This seems like the beginnings of a new thread (poor Sandoval). Do smaller deals preclude massive ones? Are massive ones actually a realistic expectation in the first place?
(Don't?) sweat the small stuff?
- Thread starter simplicio
- Start date
We don’t know what the (if there is) hard ceiling of the budget.
If there is, then the answer is yes…. Maybe.
id gate to think that a Crochet extension is turned down because the Sox wouldn’t go to say $30M AAV when they offered $27.5M AAV because that $ 2.5M would put them over some hard budget ceiling with real penalties and they spent that on some guy who won’t even pitch in ‘25.
If there is, then the answer is yes…. Maybe.
id gate to think that a Crochet extension is turned down because the Sox wouldn’t go to say $30M AAV when they offered $27.5M AAV because that $ 2.5M would put them over some hard budget ceiling with real penalties and they spent that on some guy who won’t even pitch in ‘25.
Good idea.
I would say at least sometimes, yes.
There isn't an unlimited supply of varying levels of talent. If you don't sign 4 WAR hitter X to a 7/200M contract because your contract offer was 20M short, you don't get to fall back on 3.5 WAR hitter Y on a 7/180 contract.
You might fall back on nothing while ownership doesn't spend the $ at all, is way under budget, and says "oh well, we tried".
My take aligns with fishy's I think. There are three teams in LAD, NYY and NYM that are willing to play in their own reality that goes well beyond the top of a rational market. The Sox are not among them.
I think they'll still play at the top of that market or even slightly beyond it; $700m for Soto or 7/190 for Fried is probably an overpay based on what they'll produce on the field, but it's not completely unreasonable. But would I rather add Sandoval's 18m plus another 10m from somewhere to match NYY's 8 years for a 31 year old pitcher? I think I really wouldn't. And if Fried's deal has driven up Burnes into Cole territory, I'm fine passing on that, and I'm guessing Breslow is too. Find another way. Check in on Flaherty, get another strong bullpen arm, add a real catcher, spend to extend the kids.
I think they'll still play at the top of that market or even slightly beyond it; $700m for Soto or 7/190 for Fried is probably an overpay based on what they'll produce on the field, but it's not completely unreasonable. But would I rather add Sandoval's 18m plus another 10m from somewhere to match NYY's 8 years for a 31 year old pitcher? I think I really wouldn't. And if Fried's deal has driven up Burnes into Cole territory, I'm fine passing on that, and I'm guessing Breslow is too. Find another way. Check in on Flaherty, get another strong bullpen arm, add a real catcher, spend to extend the kids.
This is true, but we do have Kennedy on record directly saying they're willing to pay CBT this year, which is a departure from last winter:
“Even if it takes us over the CBT,” said Kennedy at the owners meetings, “our priority is 90 to 95 wins, and winning the American League East, and winning the division for multiple years.”
The approach to me should be more like the Celtics. Hit on young players, extend them, supplement them with other acquisitions, and pay the ones that likely will still provide value for most of their contract.
I really hate having to add assets to dump bad contracts, and would prefer to avoid the ones most likely to go bad, which seems to be pitchers over the age of 30. Those are also the free agents currently on the market and I think following risk management principles here would best serve the franchise. Like if you need it now, but it's expensive, go short term and look for the next short term till you hit a long term you'd be comfortable with.
To me it seems that the evidence leans more towards extending the young players as long as you can and the older players as short as you can, and walk away when you can't handle that much more risk.
And even those top teams have limits. The Mets, outside of Soto, have really been doing more bargain bin value add deals vs. going for big fish.
Dombrowski did a lot of things right. He kept the right players out of our young core, and traded away the right pieces to acquire guys like Sale and Kimbrel (that was a trade, right?)
He supplemented X, Mookie, JBJ, Devers, Benintendi and E-Rod with big signings like Price and JDM.
And it worked out great. We won the division 3 times, including 108 games in 2018, along with the World Series.
