Offseason rumors

Status
Not open for further replies.

Daniel_Son

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2021
1,750
San Diego
If Breslow wants Fried here, he's going to have to make a case for it. Same as any big-ticket free agent. If he thinks he's the guy at x million/year and makes a strong case, then sure, I don't think JWH is going to nix the deal based on finances alone. We don't really have that much on the books in 2025.

Maybe Breslow just doesn't think Snell (durability issues) and Montgomery (realistically a SP2-3) are worth an ace-like deal. I don't necessarily disagree with that, and it seems that the other 29 teams agree given that it's March 4 and neither of them has signed.
 

TomRicardo

rusty cohlebone
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2006
20,687
Row 14
You and I have pretty different prescriptions on our lenses, so this reply is less a response to you specifically. The Sox rotation was 8th in MLB last year by xFIP, and that includes Kluber and nine terrible starts from Pivetta. The defense has improved. We'll see what happens.

In general, we're not evaluating these guys' names. All of them are getting their pitches and repertoires revamped by Bailey and co. this year. Some of those tweaks are Bello's learning a slider, Giolito's adding velocity and fastball rise, and so on. It's likely that not all of them will improve, or improve dramatically, but I think there's reason to think that some can. If anyone had projected in 2021 that Kutter Crawford would be a 2024 rotation mainstay, they'd have been laughed off the board.
Your xFIP shouldn't improve if your defense does unless you are saying the team is going to get closer to their xFIP. The Red Sox were 27th in starter's IP last year and 22nd in WAR. Having a good xFIP but not giving enough innings does not make for an above average rotation. You end up blowing out your bullpen by the end of the season. Giolito and Pivetta replaced by organization arms would negatively affect the rotation with even less starter IPs.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,678
Have you considered using the lens that allows you to see that, of the team's top four starters in xFIP last year, two of them are no longer on the team, a third is a pending free agent, and the fourth did his best work in the bullpen?
Yes, the 8th in MLB mark was isolated to SP only. And for the purposes of the discussion, Sale or Paxton wouldn't have been on the 2025 team regardless.

Houck, Crawford, Bello, and Whitlock were all above average last year by xFIP. Most of them comfortably, and Crawford slightly.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,644
Alex Speier on FanGraphs' Effectively Wild, 2/9/24

"I think the Red Sox have changed strategic positions all the time, and their ownership group ends up being derided for it at times, right? There's this bias against signing pitchers in their thirties and so Jon Lester gets a lowball offer in spring training entering 2014. But then after the 2015 season is a colossal failure — ibid see above — they end up signing David Price for the largest contract ever given to a pitcher at that time. That kind of quote-unquote flip-flopping, if it's in pursuit of winning, I don't think there should be that much complaining about it. You should be willing to reverse a position that's a bad one, right? The question is whether he's [Henry is] giving enough trust to executives to adapt to those realities."

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/effectively-wild-episode-2123-season-preview-series-red-sox-and-padres/
I'm not sure what this quote means in terms of the last nine years. Speier is just saying that the Sox shouldn't worry about the perception of flip-flopping. He's not saying that Henry is going to do it just that maybe he should think about it if his executives think it's a good idea. I'm sure Dombrowski told him every day it's a good idea to do exactly this and he got the gate.

So you think that the Sox are going to start spending again on pitchers over 30 because why, Alex Speier told him that it's okay to be seen as a hypocrite?
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,678
Your xFIP shouldn't improve if your defense does unless you are saying the team is going to get closer to their xFIP. The Red Sox were 27th in starter's IP last year and 22nd in WAR. Having a good xFIP but not giving enough innings does not make for an above average rotation. You end up blowing out your bullpen by the end of the season. Giolito and Pivetta replaced by organization arms would negatively affect the rotation with even less starter IPs.
I'm not saying the team's xFIP will improve. I'm saying that xFIP and SIERA are regarded as the most predictive of future ERA, so it's useful data.

