The one thing about Duvall that can’t be overstated is his fit for Fenway. You’re talking about a guy with a 46% pull % with most of it being in the air. The guy was born for Fenway.
I ultimately don’t think he signs here though.
Offseason rumors
- Thread starter opes
- Start date
- Status
I ultimately don’t think he signs here though.
Well, he could play LF, too, at least theoretically (kind of like Yoshida). Hoskins is as much a LF as Duvall is a 1b, and they are apparently “in on him”. Soler can’t play any position, and they reportedly dabbled with him.
Agree on Turner. Not sure why they haven’t just re-upped him. Don’t really see any other FA who can legitimitely play multiple positions.
I struggle to see the Hoskins fit but do love the bat. That would be two 1b/dh only guys and seem to require Refsnyder as another OFer and Reyes as the only back up 3b.
Re Turner who are we sitting vs righties to get him in lineup: Abreu, Duran, ONeill or Yoshida?
Pairing Soler with Dalbec (and moving on from Refsnyder) still seems the best fit to me.
Re Turner who are we sitting vs righties to get him in lineup: Abreu, Duran, ONeill or Yoshida?
Pairing Soler with Dalbec (and moving on from Refsnyder) still seems the best fit to me.
Last year when we acquired Duvall I looked him up at baseball reference and one of the most similar players was Hunter Renfro. Schwarber was another of the most similar players. I thought it was odd - why I point it out here (no agenda beyond that)
This year the most similar players to Duvall are:
1. Hunter Renfro
4. Jorge Soler
8. Teoscar Hernandez
I like Duvall - I cheered for him. If you sign him I hope they don't sign Turner - I would like Duran/Abreau to get at bats.
Wow, that's very interesting. I'm assuming the people who put that together are smarter than me and have a formula for that stuff, but I'm pretty surprised. Thanks for the info, much appreciated.
I don't think any of Abreu, Rafaela or Duran have necessarily proved they're real MLB players yet. Duran looked close but there are some tremendous holes in his profile. I think it's a major risk to go into the year planning on giving more than one of them starting jobs. I agree they need full time at bats, so I think most sensibly that starts back at AAA for Abreu and Rafaela, unless they come into ST setting the world on fire.
I also see any of the three as our most likely trade candidates outside of Kenley.
Today I learned that Tyler O'Neill's most similar player is Wily Mo Pena.
The interest in a short deal for an outfielder, as I see it, is so we can trade Duran for pitching.
Think about it this way. We didn't acquire O’Neill and his $7M contract to be a weak-side platoon player, especially not when we already have a really good one in Refsnyder. It’s optimal that O’Neill plays full-time. He’ll be motivated in his platform year, and there are several good outcomes if he’s good (playoff contention; re-signing; QO and draft pick; deadline trade).
And O’Neill plays center field. I realize he didn’t play there much in St. Louis, but he’s got the foot speed, glove, and arm. Most importantly, he’s a one-year stopgap that can also move to a corner in the occasion we re-sign him, which is handy because the CF job in 2025 is Roman Anthony’s to lose.
Meanwhile, the optimal outcome in right field is for Wilyer Abreu to claim it, at least in a strong-side platoon.
I think signing any of Soler, Hoskins, Turner, or Duvall accomplishes these goals, as long as whoever it is isn’t locked into the DH spot for three years. Yoshida can hang in left at least a couple more. We also will bid on Juan Soto next winter.
Signing Duvall to a one-year deal helps facilitate all this because he’s a plausible DH bat that can help back-up all three OF spots, and doesn’t tie up an outfield spot long-term.
Last edited:
From your lips to Breslow's ear.
"Free agent Adam Duvall is "likely" to sign with either the Boston Red Sox or the Los Angeles Angels, according to the New York Post's Jon Heyman."
Yeah, I don't know if I think Snell's getting $240m, and I wouldn't want Boston to give it to him.
As for Montgomery, I guess I'm not really sure why, if there is actually mutual interest to retain him in Texas at a price both sides like, he remains unsigned.
As for Montgomery, I guess I'm not really sure why, if there is actually mutual interest to retain him in Texas at a price both sides like, he remains unsigned.
Snell's ask feels he's showing up to the SD-and-NYM-go-insane party a year late.
Weren't there questions about Texas's TV deal/finances?
