McAdam: “Full Throttle” may mean business as usual

[CR67dream]

It’s all good. I like your posts. I like a lot of the posters here, even those I disagree with. I don’t understand why this thread has gotten so contentious where a group of presumed adults feel the need to denigrate and condescendingly mock others’ viewpoints on a regular basis.

It’s clear there is a fundamental gap between certain posters but this constant need to prove one is right and the other side is wrong is just perplexing to me. I get it’s how the internet works in 2024 but, like, aren’t we all Red Sox fans at the end of the day?

Why must we all treat each other so poorly? This is not directed at you.

Thank you. I am training myself to not react too strongly to opinions I disagree with for this reason (this thread was more of a process thing but we can let it go) and hope to contribute less to the negative tone of discourse this year. I was probably guilty of it too much in the past. I too appreciate your input generally and I think we have agreed plenty in recent weeks.

I have run a less contentious sports blog for years and just chalk it up to the written word just not being an adequate substitution for in-person contact. If we were all at a bar lobbing our views back and forth, I don't think things would feel very contentious at all.

We, meaning the mod team, strongly endorse the above posts, and ask all of you to give their content a good deal of thought.

Has SOSH come to stand for Squabbling Ornery Seam-Heads?

I'd switch "seam" to something else, but that works....

Seriously folks, the tone and tenor around here needs a serious upgrade, and fast. There are times some biting sarcasm and snark can be both acceptable and effective, but that's very situational and they should not be used because of a simple difference of opinion. Lately, it seems to have become the default, and rather than yell and scream about it, we're just asking that everyone make the effort.

 

[Cellar-Door]

We can agree to disagree about Devers extension which prevented him from hitting the open market - your view appears to be that the extension was equivalent to what Devers would receive if he were a legit FA. If that is the case, I completely disagree. He didn't hit the market so its hard to call his contract one that is at market (btw, we don't need to debate this piece with models and comparison deals - those aren't his market) because there was no competition for his services.

Maybe you are right and we are being too hard on ownership. I don't think so - I think they know exactly what they are doing and are happy to rely on the legions of fans who either think they are poised to leap into contention someday soon or the rest who are more casual about winning.

Devers in some ways seemed like a response to completely misjudging the Xander market. They let Xander get to FA thinking their valuation was competitive, then SD came in and it became clear that what the Red Sox saw him at and what the market saw him at were wildly different. I think that (and maybe a bit of fan reaction) spurred them to be pretty aggressive on Devers. Though I also agree he probably gets more if he hits the market, but they got to a spot with him where he was willing to take the offer to lock it in the money.

 

[BigSoxFan]

It has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread that in the half century or whatever of free agency, the Sox have never gone toe to toe with the Yankees for a free agent and won. You asked about Manny and it was pointed out that they got Manny only because the Yankees decided they didn’t want him and went for Mussina instead. Can you point to any examples of the Sox competing with the Yankees over the decades and getting the player? If you can’t, is it your belief that it’s because for half a century the Sox simply haven’t been doing it right? To that end, why didn’t the Mets sign Yamamoto? They were in it all the way, right to the end, made the highest offer. LA didn’t beat it they matched it. What should the Mets have done differently to win?

Yes, I read what’s been written. I am challenging the line of thinking or position that the Sox simply cannot compete for a top FA with the Yankees. I don’t think we’re dealing with a large sample size here nor do I think what happened in 1995 or whatever is relevant in 2024 given the changing economic environment for clubs. Even the Yankees are using the luxury tax thresholds as markers.

Just because something hasn’t happened doesn’t signify to me that it cannot happen. Can it be proven that the Red Sox are incapable of winning a bidding war? If yes, how?

There are clearly other factors at play here. I don’t expect the Sox to win many of these. But, I would like to know why a team with these resources isn’t winning a H2H battle every now and then.

My thoughts on Yamamoto are that location was the driving factor and not money but I’m also suggesting that location isn’t going to be a factor in all cases. And those are the races I think we can win if we want.

 

[jbupstate]

Here's something that I don't think has been mentioned. Is there a chance that Breslow has had a pretty close look at Giolito from across town over the last few years? Perhaps he's seen something there that he thinks fits into his pitching philosophy.

I wasn't asking the question to shame or call anyone out, but I read everything here and there definitely is a sentiment by many just to pencil in Mayer, Teel, and Anthony for 2025 and we'll be ready to roll here. Maybe it's just a shorthand way to say "youth is coming" and that's fine with me. But it's a lot to hope on that's all.

What’s wrong with that sentiment? Where are you getting a young shortstop that beats out Mayer’s pedigree/potential? A catcher with Teel’s potential and closeness to the big? Anthony appears to be a high riser and we need a stud outfielder.

The problem is when players of lesser ability or predictably are held versus a trade or signing that is better. If the right trade for a controllable SP comes along you might move them. But I’d think long and hard about moving SS or C with such potential and so close to Fenway… they are hard to find. Both draft picks were gifts in my book.

 

[jbupstate]

I don't think there's any evidence on offer that ownership has failed to adjust to how business is done in FA "these days," which presumably means within the last five years when the size of the top deals has exploded. They've been in a rebuild that's coincided with that period and it hasn't made any amount of sense to throw $300 million+ at someone who'd be in their 30s before they had a proper team around them. Devers didn't get that kind of money cause Henry got booed by some fans, he got that money because he'll be 27 next season and not 31.

Agree 100%. I also haven’t seen the difference making elite free agent they should have signed. Yamamoto made sense due to his age.

 

[BringBackMo]

Yes, I read what’s been written. I am challenging the line of thinking or position that the Sox simply cannot compete for a top FA with the Yankees. I don’t think we’re dealing with a large sample size here nor do I think what happened in 1995 or whatever is relevant in 2024 given the changing economic environment for clubs. Even the Yankees are using the luxury tax thresholds as markers.

