Totally. Getting the abysmal Yoshida off the field is a huge step in the right direction.Even an O'Neill Abreu Duran OF is probably an improvement over last year's; let's not forget Duvall was also bad out there.
Montgomery isn’t signing for 7 years.Or just as likely, they still finish last and now they have less money to spend when Montgomery inevitably gets hurt and sucks by year 3 of his 7 year deal.
Trust me, I wish ownership would spend like the Dodgers do as well, but they’re not going to. They’re going to have to steadily build this up within a budget.
The Sox were -47 OAA through July, -3 the rest of the year. The biggest changes were replacing Hernandez with Story (-12 to +8 at SS), Devers recording -9 OAA through July and 0 the remainder of the year, improvement by Valdez from -4 in his first stint to +1 in September. The SS is of course quite small, but overall there was the seeds of improvement on defense from players who are returning.So how do you propose the defense be improved? I’m going to assume that you will immediately reference Rafaela but based off of quotes from Cora and his alarming lack of plate discipline, it seems like he could use more seasoning in AAA.
Remove that, what has been done to improve the defense? What else could even be done? We are all hoping that Grissom ends up a good defensive 2B but there will likely be growing pains.
I guess I understand the frustration but your post frames things as if it’s an obvious and easy thing people are overlooking and it really isn’t. Two of the three big contracts for the lineup are players that have very little defensive value.
Uh. Lets not forget no Kiké at short this year.Totally. Getting the abysmal Yoshida off the field is a huge step in the right direction.
Because the ownership group wants payroll lower. It sucks for fans but there’s nothing we can do about it. I’m just trying to be realistic on how they can move forward now that, to use a hockey phrase, they’re obviously a budget team now an not a cap team.Montgomery isn’t signing for 7 years.
What are you saying? When will it be appropriate to sign free agents? When they are in Tier 2? 1?
Why are they not in on any short term option? Which avoids any and all future budgetary issues.
In my opinion, it’s that they really didn’t do all that much to “jumpstart” the rebuild over the past four years. Thus, they’ve just kind of been a waste.I don’t understand why the rebuilding cycle needs to restart. It’s not like they made a bunch of moves in the last four years that have stalled the process.
I find it hard to think you believe the farm isn’t better than 4 years ago. It’s notably better but heavy on hitters. But it’s all luck?They didn't do a lot in terms of bolstering the farm including development over the last four years. Well they also cheaped out on a second round pick one year then lucked in Roman Anthony the next year with comp pick who on the team's defense, they did pay.
I'm so tired of this nonsense. And I don't mean this personally. I see it a lot.Because the ownership group wants payroll lower. It sucks for fans but there’s nothing we can do about it. I’m just trying to be realistic on how they can move forward now that, to use a hockey phrase, they’re obviously a budget team now an not a cap team.
Based off of this response, you don’t think that the Sox are a middling team? Dont you think that signing a good free agent would help the current team be better?I'm so tired of this nonsense. And I don't mean this personally. I see it a lot.
Per Spotrac, the Sox payroll has fallen all the way to 11th, a fungible middle reliever away from 10th.
If, as most people here believe, the Sox are a middling team with little chance of being a serious contender, why would you spend a ton of money to improve now? The Sox' record in 2024 is extremely likely to be between the 10th best and 20th best in MLB. FOUR of the teams ahead of the Sox also live in the AL East. That makes it much harder to eke into a wild card spot and maybe get lucky.
Is there any combination of players currently available that changes this fundamental fact?
Maybe, but if there is, it's not a reasonable scenario.
If you agree with that assessment of the Red Sox, not spending on big ticket free agent pitchers when there are a bunch of better pitchers slated for free agency next year is not just reasonable, it's probably optimal.
They're generally pegged as the 3rd highest revenue team. So you could make a pretty good argument that they are indeed a budget team in that their payroll to revenue ratio is probably below the league midpoint. High revenue teams have inherent advantages in the MLB system and recently the Red Sox have stopped using those advantages. If you are a high revenue team you shouldn't need 5-8 year rebuilds, you should be able to leverage your economic advantages in various ways. The Red Sox have not in part because they don't want to spend like a top revenue team because they are prioritizing certain profit goals over wins. Which they are of course free to do, but fans are also free to complain about it.I'm so tired of this nonsense. And I don't mean this personally. I see it a lot.