With Snell, Monty, Bellinger, Chapman and many others still unsigned, it's starting to feel like a lot of teams have pulled back this offseason. I'm wondering if there's a patented Scott Boras lecture coming soon.
So if they sign Duvall, the OF options are:
O'Neill
Yoshida
Duran
Refsnyder
Duvall
Do they keep one of Abreu/Rafaella as well? 6 OF is a lot, but one of those guys will DH and Duvall would fill the backup 1B role. And Rafaella, if they keep him, also serves as a backup MI. Maybe Refnsyder becomes redundant -- do they need three RH outfielders?
O'Neill
Yoshida
Duran
Refsnyder
Duvall
Do they keep one of Abreu/Rafaella as well? 6 OF is a lot, but one of those guys will DH and Duvall would fill the backup 1B role. And Rafaella, if they keep him, also serves as a backup MI. Maybe Refnsyder becomes redundant -- do they need three RH outfielders?
Duran has a bit of a split, Abreu has a lot of one. Refsnyder definitely has potential routes to playing time still, especially if his 1B experience counts for something.
Barring a trade, I do think Abreu/Rafaela in AAA makes the most sense currently. Rafaela needs consistent ABs more than anyone and I don't see how he gets those in Boston, even as a BROCKHOLT! supersub.
Barring a trade, I do think Abreu/Rafaela in AAA makes the most sense currently. Rafaela needs consistent ABs more than anyone and I don't see how he gets those in Boston, even as a BROCKHOLT! supersub.
There seems to be around 8-10 teams that are interested in winning. Baseball free agency is really broken.
Probably not, but it depends on their overall splits. From what I've read around 30% of the innings pitched in the majors are logged by LHP. Refsnyder is valuable as a foil to someone like Abreu, who looks to be very vulnerable on his weak side. It also transforms him into a top-shelf OF for 1/3rd of the at bats/games. But the other 2/3rds. . . So no, I don't think they need another OF with the Refsnyder skill-set.
Last edited:
As to Hoskins - absolutely adore the idea of him on a 3 year type deal as a DH, option to give Casas time off at 1b. I think a team like the Red Sox are better when they pay up for an elite bat at DH (obviously Ortiz, but also someone like JDM) as opposed to going the "Ben Zobrist" DH model, if you will. But I don't think that it's going to happen based on Breslow's comments and Yoshida is a really bad defensive player (or at least he was last year) so DH is somewhat "taken." I'd far rather have Hoskins and trade Yoshida, but I also don't think that's likely.
Same regarding Rafaela. His approach may not work against MLB pitching, but more time in AAA isn't going to help that. He wasn't challenged at the level (ie forced to make adjustments) and put up a 140 wRC+ there (with no real split, as he was .851 against RHPs and .782 against LHPs).
Now if Breslow doesn't think they can improve upon that - totally fair and defensible - but that is why you sign someone from three years (it's why I was on board with the idea of something like 3/$60m to Teoscar). A one year deal to someone just means either a) you don't see if they can hit same handed pitching at the MLB level (Abreu) or b) you send them back to AAA where they pitching isn't high enough caliber to force them to make adjustments (Rafaela), so next season you're right back in the same place with the same questions.
I'm totally on board (and have been begging) for a trade of OFs for starting pitching.
However, the trade for SPs should be made FIRST, because of the above. There are roughly 457 OFs they could sign to a one year deal if they want / need to (ok, that's obviously an exaggeration) but there are many. It's not like the Giolito signing / Sale deal where even if the Sale deal didn't happen you still had plenty of spots open for pitching. Just to make up a name, trade Duran (or Abreu or Rafaela or whatever) for "Chase Silseth" and THEN sign someone to a one year deal - absolutely.
If Duvall happens to have signed with the Angels, fine, sign Michael A Taylor or Joc Pederson or Tommy Pham or Randal Grichuk or whatever of the old OFs one likes. They're pretty interchangeable.
But if you sign someone first and the deal falls apart (or there is no deal) then you're back in the same spot I mentioned before. Another incredibly redundant player AND you're not learning anything about the prospects, so you're back in the same spot heading into 2025. It wastes a season of development and evaluation at the MLB level for really no gain.
Agree they haven't proven it. However, I also don't think there is anything left for them to prove at AAA (or a better way of saying it is I don't think the AAA level pitchers can force them to make the adjustments necessary to prove it, if that makes sense). Abreu might have looked awful against LHPs in the majors (in like 7 games) but at AA (22) he had a .775OPS against them and in AAA (23) it was .739 (both a far cry from the .400 in a miniscule sample size), but again, I don't think more at bats at the AAA level are going to be telling or helpful in any way.