Just because something hasn’t happened doesn’t signify to me that it cannot happen. Can it be proven that the Red Sox are incapable of winning a bidding war? If yes, how?

There are clearly other factors at play here. I don’t expect the Sox to win many of these. But, I would like to know why a team with these resources isn’t winning a H2H battle every now and then.

My thoughts on Yamamoto are that location was the driving factor and not money but I’m also suggesting that location isn’t going to be a factor in all cases. And those are the races I think we can win if we want.

I don’t know what to tell you. It’s a half century sample size and you’re telling me it’s a small sample size. If what happened in 1995 isn’t relevant to 2024, how about what happened in 1975, 1985, 2005, 2015, or 2023? Your response is that just because something hasn’t happened in all that time doesn’t mean it can’t happen. Fair enough, I suppose.

 

[NickEsasky]

What’s wrong with that sentiment? Where are you getting a young shortstop that beats out Mayer’s pedigree/potential? A catcher with Teel’s potential and closeness to the big? Anthony appears to be a high riser and we need a stud outfielder.

The problem is when players of lesser ability or predictably are held versus a trade or signing that is better. If the right trade for a controllable SP comes along you might move them. But I’d think long and hard about moving SS or C with such potential and so close to Fenway… they are hard to find. Both draft picks were gifts in my book.

What's wrong with the sentiment is the unlikely outcome that it comes true. Statistically prospects fail— even highly ranked ones. I want all three to produce like the next Mookie Betts, but unfortunately the odds of that are remote. I’m just trying to stay grounded in reality here but IMO too many posters want to live in a fantasy land where reality doesn’t matter all our prospects will hit.

 

[BigSoxFan]

I don’t know what to tell you. It’s a half century sample size and you’re telling me it’s a small sample size. If what happened in 1995 isn’t relevant to 2024, how about what happened in 1975, 1985, 2005, 2015, or 2023? Your response is that just because something hasn’t happened in all that time doesn’t mean it can’t happen. Fair enough, I suppose.

A few clarifying questions then:

1. How are you defining “top” FAs?

2. How many “top” FAs have we competed with the Yankees for and lost? Just because it’s been a lot of years doesn’t mean it’s been a lot of players. That was the basis of my SSS comment.

3. How are we proving each team’s level of interest in a particular FA? I’ve seen Teixeira referenced. Bernie (an incumbent Yankee so not a great data point, IMO). Who else?

I’m not trying to be difficult. I just don’t see the evidence as being as conclusive as you and others here.

 

[Auger34]

What’s wrong with that sentiment? Where are you getting a young shortstop that beats out Mayer’s pedigree/potential? A catcher with Teel’s potential and closeness to the big? Anthony appears to be a high riser and we need a stud outfielder.

The problem is when players of lesser ability or predictably are held versus a trade or signing that is better. If the right trade for a controllable SP comes along you might move them. But I’d think long and hard about moving SS or C with such potential and so close to Fenway… they are hard to find. Both draft picks were gifts in my book.

He explained why in the part of the post that you clipped out….

Prospect hit rate isn’t automatic. I don’t think he ever mentions trading them or that they were bad draft picks? Hes just saying pump the brakes on assuming they will all be stars.

 

[CR67dream]

Who else?

I haven't looked into the underlying discussion enough to form an opinion on it, but as far as another example of losing out to the Yankees, Jose Contreras reportedly caused furniture to be destroyed on Yawkey way.

Link
-------------------------
Epstein, who turns 29 Sunday, according to reports broke a chair during the winter meetings earlier this month after losing out on Edgardo Alfonzo. Boston also struck out with Jeff Kent this offseason. But this one hurt more because of CEO Larry Lucchino’s avowed Yankees hatred.
The Red Sox also offered a four-year deal, and were willing to bid “significantly higher” than the Yankees, according to a source, but were rejected. But Shea said last night Boston did not offer more than the Yankees.
“It almost did not get done, but it eventually did,” Torres said. “The decision came down to the Yankees and Boston. And the decision was made in the last negotiations. It was not a done deal. Let’s put it that way: Boston made a good run for him."
---------------------------


Holy shit how is that 21+ years (and four titles) ago.... Yikes.

 

[JCizzle]

What's wrong with the sentiment is the unlikely outcome that it comes true. Statistically prospects fail— even highly ranked ones. I want all three to produce like the next Mookie Betts, but unfortunately the odds of that are remote. I’m just trying to stay grounded in reality here but IMO too many posters want to live in a fantasy land where reality doesn’t matter all our prospects will hit.

I fully agree that it's silly to expect all of the prospects to hit, but this is where GM's should really make their money though, right? For example, DD dumped a top-prospect in Moncada at probably the peak of his value. Or the Dodgers dumping an ultimately meh-ish player in Verdugo on us. That's where I expect Breslow (!) to make his mark - figure out which of Mayer, Teel, and Anthony is likeliest to hit and keep them while moving one or two of the others if the internal evaluation is lower than the consensus.

Edit: Thanks BaseballJones

 

[BaseballJones]

I fully agree that it's silly to expect all of the prospects to hit, but this is where GM's should really make their money though, right? For example, DD dumped a top-prospect in Moncada at probably the peak of his value. Or the Dodgers dumping an ultimately meh-ish player in Verdugo on us. That's where I expect Kimbrel to make his mark - figure out which of Mayer, Teel, and Anthony is likeliest to hit and keep them while moving one or two of the others if the internal evaluation is lower than the consensus.

When did he get a say in the Sox' organization?

j/k I know you meant Breslow.