Per Spotrac, the Sox payroll has fallen all the way to 11th, a fungible middle reliever away from 10th.
I think I was specifically expressing frustration with the idea that “signing Soler” (or a different dedicated DH) and “improving the pitching” are often suggested as if they weren’t opposing directions. One of Casas, Dever or Yoshida filling the DH spot (with Yoshida being the most likely) is a huge step in the right direction and easiest way to improve the defense. Happily, Breslow seems to agree with this. The other big reason for hope is that, at least for now, the Sox have a healthy Story.I guess I understand the frustration but your post frames things as if it’s an obvious and easy thing people are overlooking and it really isn’t. Two of the three big contracts for the lineup are players that have very little defensive value.
What is preventing them from signing Montgomery this year and a Burnes/Fried type next year? It is pretty unrealistic to think they’ll win out for 2 elite pitchers in the same FA period against teams who are much more willing to be aggressive in FA.I'm so tired of this nonsense. And I don't mean this personally. I see it a lot.
Per Spotrac, the Sox payroll has fallen all the way to 11th, a fungible middle reliever away from 10th.
If, as most people here believe, the Sox are a middling team with little chance of being a serious contender, why would you spend a ton of money to improve now? The Sox' record in 2024 is extremely likely to be between the 10th best and 20th best in MLB. FOUR of the teams ahead of the Sox also live in the AL East. That makes it much harder to eke into a wild card spot and maybe get lucky.
Is there any combination of players currently available that changes this fundamental fact?
Maybe, but if there is, it's not a reasonable scenario.
If you agree with that assessment of the Red Sox, not spending on big ticket free agent pitchers when there are a bunch of better pitchers slated for free agency next year is not just reasonable, it's probably optimal.
Agree that Montgomery would be unlikely to come to Boston on a "short deal" because he'd want a better chance to win. But what's a short deal - 2 years? I doubt his market collapses that much - I still think it's likely he gets 4-5 years guaranteed. I suppose that Montgomery and Boras could decide they'd rather take a two year deal with a higher AAV, but if I were them I'd take the 4-5 years guaranteed and push for an opt-out after 3. That kind of deal should be out there, and I see no reason why the Sox shouldn't be in on that, and that the short-term concerns about their ability to compete shouldn't be a major factor.
Something positive! Right until you threw water on it with the investment comment. I wish they'd sign Monty too if the price was right, but they *did* invest in the pitching infrastructure. Let's see if it bears fruit.View: https://twitter.com/ggeiss_mlb/status/1757923667076432169?s=46
They should have invested in this roster
Of course it does. They’ll still have space so it doesn’t mean they have zero to spend. But factor in a couple of signings and/or extensions, and yes, the hypothetical presence of a non-effective Montgomery would mean $25 mil or so that can’t be spent elsewhere.Signing Montgomery makes them better in 2024 and doesn’t do anything to compromise future year spending, as they’ll have a ton of space to do so even with him and especially so if his market softens like it appears to be doing.
There is downside risk to every FA deal but the fact remains that payroll flexibility isn’t an issue for this team even if they sign him to a 5/125 deal. There is a lot of space available and even moreso if they don’t use the CBT level as a hard cap.Of course it does. They’ll still have space so it doesn’t mean they have zero to spend. But factor in a couple of signings and/or extensions, and yes, the hypothetical presence of a non-effective Montgomery would mean $25 mil or so that can’t be spent elsewhere.
Which doesn’t mean they shouldn’t do it. But the downside is very real. It could mean, for example, signing a starter and a closer instead of a starter, a closer, and an outfielder.
This is exactly what I've been thinking. It would, at the very least, prevent this year from being disastrous. I'm generally a glass half full guy but this could be bad.What is preventing them from signing Montgomery this year and a Burnes/Fried type next year? It is pretty unrealistic to think they’ll win out for 2 elite pitchers in the same FA period against teams who are much more willing to be aggressive in FA.