Same regarding Rafaela. His approach may not work against MLB pitching, but more time in AAA isn't going to help that. He wasn't challenged at the level (ie forced to make adjustments) and put up a 140 wRC+ there (with no real split, as he was .851 against RHPs and .782 against LHPs).
Now if Breslow doesn't think they can improve upon that - totally fair and defensible - but that is why you sign someone from three years (it's why I was on board with the idea of something like 3/$60m to Teoscar). A one year deal to someone just means either a) you don't see if they can hit same handed pitching at the MLB level (Abreu) or b) you send them back to AAA where they pitching isn't high enough caliber to force them to make adjustments (Rafaela), so next season you're right back in the same place with the same questions.
(Edited down to respond more concisely, hopefully nothing is taken out of context, not my intent)
I'm totally on board (and have been begging) for a trade of OFs for starting pitching.
However, the trade for SPs should be made FIRST, because of the above. There are roughly 457 OFs they could sign to a one year deal if they want / need to (ok, that's obviously an exaggeration) but there are many. It's not like the Giolito signing / Sale deal where even if the Sale deal didn't happen you still had plenty of spots open for pitching. Just to make up a name, trade Duran (or Abreu or Rafaela or whatever) for "Chase Silseth" and THEN sign someone to a one year deal - absolutely.
If Duvall happens to have signed with the Angels, fine, sign Michael A Taylor or Joc Pederson or Tommy Pham or Randal Grichuk or whatever of the old OFs one likes. They're pretty interchangeable.
But if you sign someone first and the deal falls apart (or there is no deal) then you're back in the same spot I mentioned before. Another incredibly redundant player AND you're not learning anything about the prospects, so you're back in the same spot heading into 2025. It wastes a season of development and evaluation at the MLB level for really no gain.
Is there any reason to believe that Hoskins wants to become a full-time DH?
I think Adam Duvall has always made a lot of sense, and I have no problem signing him for 1-2 years instead of Soler or Hernandez. However, I'll say once more that Duran's questionable defense in center field still makes him the odd man out. With so much of the young core (Devers, Casas, Mayer, Teel, Anthony) being left-handed, and Duran being limited to left field defensively, he just screams "sell high" and has all winter.
You’re right, most players prefer playing both sides of the ball, but the the opportunity to stay off his blown out knee while also getting to tee off toward the Monster could possibly be appealing.
Not to be a jerk, but I literally said it was highly unlikely happen, and alluded to Breslow's comments as a reason it wouldn't.
Assume that is what Breslow has been trying to do and there are not takers. Is anyone so certain that Duran isn't a part of the core that they want to just kick down the can another year seeing any real chance he has at it (which signing another OF in essence would) as you wouldn't get answers to any of the questions (which are valid) about Duran or any of the others.
@Rovin Romine there is no reporting that I've seen that he's either for nor against the idea. So I've seen nothing to say he is alright with it. If the money is the same (or tripled) have you seen anything to say he's not?
If he's getting only one year offers to prove he's healthy enough to play the field and Boston were to offer him 3 years at the same AAV as the one year deals, he might be inclined. And he might not be. Just saying that I like the idea - just as I would like the idea of trading Mayer + for a SP with control (even though I am of the mindset that either of those two things are likely to happen).
Either way it doesn't really matter because to the first part, Hoskins isn't coming here.
To the OF, anyone else on a one year it's fine to just hope you can fix past mistakes and sell them at the deadline, so it's not really worth arguing about from my end. I'd rather see if the kids are part of the core than waste another season with someone else from the one year scrap heap, but it's really not worth getting worked up about.
Yoshida is more of DH/OF so there is room for Abreu. Rafaela you would want to get more middle infield reps in AAA. Refsnyder, O'Neil, and Duvall if he comes in would be on walk years so you would want to get Rafaela in a space to replace Refsnyder add more value.
Tom Werner did not debunk anything one way or the other. Because you choose not to believe anybody on the Red Sox beat that doesn't align with whatever view you have, you call them QAnon which is complete BS.
I was just asking. Normally players want to stay in the field and maximize their value, and Hoskins is going to be 31. I think this is his first go at free agency.