 

[BringBackMo]

A few clarifying questions then:

1. How are you defining “top” FAs?

2. How many “top” FAs have we competed with the Yankees for and lost? Just because it’s been a lot of years doesn’t mean it’s been a lot of players. That was the basis of my SSS comment.

3. How are we proving each team’s level of interest in a particular FA? I’ve seen Teixeira referenced. Bernie (an incumbent Yankee so not a great data point, IMO). Who else?

I’m not trying to be difficult. I just don’t see the evidence as being as conclusive as you and others here.

This point isn’t worth arguing further. The next time the Red Sox sign a free agent the Yankees wanted will be the first time it happens. Like you, I will be excited if it happens. Unlike you, I don’t think it’s at all likely that it will. I hope I’m wrong.

 

[BigSoxFan]

This point isn’t worth arguing further. The next time the Red Sox sign a free agent the Yankees wanted will be the first time it happens. Like you, I will be excited if it happens. Unlike you, I don’t think it’s at all likely that it will. I hope I’m wrong.

I think I found the disconnect here. I’m not suggesting it’s “likely” or expected (in fact, I almost literally said the opposite), I’m questioning why it cannot happen, especially in a new economic environment where the Sox are economically more viable and the league has done what it can to level the playing field in the form of luxury tax penalties, loss of draft compensation, etc.

I think all of this is why the Dodgers are a devastating combo because they have a location many FAs want AND money. They also seem to have an aggressiveness that is unlikely to be matched. To be honest, I’m not even that worried about the Yankees in FA anymore. It’s the CA teams that worry me most.

 

[chawson]

What's wrong with the sentiment is the unlikely outcome that it comes true. Statistically prospects fail— even highly ranked ones. I want all three to produce like the next Mookie Betts, but unfortunately the odds of that are remote. I’m just trying to stay grounded in reality here but IMO too many posters want to live in a fantasy land where reality doesn’t matter all our prospects will hit.

Well so what’s the alternative path you’re implying here? To outbid the field on 3-5 top of the market and mid-tier free agents every winter?

Because I want the Red Sox to spend money as much as anyone, but the reality as I have seen it is that not all free agent acquisitions will hit — not by a long shot! And the baseball cost (i.e. not John Henry’s money) of striking out on those is many, many times greater than a prospect flaming out.

 

[shaggydog2000]

What's wrong with the sentiment is the unlikely outcome that it comes true. Statistically prospects fail— even highly ranked ones. I want all three to produce like the next Mookie Betts, but unfortunately the odds of that are remote. I’m just trying to stay grounded in reality here but IMO too many posters want to live in a fantasy land where reality doesn’t matter all our prospects will hit.

Yes, prospects fail. Probably at about the same rate as big money Free Agents. And when prospects fail, you can move on without a big hit to your budget. You just bring in the next kid. Another team might even give you something for him just to take another chance at making the prospect work out. That's why you keep acquiring prospects and have a bunch at the same position. When the big money FA fails, you have a big dead weight on your budget, and nobody wants them unless you eat a ton of the cash. They're killers for your team. This is why top prospects are worth so much.

 

[NickEsasky]

You guys aren’t understanding my concern. It’s not about building a pipeline that’s a very valid strategy. I’m saying what does the current crop not producing a star do to the timeline everyone cites here lately and how does ownership react and pivot?

 

[cantor44]

I wonder ...if maybe there's nothing left to argue, at present, about whether the Red Sox organization, as mandated by ownership, has shifted into a new paradigm (will no longer be in the top 4 in payroll, will virtually always stay under the luxury tax) or if they are in a kind gradual rebuild that has had them spending less temporarily, and eventually payroll will go back up?

Maybe, as a group, we gotta call a truce? There is a lot of projection/conjecture/acts of faith going, while no one knows for sure.

Yes, this ownership has largely spent for most of their tenure. The team was in the top 4 in payroll (and usually 2nd or 3rd, twice 1st) from 2004-2021 STRAIGHT. In 2022 6th, in 2023 13th - https://www.stevetheump.com/Payrolls.htm. That recent drop does coincide with a dearth of MiLB talent, as the farm was being built back. But it also coincides with the rapid expansion of FSG; Henry once had one team (Sox), then cars, soccer, hockey, etc. - you can see how this might change the economic mandate, or even his interest to some extent. So, there are arguments both ways.

Me? I don't fucking know - I fear the latter, honestly, am prone to worry as my posts probably indicate. But admit I don't know. No one does. But we will see. Maybe this off season, almost certainly by next.

 

[chrisfont9]

You guys aren’t understanding my concern. It’s not about building a pipeline that’s a very valid strategy. I’m saying what does the current crop not producing a star do to the timeline everyone cites here lately and how does ownership react and pivot?

[totally rewriting my earlier answer]
I think what you are getting at is whether there is any depth to the system, at both the major league level and the not-far-off minors. It's middlin in both cases, such that if the big three don't pop, or take long, or get hurt, the Sox will be scrambling to plug holes with more like the types of players they have been bringing in, decent players on short deals who aren't moving the needle, just preventing it from going awry. Maybe they would be fine anyway, if Mayer has some issue but Yorke ends up making the jump successfully. Abreu is already there, so it's not all on Anthony for OF depth. I don't know if it's a total disaster. But what it would be is a turn away from the ideal situation, where you have the Class of 2015 all over again making it easy to build to something big.

It's not the Big Three or nothing, I don't think. The system depth is trending in the right direction, after a few years of that being a big part of the problem. But we could sure use some high-end cornerstone types. Devers, Casas and Bello are a very good start too.

 

[BringBackMo]

You guys aren’t understanding my concern. It’s not about building a pipeline that’s a very valid strategy. I’m saying what does the current crop not producing a star do to the timeline everyone cites here lately and how does ownership react and pivot?