And that’s what this team should be doing. They have the financial muscle to do it, and are (seemingly) choosing not to because they got “burned” on some other contracts.
Give me a Fried or a Burnes over three dice rolls every two years with guys like Giolito, Fullmer, or Sandoval. It’s the same infuriating “boy will I look smart if this works out” shit that drove Bloom.
I give Breslow more of a break, because it’s become increasingly apparent this is more of a John Henry problem.
He supplemented X, Mookie, JBJ, Devers, Benintendi and E-Rod with big signings like Price and JDM.
And it worked out great. We won the division 3 times, including 108 games in 2018, along with the World Series.
And that’s what this team should be doing. They have the financial muscle to do it, and are (seemingly) choosing not to because they got “burned” on some other contracts.
Give me a Fried or a Burnes over three dice rolls every two years with guys like Giolito, Fullmer, or Sandoval. It’s the same infuriating “boy will I look smart if this works out” shit that drove Bloom.
I give Breslow more of a break, because it’s become increasingly apparent this is more of a John Henry problem.
@radsoxfan posted something in the other thread that matches exactly what I was thinking/saying.
These signings don’t exist in a vacuum. That $9M spent on Sandoval is a $9M AAV not spent on a different player. So it does hurt if Sandoval doesn’t turn out to be anything.
To be clear, I don’t mind the Sandoval signing. The pitch data posted was promising.
But $9M AAV is real money right now. I’ve seen some posts that make it seem like Sandoval is signing for a bucket of baseballs/basically free. That’s just not true.
I don’t mind the signing. I just don’t think it’s free or fantastic or some brilliant move that no one else has thought of
These signings don’t exist in a vacuum. That $9M spent on Sandoval is a $9M AAV not spent on a different player. So it does hurt if Sandoval doesn’t turn out to be anything.
To be clear, I don’t mind the Sandoval signing. The pitch data posted was promising.
But $9M AAV is real money right now. I’ve seen some posts that make it seem like Sandoval is signing for a bucket of baseballs/basically free. That’s just not true.
I don’t mind the signing. I just don’t think it’s free or fantastic or some brilliant move that no one else has thought of
I‘d like to address this point of your post, and I think it fits better here than in the Sandoval thread.
First off, I agree that I’d much rather trade prospects for Crochet and extend him than spend $215m on Fried, especially in his age 34+ seasons.
However, even if that was going to be - literally - the only move of the off season you absolutely and certainly do it. Top of the rotation pitching is incredibly expensive to acquire if you don’t have it. Either in dollars or trade assets. The Red Sox didn’t have it (and let’s be clear, I like Houck and Bello, but I don’t see them in the same vein as Crochet, and I doubt ANYONE does).
Crochet was going to be moved (and almost assuredly extended), so the Red Sox could not have simply “waited“ for him to be a FA. Especially because - while I do not think FSRedbird is cheap, I think there is a less than 5% chance that FSRedbird is going to bid enough to outbid everyone else for top of the market FA talent when it means long term commitment over age 30 (though I’m certain they‘ll extend Crochet for at least 2 or 3 additional years, as in him being here 4 or 5 years total, at minimum).
My personal stance on the team “as is” before Crochet would have been 80-82. Adding Crochet alone makes me amend that to 85-77, putting them just behind WC2/3. He also makes it a lot more likely the 2026 - 29 Red Sox have a higher ceiling (I assume a 5 year extension).
If that is the one signifaicant - or literally the only move you make - in a year, you do it every time. If you plan to have the player for several seasons, you do that no matter what.
My big issue with Bloom era Sox is they simply didn’t invest in medium or long term “good” or “should be good” pitching. Breslow, to his immense credit, has not repeated that same mistake.
Also, in my mind, this deal alone means Breslow has “delivered.” He said he was ready to trade future wins for present wins, and he did that. I still don’t think any big FA signings are coming (and on Burnes and Fried I never did, and said there was no chance of it happening, but amended it to a less than 8% chance simply to stop arguing about using the words “no chance”).
