Philly, it’s like a baby New York. It’s got a lot of culture. A lot of culture.
Offseason rumors
- Thread starter opes
- Start date
- Status
I do not disagree with your assessment. I think Bloom was in over his head. I also think the farm is a bit overrated and not in as good as shape as some people think- but that can be a discussion for another time.
I think this is absolutely true, and has been historically true. There is nothing immutable about Boston that makes players not want to play here. Over the years many players have spoken about the desire and delight of playing in Boston, actually.
I think the fact that the organization is whiffing a lot now (along with the cancellation of the town hall), speaks to something deeper going on with them that feels dysfunctional. I know this is conjecture but there are media rumors out there; I just wonder if Henry has changed as he's gotten older, and is really generally a difficult person along with having tightened the purse strings. A fish rots from the top.
- OR - things will shift back eventually. There is smoke here, we just don't what the fire looks like. Wow apology for all the clichés ...
I think Philly is outbidding people but its a good point.
Buster Olney predicts this morning that the Red Sox will do something Big and expensive.
Also there are rumors that Snell will only get 3 years.
Buster Olney predicts this morning that the Red Sox will do something Big and expensive.
Also there are rumors that Snell will only get 3 years.
That Snell rumor seems unthinkable but it happened not too long ago with Trevor Bauer’s LAD deal under similar-ish circumstances. Like Snell, Bauer had two incredible seasons surrounded by a lot of mediocre seasons.
Of course, Bauer was a known shithead even before all the suspensions and allegations whereas I’ve never heard anything bad about Snell as a teammate. But unlike Snell he was a pretty durable innings eater even during the mediocre seasons. I assume the labor negotiations also played into Bauer’s deal.
Anyways I don’t see why the Red Sox would be signing Blake Snell on something like 3/$110 with opt outs after years 1 and 2 even if that were on the table for a team.
Snell rumors are funny. It's like, nobody buys the prime rib when its full price, but when it's 50% off and a holiday, the whole country eats it. If Snell is only getting 3 years, regardless of AAV, you'd think the competition for his services grows quite a bit.
I think the slowness of the offseason is creating the illusion that big FAs don't have suitors willing to spend. In reality, the offseason has become a somewhat sequential process where players don't seem to be willing to sign until the market is fully set. Perhaps the agents are thinking that teams who thought they could swing trades for key SPs are going to realize very soon that the cost is too high and they're better off diving into the FA pool. Just a long way of me saying I'm skeptical a pitcher who won the cy young award last year and it wasn't a fluke is highly unlikely to get a short term contract.
I think the slowness of the offseason is creating the illusion that big FAs don't have suitors willing to spend. In reality, the offseason has become a somewhat sequential process where players don't seem to be willing to sign until the market is fully set. Perhaps the agents are thinking that teams who thought they could swing trades for key SPs are going to realize very soon that the cost is too high and they're better off diving into the FA pool. Just a long way of me saying I'm skeptical a pitcher who won the cy young award last year and it wasn't a fluke is highly unlikely to get a short term contract.
That's interesting. Assuming Snell will really only get 3 years, I would overpay on the AAV to compensate for the shorter term if it comes to that. Getting him for his age 31-34 seasons would be much better than having him longer than that. Would folks here be opposed to, say, 3yr/$150M? Or something close to that?
Bauer also very specifically, IIRC, said he was seeking one year contracts in 2019.
Opting out of the $45MM salary in 2022 may seem unthinkable to some, but remember that as recently as 2019, Bauer was planning to only ever sign one-year contracts in his career, believing strongly in furthering the market for future pitchers, maintaining control over his career and maximizing his earnings through a series of year-to-year arrangements wherein he was taking on more risk than teams. Bauer obviously softened his stance and displayed a willingness to consider multi-year pacts this winter, but the opt-out provisions in this contract give him all the flexibility of a one-year pact, and he could look for a similar opportunity next winter if he has earning power beyond that $62MM guarantee.
https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2021/02/dodgers-sign-trevor-bauer.html
Ah thanks I didn’t remember that. Yeah a 3 year deal ain’t happening. You’d have to think there’s someone out there that would sign Snell to at least the Carlos Rodon contract.
Trouble with that is if he's hurt a year or has a bad year it looks like a pretty ugly contract. I'd much rather have Montgomery with Nola's contract (7/172). I know he said he was looking for something north of this, but we know how that game works. I don't love this option, but I think it's a better one.