I understand the point. But you can raise this concern about literally every team and its prospects. And it’s not just those three. Casas, Bello, Wong, Crawford, and Winckowski are all good young players that have recently graduated from the system and are all doing well in the majors. The Sox have done a good job developing their prospects in recent years. We’ll just have to see what happens with Mayer, Anthony, and Teel, but optimism doesn’t seem unreasonable.

 

[BigSoxFan]

You guys aren’t understanding my concern. It’s not about building a pipeline that’s a very valid strategy. I’m saying what does the current crop not producing a star do to the timeline everyone cites here lately and how does ownership react and pivot?

In fairness, I think that is a tough question to answer with a ton of variables. But I’ll take a pass at it:

Mayer - If Mayer busts, we still have Story and Grissom manning the MI. We may not “need” Mayer for 4+ years if Story rebounds and Grissom proves he can handle 2B. Now, there would be an opportunity cost of losing whatever Mayer could bring in trade if sent out right now, which would probably be something substantial.

Teel - If he busts, I think we see more of the status quo in Wong or someone similar. Maybe Hickey emerges as a hitting side of a platoon?

Anthony - Now this is the one that would sting. Our OF isn’t very good right now and we don’t really have any current longterm fixtures now that Yoshida is probably a DH unless you are bullish on Duran (I am not). Bleis is several years out and Rafaela is a question mark who could conceivably factor in there. This is an area where I think a modest FA deal would be used to deal with the hopeful bridge to Bleis.

Thus, I think going 0-3 would certainly hurt in the long run and would lower the potential ceiling but I’m not sure it really changes the current floor in the short term.

 

[BigSoxFan]

I haven't looked into the underlying discussion enough to form an opinion on it, but as far as another example of losing out to the Yankees, Jose Contreras reportedly caused furniture to be destroyed on Yawkey way.

Link
-------------------------
Epstein, who turns 29 Sunday, according to reports broke a chair during the winter meetings earlier this month after losing out on Edgardo Alfonzo. Boston also struck out with Jeff Kent this offseason. But this one hurt more because of CEO Larry Lucchino’s avowed Yankees hatred.
The Red Sox also offered a four-year deal, and were willing to bid “significantly higher” than the Yankees, according to a source, but were rejected. But Shea said last night Boston did not offer more than the Yankees.
“It almost did not get done, but it eventually did,” Torres said. “The decision came down to the Yankees and Boston. And the decision was made in the last negotiations. It was not a done deal. Let’s put it that way: Boston made a good run for him."
---------------------------


Holy shit how is that 21+ years (and four titles) ago.... Yikes.

Ha, I forgot about that one. Good news for the Sox is some of these FA losses may have been related to the Yankees being seen as the winning organization and we’ve definitely changed that narrative since. I also think the economics of the sport have changed so drastically that whatever happened in the past isn’t that predictive anymore. I don’t think the Yankees blew the Sox out of the water for Yamamoto. They may have bid a little more but we were likely right there with them. But, sadly, other factors won the day.

 

[sezwho]

I wonder ...if maybe there's nothing left to argue, at present, about whether the Red Sox organization, as mandated by ownership, has shifted into a new paradigm (will no longer be in the top 4 in payroll, will virtually always stay under the luxury tax) or if they are in a kind gradual rebuild that has had them spending less temporarily, and eventually payroll will go back up?

Maybe, as a group, we gotta call a truce? There is a lot of projection/conjecture/acts of faith going, while no one knows for sure.

Yes, this ownership has largely spent for most of their tenure. The team was in the top 4 in payroll (and usually 2nd or 3rd, twice 1st) from 2004-2021 STRAIGHT. In 2022 6th, in 2023 13th - https://www.stevetheump.com/Payrolls.htm. That recent drop does coincide with a dearth of MiLB talent, as the farm was being built back. But it also coincides with the rapid expansion of FSG; Henry once had one team (Sox), then cars, soccer, hockey, etc. - you can see how this might change the economic mandate, or even his interest to some extent. So, there are arguments both ways.

Me? I don't fucking know - I fear the latter, honestly, am prone to worry as my posts probably indicate. But admit I don't know. No one does. But we will see. Maybe this off season, almost certainly by next.

You’re on to something.

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FtHZn5X5bXM

 

[cantor44]

In fairness, I think that is a tough question to answer with a ton of variables. But I’ll take a pass at it:

Mayer - If Mayer busts, we still have Story and Grissom manning the MI. We may not “need” Mayer for 4+ years if Story rebounds and Grissom proves he can handle 2B. Now, there would be an opportunity cost of losing whatever Mayer could bring in trade if sent out right now, which would probably be something substantial.

Well - that Mayer contingency plan is assuming that Grissom hits. I'm excited about him but that's a big if. What's the Grissom contingency?

 

[simplicio]

Yorke was most likely the next of the middle infield batch up regardless.

 

[zenax]

We may not “need” Mayer for 4+ years if Story rebounds and Grissom proves he can handle 2B.

Mayer has already turned 21 and has played in the minors for three seasons. He's approaching the point where he will need to be placed on the 40-man roster (unless he already has been added...I couldn't access several sources in a search for this info) .

 

[jon abbey]

Mayer has already turned 21 and has played in the minors for three seasons. He's approaching the point where he will need to be placed on the 40-man roster (unless he already has been added...I couldn't access several sources in a search for this info) .

This is the site I always use for that, he doesn’t have to be added until after 2025.

https://www.fangraphs.com/roster-resource/depth-charts/red-sox

 

[Mike473]

You guys aren’t understanding my concern. It’s not about building a pipeline that’s a very valid strategy. I’m saying what does the current crop not producing a star do to the timeline everyone cites here lately and how does ownership react and pivot?

They keep working at it and hope for better results the next time around. You have to play the cards you are dealt to some extent.