I'm sure a sufficiently large "lifetime" contract at this point would appeal to him, regardless of the role. But I would not offer him that, what with the injury history.
I think failing to account for things like this can lead to unreasonable expectations in the fan base. Sure, Hoskins is a RHH, but he may prefer Philly, or a 2-3 year 1B contract somewhere else, or even a "show me" contract somewhere else.
If we get him great, but if we don't, I wouldn't blink an eye, since it's not an obvious fit.
One reason this hasn't happened yet is that besides the possibly unsustainable BABIP and the questionable defense, he had a huge home/road split last year, .910 OPS in 182 PAs in Fenway and .748 OPS in 180 on the road. You can see why other GMs might not be jumping at the chance to grab him.
I go back to that interview with Marc Cuban I heard about falling sports revenues resulting from people cutting the cord. I do wonder if that is a thing for some of the middle-tier franchises.
How many deals longer than 2 years have there been outside of Ohtani/YY?
I believe plenty of reporters on the Red Sox beat, less so these clout-seeking clowns who work for sports betting companies. And, now, the reporters who are drumming up theories to court digital engagement like they do.
I don't have a "view." I'm parsing what's reported, and there are different styles of reporting. The "view" being propagated here belongs to the people who've let mounting frustrations with the team's record over the last few years, and the Mookie thing, calcify into a narrative that they are being betrayed, perhaps conspiratorially. You're typically a pretty level-headed poster, but the stuff you've apparently chosen to take as "fact" — that FSG has set a reduced payroll, that we won't give more than 2-year contracts, etc. — are not that.
It's fairly easy to scan a media report for what's being reported on the record, what's being conveyed on background, and what's being speculated on behalf of the writer. I'm not disputing the viability of the business model that Masslive (and their new editorial director hired last year) are running with, but they're tailoring their content to the affects of frustration displayed by the fan base. They're not supplying the public with the best information possible.
Last edited:
@Rovin Romine totally fair. Plus, like I said in the discussion about him, it's unlikely.
There just does seem to be a tenor (can't state this enough, but I'm not directing this at you) that if someone doesn't either voice displeasure or support of an idea (or a move, or not a move) that they're attacked with any point they make about it being hindsight and a "well what else could they have done" manner. My point is more there are a lot of things that "could" be done, so I was just voicing an opinion on that.
It's why I generally try to respond to things and moves (or not moves). Maybe I'll be right, maybe I'll be wrong. But it's at least a stance to then discuss going forward and (at least in my opinion) gives more validity to criticisms after the fact.
(It's why I talked all last off-season about it being dumb to rely on Sale and Paxton because they always got hurt, and so why I bristle at the "what could they have done, it's not like they should have expected all their SPs to get hurt at the same time." Should the Sox have foreseen Tanner Houck getting hit by a line drive - of course not. Should they have assumed that possibly Chris Sale and James Paxton would get hurt because they're both old and have track records of injuries to point to - yes, I think so).
Neither here nor there about Hoskins, however.
Especially because, I think they need starting pitching, starting pitching and starting pitching more than they need any bats and without it the wins and losses of 2024 are far less important than individual performances to see who might or might not be part of the 2025+ core. But at least Hoskins was something "new" to talk about since it appears highly unlikely that adding "starting pitching, starting pitching and starting pitching" is on the horizon.
There just does seem to be a tenor (can't state this enough, but I'm not directing this at you) that if someone doesn't either voice displeasure or support of an idea (or a move, or not a move) that they're attacked with any point they make about it being hindsight and a "well what else could they have done" manner. My point is more there are a lot of things that "could" be done, so I was just voicing an opinion on that.
It's why I generally try to respond to things and moves (or not moves). Maybe I'll be right, maybe I'll be wrong. But it's at least a stance to then discuss going forward and (at least in my opinion) gives more validity to criticisms after the fact.
(It's why I talked all last off-season about it being dumb to rely on Sale and Paxton because they always got hurt, and so why I bristle at the "what could they have done, it's not like they should have expected all their SPs to get hurt at the same time." Should the Sox have foreseen Tanner Houck getting hit by a line drive - of course not. Should they have assumed that possibly Chris Sale and James Paxton would get hurt because they're both old and have track records of injuries to point to - yes, I think so).
Neither here nor there about Hoskins, however.