Re the innings, sure -- that's always a concern, and for any team. A lot of these guys were building innings counts as they acclimated to rotation (Bello, Crawford, Houck), one got hit with a line drive (Houck), one had other injuries that he's reportedly targeted with offseason conditioning (Whitlock), and Giolito is broadly expected to be more durable than Sale. Pivetta is also expected to be better than the awful pitcher he was in April/May last year, and we've got a few other options to handle the innings he did in a bulk role.

I'm not trying to predict any of it with absolute certainty. Just saying I don't share the feeling of certainty some have that it's all being villainously mismanaged and on the brink of collapse.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,552
around the way
...Also if Giolito and Pivetta are better than that they are most likely going to be offered more than the QO if the team doesn't trade them when they are most likely fifth again at the deadline.
On the plus side, at least we'll have a much braver GM at the deadline performing the fire sale this year.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,678
So you think that the Sox are going to start spending again on pitchers over 30 because why, Alex Speier told him that it's okay to be seen as a hypocrite?
No, I think that it's possible that Breslow puts forward a path that includes signing Max Fried, pending good health, to an Aaron Nola-caliber contract next season and we do.

It'd certainly be better than signing Montgomery to one, or 80 percent of one, this year.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,716
Didn't we say the exact same thing about Yoshida and Yamamoto? Professionals don't usually turn down millions of dollars to play with their friends. I mean I guess it happens, but I wouldn't put too much stock in it.
I don’t think anyone expected that Yamamoto would turn down millions to play with his friend. We were hoping that it would cause him to choose Boston all things being equal. However, as it turned out he wanted to be a Dodger.
 

bosox188

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 11, 2008
3,017
Marlborough, MA
Yeah, it's the whole "Give me big names, or give [management] death" perspective. I'd rather have another good bullpen arm than Montgomery at this point, if there are any left out there.
If the Red Sox were to sign Montgomery, that likely puts both Whitlock and Houck in the bullpen instead of just one of them. Which in effect, would be adding not just a good bullpen arm but a potentially elite one.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
Didn't we say the exact same thing about Yoshida and Yamamoto? Professionals don't usually turn down millions of dollars to play with their friends. I mean I guess it happens, but I wouldn't put too much stock in it.
It's a little less of a long shot for a guy who has been to Boston plenty and started once in Fenway, when his friend talks about living and playing there, an American current major leaguer will know what his friend is talking about. But like Yamamoto I'm sure he's planning to just sign with the Dodgers for a contract that pays him $2m a year for 75 years.
 

E5 Yaz

polka king
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,674
Oregon
Heyman must have the day off

@BNightengale
Four new teams have reached out to Scott Boras about Blake Snell and Jordan Montgomery since the start of spring training, Boras says
 

HfxBob

New Member
Nov 13, 2005
622
If Breslow wants Fried here, he's going to have to make a case for it. Same as any big-ticket free agent. If he thinks he's the guy at x million/year and makes a strong case, then sure, I don't think JWH is going to nix the deal based on finances alone. We don't really have that much on the books in 2025.

Maybe Breslow just doesn't think Snell (durability issues) and Montgomery (realistically a SP2-3) are worth an ace-like deal. I don't necessarily disagree with that, and it seems that the other 29 teams agree given that it's March 4 and neither of them has signed.
But no one is saying Montgomery should get an ace-like deal.
 

HfxBob

New Member
Nov 13, 2005
622
I don’t think anyone expected that Yamamoto would turn down millions to play with his friend. We were hoping that it would cause him to choose Boston all things being equal. However, as it turned out he wanted to be a Dodger.
Also worth noting that Yamamoto's contract ended up $100 million higher than projected even though he shut down the auction and picked the team he wanted...
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,678
But no one is saying Montgomery should get an ace-like deal.
I mean, Boras is, reportedly. And Montgomery too, apparently. So the scores of frustrated and angry fans who feel like the Red Sox should just do it already kind of are too, aren’t they?
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,678
Doesn't he know better than to name the source?!? Boras is on the phone scolding him as I type I'm sure.
Haha. Classic Bob!