Redbird Capital owns 11% of FSG, correct? It's a huge chunk of money, but still, it's very much a minority ownership. I'm not clear how an 11% owner would wield the kind of power you're suggesting, that they would essentially be able to dictate that the Red Sox lower payroll.The problem is, why would any of those guys sign in Boston unless they were given way more money than everyone else, and what has the ownership group done over the past year other than show everyone that they don’t intend to severely overpay on the free agent market.
I think that eventually they will be willing to spend near the top of the league again, but it’s going to be after a long rebuild where they start by locking up the good players that they will hopefully develop, and then supplement that core with top of the market free agents.
But they are a long way away from that, and Redbird still expects those dividend checks, so payroll is going to be a lot lower during the rebuild. They’re not going to spend an extra $30-$40 million and pay the shareholders less than they projected to finish 4th instead of 5th.
My guess is "spending money" is what is preventing anything getting doneWhat is preventing them from signing Montgomery this year and a Burnes/Fried type next year? It is pretty unrealistic to think they’ll win out for 2 elite pitchers in the same FA period against teams who are much more willing to be aggressive in FA.
Signing Montgomery makes them better in 2024 and doesn’t do anything to compromise future year spending, as they’ll have a ton of space to do so even with him and especially so if his market softens like it appears to be doing.
They have a pretty good lineup. The rotation has guys who could be good, if things break well. The pen should be good, if they don’t trade Martin/Jansen. There are incremental moves that could be made that don’t harm their future plans.
Exactly. The starting pitching isn’t a one year problem. Right now it looks like they are hoping 2024 creates more in house options develop with Houck, Whitlock, Fitts and Wink become viable options.There is downside risk to every FA deal but the fact remains that payroll flexibility isn’t an issue for this team even if they sign him to a 5/125 deal. There is a lot of space available and even moreso if they don’t use the CBT level as a hard cap.
They also are, presumably, trying to win this year too, no? This team has a very cloudy rotation picture after 2024. Giolito may be gone. Pivetta may be gone. Adding a reliable piece has considerable value.
If they, for whatever reason, don’t think Montgomery will be that good in the next 3-4 years, then that’s fine. But if they think he will hold up and they don’t want to sign him due to payroll concerns, well, they had better reel in some big fish next offseason to make it worth forgoing a season of Montgomery and locking up a rotation spot for 3-5 years with a pitcher who figures to be pretty good.
The simple answer is they don’t wield much power. They don’t dictate anything to Henry/FSG. They would have to participate in capital calls in the event they’re necessary but I doubt there are too many of those given that the Red Sox are presumably a profitable business although I don’t know about the other parts of the portfolio. They’re also not likely to be a major part of the inner workings of the operation as LPs.Redbird Capital owns 11% of FSG, correct? It's a huge chunk of money, but still, it's very much a minority ownership. I'm not clear how an 11% owner would wield the kind of power you're suggesting, that they would essentially be able to dictate that the Red Sox lower payroll.
I agree with all of this and would add that being in the mix for the Wild Card spot this year makes the sales pitch to a top free agent next year so much easier, as compared with another last place finish.What is preventing them from signing Montgomery this year and a Burnes/Fried type next year? It is pretty unrealistic to think they’ll win out for 2 elite pitchers in the same FA period against teams who are much more willing to be aggressive in FA.
Signing Montgomery makes them better in 2024 and doesn’t do anything to compromise future year spending, as they’ll have a ton of space to do so even with him and especially so if his market softens like it appears to be doing.
They have a pretty good lineup. The rotation has guys who could be good, if things break well. The pen should be good, if they don’t trade Martin/Jansen. There are incremental moves that could be made that don’t harm their future plans.
Yeah, it all seems so obvious, frankly. It seems irrational for a big market team to be thinking of kicking it down the road when:What is preventing them from signing Montgomery this year and a Burnes/Fried type next year? It is pretty unrealistic to think they’ll win out for 2 elite pitchers in the same FA period against teams who are much more willing to be aggressive in FA.
Signing Montgomery makes them better in 2024 and doesn’t do anything to compromise future year spending, as they’ll have a ton of space to do so even with him and especially so if his market softens like it appears to be doing.
They have a pretty good lineup. The rotation has guys who could be good, if things break well. The pen should be good, if they don’t trade Martin/Jansen. There are incremental moves that could be made that don’t harm their future plans.