I don't think Snell even gets 5/150. So thumbs down to 3/150.
Problem is that if he's accepting a 3 year deal, he'll want an opt out. But giving up a draft pick for a one year deal would be tough. So I could see a 3 year base, with opt outs after years 1 and 2, but each time the club can void the opt out by adding a year.
Of course. And that’s why people get frustrated. The Sox seem very willing to take my money. Loads of it. But it’s still TBD if they’re going to field a competitive team this season.
Buster Onley spoke about the Red Sox for a while in his most recent pod. The summary is that the Red Sox are going to do something big because they simply must do something big. They don't have a choice. They can't go through another September of giving away tickets.
His prediction is to sign Montgomery and he made A TON of sense in his reasoning. He mentioned how Breslow's three key's are: Strike throwing, limiting walks, and hard contact, and how Montgomery is in the 75th percentile or better in all three of those categories.
At the end of the day, isn't Montgomery for $25AAV plus Mayer and others a better move than Luzardo for 3 Arb years minus Mayer, Rafaela, plus? They have so much payroll flexibility. I don't really understand the thought process of a trade vs signing when all you'd accomplishing is increasing your overall acquisition costs.
Jordan Montgomery is projected as the exact same as Luzardo (3.2 WAR) by streamer. Keep your studs and just sign the guy. This isn't rocket science. The money is there and then some.
His prediction is to sign Montgomery and he made A TON of sense in his reasoning. He mentioned how Breslow's three key's are: Strike throwing, limiting walks, and hard contact, and how Montgomery is in the 75th percentile or better in all three of those categories.
At the end of the day, isn't Montgomery for $25AAV plus Mayer and others a better move than Luzardo for 3 Arb years minus Mayer, Rafaela, plus? They have so much payroll flexibility. I don't really understand the thought process of a trade vs signing when all you'd accomplishing is increasing your overall acquisition costs.
Jordan Montgomery is projected as the exact same as Luzardo (3.2 WAR) by streamer. Keep your studs and just sign the guy. This isn't rocket science. The money is there and then some.
Last edited:
It's also far smarter to play the secondary ticket market. April tickets are on sale now! No reason to pay those prices, wait for them to do nothing of consequence, stink, and be able to get them for dirt cheap some day when it's Pedro Martinez day (I don't mean Pedro's pitching, though I'd still take 52 year old Pedro over another season of James Paxton, but that it will be 45 degrees out) and you can get said tickets for like $4 since the park will be 3/4 empty.
@SouthernBoSox - yes, to everything.
However, FWIW, pretty much all the local guys (that ostensibly at least have sources) were making those exact points back in October, November and early December. Same with Jen McCaffrey and Ian Brown and others. Now they've basically all changed course to their sources telling them that the Red Sox weren't going to be in on that type of move.
If we're going to sit here and say that Speier and McAdam and Cotillo and Mazz and everyone else are just making stuff up, I think we have to assume Olney is too. Especially since, well, he basically admits that he's just making it up based on the belief the Red Sox couldn't make the same mistakes heading into 2023 that they made heading into 2022 (excuse me, dumb enough to make the same mistakes heading into 2024 that they made heading into 2023).
*I hope Olney is right and the rest are all wrong. My confidence in that is low.
I've been saying for months that I think it takes something like 7/$175m (ie, "here you go Scott, we'll give Montgomery more than Nola) to get him to sign in Boston. I've been advocating for this since Nola signed. It makes more sense than pretty much any other reasonable alternative out there, and has for a looooooong time. (I say reasonable because I don't think it's "reasonable" to assume Seattle would take Mayer and A ball prospects for Gilbert or whatever other deal would look like a total fleecing for Boston.)
Last edited:
For sure. The last few times I’ve been to Fenway I bought good seats for below face on StubHub.
Tickets are way below face on seat geek/stub hub. I go to about 10-15 games a year and never buy them from the Red Sox.
That's an asinine "argument" by Buster.. Montgomery is a FA represented by Boras... Montgomery has not been signed by anyone yet.
Its like someone saying that the Sox signed Devers to his extension because the ownership group was booed at the Winter Weekend last year....
