb 18, 2024

uncannymanny said:
Which signs?

I'm guessing signing Breslow and Bailey

Mr Jums · Feb 18, 2024

Sandy Leon Trotsky said:
What does adding a Montgomery/Snell do that would hinder long term development of a core?
They’re deep in position prospects but IMO need a veteran starter that can bridge into the Mayer/Teel/Anthony core in say ‘25/26.
There’s little pitching depth so adding Montgomery doesn’t crowd out Perales or Wikelman if they’re more optimistic on them than most others….
It also doesn’t crowd out Bello or Crawford. So the only take away is that the FO is that bullish on Houck/Whitlock/Winchowski as potential long term mid rotation guys or better. I don’t think that feeling is shared by anyone here other than Chawson(joking poke in the ribs).

I think the argument isn't that signing one of those guys would block someone else but rather that free agents are generally better in the beginning of their contracts than the end. So (completely making up numbers), say you sign pitcher A to a 7 year deal now, the core is ready in 3 years, then you get the core with the back 4 years of pitcher A. But if you wait 3 years and then sign the pitcher, you get the peak of the core with the likely peak of the signed pitcher which maximizes chances of success during that period.

Of course what you sacrifice is at least some competitiveness while waiting, plus the uncertainty of prospect development, and you can argue that they should be able to sign someone now AND later, but I think that's the argument for waiting as opposed to blocking development.

HfxBob · Feb 18, 2024

Mr Jums said:
I think the argument isn't that signing one of those guys would block someone else but rather that free agents are generally better in the beginning of their contracts than the end. So (completely making up numbers), say you sign pitcher A to a 7 year deal now, the core is ready in 3 years, then you get the core with the back 4 years of pitcher A. But if you wait 3 years and then sign the pitcher, you get the peak of the core with the likely peak of the signed pitcher which maximizes chances of success during that period.

Of course what you sacrifice is at least some competitiveness while waiting, plus the uncertainty of prospect development, and you can argue that they should be able to sign someone now AND later, but I think that's the argument for waiting as opposed to blocking development.

You nailed it. For those like me who want them to sign Montgomery, the "sacrifice of competitiveness while waiting" part is a major sticking point, of course.

Sandy Leon Trotsky · Feb 18, 2024

Mr Jums said:
I think the argument isn't that signing one of those guys would block someone else but rather that free agents are generally better in the beginning of their contracts than the end. So (completely making up numbers), say you sign pitcher A to a 7 year deal now, the core is ready in 3 years, then you get the core with the back 4 years of pitcher A. But if you wait 3 years and then sign the pitcher, you get the peak of the core with the likely peak of the signed pitcher which maximizes chances of success during that period.

Of course what you sacrifice is at least some competitiveness while waiting, plus the uncertainty of prospect development, and you can argue that they should be able to sign someone now AND later, but I think that's the argument for waiting as opposed to blocking development.

No I get that argument too quite clearly but I don’t see a 5 year deal for Montgomery being this. For one, the Sox don’t really have the pitching depth in the minors where an ineffective Montgomery years 3-5 is clogging up talent. They could add him and extend Pivetta and still have plenty of space for development…. Unless they think Houck, Whitlock and Winchowski are starters. I don’t. Each of their flaws are exposed and apparent and can really only be hidden by playing up to their strengths in the bullpen.

YTF · Feb 18, 2024

Sandy Leon Trotsky said:
No I get that argument too quite clearly but I don’t see a 5 year deal for Montgomery being this. For one, the Sox don’t really have the pitching depth in the minors where an ineffective Montgomery years 3-5 is clogging up talent. They could add him and extend Pivetta and still have plenty of space for development…. Unless they think Houck, Whitlock and Winchowski are starters. I don’t. Each of their flaws are exposed and apparent and can really only be hidden by playing up to their strengths in the bullpen.

I agree with the bolded. IMO what's stopping the Sox from signing Montgomery to a 5 year deal is their stance on signing a 32 year old pitcher to a long term deal. Obviously YMMV as to what long term is, but if the Sox were to sign Montgomery to a four year deal, years 2-4 of that deal would line up with the arrival of Mayer, Anthony and Teel. While I'm not expecting the Montgomery years (should that happen) to be 4 seasons of dominance, I would hope that he can be a very solid 2, 3 or 4 option as the contract ages. I think that's going to be really important in support of this expected young core and a bonus if he can help solidify this year's rotation.

