I wish you were right, but I'm pretty sure it's the latter, especially with Whitlock and Criswell looking good.
Like what... an injury? If so, there would be no reason for the Rangers to sign him, since they need pitching for the first few months of the season. Teams figuring out Lorenzen/tipping pitches? Seems unlikely, as he gave up 5 runs in 40+ innings through that no hitter, then immediately gave up 7, 4, 4, 7, 4, 4 runs in his next 6 starts at which point he was taken out of the rotation. He ended up at 153 innings pitched after only 97 the prior year. I think he got worn out.
A guy that can average over 6 IP per start at 3.23 ERA/3.84 FIP over his first 20 starts is worth more than $4.5m unless there's something wrong with him beyond "he got tired".
Based on this logic, there is also "something wrong" with Bellinger, Snell, and Chapman as well, as demonstrated by their below market deals. I'm assuming JD Martinez and Montgomery must also have something wrong.
I think the agents thought that the market hadn't dried up yet for these megacontracts, when in fact most of the teams had been snakebit and weren't willing to dish out again. Agents probably assumed everyone being like "we're not gonna spend that money" was posturing when it was just facts on the ground.
I think it's assuming a lot that being "snakebit" has anything to do with it. Teams have been "snakebit" by free agent busts for decades now.
He's close enough to the season starting that it would be foolish to sign now and potentially be encumbered by a qualifying offer. I think he'll sign the best deal he has on the table right as the season starts.
To be clear, I don't think he earned a multi-year $20m AAV deal here, but Lugo's 2 years older and got $45m guaranteed after a similar 1 year stint as a successful starter. Projections pretty universally had Lorenzen around $10m for a year or two, and this is a stark enough drop-off from that to make me think there's something else at play beyond market fluctuations.
True, but Lorenzen isn't the only one seeing a stark drop-off from projected contract to actual contract.
Then take the next step and ask “why is the budget so low?”
Among pitchers he really is. Snell/Boras pretty obviously messed up but still got a high AAV out of it; pretty much every other SP and RP matched or beat their Fangraphs projected AAV. Stroman got a little less, Paxton got a bit less but had a medical issue flagged, Kershaw got a lot less but had his surgery after projections came out, and I think that's it.
Musical chairs. Wait too long and you're out. Do you think Clevinger is going to hit his projections? JD Martinez?
There is no world the Red Sox will have five good homegrown starters that would lead to a championship in the next five years. The Prospect Humping is insanely off the charts people are coming in here and trying to compare Bello, Crawford, and the guys we guess we will start to the '95 Braves.
Sure. At this point I prefer to see how it plays out before we jump into this again, but YMMV.
Maybe. But Adam Duvall was projected to get 10 mil. Michael Taylor was 9 mil. What would JD Davis have been projected at if he were a FA? More than 2.5 mil, right?
I'm excited for the season, Monty or no Monty. Ownership aside, the new baseball ops crew deserves a chance, and the team should be fun to watch.
I agree 100%. I don't see much benefit to the Sox in a one-year deal, especially if they can't give him a QO when he leaves.
I don't disagree. Especially given that the minor leagues have gotten smaller, it's just not at all clear where all of the innings are supposed to come from.
Maybe he does sign elsewhere, but unless there really is *no money*, I don't see why the Red Sox wouldn't be willing/able to outbid the Yankees on him, given the tax/roster/window considerations — unless Cole and Stroman are in fact more hurt than they are letting on. Is Montgomery really going to prefer 1/$20m (which will cost NY ~$42m) to some sort of sensible 3/$70, 4/$90m, 5/$100m deal like I imagine Breslow's offering? That's a pretty bad bet for him IMO. At his age, he should really just take the largest total deal.
OK, this made me laugh.
I think it would be good too. Gives them a period to negotiate with him exclusively as well, though with Boras who knows if that matters. The downside would be if the Sox ownership would want to be more thrifty in 2025 or 2026 if they exceed the tax cap this year.
A one-year deal would not be my preference, but I wouldn't rule it out either. In the plausible scenario is that the team is out of contention at the deadline but Montgomery is healthy, he could be a very valuable trade asset.
I'd much rather a one year deal than a two year deal with an opt out. And I'm fine with a one year deal- the Sox will either be competitive or not, in which case they would have a valuable trade option. Looking at the FA class next year, and the number of contracts signed this year with opt outs, I anticipate that some of these players (Snell, Bellinger, Chapman, likely Montgomery) might be interested in mid-season extensions in order to avoid this same scenario next year, when there will be even more valuable free agents available.
I've wondered why so many teams have fallen into the opt-out trap. Where's the benefit to the team? At best, you get a positive one year return that is simply a launching pad for another free agent scramble. As noted, there's an argument that this gives you a leg up on a renegotiation, but then you have to deal with The Dark Prince, Scott Boras. That's a question that answers itself.
There's a reason I specified pitchers: they're easier to break and harder to replace. Plenty of clubs have had starters go down this spring, yet Lorenzen is the only pitcher without publicly known issues to underperform his projections by 50-75%. That makes me think there's something we don't know about him, because the demand for pitching around the league hasn't diminished.
This is me. The rotation might be better than last year, but '25 looks like a complete mess.
Didn't Snell just underperform his projections by 50-75%? I'm guessing Montgomery will too. Along with Cleavinger. And JD Martinez. Pair this with Bellinger and Chapman and I think you're ignoring the obvious timeline that is working against these players who are signing contracts on the cusp of opening day.
It may be musical chairs, but total spending on FA's is also way down this year from last year for reasons that aren't clear yet.
Obviously, but did anyone expect him to take a total deal worth up to $62 million? Boras was reportedly asking for well over $200 million and the NYY reported offered 6 years, $150 million. I think most of us expected something like the Rodon deal (6 years, $162 million).
It's not prospect humping, it's recognizing that pitching quality is fluid, as is the roster. Also why are you constantly resorting to insulting people?
But you're comparing one year of Lorenzen being cheaper than expected to Snell taking the same AAV he demanded in a longer deal. Not nearly the same thing.
That would be great -- I'd take a year no strings if ownership were not going to claim it was an overspend year that requires getting back under the tax in 2026 or whatever. I feel like even though it's 3/20, he's not going to be desperate enough to sign a one-year deal without some injury protection, whether that takes the form of an opt out or other. I still feel like he must have enough leverage for that.
My point is that every contract signed since Bellinger has been for substantially less total dollars than was anticipated. Maybe Montgomery will surprise us and sign a huge, multi-year deal, as was forecasted at the beginning of the offseason. But I doubt it.
My point is that I'm pretty sure Simplicio was referring to Lorenzen's expected dollar value plumetting in a one-year snapshot, as he was never getting more than a year. That's the 50% drop off I interpreted. Snell would have to have signed for 16 mil for the comparison to be apt.
The prediction at MLB TradeRumors was 2 Years, $22 million. FanGraphs was at 2/20. Bleacher Report had 3/33. John Heyman and two unnamed experts (HA!) listed 2/20, 2/24, 2/30.
