Philly, it’s like a baby New York. It’s got a lot of culture. A lot of culture.I mean Philly signed a ton of free agents over the last 3 years. Philly!!!?? What the hell does Philly have that Boston doesn’t???
Philly, it’s like a baby New York. It’s got a lot of culture. A lot of culture.I mean Philly signed a ton of free agents over the last 3 years. Philly!!!?? What the hell does Philly have that Boston doesn’t???
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.It is becoming more and more apparent to me that Bloom just wasn’t very good at his job and Breslow inherited a roster disaster. I think there are major issues with this roster construction (starting with a $300 million DH) and Breslow is trying to figure out how to fix this dumpster fire. We all moan and groan about ownership not spending money, but good Lord we are paying a lot of money for a completely average team with serious limitations.
So the answer is… they are trying to fix it.
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’ve read a lot about Boston not being a top free agent destination… I dunno… I get the logic that we don’t have weather and with social/internet the $$$ endorsements are not tied to key coastal cities like in years past, but I find it hard to believe that Boston isn’t a viable destination for top free agents. New York is sexy but Jesus these guys have played there and know the city. Aside from LA and maybe SF what clubs offer more than Boston? I dunno… I mean how the hell does Toronto and the tax issue attract free agents? I think we’re getting a little “whoa is me” with this stuff.
If the money is there and our roster isn’t a dumpster-fire we will be able to sign quality players.
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.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.
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?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.
Bauer also very specifically, IIRC, said he was seeking one year contracts in 2019.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 pretty durable innings eater even during his 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.
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.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
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.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?
I don't think Snell even gets 5/150. So thumbs down to 3/150.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?
It is true. But, I think the ticket e-mails will as scheduled.If that’s true then they really should stop sending me emails every single day to buy tickets.
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.It is true. But, I think the ticket e-mails will as scheduled.
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.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.
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.)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.
For sure. The last few times I’ve been to Fenway I bought good seats for below face on StubHub.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 at 52 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.
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.For sure. The last few times I’ve been to Fenway I bought good seats for below face on StubHub.
That's an asinine "argument" by Buster.. Montgomery is a FA represented by Boras... Montgomery has not been signed by anyone yet.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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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 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.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.
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.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.
Montgomery's wife is completing her MD residency in Boston, but that ends in a few months. She's headed south after that.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Honest question, why do you think the Red Sox signed Devers, a flawed player, to a long term extension?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.
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.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.
especially given Boras his Agent, and literally most of the top remaining FA's are represented by himThis 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.
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 happenedHonest question, why do you think the Red Sox signed Devers, a flawed player, to a long term extension?
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.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....
Answering only for myself, I think they signed him because they believe that his bat will play for the duration of the contract.Honest question, why do you think the Red Sox signed Devers, a flawed player, to a long term extension?
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.Honest question, why do you think the Red Sox signed Devers, a flawed player, to a long term extension?
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.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.
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'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.
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.I think there are major issues with this roster construction (starting with a $300 million DH) and Breslow is trying to figure out how to fix this dumpster fire.
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."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.
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%"?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.
Best I can allow is 83.2%…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%"?
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.
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.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!
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?There is nothing immutable about Boston that makes players not want to play here.
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.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.
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'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.
If the rich don’t want to live here, how the hell did we end up with so many of them?You mean besides it not coming close to making any "top places rich people want to live" lists
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.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.