Jimbodandy · Feb 18, 2024

LogansDad said:
The fact Tomase still gets linked here in a way that infers anything he says should be trusted more than a dentist trusts a polar bear is a traveshamockery.

This. It's shameful.

mwonow · Feb 18, 2024

LogansDad said:
The fact Tomase still gets linked here in a way that infers anything he says should be trusted more than a dentist trusts a polar bear is a traveshamockery.

Jimbodandy said:
This. It's shameful.

I'm surprised that Tomase even gets read by anyone here. It's kind of like reading Twitter comments - nothing to be gained, otherwise-useful time to be lost.

More on track, I'm surprised that nobody has quoted the Casas observation that the Sox have talked extension but offered "nothing enticing" here. Casas is *exactly* who you extend, IMO - and with very little fan goodwill and seemingly no appetite to invest in external free agents, you'd think ownership would want to prove that there still is a throttle somewhere.

YTF · Feb 18, 2024

mwonow said:
I'm surprised that Tomase even gets read by anyone here. It's kind of like reading Twitter comments - nothing to be gained, otherwise-useful time to be lost.

More on track, I'm surprised that nobody has quoted the Casas observation that the Sox have talked extension but offered "nothing enticing" here. Casas is *exactly* who you extend, IMO - and with very little fan goodwill and seemingly no appetite to invest in external free agents, you'd think ownership would want to prove that there still is a throttle somewhere.

They've begun extension talks. This is what we wanted. yes?

Dewey'sCannon · Feb 18, 2024

I think the Sox would probably take Montgomery on a four-year deal, but are reluctant to go five, while Boras wants 6 or 7 years for Montgomery and is reluctant to go to even five, never mind four. I'm doubting that any team out there is willing to go 6 or 7 years for Montgomery (or Snell, for that matter), but someone (maybe even the Red Sox) may swallow hard and give them five.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

mwonow · Feb 18, 2024

YTF said:
They've begun extension talks. This is what we wanted. yes?

As a first step, absolutely! Would have been nice if it was an enticing step one.

BaseballJones · Feb 18, 2024

Looking back at last year's b-ref page for Boston...I totally forgot that as of Aug 26, they were 69-61, and of Sept 4, they were 72-66. Not amazing, but certainly not bad. From there they went 6-18 to finish at 78-84.

What the hell happened? I literally do not even recall how the last 24 games of the season totally imploded.

simplicio · Feb 18, 2024

BaseballJones said:
Looking back at last year's b-ref page for Boston...I totally forgot that as of Aug 26, they were 69-61, and of Sept 4, they were 72-66. Not amazing, but certainly not bad. From there they went 6-18 to finish at 78-84.

What the hell happened? I literally do not even recall how the last 24 games of the season totally imploded.

This happened: https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders/major-league?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=0&type=8&season=2023&month=1000&season1=2023&ind=0&team=3&rost=&age=&filter=&players=0&startdate=2023-09-01&enddate=2023-11-01

Kinda hard to have a good month when you only have 2 full time hitters who are doing anything at all at the plate.

DeadlySplitter · Feb 18, 2024

The offense just cratered along with meh pitching, from what I recall. And I think some of it was packing it in after the Astros swept that series (Kyle Barraclough game).

Duran & Casas had season-ending injuries too

Hee Sox Choi · Feb 19, 2024

If I recall correctly, their schedule was REALLY TOUGH the last month and a half and you could see the collapse coming for that reason alone.

TimScribble · Feb 19, 2024

View: https://twitter.com/gfstarr1/status/1759615295449084128?s=46&t=7XazH1NKZP26a4WUZikbkQ

Sam Kennedy told us that Dustin Pedroia FaceTimed him, Alex Cora, several of the assistant GMs at dinner last night to point out the remaining free agents on the market and make his feelings known about what the Red Sox should do…

Let's Lay Off That Throttle

Member

Member

New Member

has fancy plans, and pants to match

Member

Member

Member

New Member

Member

Member

New Member

Member

Johnny Rico

has fancy plans, and pants to match

used to be tbb

Member

has fancy plans, and pants to match

Member

Member

has fancy plans, and pants to match

Johnny Rico

has fancy plans, and pants to match

Johnny Rico

has fancy plans, and pants to match

Member

Member

Bob Kraft's Season Ticket Robin Hoodie

New Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

will bailey

Member

New Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

ivanvamp

Member

Member

Member

Well-Known Member