Offseason rumors
- Thread starter opes
- Start date
- Status
If on October 15 you had been asked to wager on the relative health of Giolito and Sale, you would have put your money on Giolito. If it turns out that Giolito misses the whole season and Sale makes 20+ starts, well, that's sports. Jim Rice got hit by a pitch and missed the 1975 World Series. These things happen.
As for what to do now, I think all the decisions should be about being competitive in 2025 and beyond. They can start by trading a subsidized Jansen for the best prospect they can get.
As for what to do now, I think all the decisions should be about being competitive in 2025 and beyond. They can start by trading a subsidized Jansen for the best prospect they can get.
It's somewhat amazing to me that day 1 of this offseason was "we're going after YY!" and today it's "well, let's see what 2025 has in store".
We're actually "well, we probably don't have an MLB rotation in 2025 either".
I agree. This whole thing is such a mess and I just don't feel there is much more to say at this point.
Because we all assumed that there was going to be a plan other than:
1. Lowball YY and hope he takes what we offer him.
2. Nothing more than we can do! On to 2025.
I'm glad you wrote this, I was going to post something similar. Lot's of folks on here really hate this game, huh?
I may be in the minority but I can go see a losing team and have a perfectly good time. It's not just the outcome that concerns me, I enjoy baseball. I also go to minor league games. It hardly makes me a "dumb fan" because I don't enjoy the game in the way you prescribe.
Yeah, I've watched plenty of bad baseball from the Red Sox. Not like I'm going to stop caring about the team.
I do admit, I'd rather watch a bad team of mostly prospects and kids around 24 that you might hope you strike oil somewhere unexpected as opposed to the bad team last year populated with the Turners, Duvalls, Sales and Paxtons of the world.
Or, put another way, I still have less than zero interest in a one year deal to Mike Lorenzen or whatever.
+1 to this. The Padres opened up their wallets over the last couple years to build an all star team on paper. How's that worked out for them?
Almost like there’s tons of room between “do nothing” and “sign a bunch of crazy deals”. If the Dodgers win this year, is this invalidated?
The Dodgers haven't won a legitimate WS since I believe 1988. The Red Sox have won 4 in 20 years.
Yeah. How dare the owner of the team who knew he had a very short time left on this planet spend money in the hopes of winning a championship before he died?
What a loser.
Nailed it.
Bringing up the Padres as some sort of cautionary tale whenever anyone mentions spending money is one of the laziest and dumbest takes on this board.
I honestly do not understand this line of thought, re: the Dodgers. Every team played in 2020 - whether they should have is a different discussion - but they did and were under the same rules and circumstances. The players on the field tried to win and those stats count, even if people love to throw them out as meaningless to fit narratives. If the Sox had won in 2020 (lol) there is no way people on this board would be putting an asterisk on it and would in fact probably be praising the team for being adaptable or poised or whatever.
Hmmm. I don't think your comment was fair. The poster did not cast aspersions on the Padres owner. He merely said that spending lots of money is no guarantee of success.
FWIW: https://www.spotrac.com/news/10-years-of-world-series-matchup-payrolls-2050/
Some things I found interesting: in the last 10 years, the WS winner was in the top 10 of payroll, with the exceptions being 2017 and 2015. And in 2017, the Astros beat the team with the #1 payroll. 2015 was weird because it had two teams outside the top 10 in payroll and that appears to be the exception, rather than the norm. Also interesting: the only times in the past 10 years that the team first in payroll won the whole thing was the Dodgers in 2020 (the year that some people want to throw out as meaningless or illegitimate for reasons)... and the 2018 Red Sox.
My takeaway is that teams spending in the top 10 of payroll have lately had a better shot at making and winning the WS. Doesn't have to be the top payroll, but with the exception of the Rays in 2020 (again, the year that doesn't count according to some), there seems to be a decent correlation between spending money on the team and winning the WS. Obviously not all of that was spent on FA so there is a point to how that money is spent, but its not nothing.
Yeah, but calling fans morons for going out and watching games, which is how this side tangent all got started, is totally cool. Am I right?