But Breslow HAS delivered on his end of the bargain. And you make this deal 1,000x out of 1,000, at least if you plan to not suck in any of the next couple years.
I agree with this. I think they will get back to being in the top 8 or 9 of the game in payroll. I just think that cap will be - more often than not - LTT1.
I also believe it’s incredibly unlikely that money is ever spent being the high bidder on a top of the market, FA starting pitcher. Because even when that player DOES come along under 30 (Yamamoto), those top 3 teams will bid considerably more.
It’s why not hoarding prospects (or young players) but choosing SOME to send out for controllable, ToR talent is a good move for Boston (might not work out, but is always the right move). It’s why - if they can, they should swing another deal like Crochet (Lopez, Gilbert, Kirby, Jones, Woo, etc).
If that means 2/3 of Casas, Abreu and Mayer, you still do it.
I’d also bet Breslow is sure as **** trying.
Dombrowski inherited an excellent young core to build around. I wish he'd extended the same courtesy to Bloom instead of neglecting the development side entirely.
But also, Dombrowski made small moves too. Were you mad when he traded for Steve Pearce instead of Freddie Freeman or someone? Did the 6 million he gave Pearce in 2019 prevent him from extending Sale?
Last edited:
Thanks for bringing this here, not a lot of time to respond right now, but you make some really good points, and much more suited to this thread. Thanks again.
No, but the difference, at least in terms of optics here, is Dombrowski’s small moves were adding to a team well balanced by home grown talent, free agents, and trade acquisitions.
The Red Sox, in recent years, have entirely neglected to add substantial free agent talent - to the point where they have their heels dug in. The small moves I mentioned don’t at all feel like they’re adding to the roster. It feels like they’re buying a bunch of scratch tickets and crossing their fingers one of them is a winner.
They have a young cost controlled ace. 4 other cost controlled starters. Cost controlled center and right fielder. a top 25 player at third under contract for 9 more years a SS they signed in FA until ''28 then they have 3 or 4 home grown (depending on how you view Grissom) positon players knocking on the door. Not to mention still 20-50M under the first tax apron this year. These are players that are projectable.. Their success is much more important then a pitching depth "scratch ticket"
They view these "scratch tickets" as flexibility. If he does pitch later this year, and provides them plus innings next year thats a win and don't have to sign a Severino to a 4/67 contract. If not you eat a few mill and trade him, or eat the whole thing and its over after ''26.
You're losing me a bit on "optics" and I think you may be idealizing Dombro's tenure a bit.
Deals for 3+ years:
DD FA: Price (7/217), JD Martinez (5/110)
DD extensions: Vazquez (4/15), Sale (5/145) Eovaldi (4/67.5), Bogaerts (3/60)
Bloom FA: Story (6/140), Kike (3/34), Yoshida (5/90)
Bloom extensions: Barnes (2/21 + 6m option), Devers (10/331), Whitlock (4/18 + 2 options)
Breslow extensions: Bello (6/55), Rafaela (8/50 + 16m opt)
DD definitely made bigger name trades (Sale, Kimbrel) than Bloom ever did, but again, he had a real core to supplement (and extend) there.
Last edited:
To add on to what you are saying, I'd note that the idea that Dombrowski was "well balanced" doesn't really seem borne out because he was spending Cherrington's farm system and not replenishing it, and the "top-end" contracts he gave to Sale and Price look brutally bad (and more datapoints on why you don't really want to spend too many years to pitchers at the age of 30 and up).
The shorter terms contracts seem to have worked out better, though, and we got most of the good years from that.
I think we just saw that high money deals to pitchers are risky, in general. 2018 was a great year, in part because the team had fantastic pitching. 2019, not so great, because many of those same pitchers were hurt and / or ineffective. A similar thing happened with the Sox in 04-05, too.