Offseason rumors
- Thread starter opes
- Start date
- Status
Yawn. My monocle didn’t fall off when I wrote that. But if a guy is repeatedly trying to bend the rules with a foreign substances to cover up his mediocre performance, that’s a relevant data point to me.
Now let’s not get too worked up about who took a bunch of female fertility drugs and who didn’t, we’ve all had some crazy weekends.
I feel the same way about all domestic violence abusers who are mediocre talents and who have been caught cheating, yes.
Pay one of them more than he wants but let it be known he has 24 hours for the super deal or it comes off the table.
This, right here, is what the Sox should be doing. To your point it sort of breaks the trade machine, but if they’d do it for some group of reasonable prospects, I’m in.
Burnes and Adames both fill desperate needs. And part of the reason for a big market team to stockpile prospects is to trade them to a team like Milwaukee.
And the trade this reminds me of is the Beckett/Lowell trade. 2023’s Yelich isn’t the same as 2005’s Mike Lowell, but there are similarities.
Even if the Sox can only get Burnes and Yelich I’d still do a version and the trade. We desperately need more high end talent, especially in the rotation, and should have the financial flexibility to handle Yelich’s salary and find him plenty of ABs in RF, LF, and DH.
edit: Whoops I see others got to Beckett/Lowell faster.
Last edited:
Sox don’t have the leverage to be able to make that threat stick, though. The player and his agent will call their bluff. I don’t see how they can create a sense of urgency to sign now, nor really why they would want to.
Not to mention that when it doesn't work and YY likely signs somewhere else the Sox might still want to, you know, try to sign one of these guys. Will those offers have a deadline too?
It's laughable how much some people think it's just a matter of imposing one's will to get players to sign, and if players sign elsewhere it is only because the team didn't try hard enough or something.
The scenario where a team might be able to pull that move is very rare and this isn't remotely close to that.
I might take a flier on him at a minimum price. The rape allegations against him were apparently proven to be false, and he appears to want to return to MLB based on his social media, so I'd take a gamble. I do think the media attention probably wouldn't be worth the chaos it might cause, but on a skill basis he is intriguing.
Do you remember Parcells's favorite line about trying versus willing oneself over the line? "I don't want to hear about the labor pains, just bring me the baby."
I think a situation like this COULD work with Boras, but not in a "take it or leave it / ultimatum" style.
Boras is (like many agents) a lawyer. Sure, there are situations where I'm sure his plan and his client's plan are to "go to trial" no matter what and let the chips fall where they may. However, I'd also wager that more often than not he and his client have discussed a what a "good" settlement would look like and what the number is to "agree to a settlement" even if your initial plan is to go to court - because you don't want to run the risk of getting less.
As such, lets assume the Red Sox have discussed parameters of what it would take to land Jordan Montgomery. Based on the projections out there (for whatever that's worth) it seems to be coming in around 6/$125m/$21m AAV. So I could see the Red Sox having made an initial "offer" at something like 6/$120m and Boras says "we're going to wait for Yamamoto to sign." However, we have "Boras" (Jon Heyman) saying that Montgomery is using Rodon's deal as a comp (6/$162m/27m), which leads me to believe nobody has offered close to that. Because if someone had offered close to that, Heyman would be saying "we're using Aaron Nola (7/$172m) as a comp", and he's not.
Which all means, I think that the Sox PROBABLY have a good enough relationship with Boras where they could say "what number does it take to sign this player now" and have him take a "huge overpay settlement" vs going to court and possibly capping out at lets say 6/$140m. I think Boras is smart enough to give them said number (Which is why my guess is 7/$175m).
Does that "force" the player to sign something. Of course not. Is it an ultimatum - certainly not. But I do believe Boras has a number in mind that Montgomery would sign for right now. I think (and have thought for a long time) that the Sox should ask Boras what that number is and then give it to him. If his offers now are in the $120m range, he's using $160m as a comp and you offered him $175m to have the player simply not wait, I think he'd take it.
I could of course be wrong, and maybe he'd say "there is no number, we're going to wait" but I think he's too good of a lawyer to have that mindset and be totally dogmatic about it.
Last edited:
Reposting the following quote, and I think (thankfully) that there's no chance the Red Sox want any part of Bauer and his baggage.
As with German, I'd be out on the Sox at least for at least as long as Bauer was on the team. Probably longer. This may be calling for the "there are dozens of us!" meme (though, frankly, I think it would be gross to post it in response to someone saying they care about this subject), but I'm not the only one who won't root for a team of domestic and sexual abusers.
So much of American culture, so much of sports culture, is filled with toxic masculinity. My guess there are a lot of abusive men populating big time sports, whose abuses never come to light. Of course having confirmation that there is domestic/sexual abuser on the team is its own thing, I suppose. But my bet is the Bauer's of the world are a bit less anomalous than we'd like to believe.