For a guy who is reportedly very active in inciting local media markets during these negotiations, it’s kind of amazing how seldom Boras is actually named by reporters.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,483
I mean, Boras is, reportedly. And Montgomery too, apparently. So the scores of frustrated and angry fans who feel like the Red Sox should just do it already kind of are too, aren’t they?
Depends what is meant by "ace" type of contract. To me, that's- right now, in 2024 at LEAST a 5 year deal with a minimum AAV of $30M per season. I don't think Montgomery will get that... but I do think he's the next tier down from those rare types and that comes in around $25M AAV from what I can tell. That's a number that shouldn't break the tax threshold this season... nor John Henry's personal bank account which I stress about every morning day and night hoping he can still buy a 3rd yacht.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,932
Maine
But no one is saying Montgomery should get an ace-like deal.
Really? By all reports (and predictions) he was looking for "Nola" money. Nola's deal is the 6th biggest active pitcher contract in total value and 4th biggest active contract in total length. Sure seems like an "ace-like" deal to me. Anyone who has been saying "just get him signed" is basically saying "give him what he wants," no?

Now, though, with him likely getting more desperate to sign a deal of any kind, the "ace-like" deal is probably off the table for all interested parties. No one is calling for that kind of deal now (maybe Boras still is, but he's probably alone).
 

E5 Yaz

polka king
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,674
Oregon
Yankee board favorite Josh Donaldson retires / mlbtr

edit: clarifying Donaldson disgust was prevalent beyond JA
 
Last edited:

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
71,219
@jon abbey favorite Josh Donaldson retires / mlbtr
Not sure how I got connected to him, but he had a pretty incredible career. He was a late bloomer and didn't play every day until he was 27, but he then proceeded to have four MVP-level seasons in a row (finishing 1st, 4th twice and 8th), two for OAK and two for TOR. He was always a huge asshole, which was why OAK sold him cheaply to TOR and seemed to piss off both opponents and teammates at every stop. He had a 3.2 bWAR season in 2021 for MIN before NY traded for him, but he stopped being able to hit and NY dumped him midway last season.

Still he had a better overall career than some Hall of Famers, and he played well above average D at 3B until the end.
 

HfxBob

New Member
Nov 13, 2005
622
Really? By all reports (and predictions) he was looking for "Nola" money. Nola's deal is the 6th biggest active pitcher contract in total value and 4th biggest active contract in total length. Sure seems like an "ace-like" deal to me. Anyone who has been saying "just get him signed" is basically saying "give him what he wants," no?

Now, though, with him likely getting more desperate to sign a deal of any kind, the "ace-like" deal is probably off the table for all interested parties. No one is calling for that kind of deal now (maybe Boras still is, but he's probably alone).
OK, a few have said pay him what he wants but I think the general consensus for Montgomery has been around $125 mill tops. Is that an ace-like deal any more?
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
He's obviously not getting an ace-level deal right now. And yes, the Red Sox should just do it already provided their owner is interested in improving the roster.
I'm all for a pillow deal. You can "just do it already" for one year. For longer term, you're paying money that could have gone to another (currently theoretical only) option like Fried or Cease or whoever, which requires a much more careful calculation.
 

Dewey'sCannon

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
871
Maryland
If there is any team that thinks Montgomery is worth $125m guaranteed, he'd probably already be signed. He and Boras are probably still looking for the 5th guaranteed year and no one wants to give it.

Some teams may be willing to offer the same or higher AAV on a shorter deal, or with opt-outs, but Montgomery is probably less interested in an early opt-out for fear of getting hit with a QO that would suppress his FA market (as it has with Snell). And the Sox specifically probably aren't interested in giving him an opt-out after year 1, since he's probably most valuable to them in years 2 and 3 given the state of their roster.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,504
deep inside Guido territory
I'm all for a pillow deal. You can "just do it already" for one year. For longer term, you're paying money that could have gone to another (currently theoretical only) option like Fried or Cease or whoever, which requires a much more careful calculation.
Why can't you have both options? They are so far below the LTT next year that two pitchers with large salaries can fit underneath it. Right now they have $121 million before they hit that LTT.
 
