The Conductor: who should Breslow haul to Boston this winter?

SouthernBoSox

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2005
12,711
To be clear, I think they should sign another FA high leverage arm, just on a one year deal like Chapman received.
I’m pretty confident the Sox are going to go over the threshold this year*** so I’d basically be okay with them giving any dollar figure to Yates on a one year deal. He checks every box they look for on in zone swing and miss.

*** I believe people need to bake on a Crochet extension into payroll right now. Feels like it’s very much going to happen.
 

20Ks

New Member
Jul 11, 2024
206
I’m with you your whole post until here. I don’t think the Sox do that trade. I would not.

This is not directed at you, but on the subject of Arenado, the reason why there have been so many rumors really seems to be that Cards GM John Mozeliak has been extremely motivated to trade him, and not just to save money. The issue is that he’s got a strong partial no-trade clause, and he’s serious about using it. We’re one of their only options.

From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

View: https://twitter.com/lworthysports/status/1880661249899602385?s=46&t=Tl7uNH0-pxEyJtNj1BktDA


They have Donovan, Wynn, and fast-rising prospect JJ Wetherholt in the infield. I’d thought they were going to trade Donovan, but they extended him. They are not trading Wynn or Wetherholt, who could debut this summer. They’re a bad team, and trading Arenado means they can give a little playing time to Nolan Gorman and Thomas Saggese, a couple of guys they’d love to see become assets before the Wetherholt era begins.

But they definitely don’t need Arenado, who has below-average bat speed and one of the longest swings in baseball last year.

View attachment 94933

Here’s where that is visually plotted among 2024 hitters. The players closest to Arenado here are Rhys Hoskins, Orlando Arcia, Josh Bell and Jared Triolo. I’ll grant that Fenway is a better place than most for swings like this, as similarly plotted hitters (with slower but quicker bats) like Isaac Paredes and Marcus Semien suggest. But I’d be much more interested if he were five years younger.

I genuinely think that a major narrative of the offseason — the potential to move Devers off 3B and trade either Casas or preferably Yoshida — was seeded by the Cardinals front office to try to prime an Arenado trade. I have no doubt it’s been discussed by ours, and there are some scenarios (Casas for Jones, as you mention) but I don’t think it makes sense.
I don't necessarily disagree with you. I'm just speculating on where and why they would be exploring certain things.
The things to like about Arenado though, are:

1. He hit much better the last few months of the season, and seemed to find his groove.
B. He's a generational talent as a defensive 3B
III. He's RH
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
23,031
Maine
To be clear, I think they should sign another FA high leverage arm, just on a one year deal like Chapman received.
I’m pretty confident the Sox are going to go over the threshold this year*** so I’d basically be okay with them giving any dollar figure to Yates on a one year deal. He checks every box they look for on in zone swing and miss.

*** I believe people need to bake on a Crochet extension into payroll right now. Feels like it’s very much going to happen.
If they're going to do this (and I'm not arguing against it in the least), it's going to be a mid/late February signing. The guys remaining that fit this category are probably still looking for multiple years. The closer we get to spring training, the more likely one of them will settle for a one-year deal.
 

Cassvt2023

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 17, 2023
1,257
This isn't directed at you, but at this line of thinking. What is wrong with signing Bregman and having Campbell and Anthony become what people hope they are? If they are that good, then they will find spots for them no matter who else is on the roster. I know I've said this before but not having to rely on them as key contributors out of the gate by signing someone like Bregman lessens the issues if they take some time to adjust. What is wrong with and why do some seem so adverse to the Dodgers' strategy of give me all the talent and if it all works out, then we'll figure it out? It's not an awful position to be in.
Not having them (Anthony and Campbell) be key contributors out of the gate absolutely doesn't mean that you sign Bregman for 5 -6 years. That is insane reasoning. If they need to prove anything else at AAA it is 2-3 months at the most. It'd be pretty short term thinking to do what you've suggested, IMHO.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
15,718
Remaining relievers who could potentially sign a one year deal (assuming Estevez and Scott w

Jansen (can’t imagine it would be with the Sox)
Robertson (previously expressed interested in BOS)
Sewald
Graveman
Kahnle (Sox tried to sign him before, pre-Breslow)
Yates
Lucas Sims
Colin Poche
Kyle Finnegan

Some interesting arms there, but agree that we probably don’t get any to bite on a short term relatively low value deal for a while.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
15,718
Not having them (Anthony and Campbell) be key contributors out of the gate absolutely doesn't mean that you sign Bregman for 5 -6 years. That is insane reasoning. If they need to prove anything else at AAA it is 2-3 months at the most. It'd be pretty short term thinking to do what you've suggested, IMHO.
I think the point is that if Anthony and Campbell are good or better, they will find playing time. That’s how it works. Players being blocked just doesn’t really happen; it’s not like a backup QB.
 

chawson

Hoping for delivery
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
5,229
I think the point is that if Anthony and Campbell are good or better, they will find playing time. That’s how it works. Players being blocked just doesn’t really happen; it’s not like a backup QB.
I don’t find this all that convincing. Can you elaborate a bit?