 

[ehaz]

I think it will be a very rare situation where none in the big 3+ are super motivated on an elite player and the Red Sox are ‘in’ enough to outbid the field.

They have recently won in constrained markets like Devers, by aggressively moving on B+ prospects like Yoshida, or taking crazy injury risk like Story.

Giolito feels maybe different though, in that other teams with budget were in around that price. Maybe the pitching guru rep or maybe Sox dropped their pants on the terms, ie 1yr?

My optimistic side says that for the typical 30 year old players who hit free agency, they wanted to operate in this ~$80 to $150M range as their absolute high end as opposed to setting the market for the next David Price or Trea Turner contract.

Spend like a top 5 team but not with contracts (for FAs) that could handicap the franchise long term and for whom you are competing with the likes of LAD and the NY teams.

Problem is that it’s looking more and more like Bloom was not good at this part of the job. $140M on a shortstop with a shredded elbow and strikeout issues. $90M on a LF/DH type from Japan who basically has to hit 30% better than the league average for the contract to break even from a positional value standpoint. $32M for a 36 year old closer. I have no doubt Boston outbid the market on Story, Yoshida, Kenley.

Good moves were there to be made in FA near that price range. Deals that are substantial outlays for an average payroll team but wouldn’t require a Punto trade for a ~$230M payroll team should they turn sour. Seiya Suzuki, Kodai Senga, Chris Bassitt, Kevin Gausman, Marcus Semien, shit, re-signing Nate Eovaldi.

 

[BigSoxFan]

Well - that Mayer contingency plan is assuming that Grissom hits. I'm excited about him but that's a big if. What's the Grissom contingency?

You spend 2024 assessing if Grissom is the guy. If not, you see how Yorke is doing since his bat is almost MLB ready and hopefully his defense is passable, like we’re hoping from Grissom. If Yorke struggles, then Ha-Seong Kim in FA is my Plan C, which is costlier but would give us Story/Kim for another 3 years. And you have Rafaela as a Plan D in case you need it.

This is why I’d be willing to trade Mayer for a controllable young SP, if the right deal shows itself. I’m less inclined to trade Teel/Anthony because I don’t like my contingency plans there nearly as much.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Mayer has already turned 21 and has played in the minors for three seasons. He's approaching the point where he will need to be placed on the 40-man roster (unless he already has been added...I couldn't access several sources in a search for this info) .

It's a minimum of five seasons in the system before a prospect is rule 5 eligible and would need to be put on the 40-man to protect him from being drafted. Fangraphs is a good resource as jon abbey points out. If you're looking for more Sox specific, soxprospects.com is an excellent resource. They keep the 40-man roster well updated as well as a list of when each player is rule 5 eligible here.

 

[burstnbloom]

We can agree to disagree about Devers extension which prevented him from hitting the open market - your view appears to be that the extension was equivalent to what Devers would receive if he were a legit FA. If that is the case, I completely disagree. He didn't hit the market so its hard to call his contract one that is at market (btw, we don't need to debate this piece with models and comparison deals - those aren't his market) because there was no competition for his services.

Maybe you are right and we are being too hard on ownership. I don't think so - I think they know exactly what they are doing and are happy to rely on the legions of fans who either think they are poised to leap into contention someday soon or the rest who are more casual about winning.

let’s not debate the comps which shows that he has the second largest contract for a 3b in history and a contract within $1m a year of Corey Seagers free agent contract,

there have been 6 contracts ever signed in free agency that eclipse the Devers contract and two of them were signed by the dodgers in the last two weeks.

I’m sorry this is silly. But hey believe what you want I guess.

 

[Montana Fan]

Holy shit how is that 21+ years (and four titles) ago.... Yikes.

It’s so long ago that CumberlandBlues was Still Cursing Bucky. Time and Tide wait for no man.

 

[BaseballJones]

My optimistic side says that for the typical 30 year old players who hit free agency, they wanted to operate in this ~$80 to $150M range as their absolute high end as opposed to setting the market for the next David Price or Trea Turner contract.

Spend like a top 5 team but not with contracts (for FAs) that could handicap the franchise long term and for whom you are competing with the likes of LAD and the NY teams.

Problem is that it’s looking more and more like Bloom was not good at this part of the job. $140M on a shortstop with a shredded elbow and strikeout issues. $90M on a LF/DH type from Japan who basically has to hit 30% better than the league average for the contract to break even from a positional value standpoint. $32M for a 36 year old closer. I have no doubt Boston outbid the market on Story, Yoshida, Kenley.

Good moves were there to be made in FA near that price range. Deals that are substantial outlays for an average payroll team but wouldn’t require a Punto trade for a ~$230M payroll team should they turn sour. Seiya Suzuki, Kodai Senga, Chris Bassitt, Kevin Gausman, Marcus Semien, shit, re-signing Nate Eovaldi.

The vast majority of FA signings (not all, but the vast majority) are cases where the team that signs the player "outbid the market" for them. That's kind of how it works, right?

 

[BigSoxFan]

let’s not debate the comps which shows that he has the second largest contract for a 3b in history and a contract within $1m a year of Corey Seagers free agent contract,

there have been 6 contracts ever signed in free agency that eclipse the Devers contract and two of them were signed by the dodgers in the last two weeks.

I’m sorry this is silly. But hey believe what you want I guess.

I don’t view his position as “silly” and I don’t think it’s helpful to characterize someone else’s position in that way if you’re hoping to have an honest debate.