Next year's crop of free agent pitchers will all have flaws of their own, if we consider age, price tag and risk to be flaws...If you agree with that assessment of the Red Sox, not spending on big ticket free agent pitchers when there are a bunch of better pitchers slated for free agency next year is not just reasonable, it's probably optimal.
That's the thing, right?If they, for whatever reason, don’t think Montgomery will be that good in the next 3-4 years, then that’s fine. But if they think he will hold up and they don’t want to sign him due to payroll concerns, well, they had better reel in some big fish next offseason to make it worth forgoing a season of Montgomery and locking up a rotation spot for 3-5 years with a pitcher who figures to be pretty good.
They lost and got high draft picks. Imagine how great our farm system will be if the Red Sox keep losing! The Process Part Deux! Now in a sport it makes very little sense to do unless you are purposely trying to rip off the other owners and have very little respect for your fans!I find it hard to think you believe the farm isn’t better than 4 years ago. It’s notably better but heavy on hitters. But it’s all luck?
Last year people complained that the prospects were below AA. Some of the potential is being realized as they now have promoted multiple guys, in premium positions in the top 50 rankings. Too many hitters is true but look at some of the big name, stud pitchers that have stalled… Leiter and Rocker to name two.
A draft hit takes a little luck on top of a lot of development.
It doesn't. The process needed to be modified to build the infrastructure to better focus on finally developing MLB-caliber pitching (which they are doing with the impressive behind-the-scenes moves). Chaim did part of the job but failed miserably on the pitching side, and Breslow will now attempt to build on the strong (but not perfect) position player depth his predecessor left him with. It's understandable to be frustrated about the current position of our team, but the posts acting like the last four years were a waste of time and led to absolutely nothing are just tiresome.I don’t understand why the rebuilding cycle needs to restart. It’s not like they made a bunch of moves in the last four years that have stalled the process.
fWAR last 3 seasons:So I think it comes down to the Sox FO just looking at the current roster. It may compete. It may not. Do you sink a chunk of your 2024, 2025, 2026, 2027, 2028(?) resources into a single pitcher to front-load your competition chances for 2024 and 2025? Who may or may not be as good as Nick Pivetta?
I appreciate the thought in this post and I hope your fingers aren’t sore!That's the thing, right?
(I had some time and this turned into some more general thoughts on where we are.)
Montgomery has had one year (2023, his age 30 year) where he's been "very good." His two prior "pretty good" years have an ERA+ that's identical to Nick Pivetta last season. It's not nothing, but I wouldn't back the truck up for him. And I certainly wouldn't if there's a decent chance he's locked into our rotation as a starter who is "not pretty good" when the current Sox prospects come up and are having their better years. Twice as certain if he's still commanding a "primo 2024 starter's salary" and so sucking up a chunk of the budget. Thrice if it's a backloaded deal of some kind.
People want the Sox to compete this year. I get that. I want it too. But I don't want it unconditionally or absolutely.
Mongtomery assuming he wants to sign here at all moves them close to competing next year. No doubt. But while good, he's not a generational talent, and they might be able to do that anyway with their in-house options, a short term signing, or a trade.
Ultimately, we just have to be patient. The Sox could front-load their competition window right now by throwing a boatload of money at Montgomery and trading Keel and Mayer and Roman for another starter and a key bat (say, Mayer and Duran for Kim for 2B, who is only under control for 2025, at $25M). That probably gets them to being a solid WC contention team this year and the next. But that GFIN window would immediately have a foreseeable have a closing point with a depleted farm, and control over players lapsing as they approached FA or started commanding much larger salaries in arb. (Much like 2019-2020 was.)
Maybe that comes in 2027, when:
A 30 YO Devers is a DH struggling at 3B at $33M.A 34 YO Story has lost a step or two and is a very average 2B at $25M.A 34 YO Yoshida is cemented in the DH spot and has also slipped a bit.Kim (and Mayer and Duran) are memories.Casas is in his arb 2 year and is making $15M, and nobody seems to be there to replace him. Bello is A3, and Crawford and Winckowski are at A2.And you know, we'd have (hypothetically) a very overpaid 34 year old Montgomery in 2027. . .who might be as productive as Sale and Paxton were for us last year, in their age 34 seasons. But with less history of upside.