Anthony and Campbell are a bit different in that they’ve played multiple positions, and could conceivably settle in a few places. But like, wouldn’t you say that Grissom is blocked if Campbell wins the 2B job in spring training? Or at least, Grissom’s potential as a starting 2B on this team is blocked?

Tautologically you could argue that a bench player isn’t blocked as a starter because they’re a bench player. But consigning a young former top prospect to bench status at 22 forecloses a lot of possibility. It’s why the Dodgers traded 27-year-old former top prospect Gavin Lux ; the Hyeseong Kim signing blocked him.
 

jmanny24

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2003
746
I think the point is that if Anthony and Campbell are good or better, they will find playing time. That’s how it works. Players being blocked just doesn’t really happen; it’s not like a backup QB.
That is my point I guess I'll agree to disagree with signing Bregman being insane reasoning. I would do 5 years, if you truly want to play in free agency, that's the cost of doing business. He won't, but if Bregman hypothetically signed in NY and was hitting 25-30hr and driving in 80+ next year the hindsight lamenting here would break the internet.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
15,718
Players that show they are ready to play in the big leagues generally get the opportunity, don’t they? There seems to be this fear that the Sox will acquire someone (say Bergman) and then Campbell will never get a chance because of it. There was this same fear about adding another SP and thereby blocking Kutter Crawford. There’s just so many players needed to get through a major league season, I don’t think these concerns are really realistic at all- especially with players who can play multiple positions. Add as many good players as you can afford and can fit in the roster- depth is good, and you will need it.
 

kazuneko

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
3,115
Honolulu HI
Because teams without a good DH can use that spot to rotate anyone into, and aren't the places that would make a huge commitment at DH (since they havent) so they are the least likely willing to take on a significant portion of Yoshidas contract. You cant just trade him and "pick up as much salary as they require". Since Yoshida and Bregman's offensive production projections are pretty similar for the next 3 years you would be paying Bregman + whatever you "pick up", for the defensive upgrade from Devers to Bregman. I think there are much better ways to spend $100 -125M over the next 3 years.
I agree about the cost being prohibitive which is why I don’t support signing Bregman (except for a contract he’d never agree to) or trading for Arenado (unless the Cardinals massively subsidize that deal). But a hitter as good as Yoshida isn’t “Untradable”; it’s just that the subsidy to trade him will be expensive.
And i fundamentally disagree that teams might reject Yoshida regardless of the amount of the subsidy (because they want to rotate the DH duties). The Mariners, for example, currently have the completely useless Mitch Haniger (tied to the team by a large contract with one year remaining ) slated to get the lions share of their DH ABs. They certainly would take Yoshida for free - and I’m sure there is some middle ground between the Sox paying all of Yoshida’s deal and them paying none of it that could be worked out if the only return for the Sox is a bag of balls. The issue is how much it would cost - combined with a Bregman contract. That’s why this would be more realistic with a lower tier free agent.
 
Last edited:

jmanny24

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2003
746
Players that show they are ready to play in the big leagues generally get the opportunity, don’t they? There seems to be this fear that the Sox will acquire someone (say Bergman) and then Campbell will never get a chance because of it. There was this same fear about adding another SP and thereby blocking Kutter Crawford. There’s just so many players needed to get through a major league season, I don’t think these concerns are really realistic at all- especially with players who can play multiple positions. Add as many good players as you can afford and can fit in the roster- depth is good, and you will need it.
100% this. I get that owning baseball teams is a business, but if we assume that winning is good business then acquiring talent to help you do that should also be good business. I have always thought the words "good enough" should never be uttered in roster construction. You should always be looking to improve. I love Andrew Friedman's philosophy, "if you're rational about every free agent, you'll finish 3rd on every free agent." I like what Breslow has done so far, but he has yet to "get uncomfortable", or was that another full throttle lie?
 

SouthernBoSox

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2005
12,711
If they're going to do this (and I'm not arguing against it in the least), it's going to be a mid/late February signing. The guys remaining that fit this category are probably still looking for multiple years. The closer we get to spring training, the more likely one of them will settle for a one-year deal.
Yates is 38. I think he pretty much only cares about total dollar figures at this point.
Players that show they are ready to play in the big leagues generally get the opportunity, don’t they? There seems to be this fear that the Sox will acquire someone (say Bergman) and then Campbell will never get a chance because of it. There was this same fear about adding another SP and thereby blocking Kutter Crawford. There’s just so many players needed to get through a major league season, I don’t think these concerns are really realistic at all- especially with players who can play multiple positions. Add as many good players as you can afford and can fit in the roster- depth is good, and you will need it.
Right, I have zero concern about Bregman “blocking” talent. With Story’s injuries, Rafaela’s very questionable batting profile, and Grissoms defensive profile the problem isn’t “being blocked”

The problem is that the Red Sox need to extend Garrett Crochet, the Arb guys are gonna get expensive quick, and they need to be efficient in roster upgrades. I just don’t see how the math works with adding Bregman.