Okay now who wants to post the picture of Seager and Semien celebrating their World Series win with the Rangers last year? Two players who were famously signed before the Rangers competitive window was thought to be open? Hey, the Rangers even spent big money on deGrom the following year, and he ended up needing TJ! Surely the Rangers must have imploded, because they had very little good pitching in their system as well. Well, no because they also had gone out and gotten Nate Eovaldi and Andrew Heaney. And the year before that (even further from their competitive window) they added Jon Gray and Martin Perez. All guys who gave them around 150 serviceable to good innings each last season.
Or how about the Phillies, who under Dave D have also spent a bunch of money on free agents and so far been rewarded with some pretty fun postseason runs, including twice beating the Atlanta Braves who are considered the envy of the league?
I'd consider the Spotrac article to be more useful data re: top 10 payrolls correlating to WS teams. We could throw individual team examples back and forth at each other all day, I don't wish to do that.
I don't think one's criticism of their favorite team needs to go along with a boycott or lack of enjoyment. I'm going to enjoy the shit out watching baseball this season, both as a Sox fan and in general. But I do expect to be frustrated if and when a couple more injuries inevitably occur and the Sox find themself with paper-thin pitching again. And part of my frustration will be that they could have gotten some more major league pitching depth this year to also help for next year. Particularly when some of the changes Breslow & Bailey are making to unlock more stuff from their pitchers may lead to more stress on the arm and more injuries. Which is not in any way a criticism of the pitching program, it's a reality facing a lot of major league teams, especially the ones who are best at maximizing their pitchers' talent.
Or how about the Phillies, who under Dave D have also spent a bunch of money on free agents and so far been rewarded with some pretty fun postseason runs, including twice beating the Atlanta Braves who are considered the envy of the league?
I'd consider the Spotrac article to be more useful data re: top 10 payrolls correlating to WS teams. We could throw individual team examples back and forth at each other all day, I don't wish to do that.
I don't think one's criticism of their favorite team needs to go along with a boycott or lack of enjoyment. I'm going to enjoy the shit out watching baseball this season, both as a Sox fan and in general. But I do expect to be frustrated if and when a couple more injuries inevitably occur and the Sox find themself with paper-thin pitching again. And part of my frustration will be that they could have gotten some more major league pitching depth this year to also help for next year. Particularly when some of the changes Breslow & Bailey are making to unlock more stuff from their pitchers may lead to more stress on the arm and more injuries. Which is not in any way a criticism of the pitching program, it's a reality facing a lot of major league teams, especially the ones who are best at maximizing their pitchers' talent.
I don't really have a position here either way, but you can't talk about 2023 TEX without noting that 1) even with all of that payroll investment, they barely made the playoffs at 90-72 and 2) they did so in large part because they brought up 21 year old wunderkind Evan Carter in early Sept, who proceeded to have a 1.058 OPS and 1.6 bWAR in just 23 games.
No I completely agree with you, none of these examples are a perfect analogue. I suppose I would say the Rangers put themselves in the position to get a bit of luck down the stretch.
I sure wouldn't hate if Roman Anthony was the Sox version of Evan Carter sometime late next year though...
Spending a ton of money is no guarantee of success.
Not spending a ton of money makes it unlikely a team will have success.
Signed,
Boston Red Sox
2003, 2004, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2013, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2021
Not spending a ton of money makes it unlikely a team will have success.
Signed,
Boston Red Sox
2003, 2004, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2013, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2021
A tad, just a tad of good news on an otherwise forgetful day. Cora on Duran's foot issue.
"He's okay. His ankle is a little bit tight but that's it. He'll play on Thursday." - via
@IanMBrowne
.
"He's okay. His ankle is a little bit tight but that's it. He'll play on Thursday." - via
@IanMBrowne
.
Well, if we can lure some folks here into the game threads, we may actually have a shot this year.
I mean it's a mix of both IMO. One of the Rangers biggest signings last offseason (Jacob deGrom) got TJ in his first year on June 6. And because the trade deadline had not passed they were able to utilize their farm system to trade for Max Scherzer, who was only available because the Mets turned into a dumpster fire after spending more than $806 Million during that same offseason,..
https://www.mlb.com/news/every-mets-free-agent-signing-2022-23-offseason
Do the Rangers still make the Post season and win the WS of deGrom went down with his injury after the trade deadline?