***
In another world where they signed YY and went over the cap, I'd say they'd have a good chance to be competitive this year, as is. And YY (assuming he pitches as wished-on) would give them a young reliable arm over the next 5-6 years. Or as reliable as you'd ever get. Deep starts in the post-season too, perhaps. I think in that situation, a bit of judicious front loading this off season (or next if YY proved to be all that) wouldn't have gone amiss.
But that fantasy sort of assumes all the other coin-flips come up positive anyway - Yoshida, Grissom, Story, O'Neill, Duran, Abreu. Going 4 for 6, or even 3 for six might be enough. And on the pitching side - Giolitto, Bello, Pivetta, Houck, Crawford. Those may be less of a coin-flip given Breslow and Bailey retooling what they're doing.
So I think it comes down to the Sox FO just looking at the current roster. It may compete. It may not. Do you sink a chunk of your 2024, 2025, 2026, 2027, 2028(?) resources into a single pitcher to front-load your competition chances for 2024 and 2025? Who may or may not be as good as Nick Pivetta?
***
If they don't sign anyone to a long-term contract, it will be the 4th season of a short-term strategy. It worked in 2021, in part because the GM traded talent for Schwarber, and COVID forced them to grab a handful of players that worked well. 2022 was derailed by epic in-season injuries to just about everyone. 2023 was a story of shitty assessment (Kluber/Hernandez), poor preparation (stumbling out of the gate), and ongoing injury.
Both the 2022 and 2023 teams never really got into the GFIN mode of 2021, but we have a new GM now. So we'll see.
We also have more appropriate internal development options for 2024 than we did in any of the previous years in 2021-23. Some are retreads in a sense, but still young enough to improve, like Winckowski did last year:
2021 - Houck, Whitlock, Dalbec, Arroyo. Dalbec's hit tool was exactly as advertised - marginal at the MLB level at best. We were hoping Arroyo's upside was average competence and multiple position utility. There were other prospects like Casas on the radar, but not at the "will step in this season" level.2022 - Injury forced Winckowsi, Bello, Crawford, and Duran up early, while sidelining Arroyo, Whitlock and Houck (and Casas at AAA).2023 - We get Casas, Bello, Winckowski, Crawford, and Duran contributing probably at their proper level of development, and with the benefit of some of the lost 2022 as seasoning. And they're good, although injury and adjustment are factors. Houck and Whitlock are again troubled by injuries. (But the season overall failed due to the implosion/ineffectiveness/injury/unreliability of the older (expensive) players: Sale, Story, Hernandez, Kluber, Paxton, Duvall.)2024 - We should have more young (or cost-controlled) internals as regulars than the prior years: Casas, Grissom, Duran, Rafaela, Abreu, Wong. Bello, Crawford, Houck, Whitlock, Winckowski, (plus Kelly, Bernardino, Campbell, etc.)
And, to conclude this ramble, I think one of the consequences of that is that we're seeing fewer FA being signed because we have more internal younger options, to the extent FAs may not be clear upgrades. We've now grown used to short term FA signings, given the 2016-2019 window, and the 2021-23 churn. But maybe we just don't need as much of that anymore? Or certainly not every season.
fWAR is a counting stat that for pitchers is based off of FIP. And FIP itself is something of a best guess of effectiveness that, for example, penalizes groundball pitchers in relation to strikeout pitchers. (It is, for example, almost completely blind to a pitcher's ability to induce weak contact to begin a double-play.)fWAR last 3 seasons:
Montgomery
2021 3.2
2022 2.7
2023 4.3
Total 10.2
Pivetta
2021 2.3
2022 1.5
2023 1.9
Total 5.7
Montgomery's fWAR over the last 3 seasons is 79% better than Pivetta's.
Yes, yes there are players that would have made a difference. If the Sox had signed two quality starting pitchers and one right handed power bat, they would have had a team that would have contended for the post season, IMO. Do we have to list who those players are? I mean, they've been discussed all winter long. Most of those players would have only cost money and not prospects (well, with Snell a pick, too) ...not sure why that would be unreasonable. Spending this way is something the team currently finds undesirable, but it isn't unreasonable. After all, the team under Henry has always had a top 3 in baseball payroll, until 2022. Do we see the Sox teams from 2002-2021 to be unreasonably constructed?I'm so tired of this nonsense. And I don't mean this personally. I see it a lot.