If Bregman could catch, and they haven’t signed him by now, I’d be absolutely livid. But that’s not the case here.
 

20Ks

New Member
Jul 11, 2024
206
I agree about the cost being prohibitive which is why I don’t support signing Bregman (except for a contract he’d never agree to) or trading for Arenado (unless the Cardinals massively subsidize that deal). But a hitter as good as Yoshida isn’t “Untradable”; it’s just that the subsidy to trade him will be expensive.
And i fundamentally disagree that teams might reject Yoshida regardless of the amount of the subsidy (because they want to rotate the DH duties). The Mariners, for example, currently have the completely useless Mitch Haniger (tied to the team by a large contract with one year remaining ) slated to get the lions share of their DH ABs. They certainly would take Yoshida for free - and I’m sure there is some middle ground between the Sox paying all of Yoshida’s deal and them paying none of it that could be worked out if the only return for the Sox is a bag of balls. The issue is how much it would cost - combined with a Bregman contract. That’s why this would be more realistic with a lower tier free agent.
I didn't say Yoshida was untradable. I said the trading partners you alluded to were the least willing to take on a significant portion of his contract. Making them less than ideal partners. There is no reason to trade Yoshida for a "bag of balls" he has real value to the Red Sox. The question is could the value he brings be traded for value that complement other assets you have more efficiently. Its why trades happen.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
9,040
Boston, MA
Players that show they are ready to play in the big leagues generally get the opportunity, don’t they? There seems to be this fear that the Sox will acquire someone (say Bergman) and then Campbell will never get a chance because of it. There was this same fear about adding another SP and thereby blocking Kutter Crawford. There’s just so many players needed to get through a major league season, I don’t think these concerns are really realistic at all- especially with players who can play multiple positions. Add as many good players as you can afford and can fit in the roster- depth is good, and you will need it.
You can't compare a starting pitcher to a position player. There are 5 spots in the rotation and another 8 spots on the major league roster who get plenty of opportunities to pitch. You'd never bring up a top position player prospect to be a backup and not get regular at bats.

Bringing in Bregman 100% blocks someone else from being in the starting lineup. It's either Yoshida if he plays 3B and Devers goes to DH or Grissom if he plays 2B. Yes, there will be injuries and opportunities for someone to step in, but you never know when and where those injuries will happen. If Connor Wong or Tanner Houck get hurt, Bregman is not part of the solution.
 

Otis Foster

rex ryan's podiatrist
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
1,806
“…. full throttle lie”.

For the love of all that’s holy, bury that meaningless expression where it will never see daylight again. And how do you justify using the word ‘lie’ in discussing Breslow’s work, which you otherwise admire?
 

jmanny24

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2003
746
“…. full throttle lie”.

For the love of all that’s holy, bury that meaningless expression where it will never see daylight again. And how do you justify using the word ‘lie’ in discussing Breslow’s work, which you otherwise admire?
well considering you totally misunderstood what I meant. The whole full throttle by Werner was a lie and I wasn't saying that Breslow's work was somehow a lie, but that them saying they'd have to get uncomfortable might be considering they have yet to get uncomfortable this offseason.
 

pjheff

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2003
1,642
well considering you totally misunderstood what I meant. The whole full throttle by Werner was a lie and I wasn't saying that Breslow's work was somehow a lie, but that them saying they'd have to get uncomfortable might be considering they have yet to get uncomfortable this offseason.
Do you think that trading their last two first round picks, considered the #4 and #5 prospects in the system, was uncomfortable?
 

Cassvt2023

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 17, 2023
1,257
A lot of people here think that an over 30 yr old Bregman is the missing piece to an AL East division title and a WS run. I don't believe that is the case at all. It'll be fun to revisit this conversation in 3-4 years when he is a drag on whatever team signs him to a deal that is too long. I'd put more money on Campbell being better than Bregman in the next few years than Bregman being more like Anthony Rendon.
 

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
1,884
I’d rather let guys compete for playing time honestly. The guys you are down on could potentially have good years.

I personally don’t believe Rafaela is going to hit enough to justify an everyday role. Especially not in the IF where his defense is generally considered good but not top tier like when he is in the OF.
Right, but they're not "relying" on him, they're planning on him starting but have four players either already with a major league track record or who are knocking on the door who can backup the position between Rafaela, Mayer, Campbell, and Hamilton. If Rafaela is at SS, Anthony goes to left field. If Campbell is at SS, Grissom plays second. There's plenty of permutations here and plenty of good players who are highly projectable or have excellent floors.

They have more depth at middle infield than almost anywhere else on the roster.

