There is a real, tangible advantage to not going over the luxury tax this year; it means the penalties are smaller if they do it next year. That makes sense given that the window of contention probably (hopefully?) opens a bit wider going forward.
Less forgivable is being $30 million under the luxury tax.
I am also not from Boston, and have never lived closer than two hours from Fenway. But as to you points about why people don't want to play there.Spoken like someone who's from Boston and refuses to acknowledge its shortcomings compared to other destinations.
Between this value, the terrible, horrible weather (it's why San Diego has 17 rightfielders, everyone signs there), the mean old press and the unhinged rabid fans, it's a wonder that the Red Sox haven't been contracted yet. Personally, I'm pumped for another fun year of financial flexibility--watching John Henry's EBITDA soar is better than waking up and checking the league standings.
Honestly, why is it "less forgivable"?There is a real, tangible advantage to not going over the luxury tax this year; it means the penalties are smaller if they do it next year. That makes sense given that the window of contention probably (hopefully?) opens a bit wider going forward.
Less forgivable is being $30 million under the luxury tax.
Bingo. No one wants to believe it.FWIW, Cotillo had like half a dozen quotes from (probably) agents this off-season that said the Sox were acting like a small market team. He didn't have a single quote from anyone saying the Sox were making good offers but the players just weren't interested in playing in Boston.
Yeah. If there were literally one reporter out there saying "The Red Sox offered Montgomery 4/$100m and he chose 1/$25m from Arizona" I'd believe it and totally chalk it up to the player not wanting to be here. (Without rehashing it, like we heard from Merloni about the $300m offer to Betts but never heard anything about an offer to Bogaerts - or in this case Montgomery. If I could have literally thought of a player other than Betts I would have used that example. I just can't off the top of my head). Totally different scenario when you have anyone out there saying that a player chose a far less lucrative offer / turned down something entirely reasonable and getting crickets about them making high offers but lots of (possibly anecdotal or circumstantial) reports about them operating like a mid market team.FWIW, Cotillo had like half a dozen quotes from (probably) agents this off-season that said the Sox were acting like a small market team. He didn't have a single quote from anyone saying the Sox were making good offers but the players just weren't interested in playing in Boston.
Yes, but those penalties are not really that big of a deal in comparison to the total payroll.There is a real, tangible advantage to not going over the luxury tax this year; it means the penalties are smaller if they do it next year. That makes sense given that the window of contention probably (hopefully?) opens a bit wider going forward.
Less forgivable is being $30 million under the luxury tax.
"Other than starting pitching" might be the single craziest qualifier I've read on this board.Honestly, why is it "less forgivable"?
When we look at the Fangraphs projections that abs posted over the last two days, outside of catcher (where they are really hurting), they have 4 positions projected in or around the top quarter of the league, and every other position is a stone's throw from "league average" on their projections. Spending money is great, but spending it just because you have it is often a fool's game, especially in sports, so if they were going to get closer to the CBT threshold, they need to do it in a way that adds tangible value to the actual team on the field.
This year's free agent class was.... not good. You had a couple high end players who were never going to come to Boston (or at least would have cost exorbitant sums of money) in Ohtani and Yamamoto, Bellinger is a former MVP but also spent two plus years being awful, so who knows what he really is going forward. The other pitchers were not even close to "Aces" and also old, so who knows how long they are going to hold up and pitch well (none of them are in the class of players like Verlander/Scherzer who pitched effectively well into their late 30's). Chapman wasn't an upgrade in any way other than defensively and would have cost them putting a worse fielder in at a different position.
I really don't think there were many free agents this year who were good fits for the Red Sox as currently constructed, and most of them would have been marginal upgrades at best. Any other player they sign would have blocked somebody, whether it be Grissom at 2B or Rafaela in CF, and at some point the team needs to be able to give as many at bats as possible to the players who should be moving from "prospect" status to "everyday player" status, or they will never develop. They added two RHB that they are confident in in O'Neill and Grissom, added defense in Grissom, got Story fully healed (hopefully). Other than starting pitching (which they actually put a pretty large chunk of money into addressing, it just didn't work out), what would the money they spent toward the cap just to say "Hey we got closer to the cap <shrug>" be spent on?