I know WAR is a flawed metric and all, but by Fangraphs’ version, Wheeler has been the most valuable SP in baseball since he went to Philly. Not sure I would’ve guessed that before I looked, and I definitely wouldn’t have seen it coming back in 2019!
This doesn't surprise me at all, but not because of anything particular to Wheeler. I did an analysis a while back that looked at all of the free agents who signed substantial contracts in the several years previous and how they did WAR-wise compared to their AAV and contract size.

Hitters largely made sense, with the higher tiers performing more reliably than the lower ones, with the only surprise being that the "medium to good" tier were actually less reliable than the "bargain aisle" tier.

Pitchers, on the other hand, were all over the place. No tier of pitcher was reliably worth their contract, but the lower tiers were where the best value was to be found. The most obvious exemplars of this at the time were Steven Strasburg, who signed a gigantic contract and immediately imploded, and Lance Lynn, who had signed for something like $10mm AAV (iirc) and was in the middle of a run of 5 seasons with results ranging from decent (~2 WAR) to amazing (6.8 WAR).

I think it's just the nature of baseball that pitching ability is more volatile than hitting ability. Lance Lynn had been fine but nothing spectacular for 7 years before putting up an absolutely monster season out of nowhere at age 32. Then you've got guys like Dontrelle Willis who put up 3 good and 1 spectacular seasons in his first four years and then fell off a cliff at age 25 and struggled to get above replacement level for the rest of his career.

I know these are extreme examples, but again I looked at a lot of seasons of data and pitchers as a whole really were all over the place. It's part of why I have a hard time taking any argument seriously that suggest we should sign X or Y pitcher because of their consistency or reliability. Pitchers are reliable until they aren't. I think in a lot of ways TINSTAAPP applies to major leaguers, albeit to a lesser degree. Only in hindsight do we know who is going to sustain greatness, who is going to break out unexpectedly, and who is going to vanish into ineffectiveness.

Maybe the advanced stats and medical reports provide a better way of prognosticating who is heading in which direction, but I don't think we can tell all that well based on any of the stats that are commonly argued over on this board.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
(Cease is under contract through 2025)
Yeah, he would have to be a trade acquisition in the shorter term. But if they do something like that, they *have* to have saved some salary space for an extension, or you are burning prospects for little return.
Why can't you have both options? They are so far below the LTT next year that two pitchers with large salaries can fit underneath it. Right now they have $121 million before they hit that LTT.
One long term contract for a pitcher over 30 represents x amount of risk. Two of those represents double the risk, in theory.

Of course, this whole discussion around signing pitchers over 30 could be much more case-specific -- the Sox are against it for most guys but will make exceptions because a certain guy carries less risk. So maybe you swallow the risk on Monty and do a second deal with a guy who for some reason seems more likely than most to retain his arsenal? tl;dr: it depends on who we are talking about.
 

HfxBob

New Member
Nov 13, 2005
622
Yeah, he would have to be a trade acquisition in the shorter term. But if they do something like that, they *have* to have saved some salary space for an extension, or you are burning prospects for little return.

One long term contract for a pitcher over 30 represents x amount of risk. Two of those represents double the risk, in theory.

Of course, this whole discussion around signing pitchers over 30 could be much more case-specific -- the Sox are against it for most guys but will make exceptions because a certain guy carries less risk. So maybe you swallow the risk on Monty and do a second deal with a guy who for some reason seems more likely than most to retain his arsenal? tl;dr: it depends on who we are talking about.
We're also seeing more contracts to veteran starting pitchers for big salaries/short years.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,483
Yeah, he would have to be a trade acquisition in the shorter term. But if they do something like that, they *have* to have saved some salary space for an extension, or you are burning prospects for little return.

One long term contract for a pitcher over 30 represents x amount of risk. Two of those represents double the risk, in theory.

Of course, this whole discussion around signing pitchers over 30 could be much more case-specific -- the Sox are against it for most guys but will make exceptions because a certain guy carries less risk. So maybe you swallow the risk on Monty and do a second deal with a guy who for some reason seems more likely than most to retain his arsenal? tl;dr: it depends on who we are talking about.
There’s also the hope to give Bello a long term deal. Casas too.
 