The obvious plan is to see if Story can hold the position down. If he can't, one of these other guys steps up.
In a typical sense, I’d agree. The issue is that the entire argument I’ve read for not needing to move Devers off 3b is that Story is so gifted defensively that he negates the impact of Devers horrendous defense. So two spots on defense and a top 6 spot in the order are now dependent on a 32 year old that hasn’t been able to play 100 games in his age 29, 30 and 31 seasons being able to do as such - at a high level no less - in his age 32, 33 and 34 seasons.

Then that if he can’t, you’re banking on an (admittedly elite hitting) prospect coming in and carrying the infield defense while already needing to be one of the top offensive players. That‘s a lot to put on a kid, no matter how talented he is. (Or a kid in AA that has yet to play 100g in a season in 3 tries, because neither Grissom or Hamilton profile as good SS - 2b, maybe).


I just really think that a lot of the line up are pieces that don’t really fit together, many have the same limitations, and the three best “hitters” in the line up are either one of the lowest ends of the defensive spectrum (I think 1b is lower than LF) and two of which are horrendous defenders at their positions in MLB by DRS, and the one that clogs up DH is the worst hitter of those three and (on balance) only about 10% better than the average MLB hitter. Then the great hope to fix everything hasnt been able to play 100 games in any of the last 3 seasons and is entering the phase of his career when people are projecting other players (with FAR better track records recently) to become worthless even earlier.

I don’t think horrible defense and average to slightly above offense (as a team) is unlucky or unpredictable from trying to jam all these square pegs into round holes. It’s what happens when pieces are miscast to begin with. It’s what has happened the last two seasons and I think is likely to happen again.


Anyway, ‘ll try my best to stop now. I‘m probably clogging the board, and admittedly need to accept the line up is what it is for the next 3 years. Regardless of if it starts being awesome (20% chance), continues to plod along at slightly above average (60% chance, and my prediction), or starts sucking out loud (20% chance), the pieces aren’t going to change meaningfully from what is in MLB or Worcester.


All of which - by the way - should still be good for 86 wins a season or thereabouts. Not what I’m personally content with, but I’m not trying to pretend they’re the Rockies either, to be clear.
 
Last edited:

jmanny24

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2003
746
Do you think that trading their last two first round picks, considered the #4 and #5 prospects in the system, was uncomfortable?
Yes it was, (it's also the price of doing business for very talented players) but it also wasn't the end of the offseason and they came out and have said they are looking for an impact RHB, coupled with their expressed willingness to spend to at least the first threshold, I think a lot of people deduced (fairly) that getting uncomfortable also meant in terms of free agents. They have tried and come up short for various reasons. It's ok to disagree, I just think there's a difference between trying to get uncomfortable and missing and then deciding I no longer want to do that with a player that checks a lot of the boxes they're looking for.
 

pjheff

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2003
1,642
Anyway, ‘ll try my best to stop now. I‘m probably clogging the board, and admittedly need to accept the line up is what it is for the next 3 years.
This is silly.

It's ok to disagree, I just think there's a difference between trying to get uncomfortable and missing and then deciding I no longer want to do that with a player that checks a lot of the boxes they're looking for.
I think it’s clear from the Soto pursuit and the Crochet acquisition that they’re willing to get uncomfortable for a player who checks all of the boxes, not just a lot of them.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
I'm of the opinion that "contention windows" are an extremely overrated concept, and that getting into the playoffs as many seasons as possible (especially in MLB) is the best strategy.*

* I've heard some national reporters suggest that unless you have a $300M roster juggernaut like the Dodgers or Mets, you can't compete, and I just don't think that's valid. The 2023 World Series proved that point to me, when a 90-win Rangers WC team beat an 84-win DBacks WC team, the year after a 90-win Phillies WC team made the World Series, the year after an 88-win Braves team lost their best player to injury and still won the World Series.
Catching up late, apologies. I don't think there is one answer. We've seen the Sox win two titles through veteran acquisitions, 2013 and 2018, with the latter on top of a great young foundation. 2013 was more in line with stealing one, like the Rangers' or the D-Backs' near miss. That's the case for building a team each year, however you have to do it, to get in the playoffs and see what happens. The flipside is, just this last year, the high-quality Brewers, Braves, Astros, Phillies and Orioles were gone from the postseason in the blink of an eye. So while your list of teams that surprised sounds impressive, it's actually low-percentage play. You have to have some element that gives you a chance in the postseason, which comes down to pitching or a Papi-sized unicorn. Or luck.

The Sox' plan, which appears to buy into the window concept, is to be a solid bet for 4?5?6? years of likely playoffs and a dynamic enough team to hopefully succeed there... IF the kids are as good as advertised, and if they can go big on high end pitching depth across the roster. Having a core of young pre-arb/arb position players frees you up to use the money on pitching as you go along, though if you can have a Lester type rotation anchor (Crochet?) that helps.

I think this is the higher percentage move, but I will not deny that it's also less expensive than the Dodgers/Mets approach -- though the Mets haven't won anything and the Dodgers wouldn't have either if the Japanese guys weren't bailing out Roberts from squandering another shot.
 

SouthernBoSox

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2005
12,711
This is silly.