You both are arguing different points. Dejesus’, if I have it correctly, is stating that Devers’ contract isn’t sufficient proof that this ownership will do what it takes to win the services of an elite FA (I’m considering Devers elite for the sake of this discussion although definitely room for disagreement there) in a competitive bid environment. Devers wasn’t extended in a competitive bid environment. It was a negotiated bid. Only one team, the Red Sox, had the ability to sign him. Maybe the free market would have valued him similar to Seager but we have no supporting data to prove that. And the Bogaerts contract is a perfect example of what can happen when other teams get involved.

What you’ve proven is that the Red Sox are capable of outlaying $300M+ for their own player. We’ve seen them hand out huge contracts to Price and Crawford in the past so we know they can do it in a competitive bid environment. But I think a fair question remains if that is still how they’ll operate. I don’t think there is enough data to prove or disprove either argument right now because we need to see more. Again, as DeJesus stated, reasonable minds can differ here.

 

[Rovin Romine]

Maybe, as a group, we gotta call a truce? There is a lot of projection/conjecture/acts of faith going, while no one knows for sure.

It's basically the Mookie/Bloom argument redux.

On one "side" we have people who are looking at all the facts and offering multiple explanations that are plausible - certainly more plausible than overnight bad-faith on the part of ownership. This group shades into people who are agnostic on "rebuilding" or "bridging" or who disapprove of it in the sense that they don't believe it was strictly necessary.

The other "side" is composed of people who are: a) convinced there's bad faith here, b) will not look at all the facts, and c) insist on their conclusion.

It's really the underlined last part of the other side that's the problem, since that group is publicly arguing off of cherry-picked facts, constructing fantastic scenarios, (or in some cases relying on demonstrable falsehoods), all of which invites pushback.

And so you get these circular arguments where someone from the tail-end of Group 2 will emote: "The Sawx are Tamper Bay Noarth, because [insert rando fact]." Then someone from Group 1 will say. . ."Well, probably not if you look at the actual spending." Then someone from Group 2 will basically go Fan-Karen (That it's rude to point out that their cherry-picked facts ignore X or Y or Z.)

IMO, if we collectively want the discussion to move on, Group 2 needs to stop trolling.

That does not mean Group 1 would "prevail," because there's no prevailing. It would just mean all the facts are considered and people from Group 2 would stop seagulling into every single thread.

I don't think the way to do that is to deeply and compassionately engage for the 20th time re: the fact that Devers got a mega-contract, and that he's a young player still. Because the posters have already read that, or do not care to read that. Which amounts to the same thing. But that's just my opinion. To sit at the big table - learn to chew with your mouth shut.

 

[BaseballJones]

Nobody can look at "all the facts" because we don't have any real insight into the decision-making process of Boston Red Sox ownership or front office people. We only know what we see in public. We have no idea how Boston's negotiations with Yamamoto really went, or how far the Sox were really willing to go to sign him. We don't know why, really, they signed Yoshida - presumably it was because they liked him as a player, but could it also have been in part to try to lure Yamamoto to join him when he became available this year? Possible, but who the heck knows? When it came to Eovaldi, what were conversations in Fenway really like? Did they really think that they couldn't re-sign him because they had moved on, or was any of that petty (screw you since you didn't sign with us right away)? Who knows.

I'd venture to say that most of the "facts" of what the Red Sox do and why they do it are unavailable to us. Which is why there's so much speculation based on a relatively small handful of publicly known facts, which leads people in good faith to disagree wildly on their intentions, motivations, and desires. Like...does Henry *really* just want to use the Sox to fund his other sports enterprises, as some have suggested? Who the heck knows. We have no idea. But knowing only a tiny number of facts while being ignorant of so many more naturally leads to speculation and opinion-giving.

 

[lexrageorge]

I don’t view his position as “silly” and I don’t think it’s helpful to characterize someone else’s position in that way if you’re hoping to have an honest debate.

You both are arguing different points. Dejesus’, if I have it correctly, is stating that Devers’ contract isn’t sufficient proof that this ownership will do what it takes to win the services of an elite FA (I’m considering Devers elite for the sake of this discussion although definitely room for disagreement there) in a competitive bid environment. Devers wasn’t extended in a competitive bid environment. It was a negotiated bid. Only one team, the Red Sox, had the ability to sign him. Maybe the free market would have valued him similar to Seager but we have no supporting data to prove that. And the Bogaerts contract is a perfect example of what can happen when other teams get involved.

What you’ve proven is that the Red Sox are capable of outlaying $300M+ for their own player. We’ve seen them hand out huge contracts to Price and Crawford in the past so we know they can do it in a competitive bid environment. But I think a fair question remains if that is still how they’ll operate. I don’t think there is enough data to prove or disprove either argument right now because we need to see more. Again, as DeJesus stated, reasonable minds can differ here.

Good point that the willingness of the Red Sox owners to spend, and their willingness to bid on top of the market free agents, are related but distinct questions. The Devers extension is evidence for the former (albeit incomplete, as it's only one player), but not evidence of the latter.

IMO, if the Red Sox consistently spend close to the 2nd CBT threshold (along with the periodic reset that all teams perform), it doesn't make much difference if the money is spent on extending pre-eligible young players or veteran free agents (be they top of market or lower tier), as long as the money is spent on the right players. Realistically, it will need to be a mix of both, which has been the model of the last 3 World Series winners.

It is also worth noting that none of the past 3 World Series winners went out and won the bidding for a top of the market free agent.

 

[sezwho]

It's basically the Mookie/Bloom argument redux.

On one "side" we have people who are looking at all the facts and offering multiple explanations that are plausible - certainly more plausible than overnight bad-faith on the part of ownership. This group shades into people who are agnostic on "rebuilding" or "bridging" or who disapprove of it in the sense that they don't believe it was strictly necessary.

The other "side" is composed of people who are: a) convinced there's bad faith here, b) will not look at all the facts, and c) insist on their conclusion.