I concur. What people should be looking at is the 2020 playoffs. They were totally legit. The Dodgers had to earn it, and they beat the best team in the AL in the WS. And it's not like the Dodgers were going to miss the playoffs if it was 162 instead of 60.
How much of a risk? BABIP always looked the part to me. Strong, sturdy frame. Thick lower half. Athletic for it's size. Chronically underrated at every level.
If I was a fan of the team I'd be pissed if that was a title that broke a long drought though. It just feels cheap.
The Sox would have made the playoffs in 2022 if the season ended after 60 games.
And in 2021 they had a better record than the Dodgers after 60 games, and were the second best team in the AL.
Totally legit, right?
Edit - they'd have also been in the post season in 2019. So 2018, 2019, 2021, 2022. Everyone can feel better now over the weird blip last year was.
Are you arguing that the Dodgers were in doubt of missing the playoffs in 2020 if it was a 162 game season?
Are you arguing that the teams they beat in the 2020 postseason weren't the best teams?
I think argument is just that the much smaller sample size gives room for whackier outcomes, and is a lot more forgiving on durability.
To me it's the avoidance of the grind of a 162 game season prior to the playoffs, particularly where pitching is concerned. Kershaw had I believe his best postseason in 2020, a pitcher who normally has an awful playoff history, probably because he'd always be gassed by October. Last year the Dodgers were basically out of pitching by the time October came around, so they were sort of DOA. And I don't think it's any coincidence that the Rays, infamous for maximizing but also burning through their pitchers' arms, made their one deep playoff run to the WS in 2020.
I don't tend to discount that title though, the Dodgers should flash the rings and hang the banner as everyone played the same season. But there absolutely is a reasonable argument to be made that it was a highly atypical season, and particularly in ways that covered up flaws that each pennant winner has shown in recent seasons outside of 2020.
Are you arguing Devin Williams, Jake Diekman and Jarlin Garcia had the best 3 relief seasons in history?
Baseball isn't the same game without a long season. 2020 is an asterisk and would be regardless of which team won it all.
No, I'm agreeing with your argument re: the intrinsic validity of a 60 game determination; this being your argument, I now expect you to point out, when appropriate, that the Sox have in fact fielded a playoff caliber team for 5 of the last 7 years.
I think argument is just that the much smaller sample size gives room for whackier outcomes, and is a lot more forgiving on durability.
To me it's the avoidance of the grind of a 162 game season prior to the playoffs, particularly where pitching is concerned. Kershaw had I believe his best postseason in 2020, a pitcher who normally has an awful playoff history, probably because he'd always be gassed by October. Last year the Dodgers were basically out of pitching by the time October came around, so they were sort of DOA. And I don't think it's any coincidence that the Rays, infamous for maximizing but also burning through their pitchers' arms, made their one deep playoff run to the WS in 2020.
I don't tend to discount that title though, the Dodgers should flash the rings and hang the banner as everyone played the same season. But there absolutely is a reasonable argument to be made that it was a highly atypical season, and particularly in ways that covered up flaws that each pennant winner has shown in recent seasons outside of 2020.
These (sad) guys agree:
Good thing there aren’t Russian skating judges to determine whether a title is cheap or not.
In 2020 there were two teams that were the best on paper, the best in the regular season and the best in the playoffs. People are basically arguing that it wasn't legitimate because there weren't an extra 100 games for them to suffer a season-altering injury that would allow a worse or luckier team to win instead.
Well said. The 2020 Lakers were clearly the best team in the year they won as well. We didn’t need 30 more games to prove that.
I'm not sure what else there is to do with this team. I suppose we could sign a low-level starter like Lorenzan who is mentioned in the thread. After all, somebody has to take innngs, but this feels like a "what do we have" season. I would'nt call it letting the kids play, but we need to figure out who is going to be a part of the next great Sox team, and what role they fill. Put Houk and Whitlock in the rotation, play Duran and Abreau every day in the OF, and let's see if these guys can hack it. After that, we'll see where the cards land. I just can't go back into next season with people debating if Whitlock is a starter or not, let's find out this year when we're probably going to lose 85-90 games.
Last edited:
- Status