I think it’s clear from the Soto pursuit and the Crochet acquisition that they’re willing to get uncomfortable for a player who checks all of the boxes, not just a lot of them.
I agree with this (though I think Fried might qualify)

It’s one of the reasons I think they are genuinely pursuing Scott.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
Of the opportunities that remain in front of is to make this team better in 2025, I’d say Bregman at 3B replaces one of the worst defensive 3B in the league with one of the best. Meanwhile you get all the good from Devers at DH without the liability. Helps the pitching staff. We score more runs and give up fewer. Without delving into money, tell me what’s out there that does more to make the team better.
If Bregman will take a 1-year deal, sure, sign me up. What he is holding out for is a deal that makes the next 4+ years beholden to a contract that we will regret, both in $$ and roster flexibility.
 

pjheff

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2003
1,642
It’s one of the reasons I think they are genuinely pursuing Scott.
It’s one of the reasons I don’t, as relievers are too volatile. If they were genuinely pursuing Scott, why did they quickly move to sign Chapman and Wilson to one year deals?
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
Say, uh, if we need a reliever on a 1-year deal... what about Pivetta? Nobody is going to sign him and cough up the pick, and he's desperate for a do-over, or may become desperate soon. I can't tell if the vibes would be super weird or if he would be on a revenge tour against the league. More the latter, since the Sox offered him the QO?
 

Auger34

used to be tbb
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
12,877
Do you think that trading their last two first round picks, considered the #4 and #5 prospects in the system, was uncomfortable?
Yes. IMO, pretty obvious that this was what he meant by the quote. (nothing to do with Soto, unless he was taking a shot at the owners, which seems unlikely)
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
10,099
Say, uh, if we need a reliever on a 1-year deal... what about Pivetta? Nobody is going to sign him and cough up the pick, and he's desperate for a do-over, or may become desperate soon. I can't tell if the vibes would be super weird or if he would be on a revenge tour against the league. More the latter, since the Sox offered him the QO?
Seems early to be projecting anyone to not be signed. Multiple teams could use another starter today, even before arms start going down in ST, and it's really just Flaherty, Pivetta and Scherzer left as far as upside choices go.

And I'm not into it just based on there being better pure relief options out there, and having no desire to dick Nick over as he tries to remain a starter in his career.
 

20Ks

New Member
Jul 11, 2024
206
A lot of people here think that an over 30 yr old Bregman is the missing piece to an AL East division title and a WS run. I don't believe that is the case at all. It'll be fun to revisit this conversation in 3-4 years when he is a drag on whatever team signs him to a deal that is too long. I'd put more money on Campbell being better than Bregman in the next few years than Bregman being more like Anthony Rendon.
Wait I was assured it was Jordan Montgomery. No use in revisiting it they will just complain about his contract. Lets look back though. Other than Ohtani, what FA last year that they didn't sign would have made an over the top difference? Would you still want their contract now?
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
15,718
A lot of people here think that an over 30 yr old Bregman is the missing piece to an AL East division title and a WS run. I don't believe that is the case at all. It'll be fun to revisit this conversation in 3-4 years when he is a drag on whatever team signs him to a deal that is too long. I'd put more money on Campbell being better than Bregman in the next few years than Bregman being more like Anthony Rendon.
They aren’t trading Campbell for Bregman, though, so what’s the relevance? Add in Story, Grissom, etc tot he analysis and then maybe you have something.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
Seems early to be projecting anyone to not be signed. Multiple teams could use another starter today, even before arms start going down in ST, and it's really just Flaherty, Pivetta and Scherzer left as far as upside choices go.

And I'm not into it just based on there being better pure relief options out there, and having no desire to dick Nick over as he tries to remain a starter in his career.
Yeah, but what if he doesn't have a single suitor? This is not unprecedented in the QO era. If it's prove-it Nick versus an expensive or lengthy deal for one of the other names we see, I think it's in play?
 

20Ks

New Member
Jul 11, 2024
206
well considering you totally misunderstood what I meant. The whole full throttle by Werner was a lie and I wasn't saying that Breslow's work was somehow a lie, but that them saying they'd have to get uncomfortable might be considering they have yet to get uncomfortable this offseason.
Not to pile on but please just stop with the semantics. The team is a business they make about $500M in revenue after all expeneses, wich player salaries make up about 45%..With total EBIDTA of about $62M. John Henry owns 40% of FSG which owns the Red Sox. He is worth $6 Billion dollars. If the Red Sox make $100M or lose $100M in a given year, it matters very little to him financially.

The Red Sox are going to have a player salary budget just like the other 50% of their costs.They have a lot of people working with the resources they have to put out the best product and remain profitable. Focus on agreeing and disagreeing with certain moves, and enjoying the product they are putting out, Or don't. But for gods sake please stop wiith the "but he said full throttle" stuff.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
49,859
Wait I was assured it was Jordan Montgomery. No use in revisiting it they will just complain about his contract. Lets look back though. Other than Ohtani, what FA last year that they didn't sign would have made an over the top difference? Would you still want their contract now?
How are you defining “over the top difference”? Hard for any singular player to fulfill that criteria. Imanaga is a guy who they were interested in whose contract would look pretty great right now.
 