This is unquestionably true. It doesn’t excuse ignoring abuse when it comes to light*.
*I am building on your comment, not insinuating that you think we should ignore it.
Of course, not all domestic and sexual abusers' behavior has come to light. I appreciate @Average Reds's addendum, because otherwise this would be a weird thing to post.
I agree to both points but oddly I’m 99% sure it happened with a Boras client and the Red Sox just last year (Masa).
Just to be transparent though, it’s my take on the timeline of what happened and not any direct reporting. Theres no way Boras doesn’t shop that bid for at least a couple days if he can.
Jared Carrabis dropped a new podcast this morning. On the pod, he mentioned that someone that he personally trusts who is connected to the team texted him saying that the Red Sox are making a hard push for Yamamoto. If they are unable to sign Yamamoto, however, they are unlikely to spend big on anyone else.
I take this to mean that if they miss on Yamamoto, they will pursue pitching through trades and short-term deals.
Take this for what you will.
I take this to mean that if they miss on Yamamoto, they will pursue pitching through trades and short-term deals.
Take this for what you will.
Honestly it's probably smart to not just spend for the sake of spending, but that won't go over well.
Sox sure love trials by fire for their new GMs. Last guy had to trade Mookie. New guy has to try to sign Yamamoto.
I doubt it. I think Warner boxed Breslow in with his stupid press conference. Tough to do that to a brand new GM dealing with an unhappy fan base coming off a half decade of last place finishes.
If(when) they lose out on Yamamoto I think Boras tortures them into paying an extra year and about 30-40 mill more on Montgomery,
if the current market is around 6-125-140 as speculated then I think the Sox will end up at 7/175ish.
If(when) they lose out on Yamamoto I think Boras tortures them into paying an extra year and about 30-40 mill more on Montgomery,
if the current market is around 6-125-140 as speculated then I think the Sox will end up at 7/175ish.
Truth. Breslow didn’t deserve the expectations Warner set by his flippant comments. He put him in a corner. Horrible look on his part.
There were rumors a few weeks back that Montgomery was looking for 8 years, which seems crazy, but if there are enough bidders someone will offer.
And if I can build a bit further... Right, wrong or indifferent, Bauer's sexual habits are now known, the cat's out of the bag. I get and understand that this is a thing for some though I have no earthly idea why. So let's suppose for just a moment that this was mutual behavior between two consenting adults. A baseball team has it easy as far as not hiring a guy like this. There's no job application to refuse, lots of teams pass on a lot of guys for any variety of reasons. No real fear of an individual team being sued for discrimination I would think. IMO no real risk to a franchise by not signing him. On the other hand, what's he been found guilty of? Why not take a chance? Well, this sort of behavior might not set well with some members of the team and more likely it doesn't set well with an even broader segment of the team's fan base and community where the team plays. Does that bring any sort of boycott, any sort of long lasting black mark against the franchise? Is there any reason to think that his private life changes in any way after what he's done has been in a way validated? So you sign him on and he finds another consenting partner. Perhaps things extend past the "consent", or perhaps he's now made himself a target for future lawsuits or worse yet someone dies during this "consensual" act. Do you really want that stench on your team? Is the talent worth that organisational risk? Hard fucking pass for me.
I appreciate your post, but I think the following post by @Rovin Romine in the Bauer thread is useful to consider in relation to the BDSM/consenting adults aspect of Bauer's defense* (particularly the bolded):
* Calling it Bauer's defense to note that it isn't your defense of Bauer, because you framed your post as "Let's suppose" rather than stating as fact that this really was simply mutual behavior between two consenting adults.
How does that work with the tax? Taken to an extreme...say they want to sign Marcus Stroman to a 3 year deal for 75 million. Surely they can't sign him to a deal for 11 years for 78 million, where he makes 25 mil the first three years and then 500k the next 8, with a player opt out after year 3, and have it only count for 7.1 mil (78/11) under the tax for just 3 years? The balance of the 75 mil would get applied retroactively, or spread over the next 8 years?
Is he really running the team according to public approval? I really hope not.
I believe that AAV would be recalculated after an opt-out and applied retroactively, and they'd owe any luxury tax that might be due because of that recalculation. If it weren't the case, I think we'd see a lot more instances of teams doing exactly that.
It wouldn’t be to such an extreme. He earns $225 million of the $375 million over the first five years. Good chance Yamamoto walks if he pitches up to his ability, but you are getting him at his prime age.
Yes, I will say hard pass for me to.