It's really the underlined last part of the other side that's the problem, since that group is publicly arguing off of cherry-picked facts, constructing fantastic scenarios, (or in some cases relying on demonstrable falsehoods), all of which invites pushback.

And so you get these circular arguments where someone from the tail-end of Group 2 will emote: "The Sawx are Tamper Bay Noarth, because [insert rando fact]." Then someone from Group 1 will say. . ."Well, probably not if you look at the actual spending." Then someone from Group 2 will basically go Fan-Karen (That it's rude to point out that their cherry-picked facts ignore X or Y or Z.)

IMO, if we collectively want the discussion to move on, Group 2 needs to stop trolling.

That does not mean Group 1 would "prevail," because there's no prevailing. It would just mean all the facts are considered and people from Group 2 would stop seagulling into every single thread.

I don't think the way to do that is to deeply and compassionately engage for the 20th time re: the fact that Devers got a mega-contract, and that he's a young player still. Because the posters have already read that, or do not care to read that. Which amounts to the same thing. But that's just my opinion. To sit at the big table - learn to chew with your mouth shut.

Wow, you really are special. If there is no sense in dialog, maybe just tap out?

 

[Rovin Romine]

Wow, you really are special. If there is no sense in dialog, maybe just tap out?

A "dialog" has certain normal standards. Is it unreasonable to expect people to adhere to them?

 

[sezwho]

A "dialog" has certain normal standards. Is it unreasonable to expect people to adhere to them?

It seems to be for you, but I’ll tap out as well. No sense in PMs

 

[BringBackMo]

Problem is that it’s looking more and more like Bloom was not good at this part of the job. $140M on a shortstop with a shredded elbow and strikeout issues. $90M on a LF/DH type from Japan who basically has to hit 30% better than the league average for the contract to break even from a positional value standpoint. $32M for a 36 year old closer. I have no doubt Boston outbid the market on Story, Yoshida, Kenley.

Kenley Jensen was a bad signing? Sure, he’s not Kenley in his prime, but he was signed for two years at $16 per.
ESPN ranked him 2023’s 12th best closer. And keep in mind, Bloom was criticized immediately after the signing for not recognizing that Jensen would struggle with the newly implemented pitch clock.

He went on to put up fairly similar production to what he gave Atlanta the year before (presumably what we were after when we signed him), stabilized the back of the bullpen in a way that allowed Martin to pitch somewhat less frequently as a good setup man, and appears to have trade value this off-season which should make it easy to move his reasonable contract and perhaps even get something decent in return for him. All in all, his signing seems like a nice piece of business by Bloom.

Story has had two frustrating years so far and Yoshida had a bad final two months last season after a first four that were good. Story is presumably healthy now and played a good SS last year. Yoshida wore down and hopefully is improving his conditioning this off-season for the more grueling MLB season. But in general I think it’s fair to say there’s a chance those contracts won’t wind up providing positive value. There’s a chance they will. That uncertainty is to some degree the cost of doing business in free agency.

 

[Rovin Romine]

Nobody can look at "all the facts" because we don't have any real insight into the decision-making process of Boston Red Sox ownership or front office people. We only know what we see in public. We have no idea how Boston's negotiations with Yamamoto really went, or how far the Sox were really willing to go to sign him. We don't know why, really, they signed Yoshida - presumably it was because they liked him as a player, but could it also have been in part to try to lure Yamamoto to join him when he became available this year? Possible, but who the heck knows? When it came to Eovaldi, what were conversations in Fenway really like? Did they really think that they couldn't re-sign him because they had moved on, or was any of that petty (screw you since you didn't sign with us right away)? Who knows.

I'd venture to say that most of the "facts" of what the Red Sox do and why they do it are unavailable to us. Which is why there's so much speculation based on a relatively small handful of publicly known facts, which leads people in good faith to disagree wildly on their intentions, motivations, and desires. Like...does Henry *really* just want to use the Sox to fund his other sports enterprises, as some have suggested? Who the heck knows. We have no idea. But knowing only a tiny number of facts while being ignorant of so many more naturally leads to speculation and opinion-giving.

I'm not going to hyper-qualify my statements, but I think you understand that by "all the facts" I meant all the publicly-available and reasonably solid facts. Which means, for example, one does not get to argue that "Post-Mookie, the Sox don't sign anyone to long contracts" - because they have done so. And, for someone who is participating in the discussion, and is reminded of that, it should be perfectly normal for that person to say, "Oh right - I forgot about Story and Devers and Yoshida." And then, it's basically over.

As I said, there is no "prevailing" - because as you say, the facts don't point to one conclusion.

The majority of the posters here manage to adhere to that kind of normalcy. But what do you do when the same person then says the Sox "don't sign anyone to long contracts" again and again and again? Or repeatedly posts and argues as if Mookie was traded alone, without Price's contract? Etc. Etc.

 

[BringBackMo]

We don't know why, really, they signed Yoshida - presumably it was because they liked him as a player, but could it also have been in part to try to lure Yamamoto to join him when he became available this year? Possible, but who the heck knows?

When it came to Eovaldi, what were conversations in Fenway really like? Did they really think that they couldn't re-sign him because they had moved on, or was any of that petty (screw you since you didn't sign with us right away)? Who knows.

Do you truly believe that “both sides” in these two examples have equal merit? Is it as likely that the Sox gave Yoshida a Godfather contract because they thought he would be a Yamamoto difference maker as it is that they gave him the contract because they believed he’d be a good hitter? Is it as likely that they revoked the offer to Eovaldi out of anger as it is that they did so because they‘d already used the money to sign other players after he initially declined the offer?

 

[Rovin Romine]

It seems to be for you, but I’ll tap out as well. No sense in PMs

Eh, I may not be as patient as others, but I keep my mind open.