Fishy1

Head Mason
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
6,157
Of course. But Snell and Montgomery aren't mediocre.
Yeah, I mean, last year Snell wasn't. But in 3 out of his 8 seasons, he's posted an ERA over 4. Twice he's been a Cy Young winner, and then there's a couple of years where he's posted an ERA in the mid 3's in partial seasons. 21 fWAR over 8 seasons isn't bad at all, I'd take if the price was right!

As for Montgomery, he's been as solid as they come the last three seasons. I wouldn't call him mediocre. But he's not elite-elite, either.

And he's a pitcher. Their arms fall off. They lose velocity. The early and middle 30's are an absolute minefield.

This is the thing that a lot of us keep coming back to. Do you want to pay for these guys only to get Pivetta-ish performance or worse? Well, it depends on how much you're paying: and that's the sticking point. We still don't know how much these contracts are going to be.

Yes, it's not my money, and no, I don't really think billionaires should be pinching pennies. I'm probably the biggest communist on the board. But it's also not my money, which means it's all out of my control. I'd rather see if I can think like Henry/Breslow are thinking than rail against the thinking I can't control. And I don't think Breslow/Henry think paying out the wazoo for Montgomery at the rate of 5/150 or even 5/125, given that his career ERA is 3.68, and he's headed into his 30's, where again, pitchers tend to decompose, makes sense, and Snell makes even less sense, since he's pitched more than 130 innings exactly twice in eight years.

I still think they would rather slow play this season, see whether those two guys are willing to take less or a pillow contract, all while playing the field for young cost-controlled starters as they did with Beckett/Sale. Try to pry someone sub-30 off someone else's hands for the cost of someone like Bleis/Mayer/Rafaela, and then extend them as soon as possible. I would rather give up one of those prospects then potentially hamstring the organization like we did with Price and Sale before them.

Again, I don't see why billionaires like Henry need to operate like this, but that's about as much my business as what the aliens are doing over in Alpha Centauri. I'd like to have control over it, but I don't.
 

Manramsclan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
3,374
This makes the need for a quality starter even more urgent
And potentially makes it less likely they sign one in their 30s to a big money deal. This injury may reaffirm a philosophy that seems to already be a guiding principle.
 

TheYellowDart5

Hustle and bustle
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2003
9,307
NYC
It makes it more likely they just say “fuck it” and punt the 2024 season. Some of us would argue that they were already doing that anyway.
They were already doing it, and their cheap approach to roster building has become a self-fulfilling strategy. It's gross and it sucks, and I hope FSG enjoys the two-thirds empty seats at Fenway this summer. They deserve it.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
24,605
Miami (oh, Miami!)
They were already doing it, and their cheap approach to roster building has become a self-fulfilling strategy. It's gross and it sucks, and I hope FSG enjoys the two-thirds empty seats at Fenway this summer. They deserve it.
Shrug. If they signed Teoscar Hernandez and went up to the tax threshold, it wouldn't solve this particular problem. But it would make 2025 worse.
 

TheYellowDart5

Hustle and bustle
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2003
9,307
NYC
Shrug. If they signed Teoscar Hernandez and went up to the tax threshold, it wouldn't solve this particular problem. But it would make 2025 worse.
Speaking just for myself, I didn't want them to sign Hernandez, but it's hard to square an offseason where the primary addition was Lucas Giolito and the roster isn't markedly different from one that lost 84 games and finished in last place with the idea that this ownership group is contending. This winter was about clearing future decks, and while that's a defensible strategy, it's both a depressing one given what it portends for 2024 (and likely beyond) and a deeply cynical one given how wealthy ownership is and how much this team charges its fans for tickets and whatnot.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,767
Roll with the kids, see how it goes. It likely won't go very well, but oh well. Not sure I want them spending $$ on both Snell and Montgomery now, though obviously doing so would make this team significantly better than it is at the moment.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
24,605
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Speaking just for myself, I didn't want them to sign Hernandez, but it's hard to square an offseason where the primary addition was Lucas Giolito and the roster isn't markedly different from one that lost 84 games and finished in last place with the idea that this ownership group is contending. This winter was about clearing future decks, and while that's a defensible strategy, it's both a depressing one given what it portends for 2024 (and likely beyond) and a deeply cynical one given how wealthy ownership is and how much this team charges its fans for tickets and whatnot.
Why is it depressing? Injuries are injuries, and often not under any kind of control of field management or ownership. (idiotic cases like Swihart notwithstanding.)