My initial response is just that being a fan of major athletics means being a fan of some toxic dudes whether you realize it or not - it is endemic to the culture but hopefully changing (I mean, the homophobia alone). There is a broader philosophical issue of enjoying the work of entertainers/athletes/artists who behaved badly/immorally in their personal lives. John Lennon is an admitted batterer. Picasso is know to have physically abused and certainly emotionally abused woman. MLK Jr is a known philanderer (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/06/04/how-to-make-sense-of-the-shocking-new-mlk-documents-227042/). Should we reject their work? Not go to museums that show it, or platforms that play the music, or listen to their speeches? Maybe we should reject their work, I don't know - it's a difficult question. The comedian Hannah Gadsby's show Nanette addresses this issue and she is vociferous that we SHOULD reject the work of these people (well worth watching this show, even if you wind up disagreeing - highly compelling).
Of course there is a difference between folks who are actively abusive today, and "historical" figures. Though where is the line drawn - how far back do we need to go to overlook repugnant personal behavior of artists/athletes/entertainers/public figures and still choose to enjoy their public work?
This stuff should really start being moved into some other forums. I think Hannah Gadsby is a humorless turd personally but I also don't disagree with her completely. This is all a case-by-case situation and I don't think it should ever be- someone did something bad he/she (yeah "she" too) should be forever cancelled. It's terrible slippery slope stuff.
I have no idea what will happen with Yamamoto, but it is interesting to think about whether the deal he signs will include some type of a short term opt out. Let's say he inks a double-digit year contract that takes him into his late 30's but there is an opt out after year 3.
He would be 28-29 at that point, which is around where most elite pitchers come due for their first huge contract.
Say those first 3 years are All Star caliber, Cy Young finalist seasons. He then gets offered another 10+ year deal in the 3-400 million range.
Of course, he could have one injury that costs him most of a season, or there is an up-and-down 3 year period where he flashes Ace potential and numbers but does not totally put it all together.
Maybe who ever signs him frontloads the first 3 or 4 years, something in the 40-45mil AAV range to get him to bite.
What I am getting at is there are so many permutations that can happen, and I am sure the teams involved at this point have considered several options, and the real negotiating that is happening is about a potential opt out, AAV per year, etc.
As I think about it, maybe this has been the main sticking point so far, and why this process has languished for so long. There are maybe a dozen people in the whole world who know what it will take to get a signature.
He would be 28-29 at that point, which is around where most elite pitchers come due for their first huge contract.
Say those first 3 years are All Star caliber, Cy Young finalist seasons. He then gets offered another 10+ year deal in the 3-400 million range.
Of course, he could have one injury that costs him most of a season, or there is an up-and-down 3 year period where he flashes Ace potential and numbers but does not totally put it all together.
Maybe who ever signs him frontloads the first 3 or 4 years, something in the 40-45mil AAV range to get him to bite.
What I am getting at is there are so many permutations that can happen, and I am sure the teams involved at this point have considered several options, and the real negotiating that is happening is about a potential opt out, AAV per year, etc.
As I think about it, maybe this has been the main sticking point so far, and why this process has languished for so long. There are maybe a dozen people in the whole world who know what it will take to get a signature.
Has there ever been a heavily front loaded deal? YY should be looking at a 10+ year deal with a player out after 3 or 4. It’s all completely in the players favor and not something clubs will love, but if there’s this much demand- he’s in position to ask for everything and get it.
I mean, to be fair, it depends on what they can trade and what "not spending big" means.
Say they're able to trade Mayer and Duran for Luzardo (I don't think Miami considers that, but just to play it out) then they give 5/$75m to Imanaga (which I don't think anyone would categorize as spending big). Re-sign one of Turner of JDM to DH ($15m ish) and get Rosario to play 2b.
Then you're looking at:
Bello, Luzardo, Imanaga, Pivetta, Crawford.
Yoshida - LF; Story - SS; Devers - 3b; "JD Turner" - DH; Casas - 1b, Abreu - RF; Rosario - 2b; Wong - C; Rafaela - CF
I'd take my shots with that and call it a pretty good off-season.
yes, belongs in a different thread, you're right - apologies for getting off course!
There's also the issue of the posting fee, which is based on the total contract value. You're not going to pay his former team $50 million and then give him another $45 million a year for three seasons just to have him walk away. He'd have to be prime Pedro to be worth nearly $200 million for three years of work. And he's not going to be prime Pedro.
I'm not defending Bauer. I framed my post in that manner because at least one member here said that they would consider signing him. I have no idea if this behavior was consensual or not and don't care to speculate one way or the other, but will say that forced and/or violent sexual acts of any sort evoke a lot of negative emotions. I can't understand why anyone would take or allow sex in that manner.
Fuck no. Like, unequivocally, fuck no. He hasn’t pitched in two years, he has more than one single accuser if i remember correctly, and has a long and well documented history of being an insufferable, arrogant shithead.
No, or at least mostly not. It does however play right into the hands of any agent if they know you’re loaded and desperate. That sounds like a country record.
He hasn't pitched in MLB in a couple years. He did throw 156 innings in Japan last season (and fared okay).
But yeah, hard pass on him ever pitching for the Red Sox.
- Status