For the record, I agree totally with why Giolito makes a ton of sense for this team. I agree with the points of someone like
@chawson outlining why there is upside. I also agree with the absolute need for the Sox to get dependable innings from their SPs, and I think Giolito provides that.
To the bolded, I wanted them to sign this player for the reasons mentioned, but what I wanted FSG/FO to do is commit to this player (or someone else from Stroman or Montgomery or Snell or Lugo or whoever) for the next 3/4 years at minimum.
I don‘t believe a total dependence to one year deals in their starting rotation is going to lead to any type of sustained success (long term) nor do I think cycling in one year deals is going to lead to a championship in a given season (short term).
There is a difference in naysaying because you dislike the player and someone naysaying because they dislike the philosophy - regardless of the player in question. I am staunchly in the latter camp, and some others are too. I don’t think the person picking the one year deals really matters (be it Theo, Bloom or Breslow), I think the plan is incredibly flawed and ultimately will not yield either sustained success (consistency) nor titles (short term highs).
Also, to the point of someone like a
@burstnbloom saying there is no downside to a short term deal where Giolito (or anyone else) is great for a year and leaves, I just disagree totally. It’s like someone who says “there is no risk to a short term CD.” That is incorrect, it’s a question of the kind of risk one is comfortable with.
There is very little “principal” risk with a deal like this, yes. There is also very real opportunity risk (did the team cost themselves the opportunity of adding someone more impactful by an adherence to short term deals because you were only shopping in the “value” aisle), which is of course possible.
There is also “reinvestment” risk with this kind of strategy - and this is the risk I think DESPERATELY needed to be avoided with at least one rotation spot this year - and this deal doesn’t do it. As in say Giolito is great, opts out next year, and then the 2025 market doesn’t offer the same type of investment opportunity (think of this as interest rates dropping in 9 months from the CD example above - someone could have cost themselves a fixed 4yr CD at 4.25% to take the 1yr CD at 5.25%, but when the money comes due in a year 1 yr CD rates have dropped to 2.5% and 4yr rates
have dropped to 2.65%).
Or - case in point - this is more similar to the Wacha deal in 2022 than things like Kluber, Hill, Richards or Perez. Wacha was pretty good for them in 2022 and would have been helpful last year (and I’d like to still have him, personally). But because they ostensibly believed in the player and only gave him one year, it forced them to do things last year like rely on Sale, Paxton and Kluber (which predictably failed). Now they have to make similar reliances in 2024 - and this kind of deal means they‘ll probably have to do the same in 2025 and 2026.
I‘m glad they have Giolito for 2024, but only having him one year means that in 2025 the team is going to be in the same spot they are now. One rotation piece to feel really good about (Bello), let’s hopefully assume one of Crawford or Houck shows enough to upgrade what they have been and warranting say the SP4 spot AND they still need to fill 3 slots in the rotation, two at the top half.
Giolito should be pretty bankable to provide call it 180ip of 4.50 ERA pitching. That would be really valuable for the 2024 team, but with a dearth of controllable starting pitching (or prospects) at the MLB, AAA or AA levels, it would be incredibly valuable for the 2025 and 2026 teams as well, giving Breslow some time to address the suck at AAA and AA levels of the organization.
Now, could the team STILL add starting pitching with multiple years of control - absolutely. But when one looks at the way they’ve addressed starting pitching over the past 5 seasons (well 4 seasons and half an off season), they have added exactly one rotation piece with multiple seasons of control was Pivetta in 2020. They have done literally zero to address the long term pitching at the MLB level beyond that, and it’s predictably led to zero organizational stability or long term success and it also ultimately failed them even in a short term high (2021). Unsurprisingly to me, the long term pitchers were huge parts of that season’s success (Eovaldi, Rodriguez and Pivetta) while the short term additions (Richards and Perez) weren’t even good enough to warrant starting the entire season.
At a certain level, when the organization shows almost 5 season’s worth of an approach (with all acquisitions / contracts besides one) it becomes harder and harder to believe they’re willing to do anything else (ie why I think there is no chance they sign Montgomery, Snell or Imanaga, and even if they do land Stroman, it would be on a one year team control kind of contract).
Which is why I think there are a lot of us that actually really like the acquisition of the player, but abhor the continuation of the organizational philosophy of not bothering to address the starting rotation for the long term that the
contract (not the player) itself perpetuates.
Lucas Giolito for 4/$100m I’d be applauding loudly.
Lucas Giolito for (team control) 1/$18m is more of the same (and I think the recipe sucks, not necessarily the brand of ingredient chosen nor the chef cooking it.)