The 2024 rotation was Giolitto/Pivetta/Bello/Crawford with one of Houck/Whitlock/Winckowski as your #5 and the other two in the pen. There's nothing depressing about that. It does not have to be expensive or new to be good. (Which is also not to say it couldn't be better with the addition of more talent.)

What would be depressing (and attributable to management/ownership) is if they've actually miscalculated on Crawford/Houck/Whitlock/Winckowski as starters. And we just don't know if they've done that yet. But if they go out and are overmatched and get shelled, yes, absolutely depressing/disappointing/dispiriting.

What would be depressing (but not attributable to management/ownership) is if random injuries decimated the club. Like they did in 2022. Not that it would stop people from thinking that the management/ownership should have been omniscient. . .and since in their imagination M/O is, it just makes them cruel and stupid and cheap for knowingly selecting bad options, because if they really wanted to win, they'd be perfect.

And I'm seeing a bit of that here already. Giolitto was the last guy you thought would blow his arm out. Maybe he wouldn't be the greatest, but he was an effectiveness risk, not a health risk.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,552
around the way
Why is it depressing? Injuries are injuries, and often not under any kind of control of field management or ownership. (idiotic cases like Swihart notwithstanding.)

The 2024 rotation was Giolitto/Pivetta/Bello/Crawford with one of Houck/Whitlock/Winckowski as your #5 and the other two in the pen. There's nothing depressing about that. It does not have to be expensive or new to be good. (Which is also not to say it couldn't be better with the addition of more talent.)

What would be depressing (and attributable to management/ownership) is if they've actually miscalculated on Crawford/Houck/Whitlock/Winckowski as starters. And we just don't know if they've done that yet. But if they go out and are overmatched and get shelled, yes, absolutely depressing/disappointing/dispiriting.

What would be depressing (but not attributable to management/ownership) is if random injuries decimated the club. Like they did in 2022. Not that it would stop people from thinking that the management/ownership should have been omniscient. . .and since in their imagination M/O is, it just makes them cruel and stupid and cheap for knowingly selecting bad options, because if they really wanted to win, they'd be perfect.

And I'm seeing a bit of that here already. Giolitto was the last guy you thought would blow his arm out. Maybe he wouldn't be the greatest, but he was an effectiveness risk, not a health risk.
The sad part about the current state of the pitching staff is that a healthy Giolito might not have been a material improvement over whomever we replace him with now and that I'm not crazy man for suggesting that.
 

Auger34

used to be tbb
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
9,684
Roll with the kids, see how it goes. It likely won't go very well, but oh well. Not sure I want them spending $$ on both Snell and Montgomery now, though obviously doing so would make this team significantly better than it is at the moment.
Yeah, it seems like it's time to punt this season (as sad as that is). I highly doubt FSG wants to pay the cost it would take to get Snell or Montgomery here...sell off all of the veterans with value and play the kids.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,644
Yeah, it seems like it's time to punt this season (as sad as that is). I highly doubt FSG wants to pay the cost it would take to get Snell or Montgomery here...sell off all of the veterans with value and play the kids.
What kids though? Anyone they have in the upper minor leagues (ie, not TAM) is a fringe major leaguer at best. Durran is 27, Yoshida is 30, Devers is 27 -- Casas and Grissom were already slotted to play. The pitchers that they have ceilings of back of the rotation starters or solid bullpen arms.

There are no phenoms at AAA where you were going to give the guy some seasoning and bring him up in June/July timeframe.

"The play the kids!" ethos is great, if you have kids to play. Otherwise it's going to be overmatched pitchers getting their heads kicked in until their inevitable arm injuries where we have to bring up even more flotsam.

Hoping for health is not a plan. And if this was Breslow's idea for the 2024 season, we might be in bigger trouble than I thought.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.