20Ks

New Member
Jul 11, 2024
206
How are you defining “over the top difference”? Hard for any singular player to fulfill that criteria. Imanaga is a guy who they were interested in whose contract would look pretty great right now.
I wasn't defining it. I was agreeing with Cass who said Bregman isnt the missing piece to win the AL. Imanaga was the steal of last year, and would love to have him. He also signed the type of contract that can be mitgated. Exactly what you want. Guess what the response here would have been?
 

chawson

Hoping for delivery
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
5,229
I agree with this (though I think Fried might qualify)

It’s one of the reasons I think they are genuinely pursuing Scott.
That walk rate though!

This is a little cheeky but here’s a look at two pitchers’ fielding independent stats over a three-year span:

Player A: 144 IP, 31.5 K%, 13.5 BB%, 0.88 HR/9, 78.0% Z-contact, 15.1% SwStr
Player B: 213 IP, 31.2 K%, 11.9 BB%, 0.47 HR/9, 76.8% Z-contact, 16.2% SwStr

Player B is Tanner Scott’s 2022-24. Player A is Jake Diekman’s 2019-21, the three years before we signed him.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
49,859
I wasn't defining it. I was agreeing with Cass who said Bregman isnt the missing piece to win the AL. Imanaga was the steal of last year, and would love to have him. He also signed the type of contract that can be mitgated. Exactly what you want. Guess what the response here would have been?
Do we have posters calling Bregman the missing piece to winning the AL? Honest question. Possible I missed that.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
10,099
That walk rate though!

This is a little cheeky but here’s a look at two pitchers’ fielding independent stats over a three-year span:

Player A: 144 IP, 31.5 K%, 13.5 BB%, 0.88 HR/9, 78.0% Z-contact, 15.1% SwStr
Player B: 213 IP, 31.2 K%, 11.9 BB%, 0.47 HR/9, 76.8% Z-contact, 16.2% SwStr

Player B is Tanner Scott’s 2022-24. Player A is Jake Diekman’s 2019-21, the three years before we signed him.
I think Chapman + Wilson is a statement that they're out on Scott anyway. Hoping for one of the Yates/Robertson/Estévez group still though.
 

Auger34

used to be tbb
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
12,877
Not to pile on but please just stop with the semantics. The team is a business they make about $500M in revenue after all expeneses, wich player salaries make up about 45%..With total EBIDTA of about $62M. John Henry owns 40% of FSG which owns the Red Sox. He is worth $6 Billion dollars. If the Red Sox make $100M or lose $100M in a given year, it matters very little to him financially.

The Red Sox are going to have a player salary budget just like the other 50% of their costs.They have a lot of people working with the resources they have to put out the best product and remain profitable. Focus on agreeing and disagreeing with certain moves, and enjoying the product they are putting out, Or don't. But for gods sake please stop wiith the "but he said full throttle" stuff.
I’m not sure what you thought you were proving with the post but I am incredibly confused as to the point of it, especially the first paragraph. The only thing I know for sure is that you’re oddly sensitive about “full throttle”
 

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
1,884
This is silly.
I’d respectfully ask you to quote the entire thought. Which was that the line up is essentially set the next three years, to be put together from players currently on the Red Sox / WooSox.

The infield is Casas, Campbell, Devers, Story. Possible changes - Mayer, Grissom, Hamilton, maybe Rafaela. All are in the organization. The OF is Anthony, Duran, Abreu, possibly Rafaela or Garcia here too. The DH is Yoshida. None of those are likely to change. Edit - Wong is of course here too. Like Story and Yoshida, he is under contract (control) the next 3 seasons, and highly unlikely to be jettisoned or replaced in the starting line up for that time. Though I suppose moving on from Wong as he gets expensive is possible to keep costs down. I’d honestly just kind of forgotten about him.

They might make fringe moves (another Refsnyder, some bench bat), but, much as I’d like one to, and been begging for since Bogaerts left, it’s highly unlikely there is a core bat coming from outside any time soon.

If you think those players will not make up the line up, then it’s silly I suppose. So which ones do you think are gone?

Wait I was assured it was Jordan Montgomery. No use in revisiting it they will just complain about his contract. Lets look back though. Other than Ohtani, what FA last year that they didn't sign would have made an over the top difference? Would you still want their contract now?
Interesting question. I don’t think it’s likely for a team to go from last place to AL Title contender in one off season, but there were plenty of guys I wanted and still would want.

Obviously the Sox were never signing all of these, and further tough to say because I generally don’t like 1yr deals, and lots of guys signed them. But I’ve wanted SPs with term and core bats with term added for a long time.