Now they go into a season with a team with a lot of upside and expecting improvement over last year at nearly every position, they didn't give up any of their prospect capital, they have a ton of room to work with so if they start the season and things aren't working out, or a specific need arises (there really isn't a specific "need" right now, other than "accounting for the likely even of an injury"), they can use that prospect capital and budget room to fix it in season.
Nice of you to totally skip the qualifier literally right after it, though."Other than starting pitching" might be the single craziest qualifier I've read on this board.
This team is one injury away from the Cooper Criswell experience. We are one injury away and one underperformer away from Chase Anderson.
So yea, other than starting pitching...
At this point, with the benefit of high-acuity hindsight, it appears undeniable that they weren’t serious bidders for significant FA additions. The waters were chummed just enough with reports on the Sox as “Interested in,” certain key players, or “Keeping tabs on” so and so, but these have all taken on a mirage-like quality for me.Bingo. No one wants to believe it.
There is no evidence, zero, that the Red Sox were serious in free agency. They were completely unserious.
Whitlock makes 30 starts, Pivetta is the guy we saw in the second half and Crawford takes the next step forward. With the possible exception of Crawford, I think we already know who Whitlock, Houck and Pivetta are - and that is that they aren't very good.
But play ball.
And Montgomery going for 1 year 25 million with a 20 million option....and still have 5 million and assets for the trade deadline.There is a real, tangible advantage to not going over the luxury tax this year; it means the penalties are smaller if they do it next year. That makes sense given that the window of contention probably (hopefully?) opens a bit wider going forward.
Less forgivable is being $30 million under the luxury tax.
And how exactly do you know they would have turned down higher offers from the Red Sox?Snell wanting to stay on the west coast. Gray signing for low dollars to play near his home. Is this a serious question?
Honestly, why is it "less forgivable"?
When we look at the Fangraphs projections that abs posted over the last two days, outside of catcher (where they are really hurting), they have 4 positions projected in or around the top quarter of the league, and every other position is a stone's throw from "league average" on their projections. Spending money is great, but spending it just because you have it is often a fool's game, especially in sports, so if they were going to get closer to the CBT threshold, they need to do it in a way that adds tangible value to the actual team on the field.
This year's free agent class was.... not good. You had a couple high end players who were never going to come to Boston (or at least would have cost exorbitant sums of money) in Ohtani and Yamamoto, Bellinger is a former MVP but also spent two plus years being awful, so who knows what he really is going forward. The other pitchers were not even close to "Aces" and also old, so who knows how long they are going to hold up and pitch well (none of them are in the class of players like Verlander/Scherzer who pitched effectively well into their late 30's). Chapman wasn't an upgrade in any way other than defensively and would have cost them putting a worse fielder in at a different position.
I really don't think there were many free agents this year who were good fits for the Red Sox as currently constructed, and most of them would have been marginal upgrades at best. Any other player they sign would have blocked somebody, whether it be Grissom at 2B or Rafaela in CF, and at some point the team needs to be able to give as many at bats as possible to the players who should be moving from "prospect" status to "everyday player" status, or they will never develop. They added two RHB that they are confident in in O'Neill and Grissom, added defense in Grissom, got Story fully healed (hopefully). Other than starting pitching (which they actually put a pretty large chunk of money into addressing, it just didn't work out), what would the money they spent toward the cap just to say "Hey we got closer to the cap <shrug>" be spent on?
Now they go into a season with a team with a lot of upside and expecting improvement over last year at nearly every position, they didn't give up any of their prospect capital, they have a ton of room to work with so if they start the season and things aren't working out, or a specific need arises (there really isn't a specific "need" right now, other than "accounting for the likely even of an injury"), they can use that prospect capital and budget room to fix it in season.
As - I think - the only one that's suggested numbers like that today at least...This is really quite simple. Exactly one team was willing to give Montgomery $25m a year, and it was on a one year deal with a games started clause and it took until two days before the regular season to start and it likely was triggered by the uncertainty of the extent of E-Rod's injury. Why in the world would you offer him 6/150 or 4/110 or whatever craziness i've read in posts above?? You would have been totally overpaying, bidding against yourself and likely regretting that contract after about a year and a half. Let's face facts: Boras completely, totally, misread the market for him and none of the teams who were supposedly "in on him", could afford him, or had the need for him took the bait because EVERY OTHER TEAM decided he wasn't worth that. Not just the Red Sox.