Ultimately, here, for what we discuss, there's a wide spread of valid opinion. There are plenty of posters whom each of us disagrees with - but they're posters who articulate their positions and acknowledge facts pro and con. It happens on this site every day. You can see it happening in this thread.

However, specious arguments in support of any of those opinions should be knocked over. Perhaps politely at first, but eventually, there's just a politeness tax, or an explanation tax that factors into responding to a nugget with something substantive. That's usually because the real world is governed by complex interactions, and so a "real" explanation requires acknowledging a bunch of factors. The burden shouldn't be on one side always to repeatedly and patiently explain, for example, that free agents have choice - they can sign or not sign with a club based on any number of unknowable factors. And therefore, it's not a failure of will or desire on the part of the Giants or the Yankees or the Sox that free agent X chose to sign with LA.

It's rather akin to someone arguing that RBI totals show "a true competitor."

What's your (or our) reasonable expectation for a participant in that dialogue?

 

[sezwho]

Eh, I may not be as patient as others, but I keep my mind open.

Ultimately, here, for what we discuss, there's a wide spread of valid opinion. There are plenty of posters whom each of us disagrees with - but they're posters who articulate their positions and acknowledge facts pro and con. It happens on this site every day. You can see it happening in this thread.

However, specious arguments in support of any of those opinions should be knocked over. Perhaps politely at first, but eventually, there's just a politeness tax, or an explanation tax that factors into responding to a nuggets with something substantive. That's usually because the real world is governed by a complex interactions, and so a "real" explanation requires acknowledging those. That burden shouldn't be on one side always to repeatedly and patiently explain, for example, that free agents have choice - they can sign or not sign with a club based on any number of unknowable factors. And therefore, it's not a failure of will or desire on the part of the Giants or the Yankees or the Sox that free agent X chose to sign with LA.

It's rather akin to someone arguing that RBI totals show "a true competitor."

What's your (or our) reasonable expectation for a participant in that dialogue?

I see the openness to counter positions for sure and I read many of your posts with great interest. Just reacting to the double barrels of snark in a time where a DMZ of sorts is actively being cultivated.

As to dealing with opposing deeply held positions where I feel firmly grounded in fact, Im just not good. Don't do Facebook any more for example.

Thinking out loud a bit, maybe I’m evolving to a place where if I feel I’m trying to beat the stupid out of someone, then it doesn’t matter if I’m right any more and its even possible I’m being the stupid one.

So many smart and informed posts here, SOSH is good practice for me realizing I’ve been wrong for sometime and thus more patient when I perceive others are. Anyway, way off topic now and I’ve got the damn day job : )

 

[Auger34]

Nobody can look at "all the facts" because we don't have any real insight into the decision-making process of Boston Red Sox ownership or front office people. We only know what we see in public. We have no idea how Boston's negotiations with Yamamoto really went, or how far the Sox were really willing to go to sign him. We don't know why, really, they signed Yoshida - presumably it was because they liked him as a player, but could it also have been in part to try to lure Yamamoto to join him when he became available this year? Possible, but who the heck knows? When it came to Eovaldi, what were conversations in Fenway really like? Did they really think that they couldn't re-sign him because they had moved on, or was any of that petty (screw you since you didn't sign with us right away)? Who knows.

I'd venture to say that most of the "facts" of what the Red Sox do and why they do it are unavailable to us. Which is why there's so much speculation based on a relatively small handful of publicly known facts, which leads people in good faith to disagree wildly on their intentions, motivations, and desires. Like...does Henry *really* just want to use the Sox to fund his other sports enterprises, as some have suggested? Who the heck knows. We have no idea. But knowing only a tiny number of facts while being ignorant of so many more naturally leads to speculation and opinion-giving.

This. We have no fucking idea what’s going on. There are some bread crumbs that we can use to help inform our opinions but we don’t know.

To be honest, it’s really tough to read this thread. The amount of condescending posts is brutal..and it’s all over stuff that people can’t possibly prove.

 

[BaseballJones]

Do you truly believe that “both sides” in these two examples have equal merit? Is it as likely that the Sox gave Yoshida a Godfather contract because they thought he would be a Yamamoto difference maker as it is that they gave him the contract because they believed he’d be a good hitter? Is it as likely that they revoked the offer to Eovaldi out of anger as it is that they did so because they‘d already used the money to sign other players after he initially declined the offer?

I'm sure one side of each coin is more likely than the other, but honestly, we have no idea.

 

[8slim]

A "dialog" has certain normal standards. Is it unreasonable to expect people to adhere to them?

There have been several thoughtful posts on this topic in just the last 24 hours. No ignorant talk radio rants, no agenda driven screeds. Measured posts speculating on how this ownership has acted in the past and will possibly act in the future.

Apparently those don’t count for reasons known only to you.

 

[Rovin Romine]

I'm sure one side of each coin is more likely than the other, but honestly, we have no idea.

We do though, depending on the argument.

If the argument is that the Sox expected Yoshida to produce X. . .we can get a very decent angle on whether X is at all likely, because we (and they) have (had) Yoshida's NBP stats for six years, up to his age 28 season. They extensively scouted his fielding. There's data on players jumping from Japan to MLB. We know what a plausible upper range is on Yoshida.

We also know what a 5 WAR All-Star or a 7+ WAR "difference maker" looks like from a statistical point of view. And what a dedicated LF (at best an average fielding one in Fenway) would have to put up numbers-wise to land on that scale.

I'd submit an argument that they expected him to be a 7 WAR player should be laughed out of any conversation. Whether they expected him to be an All-Star type corner OF is up for debate.

Now port that into the payment argument: that they paid him X because they expected a 7 WAR player. That fails. And by consequence the argument that they're only willing to pay 7 WAR players what they payed Yoshida.