Especially because, I think they need starting pitching, starting pitching and starting pitching more than they need any bats and without it the wins and losses of 2024 are far less important than individual performances to see who might or might not be part of the 2025+ core. But at least Hoskins was something "new" to talk about since it appears highly unlikely that adding "starting pitching, starting pitching and starting pitching" is on the horizon.
Last edited:
I haven't listened to this Rangers fan podcast (published yesterday), but it seems like it could have details (as reported elsewhere) about how the Bally Sports bankruptcy affects them (and the Twins and Guardians) the most.
Maybe they need to dump someone like Jon Gray before grabbing Montgomery? IDK.
I don't take "as fact" about the mandate for a reduced payroll or the 2-year contract thing. What I have an issue with is people dismissing every report that paints the Red Sox in a negative light when it comes to signing or not signing players. Cotillo, McAdam, Speier, Bradford, etc. are saying a lot of the same things about the FO's/ownership's approach so it's not somebody pushing an agenda. When they're reporting that they need to slash payroll (when they're way below the first LT threshold) before trying to sign other FA's, yes money is an issue. That doesn't mean I think there is a definite mandated payroll amount, but the directive to do those things is coming from somewhere and it's not from the brain of Sean McAdam or Rob Bradford. They are hearing these things. That's why I get testy about when you or others say those kinds of things. I think you're a knowledgeable baseball poster.
Can you show me where it was "reported" that they need to slash payroll? Not surmised, but reported?
I know - I do read what you write.
I've read the rest of your post, and yes, there is a kind of zero-sum-game right-or-wrong mentality that's sometimes getting applied here, which does no one any good.
I wanted to hilight the above though and ask - "Do we really need starting pitching?" Conventional wisdom is yes, and sure, adding an ace, then another ace, then another ace will always make the team better. So conventional wisdom isn't all that far off.
But how much starting pitching do we actually need? Some people throw out WAR like it's a real thing - just add this one guy and more wins appear. But the game is synergistic.
We've got a dedicated thread for what we have in house, and frankly, it could use more analysis on what we're likely to see from the rotation we actually have.
View: https://twitter.com/WEEI/status/1748364234277478822?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1748364234277478822%7Ctwgr%5E86c1a2ce5c942fea885de36b5e468c29b4478724%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fforum.soxprospects.com%2Fthread%2F7010%2F2024-free-agency%3Fpage%3D224
Sox were interested in Jordan Hicks as a starter.
Sox were interested in Jordan Hicks as a starter.
It seemed like the luxury tax was a very effective pseudo salary cap for so long. In the soccer forum I often referred to it as a potential solution in that market as well. I don’t understand what has changed about the economics of baseball which has made teams so willing to suffer the penalties now which seemed to be such a deterrent to the Red Sox and Yankees before
Yes those guys are saying a lot of the same thing, but in every case I've seen it's all been speculation, not reporting. I guess you can say "where there's smoke, there must be fire." But when they're saying it on their podcasts and posting it on twitter, it's hard not to view it as potentially just muckraking for the sake of getting attention. And I don't mean that necessarily it's in a craven way. I mean they're trying to fill content space and the Red Sox aren't giving them a whole lot of actual content at the moment. I think we're seeing the same thing happening here on the board. We want to talk baseball and hot stove, but not a lot is happening (not just with the Sox but across baseball) so we're all concocting narratives to fill the time and latching on to anything that might fit those narratives.
I think they are focused on getting pitchers they think they can add value to. They are going to add another pitcher. Will be interesting to see who.
Cotillo reported that they needed to shed payroll before they could aggressively pursue an unspecified free agent. This was about 3 weeks ago.
https://www.boston.com/sports/boston-red-sox/2023/12/31/boston-red-sox-offseason-mlb-spending-free-agents/
Everybody, including actual reporters, those who fancy themselves to be reporters, and people here, is just speculating now because there is NOTHING TO REPORT and we all want to write and discuss something about baseball. We go around in circles endlessly discussing nothing of importance and criticizing others whose viewpoints differ from our own because there's nothing else to do. We fill space because space is available. I'm ready to take a break until something actually happens, I can't stand to read much more of the endless naval gazing occurring here.
Sorry for the interruption, continue what you were doing.
Sorry for the interruption, continue what you were doing.
One source saying that one free agent was told this with no additional context. Even if we assume it's all true, how do we know that it didn't just apply to that particular player? How do we know it wasn't just said in an attempt to persuade the player to sign for what was on the table? Maybe it was Josh Hader and the only way it made sense to sign him was if they moved Kenley first?