Thank you. Its amazing how sports owners are able to get fans to support decisions that prioritize shareholder economics over trying to compete.Yes, but those penalties are not really that big of a deal in comparison to the total payroll.
If the Sox had a CBT payroll of $256 million payroll this year, the penalty would a payment of $3.8 million. Next year, if they had a payroll of $260 million, the penalty would go up but so would the threshold, so the penalty as a 2nd time offender would be $5.7 million. In 2026, with a payroll of $263 million, the penalty would be $9.5 million.
If they went crazy and had a $277 million payroll this year the penalty would be $12.8 million and they likely would be able to reset next year.
Those penalties should not have stopped significant spending this year and I see no reason to be at $216 million when there were viable ways to improve the team without creating long term contractual burdens. The window of contention could have been opened up this year.
This is a really good point. The reason why you offer Montgomery a contract to pitch for your team now (and hopefully in the future) is because you think that he's better than the options you have right now and down the line. If Bello takes a big leap, which is a huge if, Montgomery would be at the very worst, your second best starter. He'd even be your second best pitcher if Giolito was able to throw this year. It was imperative that the Red Sox sign at least one good starting pitcher. They didn't do it and now all they have is a bunch of not really all that young arms who have never thrown more than 140 innings in a season before and a pile of money.That is "why in the world" I would have offered him that. I think so little of the pitching in the organization that I'd have done it. I could very well be wrong, but I wanted to answer the question.
Because it's more pleasing to the brain to think that all of a sudden this ownership is going to start spending money again, rather than look at the last five years of evidence and see that their dips into free agency are now an anomaly. They aren't going to sign anyone unless they get a deal or the player isn't very good.And why is saving +/- $10mm a year 5d chess all of a sudden?
I was just about to post something similar.FWIW, Cotillo had like half a dozen quotes from (probably) agents this off-season that said the Sox were acting like a small market team. He didn't have a single quote from anyone saying the Sox were making good offers but the players just weren't interested in playing in Boston.
Assuming Montgomery comes to Boston for exactly the same deal as he agreed to with the D-Backs, of course. And I don't mean that in a "no one wants to come to Boston" way. I mean that in a "why are we conceited enough to think that all the Sox have to do is make the same offer" way.And Montgomery going for 1 year 25 million with a 20 million option....and still have 5 million and assets for the trade deadline.
If you're more interested in what both Whitlock and Houck can do as starters when they're in that role from the very beginning of spring training, you don't want to see Montgomery signed to take one of their spots.This is a really good point. The reason why you offer Montgomery a contract to pitch for your team now (and hopefully in the future) is because you think that he's better than the options you have right now and down the line. If Bello takes a big leap, which is a huge if, Montgomery would be at the very worst, your second best starter. He'd even be your second best pitcher if Giolito was able to throw this year. It was imperative that the Red Sox sign at least one good starting pitcher. They didn't do it and now all they have is a bunch of not really all that young arms who have never thrown more than 140 innings in a season before and a pile of money.
I'm not sure why anyone would be against signing Montgomery--it would just cost the Red Sox money (which they have).
That made me laugh. Thank you.Between this value, the terrible, horrible weather (it's why San Diego has 17 rightfielders, everyone signs there), the mean old press and the unhinged rabid fans, it's a wonder that the Red Sox haven't been contracted yet. Personally, I'm pumped for another fun year of financial flexibility--watching John Henry's EBITDA soar is better than waking up and checking the league standings.
I don't think we really knew - or were in denial about - the Red Sox looking to maximize profit at the expense of the on the field product to the degree that they are.Everyone here just has to get used to ownership mandating that they stay at a set budget that’s well below the luxury tax.
It sucks, but it’s either that or stop following the team, because those are the choices.
The page after page of debate on why they didn’t sign any big free agents this year is just wasting bandwidth.
Exactly.This is a really good point. The reason why you offer Montgomery a contract to pitch for your team now (and hopefully in the future) is because you think that he's better than the options you have right now and down the line. If Bello takes a big leap, which is a huge if, Montgomery would be at the very worst, your second best starter. He'd even be your second best pitcher if Giolito was able to throw this year. It was imperative that the Red Sox sign at least one good starting pitcher. They didn't do it and now all they have is a bunch of not really all that young arms who have never thrown more than 140 innings in a season before and a pile of money.
I'm not sure why anyone would be against signing Montgomery--it would just cost the Red Sox money (which they have).