Spot on .... $$$ for Montgomer over trading our prospects for the same production makes too much sense. Montgomery adds a ton to this staff and may even up his game due to coaching. Using some of our assets (RP) to improve other areas will fill this team out. It also gives us something to work with at the trade deadline if we are in that position. WIth Bailey and Breslow I think we will see what we have this season in our. young pitching.
The roadblock to signing Montgomery has never been the AAV.
Is it worth paying him in 2024 + x to have him in 2024? That's the equation.
Another thing people have speculated regarding the reports from Cotillo et al is that their sources for rumors that the Red Sox were not going beyond 2-year deals or had to cut payroll via a Kenley trade before signing someone were just self-serving agents trying to shame/pressure the Sox into spending.
In Carrabis’ podcast from last night, after the Giolito interview ended, Carrabis suggested that he and Cotillo/McAdam had the same source because the wording was so similar to what Carrabis was told earlier. Carrabis had said on an earlier podcast that based on his conversations, not to expect any significant free agent signings about a week before Cotillo’s report about the Sox not being in on anyone without outgoing salary. Take it for what it’s worth but Carrabis made it sound like those reports are being sourced from someone inside the Red Sox rather than some player’s agent. He described being essentially told “this is our plan for after we sign Giolito.”
The biggest problem in landing Montgomery is the Yankees want him too and the Rangers have the incumbency/geographic edge on the Sox as well.
I know that I'm repeating myself, but to this point in your post, I think it's equal parts writing copy and equal parts taking what the agents are feeding them. They want Boston on that wall. They need Boston on that wall. Having one less team with deep pockets in on their FAs is bad for business. That the Sox have pivoted to the extreme of not handing out insane contracts, especially for mediocre players (Crawford, Panda), means one less team to have as part of the bidding war.
We've got a wave of player signings now that may or may not get insane money and years. After that, it's last call at the bar and some folks are simply either lowering their standards or going home alone.
I don't disagree with your post at all, but I would argue that Carl Crawford was hardly a mediocre player when the Sox signed him. He had come off a string of 4-5 win seasons and had just put up a 7 bWAR season at age 28 when Boston signed him. If the Sox signed someone like that today, this board would meltdown (in a good way). That he immediately turned into a replacement-level player when he put on a Boston uniform is both kind of incredible and beside the point. I mean, it was a startling collapse.
Would the Yankees sign Montgomery and Stroman both? They seem to be leading in the Stroman race right now. Didn't Montgomery spend some off-season in Boston, or was that another guy? From what I remember, Montgomery likes the Boston area.
Montgomery's wife is completing her MD residency in Boston, but that ends in a few months. She's headed south after that.
This is hilarious. I'm sure it's an accurate description of Olney's attitude. But it just points out so beautifully the narrative that the Red Sox can never actually have a plan. They are just cheap, bungling incompetents who will be forced to do the smart thing--the *right* thing--because, well, they have no other choice. I've reached the point where I find all of this genuinely entertaining.
EDIT: Realizing that I may need to be clearer here. My issue is with the ridiculous narrative.
Yeah to me a big trade is taking a kind of a backwards view of thinking long-term. Overpay for the cheaper years because you don't want to stretch for a potential bad investment farther into the future, especially if the team isn't necessarily ready to compete RIGHT NOW, but in trading away top prospects you've removed players that would theoretically help offset the cost of a Luzardo's more expensive years. Both moves raise the short-term floor, and with the long-term always uncertain I'd prefer the flexibility of getting a player and keeping the prospects in hand, especially ones at premium positions of long-term need.
Honest question, why do you think the Red Sox signed Devers, a flawed player, to a long term extension?
This is where I've been much of the winter. A few words here and there and you can tell, it's just a narrative, not a scoop. Which is both awful journalistically and also I guess what they have to do. Maybe they shouldn't write such ass-kissing pieces about Boras since he's ruined the off-season.
especially given Boras his Agent, and literally most of the top remaining FA's are represented by him
If you think the Sox signed Devers because of the booing at the Winter Fest, I don't know what to tell you... Since the Sox visited him in the DR in December before the winter fest even happened
You're ignoring the part where he says Montgomery checks all three of Breslow's boxes for pitchers. People can disagree whether the signing would be good, but Olney didn't say they should sign him JUST for good PR and to sell tickets.
Last edited:
Answering only for myself, I think they signed him because they believe that his bat will play for the duration of the contract.
I'm sorry but your frustration and anger have distorted your perception of reality. I think they signed Devers because he was 26, is a really good hitter, and is as known a commodity as there could possibly be.