But last year I desperately wanted Nola then Monty (but had no interest in the 1yr deal he signed). I‘d still want both guys on the staff on a higher deal than Nola got, and if I could have Monty for let’s say 4/$100m (I believe I wanted 5/$125m last year), I would have still preferred those to Gio (that the Sox signed). Still would (I think Montgomery is very likely to bounce back to 30 start, 3.50ish ERA guy he’s been consistently, we’ll see.)

I‘ve also been begging to add core bats for years. I wanted Chapman (moving Devers off 3b is not new for me) and Hernandez as well. Though I had no desire on either (or anyone) for one year. Would have wanted Chapman at the deal he just signed or Teoscar at the 4/$80m that the totally unreliable Daniel Judgaport said we were signing him for one, assuredly. He was further down the list, but I also wanted Lourdes Gurriell and would have taken his deal.

On the pitching side, Nola and Monty excepted, I had didn’t really want Gray or ERod. I would have wanted Stroman (but only for more than 2 years) and Imanaga (but only for more than 2 years). One of those would look horrible now and one really good. I had no interst in Lugo and was massively wrong there, and no interest in Nick Martinez (and was a little wrong).

On Gio, I like(d) the pitcher and hated the deal. I don’t really like one year deals. Similar to Buehler (though AFTER landing the ToR guy and having the 1, 2 and 3 here long term, I dislike it much less). FWIW, I’d far rather have given Eovaldi 3/$80 if he’d have come back here for a bit more money than signing Buehler to 1yr and Sandoval as I’m generally against signing someone for just one year.

On the RP side, I only really advocate paying for guys with closing experience, so I would have taken Hader at his deal, but that’s about it. Though I also didn’t advocate for it because the team had Jansen.

Those are kind of off the top of my head. But my wanting a ToR pitcher (and we got one with Crochet - this is awesome), upgrading from Crawford, and wanting to add core bats, ideally to move Devers to DH, move on from planning on Story, or if necessary play some LF and then move to DH as the kids come up and show they belong are not something new this year for me.



(Those moves or any like them are clearly not in the cards any time soon, but I thought it was an interesting look back.)
 
Last edited:

pjheff

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2003
1,642
I’d respectfully ask you to quote the entire thought. Which was that the line up is essentially set the next three years, to be put together from players currently on the Red Sox / WooSox.

The infield is Casas, Campbell, Devers, Story. Possible changes - Mayer, Grissom, Hamilton, maybe Rafaela. All are in the organization. The OF is Anthony, Duran, Abreu, possibly Rafaela or Garcia here too. The DH is Yoshida. None of those are likely to change.

They might make fringe moves (another Refsnyder, some bench bat), but, much as I’d like one to, it’s highly unlikely there is a core bat coming from outside.

If you think those players will not make up the line up, then it’s silly I suppose. So which ones do you think are gone?
I‘d respectfully suggest that I tried to quote the thought which I thought was silly, which is that we “admittedly need to accept the line up is what it is for the next 3 years.” ML lineups do not remain static for three years.
 

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
1,884
I‘d respectfully suggest that I tried to quote the thought which I thought was silly, which is that we “admittedly need to accept the line up is what it is for the next 3 years.” ML lineups do not remain static for three years.
I should have said players the line up is chosen from, from, you’re correct.

The line up will of course change day to day, some guys will get hurt for periods of time, there will be doubleheaders and off days.

I don’t think you’re going to see any meaningful additions (as in an assumed starter with term) from outside that group. Probably not a huge leap. They have only acquired one MLB bat with term in the last three years anyway (Story).

I admittedly keep hoping for the 1) get rid of Rentería because it’s not working to 2) acquire CoCo Crisp to 3) land Lowell (and Beckett of course) to 4) sign JD Drew type series of moves to supplement the core and upcoming Pedroia, Ellsbury, Lester, Buchholz and Papelbon wave. I should just realize that it’s simply wishcasting and not happening.

The meaningful pieces they’re going to have in the line up the next three years are here already. For better or worse. Then, that I should stop hoping and posting about ways to do for otherwise, since it’s extremely unlikely to happen.

But they will probably continue to add a bunch of Bobby Kielty type pieces.
 
Last edited:

dynomite

Member
SoSH Member
Wait I was assured it was Jordan Montgomery. No use in revisiting it they will just complain about his contract. Lets look back though. Other than Ohtani, what FA last year that they didn't sign would have made an over the top difference? Would you still want their contract now?
I don’t mean to take this thread off into a tangent, but I don’t understand this. Are you suggesting no other free agent last year would have changed the Sox fortunes? I’m not sure what “over the top” mean, but the Sox missed the playoffs by 5 games.

Reynaldo Lopez was a 5 WAR pitcher for the Braves. If the Sox signed him instead of Giolito they likely make the playoffs. He’s got 2 years left at $20M total.

Blake Snell was a 2 or 4 WAR (by Fangraphs or BRef) player last year. The Sox would have been better with him. The Giants paid him ~$30M and he opted out.

Sonny Gray was another 2 or 4 WAR player last year. The Cardinals gave him a reasonable 3 year, $75M deal that looks fine.

