Signing good to great (Snell) players on what seem like very reasonable contracts?
Sure. But this always goes to my assertion that the playoffs are more of a poker game than a crap shoot. Or - put another way - what is built best to win in the regular season (depth) generally isn't the most important thing in the playoffs (top of the rotation; high end talent).
I suppose one can look at it that way.
It's probably neutral.
I suspect one of Houck/Whitlock are in the pen. They could move back to starting I guess in '25.
Not picking on you at all, as I agree with your point about the market developing, and also think it begs a bigger question; not only around potentially declining revenue/spending, but also what we're seeing around the volatility of starting pitcher's arms as impacted by the pitch clock.
Not for nothing, but since the Giants only really get Snell for 2 years if he a) sucks or b) gets hurt, I'd far rather have ERod at 4/$80m than Snell at 1/$31m and losing a pick (though it's a 4th, so that isn't as much of a concern, I suppose).
The funny thing is there were some that questioned ERod signing his deal as early as he did (similar reactions with Gray and Nola) that he might have been leaving money/years on the table to not wait out the market. Turns out he and his agents might have read it correctly and grabbed the best deal before the bottom seemed to fall out.
An ominous perspective. The only real rebuttal I can offer is that I think the Dodgers are fairly shrewd financially, and their mega-investments in Ohtani and Yamamoto (not to mention Glasnow etc.) suggest they are not scared of where things are going. (Or maybe they just lost their marbles after the postseason failures of the last 3 years LOL)
The Dodgers have insanely good local TV deal that guarantees them something like $300M a year for the next decade, regardless of how many people cut the cord.
The Dodgers are the exception - I think their deal runs through 2037.
Pretty easy for the Dodgers to not be scared when they're in the #2 media market in the country and have a huge TV deal with a fairly stable multi-billion dollar corporation (Spectrum). As opposed to the multiple teams in smaller (than LA) markets, such as the Rangers and Padres, whose big TV deal is/was with a company that just filed for bankruptcy last week.
As well as those who were with the former RSN division of AT&T... (Ie Pittsburgh Pirates, Mariners,)
Diamond Sports filed for bankruptcy nearly a year ago. And it’s looking like they’re going to emerge from it with a decent-ish financial plan approved by the federal bankruptcy judge and backstopped by an investment from Amazon.
A big difference is that out of 8 billion people on earth there are 1,200 on 40 man rosters in MLB. That's it - a fixed number. And major league baseball isn't about to contract. There are tens of thousands of writers (and as far as actors are concerned hundreds of thousands), seeking freelance work, going job to job, if lucky. There is a set number of MLB players who have already defied gargantuan odds. Maybe we do see an adjustment in the biggest free agent salaries due to lost revenue, or with which players/positions are valued the most. But the jobs for those elite 1200 ain't going anywhere.
I've been thinking about this comparison a lot. Personally, I am extremely happy the Red Sox have followed the path they have this offseason over the Giants path. The Giants will finish 4th in their division, and probably finish with 5-6 teams ahead of them in the WC standings. If they keep this up, they will do that again next year, and then find themselves in about the place the Sox were in about 2020 for a rebuild. And about 2026 or so is exactly when age starts to really hit the Padres and Dodgers.
Sure, in a vacuum. These guys aren't like us, though. And it's not like they spend the entire time frame where they play their home games. Not to mention the fact that the Astros are already pretty stacked and the thought of chasing another ring may matter to Monty at this point in his career.
I have to think if the bolded were true enough for the Red Sox to pay a premium to entice Montgomery, they'd have paid it by now. Same can be said with regard to any effect that Giolito's injury might have had on the equation. My view on the Sox and Montgomery hasn't really changed since mid-winter: the Sox have a number (years and dollars) they're willing to go, Montgomery knows what it is, and they're just waiting for him to take it (or find something better).
Add to this while Montgomery may have a preference for the Rangers, Houston would certainly provide some familiarities in that he's apparently fine with playing and living in the state of Texas and he'll remain in the same division.
I don't disagree with a word of this. My main point, which I reiterated in response to a post regarding geographical preference, is that if Houston comes in with an offer similar to the Sox, it would be pretty much game over, because it seems obvious to me that those three bolded things are not lining up at all from all we know.
Yeah, that's what I mean. He's made the type of place he wants to go pretty clear through the media. Not to mention the state taxes. Bottom line, if Houston wants him, there's no reasonable way to stop it. And I wouldn't want them to.
Thank you! And on it goes.... But it is Bowden, so....
When was the last time a team won the World Series with a rotation that did not have a SP over 30? You can add 30+ YOs still under team control but it doesn't change the answer.
Where are you getting the idea that they won't sign free agent pitchers? I never said anything like that. They literally just signed Giolito to a free agent contract!
Every team that has won a WS since 2003 Marlins had a free agent signing or extension like this. The fact is you need to pay for top end talent along with doing a much better job grabbing talent. Giolito was garbage picking with garbage results. Sometimes you can pick a gem from the rough but like Ortiz or Mueller but relying on that and not extending top line talent is losing strategy. The road to the Nashville Red Sox is filled with Oakland A's plays.
You need five good healthy starters. If none of them happen to come via free agency, I don't see that as holding anyone back. Correlation is not causation, and the market is always changing too.
Eh, I originally thought this, but I could see signing him for a one year deal, I just wouldn’t do a few years guaranteed with opt outs ala the Giants. After the Giolitto deal I’m pretty confident the FO would find a structure that gets them some playing time out of the player. Besides, if he’s doing well and the Sox aren’t, they can recoup some value by trading him…
Not sure I can agree with that. If the price is right, I see no reason why they wouldn't go for it even on a one-year deal or one with an opt-out. Even in a development year, they're still going to need some innings covered. Worst comes to worst, they can trade him in three months to recoup something (since they don't get the benefit of a QO).
I wanted the Sox to sign Lorenzen. He is an extreme strike thrower, which Bailey and crew like. And, as previously noted, through Aug. 9th last year, the night Lorenzen pitched a no-hitter for the Phillies, he had a 3.23 ERA in 122 2/3 innings. Lorenzen threw 124 pitches in that game, 17 more than his previous career-high, and the effect on his subsequent performance — an 8.01 ERA in 30 1/3 innings — was noticeable.
That Lorenzen only got 4.5/1 makes me think there's more to that late season performance drop off than just being tired after the no hitter.