I'm 100% certain that after the bell rings, the Sox will end up with one of Montgomery, Snell or Stroman and I'm honestly not sure which I'd prefer. Leaning towards Montgomery over Snell for consistency, Snell has the tantalizing highs but the terrorizing lows. I just think there's a lot of waiting games going around between, IMO... the Yankees, Sox and Giants at this point. I think the Mets when they lost out on YY are likely going to reboot.
If the Sox can't get one of those three I still would look into a deal with Milwaukee for Burnes even though he'll only come for one season. But that means his price tag should be low and if the Sox can absorb Yellich it'd likely be done- and I think Milwaukee would HAVE to look at Yorke, Abreu for that combo and see that they're not contending in '24, not adding anyone and will have two good potential future guys. Any of the other pitcher trades tossed out look like they'd have to include one of the top prospects.
If the Sox can't get one of those three I still would look into a deal with Milwaukee for Burnes even though he'll only come for one season. But that means his price tag should be low and if the Sox can absorb Yellich it'd likely be done- and I think Milwaukee would HAVE to look at Yorke, Abreu for that combo and see that they're not contending in '24, not adding anyone and will have two good potential future guys. Any of the other pitcher trades tossed out look like they'd have to include one of the top prospects.
I appreciate your optimism given the blind negativity a lot of people in the fan base seem to be embracing. I sincerely hope they end up with one of the big starters, but given what Speier and Cotillo have consistently reported I'm skeptical that they make a significant financial commitment this winter. I'm generally optimistic about the state of things, but I'm not sure that I share your 100% certainty. I hope you're right.
Not trying to be antagonistic here but curious how you could be 100% certain of the first sentence? It may happen but there is no way my level of certainty would approach yours.
I agree that the Red Sox roster is bad -- back-to-back 5th place, 78 win seasons are the proof there -- but at the risk of turning this into a Devers rehash thread I disagree that Devers is the biggest problem on the roster.
Last season Devers was worth 3.5 bWAR, the only position player on the team above 2.6. The Rays had 5 regulars over 3 WAR, Blue Jays had 4, Orioles had 3, and even a banged up and bad Yankees team had 2 with Torres barely missing at 2.9. No team (except the Dodgers, apparently) can create a roster entirely of All Stars, of course, but my feeling is the Red Sox need more standout players, more quality over quantity.
This is literally the point! Olney points out all these ways that Montgomery is the sort of player that Breslow would actually want...and then, according to SBS's paraphrasing of his comments, goes on to say that they will make a big move "because they simply must do something big. They don't have a choice. They can't go through another September of giving away tickets."
Let's just play Olney's little game for a moment. Let's assume that the Sox are poised to make a big move. And let's assume that the big move they'll make is signing Montgomery. What if...Breslow's plan has always been to sign Montgomery and he's just been forced to wait, like everybody else, on Boras's time frame?
Would the Sox in that scenario be signing Montgomery because "they simply must do something big"? Beause "they don't have a choice"? Or would they be signing him because they think he will make their team better and they want to spend money on him for this purpose? It's genuinely amusing. "The Sox are cheap and they don't have a plan and they don't know what they're doing" is the narrative. Until the Sox do something, like sign Story or Devers or Yoshida, and then it's "Well what the hell else were they going to do? They had to!"
Obviously I wouldn't put any money on it- I'm not a betting man- but it's just a basic need and the Sox still have the space available short and long term. I do think there's some external pressures (no, I don't think the Town Hall bullshit forced any decisions) to get someone else besides Giolito (optics of a one year deal) that can stabalize the rotation for a few more seasons with the uncertainties of anyone in there and that includes Bello. Can I recalibrate my "certainty" to something less over the top to "85%"?
Best I can allow is 83.2%…
Man, I hope you’re right. Any one of these guys would be an important signing for this team in the short term even if they all come with their respective drawbacks.
Is checking all three boxes (throws strikes, limiting walks, and not giving up hard contract), which is really more like two boxes, all that unique though? I imagine most GM’s are looking for pitchers who do these things. It’s not a very specific set of attributes mentioned!
With the caveats that Olney's argument is a prime example of begging the question and that it seems the sort of narrative-guided opinion that makes up a lot of this offseason's reportage, I agree that Montgomery is the best play. @SouthernBoSox's point about retaining prospects (the 'it's just money' argument) is a good one. Olney's points about Montgomery's profile fitting Breslow's stated preferences is another.