Per Spotrac, the Sox payroll has fallen all the way to 11th, a fungible middle reliever away from 10th.
If, as most people here believe, the Sox are a middling team with little chance of being a serious contender, why would you spend a ton of money to improve now? The Sox' record in 2024 is extremely likely to be between the 10th best and 20th best in MLB. FOUR of the teams ahead of the Sox also live in the AL East. That makes it much harder to eke into a wild card spot and maybe get lucky.
Is there any combination of players currently available that changes this fundamental fact?
Maybe, but if there is, it's not a reasonable scenario.
If you agree with that assessment of the Red Sox, not spending on big ticket free agent pitchers when there are a bunch of better pitchers slated for free agency next year is not just reasonable, it's probably optimal.
FWIW, I'm someone that mostly agrees with you - however I do admit that I think the projections for the team around 80 wins are too rosy. I personally look at them more like a 75/76 win team (because I think the starting pitching is horrendous, the defense is not good and the line up has a lot of unknowns). That said, I also think the addition of a top half of the rotation pitcher (ie Montgomery) would get them to about the 82 / 83 wins that Fangraphs is currently projecting and gets them right into legitimate contention for WC2/3 (as opposed to being one of 5 or so teams within 5 games of WC3 around the ASG, which it's pretty difficult NOT to be).Yeah, it all seems so obvious, frankly. It seems irrational for a big market team to be thinking of kicking it down the road when:
a) they have a team that's projected to be about .500 as is.
b) adding a Montgomery should add a few wins.
c) an 84-78 team made it to the 2023 World Series after knocking out the 100 win Dodgers.
Thanks - I type quickly but poorly. Thank God for spell check.I appreciate the thought in this post and I hope your fingers aren’t sore!
I think most of us agree that the Montgomery stuff really does depend on price but it just feels like he’s moving away from Nola territory and will probably get closer to a shorter deal like Sonny Gray. If the latter does, indeed, materialize, I would be all over that kind of deal. I suspect several other teams would as well. Not signing Montgomery to a reasonable deal won’t ruin my year but it’ll be another signal to me that they really are focusing more on 2025 and beyond and not 2024. The problem for me with waiting until next year is that Burnes, Fried, etc. will be even more expensive and Roki will probably be hand delivered to the Dodgers. We could be in a similar spot next year as we are today. In the meantime, I hope our own guys develop and make things look more rosy than they currently do.
And how were they to best the farms in division over last 4 years?They lost and got high draft picks. Imagine how great our farm system will be if the Red Sox keep losing! The Process Part Deux! Now in a sport it makes very little sense to do unless you are purposely trying to rip off the other owners and have very little respect for your fans!
Edit - They don't even have an above average farm system for their division. It is better but it isn't good enough to fill the hole they dug over the last four years. Also it is more likely to get worse than better over the next three years.
This is sort of an either/or framing of the issue.FWIW, I'm someone that mostly agrees with you - however I do admit that I think the projections for the team around 80 wins are too rosy. I personally look at them more like a 75/76 win team (because I think the starting pitching is horrendous, the defense is not good and the line up has a lot of unknowns). That said, I also think the addition of a top half of the rotation pitcher (ie Montgomery) would get them to about the 82 / 83 wins that Fangraphs is currently projecting and gets them right into legitimate contention for WC2/3 (as opposed to being one of 5 or so teams within 5 games of WC3 around the ASG, which it's pretty difficult NOT to be).
However, I think we all agree that baseball teams (all of them) have a lot more internal projection systems and prospect rankings than we have access to (ie, Craig Breslow isn't looking at FanGraphs to see what he projects the team as, nor what the farm system is like). What if he has come in, gotten a chance to look at the current roster and state of the system and says "there is no way this team is getting 80 wins, 75 is probably too high, I think it's more like 72", then all of a sudden, adding a Montgomery "only" gets them to 78/79 wins and still missing the playoffs by lets say 7 games.
Again, I'm in the camp that is on the "about as down on the last 4 years as possible for a fan" and even I think adding JM gets the roster to around 82/83 wins, but if Breslow looks at the rest of the organization and says "this is a 72 win team with no pitching in the minors to bolster it" then it would make a ton of sense NOT to add just one 30ish year old SP.