I get that you're just providing an example for chawson's question, but this one report is sure getting a lot of mileage when it hasn't really been corroborated since.
No he didn't. He reported that one "baseball source" told him that the Red Sox told them that they needed to shed payroll before pursuing his player.
That's third-hand information, first of all. Given the manner that this was reported (and the rules of what you can attribute on background), for us to take that as hard evidence, we need to know that that line is
A) said at all and isn't just a negotiation ploy (from Boras or whoever)
B) said verbatim (Cotillo has quoted sources anonymously before, but he did not do so here. He summarized.)
C) isn't just a standard diplomatic thing for an executive to say during negotiations and
D) definitively was intended to mean shedding payroll and not as a diplomatic way of saying Breslow wants to secure a trade for redundant player already on the team (e.g., we want to secure a trade for Jansen before signing Stephenson, a guy who may want to close)
If Boras is out here telling teams that Blake Snell's asking price is $240 million (as reported yesterday), and Breslow counters that with a line to the effect of Interesting, thanks. We'll probably need to move some money around before I feel comfortable meeting that mark, then I don't think that is evidence of some conspiracy. It sounds like a diplomatic way of saying that a free agent's asking price is exorbitantly high. (FanGraphs' crowdsourced contract estimate for Snell was 5/$125; MLBTR was 7/$200.)
The Red Sox, barring an unforeseen six-week stretch of apathy before pitchers and catchers report, are not done remaking their roster for 2024. The changes so far have been significant, with Giolito, Grissom, Tyler O’Neill and a handful of depth arms added, Sale and Alex Verdugo gone and Justin Turner, James Paxton and Adam Duvall potentially leaving in free agency. All signs, though, point to the Red Sox adding more pieces before Opening Day.
To do so, however, more subtraction may come first. According to a baseball source, the Red Sox have told at least one free agent target that they need to shed more payroll before pursuing him as aggressively as they want to. It’s no coincidence, then that the Sox shaved nearly $4 million in salary by swapping Verdugo (projected to earn $9.2 million in arbitration) for O’Neill (projected $5.5 million) and $8.6 million more (based on CBT calculations) by moving on from Sale. The bigger question is why the team is being so fine when it comes to finances when current projections have them around $200 million in committed money, well under the first competitive balance tax threshold of $237 million.
https://www.masslive.com/redsox/2023/12/with-chris-sale-traded-whats-next-for-red-sox-more-subtraction-possibly.html?utm_campaign=masslivesports&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
I think these were the three original reports about the Red Sox needing to move salary before signing a free agent. The follow-up reports by McCaffrey and Speier hedge more than Cotillo about whether they “need” to shed salary first vs prefer to do so, etc.
As far as I’m aware, I haven’t seen any actual reporting about the Sox setting a payroll target this year that’s lower than last year’s. Although some have surmised that based on the below and other reports about being unlikely to pursue certain FAs.
Chris Cotillo:
“To do so, however, more subtraction may come first. According to a baseball source, the Red Sox have told at least one free agent target that they need to shed more payroll before pursuing him as aggressively as they want to.”
“The Red Sox still have holes but in their messaging to agents, appear to be looking to move some money before aggressively plugging them.”
Jen McCaffrey/Ken Rosenthal:
“Hernández, who would address the Red Sox’s need for power, remains a point of focus. But according to one person with knowledge of the talks, the Red Sox prefer to tackle other areas of the roster and reduce payroll before committing to the free agent.”
Alex Speier:
“I should mention that this story was written as a follow-up to the excellent reporting of @jcmccaffrey and @Ken_Rosenthal today, as well as more broadly the reporting by @ChrisCotillo and @Sean_McAdam in recent weeks.”
“It’s unclear whether the Sox will look to sign anyone aside from a starting pitcher for more than two years. (The Sox’ deal for Giolito was a one-year deal with a player option for a second season.)”
“Major league sources confirmed the Sox have indeed been willing to listen on Yoshida while also entertaining offers on closer Kenley Jansen (who has one year and $16 million left on his deal). Moves to part with either player wouldn’t occur in a vacuum or as an exercise of cutting payroll for its own sake, but would instead be used to free money for other additions.”
See, this is where I have issues with you. You take the $240 million Snell thing as fact but then you have 4 questions or theories as to why the Red Sox shedding payroll reporting is wrong or not sourced well enough.
- Status