A third is one that, I think, @Rovin Romine made a while ago: going from building to competing isn't a binary switch. If we sign Montgomery this offseason, we probably better our chances to compete for a WC spot. When the window opens further in '25, we've got a staff anchor to provide stability and upside for integrating the promising rookies. He's presumably still there in '26 when the window opens further and the next wave of rookies potentially hits. You avoid putting all the FA eggs into the one offseason's basket, taking some of the pressure off the "This is the year they spend!" cycle of unrealistic expectation and disappointment. You add big pieces incrementally, raising the ceiling along the way.
After that, in years 4-6 (ideally not 7), it might be a mixed bag. You hopefully avoid disaster, but with any pitcher disaster is a throw away. Optimistically, you've still got a guy who takes the ball every five days and slots in as a 3/4 pitcher. For his durability and his pitcher profile and his postseason successes, Montgomery seems as good a bet as any outside the unicorns.
Finally, I keep thinking about @John Marzano Olympic Hero's point about fun. It's totally subjective, but fun has been in relatively short supply the past few seasons and offseasons and at the moment I'm not projecting a lot of fun this season. There's the fun of seeing if Grissom is a long-term solution at 2B. There's the fun of Casas, Bello, and Crawford developing. There's some fun in seeing if Yoshi can make last year's first-half a full season's worth of good hitting and if Story can stabilize the infield D and rediscover his bat, but that's a stressful sort of fun.
There isn't much fun for me in seeing if Giolito can fix his issues so he can walk after a year or if O'Neil can replicate his one good season. There isn't much fun in 'if absolutely everything goes right, we might maybe compete.' There isn't much fun in 1-2 year deals of third tier FA's and pushing all enormous hopes on Teel/Anthony/Mayer in 2-3 years. Montgomery would spice the offseason, but he'd also add a lot of potential enjoyment, and a lot less pressure on everyone else on the pitching staff.
Imanaga doesn't limit hard contact and Snell doesn't throw strikes, so it's valid in assessing which of the available free agent pitchers would be likely targets.
You mean besides it not coming close to making any "top places rich people want to live" lists , the fact we are team today that has only made the playoffs once in the last 5 years, and just the general lack of any real trump appeal in today's evolved era of spending where players are now being presented with a potentially wider field of comparative opportunity options then ever before?
As I've already basically hit on enough here this whole need to chalk up Boston as being some type of standout in today's 30 team field of potential free agent suitors is just really shallow take imo I just can't stay on board with anymore. One that also seems to be going out of it's way to ignore any real acknowledgement of just how much of a role players having a less wide field of comparative opportunity options played within Henry and co's overall run of success to begin with.
Still woke up today feeling a little butthurt on that general hunch we came up really small on the Imanaga bidding. I guess i just can't get to the same "given he signed at under projection it looks like we really dodged that extra year of a $15m salary bullet" place it seems a lot of other people, who a week ago would of been doing backflips at the idea of adding him to that contract, have gotten to.
When the team is winning it's fun and not fun when they're not. The individual player storyline narrative stuff is little bits of extra fun... but a team that starts winning turns into a bunch of smaller fun story lines too. That said, a losing team can still have a player or two or more that can still make the team fun to follow and I think the Sox still have enough to make it interesting if they do end up in the same rut they've been stuck in in '24 too- Casas, Bello, Rafaela, Abreu, Yoshida... that's plenty for me.
What are you talking about? I haven't even said my position on why they signed Devers, or if I agreed with Onley's position that they have to do something.
I think the truth is in the middle. I think they absolutely had zero choice in extending Devers both in terms of a baseball decision and fan perception. Fan perception does matter. Those that think it doesn't have never spent time with a professional sports franchise or with a large corporation. Fan/Customer loyalty is huge, some would says its everything.
It does drive decisions though at the end of the day it should not be the determining factor.
As it stands right now. Regardless of fan perception. In fact, throw it out the window. The team isn't good. Its a team that most likely won't make the playoffs. Does that matter? And if it doesn't... where does this go? What's the point?
If the rich don’t want to live here, how the hell did we end up with so many of them?
Signing just one of those guys turns the rotation from “meh” into very good. If that’s all we did was sign Montgomery and headed to Florida, I’d be happy.
- Status