I could be misunderstanding you, but I don’t understand otherwise.
 

pjheff

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2003
1,642
I should have said players the line up is chosen from, from, you’re correct.
I knew what you meant, but it’s still silly. This was a projected lineup three years ago:

  1. Enrique Hernandez, CF
  2. Rafael Devers, 3B
  3. Xander Bogaerts, SS
  4. J.D. Martinez, DH
  5. Trevor Story, 2B
  6. Alex Verdugo, LF
  7. Bobby Dalbec, 1B
  8. Christian Vázquez, C
  9. Jackie Bradley Jr., RF
P.S. They signed Yoshida to term after Story, unless you don’t consider him a MLB bat as he was coming from Japan.
 
Last edited:

20Ks

New Member
Jul 11, 2024
206
Do we have posters calling Bregman the missing piece to winning the AL? Honest question. Possible I missed that.
No he said he wasn't. I was pointing out how thinking that commiting huge money, for a long time, to someone as an open market FA seldom can put any team over the top, and is in most instances a piss poor use of resources.
 

20Ks

New Member
Jul 11, 2024
206
I don’t mean to take this thread off into a tangent, but I don’t understand this. Are you suggesting no other free agent last year would have changed the Sox fortunes? I’m not sure what “over the top” mean, but the Sox missed the playoffs by 5 games.

Reynaldo Lopez was a 5 WAR pitcher for the Braves. If the Sox signed him instead of Giolito they likely make the playoffs. He’s got 2 years left at $20M total.

Blake Snell was a 2 or 4 WAR (by Fangraphs or BRef) player last year. The Sox would have been better with him. The Giants paid him ~$30M and he opted out.

Sonny Gray was another 2 or 4 WAR player last year. The Cardinals gave him a reasonable 3 year, $75M deal that looks fine.

I could be misunderstanding you, but I don’t understand otherwise.
If they would have picked the right 3 or 4 FA's out of 100 or so, they might have been 4-5 games better. And you are right resources spent efficiently are part of building a winning roster. I keep hearing the unwillingness to do 5+ years and $150M+ is what makes them so cheap. I'm referring to those arguments that come up every year.
 

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
1,884
I knew what you meant, but it’s still silly. This was a projected lineup three years ago:

  1. Enrique Hernandez, CF
  2. Rafael Devers, 3B
  3. Xander Bogaerts, SS
  4. J.D. Martinez, DH
  5. Trevor Story, 2B
  6. Alex Verdugo, LF
  7. Bobby Dalbec, 1B
  8. Christian Vázquez, C
  9. Jackie Bradley Jr., RF
P.S. They signed Yoshida to term after Story, unless you don’t consider him a MLB bat as he was coming from Japan.
Correct - and none of those pieces have been replaced by acquiring core (as in full time starting, acquired with / given term, proven MLB) hitters. Which is exactly the point I’m trying to make.

This is also likely going to be the case the next 3 as well since that is the duration of time Story has to start somewhere and Yoshida is blocking Devers moving to DH. It could go well, sideways or poorly, but is what it is. Everything else will be filled in with players already in MLB or Worcester, for better or worse. They might get a one year stop gap option here or there (Stephen Drew, Tyler O’Neill) and sign the occasional bench player for two years (Ref, Kike).

But I need to realize the days of moving on quickly (Rentería), the Punto trade or the 2006-7 buildup I outlined earlier or even signing Victorio or JD Drew deals (I THINK they were 4 and 5, respectively) are gone until Story and Yoshida roll off the books (thus, 3 years). I am going to try my best to stop posting this off-season about what I hope will happen that has no basis in reality for how the organization seems to currently be functioning.


Seperate topic - but one that might be interesting to discuss - though I did want to quickly answer you. But no, I do not think signing any player around 30 with success in Japan, Korea or Cuba (those are the only high level professional leagues I can think of, forgive me if there are more) is at all like signing someone around 30 with success against MLB players. Which is exactly why I drew (was trying to draw) the distinction.

It‘s also not quite like signing a an almost 30 year old that has been in AAA either. It’d be an interesting topic to flesh out more, and I haven’t fully thought this out. But not for this thread…
 
Last edited:

BeantownIdaho

New Member
Dec 5, 2005
652
Nampa, Idaho
Right, I have zero concern about Bregman “blocking” talent. With Story’s injuries, Rafaela’s very questionable batting profile, and Grissoms defensive profile the problem isn’t “being blocked”

The problem is that the Red Sox need to extend Garrett Crochet, the Arb guys are gonna get expensive quick, and they need to be efficient in roster upgrades. I just don’t see how the math works with adding Bregman.
Good thoughts here - with a lot of the young players coming up for Arb and FA within a few years of each other, there will be some hard decisions down the road that could be made easier the earlier we find out what they can do. Duran, Abreu, Rafaela, Grissom, Anthony, Campbell, Casas, ,Mayer, etc. ... all great to have now on the cheap, but it could become too expensive to keep them all.