Because it's more pleasing to the brain to think that all of a sudden this ownership is going to start spending money again, rather than look at the last five years of evidence and see that their dips into free agency are now an anomaly. They aren't going to sign anyone unless they get a deal or the player isn't very good.
There were perfectly fine with one of their spots being taken before Giolito got hurt. Moreover, in a world where they sign Monty, what are the chances that Monty/Bello/Pivetta/Crawford/5th guy make it through the season unscathed? Whoever would get left out between Houck and Whitlock would still get his, eventually.If you're more interested in what both Whitlock and Houck can do as starters when they're in that role from the very beginning of spring training, you don't want to see Montgomery signed to take one of their spots.
Right I get that. But the Red Sox aren’t a try out team. If you want to see how they’d do as a starter send them to the Winter League, see how they’d do in the minors.If you're more interested in what both Whitlock and Houck can do as starters when they're in that role from the very beginning of spring training, you don't want to see Montgomery signed to take one of their spots.
Who? JMOH asked why a fan would be okay with the team not signing Montgomery. A fan might be more interested in watching those other pitchers.There were perfectly fine with one of their spots being taken before Giolito got hurt.
I don't see why everyone is so desperate to see Whitlock and Houck in the rotation. Neither have been effective and/or injury-free as starters. Neither are particularly young any more. Both pitch better in a bullpen role.If you're more interested in what both Whitlock and Houck can do as starters when they're in that role from the very beginning of spring training, you don't want to see Montgomery signed to take one of their spots.
I'm hesitant to draw conclusions form spring training, but they did look impressive, as did the rest of the staff. I hope you're right, but I still say the loser of Houck/Whit would have eventually found his way to the rotation, so signing Monty would not really have harmed anyone's development.Red Sox management signed Giolito in the winter. The plan was likely to trade one of Houck, Crawford, or Whitlock plus something else for another better starter. Those deals never came together, so the plan in spring was to have Whitlock, Houck, and Winckowski compete for the 5th spot. After Giolito went down, they let those three compete for 2 spots instead of 1 and kept their options open for signing someone else in case two of them fell on their faces. It turned out Whitlock and Houck both pitched really well, so they didn't feel the need to acquire someone to bump one of them.
He's trying to shift the goalposts from the general premise that money isn't the determining factor for where a FA signs. That's disproven by anyone taking a hometown discount anywhere.Snell wanting to stay on the west coast. Gray signing for low dollars to play near his home. Is this a serious question?
Not yet anyway. I'm willing to give the Breslow/Bailey program a chance. Kevin Gausman never put it together until he went to SF. But they could have done that and also made a run at one of Snell/Montgomery.I don't see why everyone is so desperate to see Whitlock and Houck in the rotation. Neither have been effective and/or injury-free as starters.
Pretty much every pitcher pitches better in a bullpen role. That's not really enough incentive to put guys in the bullpen when they have the potential to be effective starters (which clearly the Sox believe they have). And these guys have gotten hurt relieving too, so moving them to the bullpen wouldn't really guarantee good health.I don't see why everyone is so desperate to see Whitlock and Houck in the rotation. Neither have been effective and/or injury-free as starters. Neither are particularly young any more. Both pitch better in a bullpen role.
Its only disproving that its not true for everyone. We know from the numerous deals over the last 20+ years that normally the top bid gets the player. The fact that some players do not does not invalidate a general tendency. I dont think anyone has ever said that EVERYONE WILL TAKE THE TOP DEAL because well thats just obviously not the case. That doesnt mkae the more moderate statement "Typically the high bid wins" incorrect.He's trying to shift the goalposts from the general premise that money isn't the determining factor for where a FA signs. That's disproven by anyone taking a hometown discount anywhere.
Why do people keep saying this?Pretty much every pitcher pitches better in a bullpen role. That's not really enough incentive to put guys in the bullpen when they have the potential to be effective starters (which clearly the Sox believe they have). And these guys have gotten hurt relieving too, so moving them to the bullpen wouldn't really guarantee good health.
Had to quote this. It's so on point. The Boston Red Sox should never be in a position of throwing literally everything at the wall and seeing what sticks. Obviously every team will have an element of that. But, simply, put, they seem more interested in seeing if there is a path to building a cost-efficient winning team as opposed to simply trying to win because that's the goal of sports. And it's incredibly frustrating. You play - to win - the game.Right I get that. But the Red Sox aren’t a try out team. If you want to see how they’d do as a starter send them to the Winter League, see how they’d do in the minors.