I didn't even want to contemplate it being that bleak, but it would also coincide more with the way they've acted (or not acted) this off-season. But if someone comes in from outside, looks at the organization and says "this group isn't good enough to win in 2024 or 2025, maybe it starts to come together in 2026" then I wouldn't sign JM either.
Of course, if I did think that, I'd certainly trade Sale for a young middle infielder; trade Verdugo for the best pitching I could get; probably not bother to protect the organizations ostensibly "best" starting pitching prospect from the rule 5 draft and basically be starting the rebuild over by making anyone and anything that isn't part of 2026 and beyond available (and actively shopping) for trades.
*It's also of course possible that their internal systems say "FanGraphs is wrong and we think this is already an 85 win team." However, were that the case, I think they would have added some more short term pieces and would not be listening on the back half of their bullpen.
On the flipside, Philly's one of the few spots that would effectively be paying a 50% tax on Montgomery's 2024 AAV, barring considerable changes to their roster.Would have to be a vast difference in $$ to pick Boston over Philly on a 1 or 2 year deal.
Edited down for sake of response, hopefully nothing is taken out of context - please tell me if so.This is sort of an either/or framing of the issue.
It's more likely Breslow has a more nuanced view of their competitiveness, that the Sox internal modeling suggests a range of possible outcomes and their probability.
***
Lastly, "Again, I'm in the camp that is on the "about as down on the last 4 years as possible for a fan"" is, nowadays, a pretty extreme statement.
Because there are a few about who not only see the glass as half-empty, but as poisonous.
True. Maybe we'll see how good DD is at squeezing money out of his owner.On the flipside, Philly's one of the few spots that would effectively be paying a 50% tax on Montgomery's 2024 AAV, barring considerable changes to their roster.
Boras has been seeding the idea that Philly's going to swoop in for a couple weeks now. We all know Dave, so it's hard to dispute, but it doesn't make a ton of sense, especially if they're locking down Wheeler.
So is your point that Pivetta and Montgomery are essentially the same value as a pitcher (as you heavily implied in the post he was responding to) because fWAR is flawed? Are you saying that fWAR is penalizing Pivetta because he is a groundball pitcher (which he is not) or was it random hand waving? The percentage was not showing an calculation of absolute value, which would be flawed, but instead showed the massive gap in relative value. I know numbers especially counting losses aren't your thing but it is absolutely appropriate to call out a bullshit comment like Pivetta is essentially as valuable as Montgomery by showing the sizeable gap in their relative value. The exactness of 79% is probably not needed because it is just an estimation of relative value but it is no where near as lazy or misplaced as saying "[Montgomery] may or may not be as good as Nick Pivetta?"fWAR is a counting stat that for pitchers is based off of FIP. And FIP itself is something of a best guess of effectiveness that, for example, penalizes groundball pitchers in relation to strikeout pitchers. (It is, for example, almost completely blind to a pitcher's ability to induce weak contact to begin a double-play.)
WAR is useful, but noisy and approximate - the idea you can do a % comparison is inherently silly.
Because the Red Sox continue to lose and have less talent pipelining in than the teams that beating them.And how were they to best the farms in division over last 4 years?
Why is it expected to get worse?
The top end of the market is just riddled with flawed players. It's such an odd year overall.It’s been really quiet on Snell.
Why don't you read my original post? The answers to all your questions are there.So is your point that Pivetta and Montgomery are essentially the same value as a pitcher (as you heavily implied in the post he was responding to) because fWAR is flawed? Are you saying that fWAR is penalizing Pivetta because he is a groundball pitcher (which he is not) or was it random hand waving? The percentage was not showing an calculation of absolute value, which would be flawed, but instead showed the massive gap in relative value. I know numbers especially counting losses aren't your thing but it is absolutely appropriate to call out a bullshit comment like Pivetta is essentially as valuable as Montgomery by showing the sizeable gap in their relative value. The exactness of 79% is probably not needed because it is just an estimation of relative value but it is no where near as lazy or misplaced as saying "[Montgomery] may or may not be as good as Nick Pivetta?"