They’ve started in the Majors in the past and are average pitchers. They’re not going to all of a sudden blossom into Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz.
Why are we punting a whole season(and paying premium prices to watch this experiment) to see how three 28-year-olds will do as starters? Isn’t this why the Sox employ scouts and coaches?
I can see giving one person a role to see how he’d do with a longer look. But three? Maybe I can get a looksee in right field. Maybe you can play shortstop when Story gets injured?
This will be a fun new money making opportunity for FSG.
They've already done everything but say they are punting this season. I don't know why, or how it could possibly benefit them to just pass on trying to compete this year.Had to quote this. It's so on point. The Boston Red Sox should never be in a position of throwing literally everything at the wall and seeing what sticks. Obviously every team will have an element of that. But, simply, put, they seem more interested in seeing if there is a path to building a cost-efficient winning team as opposed to simply trying to win because that's the goal of sports. And it's incredibly frustrating. You play - to win - the game.
So what's your solution to the starting pitching problem?Just because JM is "better than what we have now" is not a reason to give him a deal that literally NO OTHER TEAM in the league was willing to. I think some on here are overvaluing him even more than Scott Boras. He wasn't even really a thing at this time last year, certainly not a guy you'd be handing $100 million to. I'm going to believe that all the executives in MLB know a bit more about his worth than us. I get it that we are super thin on pitching, both majors and minors. I get it that its been a super weird and frustrating off season. But Breslow has only been in this job for a few months. I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt for now.
If Bloom were still here I'd agree completely. But I'm willing to give the new pitching regime a chance. Whitlock looked fantastic and efficient a couple days ago. (Very) Early returns have been promising. I still expect them to fall apart some later and would have preferred the security of Giolito and/or Montgomery, but I'm also okay with seeing how much we can get from what we've got, especially since success with that project this year means a more stable rotation going forward while the AA gang trickles up.I don't see why everyone is so desperate to see Whitlock and Houck in the rotation. Neither have been effective and/or injury-free as starters. Neither are particularly young any more. Both pitch better in a bullpen role.
90 innings is barely a half-season's worth of data. Hardly definitive of anything. And 198 innings at a 4.17 ERA would be a pretty solid starting pitcher in today's environment (right around league average).Why do people keep saying this?
Whitlock is 4.76, 1.290 in 90 IP as a starter. He is 2.65, 1.048 in 133 IP as a reliever. He'll be 28 in June.
Houck is 4.17, 1.250 in 198 IP as a starter. He is 2.68, 1.127 in 53 IP as a reliever. He'll also be 28 in June.
There is nearly a 2 run difference in ERA for these guys being in the pen as opposed to the rotation. Houck has been pretty average at best as a starter, Whitlock has been terrible. Whitlock is a dominant reliever. Houck is a good reliever.
I'm so incredibly frustrated with the Sox' insistence on forcing these square pegs into round holes.
And what % take a hometown discount, do you figure?He's trying to shift the goalposts from the general premise that money isn't the determining factor for where a FA signs. That's disproven by anyone taking a hometown discount anywhere.
I would agree with this approach if the two pitchers in question were 22 or 23. Not 27 going on 28.If Bloom were still here I'd agree completely. But I'm willing to give the new pitching regime a chance. Whitlock looked fantastic and efficient a couple days ago. (Very) Early returns have been promising. I still expect them to fall apart some later and would have preferred the security of Giolito and/or Montgomery, but I'm also okay with seeing how much we can get from what we've got, especially since success with that project this year means a more stable rotation going forward while the AA gang trickles up.
Again, time is running out on these guys being young. And why take 4.17 ERA when you have have a multi-inning power reliever with 2.65 ERA?90 innings is barely a half-season's worth of data. Hardly definitive of anything. And 198 innings at a 4.17 ERA would be a pretty solid starting pitcher in today's environment (right around league average).
Derek Lowe was abysmal as a starter (ERA over 5.00) over ~90 innings and great (an All Star) as a reliever (~380 innings) when he made the move to starting at age 28 and put up a Cy Young caliber season immediately. Not saying that either Houck or Whitlock is going to make a Lowe-like leap but there's no reason to write them off as starters because they have posted slightly below average ERAs in that role.