Let's Lay Off That Throttle

[richgedman'sghost]

That’s truly wonderful.

Can we put that stupid freaking argument to bed, now? It was dumb from the start.

There was a time not too long ago where African American free agents DID avoid Boston in general and the Red Sox in particular because of their racist reputations (rightly so). Barry Bonds and I think Kirby Puckett both said they would never sign with the Red Sox because of the reputation. Granted; the reputation of both the city and the team have changed over the past few decades thanx to Mo Vaughn, Pedro, Big Papi etc.
There's still the occasional Adam Jones incident but as the survey shows, the image of Boston is greatly improved among players.

 

[Rovin Romine]

So what's the plan? Over pay at the trade deadline? Ride Criswell and his equivalent into the ground? Risk Houck and Crawford to injury by pushing them well beyond the recommended innings limits?

They're stretching out Winckowski as the 5th starter. So for depth, I think we'll see: Houck/Pivetta/Bello/Crawford/Winckowki/Criswell/Uwasawa/Anderson. Hopefully Fitts will be closer to ready in the second half and can get them some extra rest days.

The thing I can't figure out about your critique is this - where do these mythical two starters go on the roster? How does it actually work?

 

[Rovin Romine]

It's 3 out of 4. That's one of the few things no one can argue about.

Until someone remembers 2020 was not your typical baseball season. They didn't even know if games would be played, and then they only played 60 after a week of spring training.

During which time they didn't have Sale, Rodriguez, and various others due to COVID.

It's hard for me to care that they used it as a tryout year for the successful 2021 campaign.

 

[Deweys New Stance]

There was a time not too long ago where African American free agents DID avoid Boston in general and the Red Sox in particular because of their racist reputations (rightly so). Barry Bonds and I think Kirby Puckett both said they would never sign with the Red Sox because of the reputation. Granted; the reputation of both the city and the team have changed over the past few decades thanx to Mo Vaughn, Pedro, Big Papi etc.
There's still the occasional Adam Jones incident but as the survey shows, the image of Boston is greatly improved among players.

Not to derail the thread, but re:Kirby Puckett, Lou Gorman made a big push to sign him during the ‘91/‘92 offseason, and while he ultimately returned to the Twins, it was reported at the time that he came very close to actually signing with the Sox. I don’t recall any reporting that he ultimately turned down Boston because of the city’s reputation back then. OTOH, I do have a strong recollection of Tim Raines saying around the same time that he would never consider playing in Boston because he perceived it as a racist city.

And regarding the poll in The Athletic, I would just point out that only 86 players responded to the question about which team you would want to play for, so the 9.3% for the Sox equates to 8 players out of the ~750 on major league rosters. I certainly would like it to be true that Boston is now a favored destination, but not sure that poll is particularly meaningful.

 

[Yo La Tengo]

There is no such consensus. Teams will try to ramp up very young starters like that thinking they haven't physically matured, but none of the Red Sox starters are in their early 20s. They can and should pitch as much as they're able to this season.

The reason the Red Sox didn't replace Giolito is because he went down in the middle of spring training when both Houck and Whitlock were looking good. The starters available at that time were likely no better than what they had in camp.

I agree that Houck and Crawford are not going to be protected the same way that a rookie in his early 20s would be handled. But do you really think Breslow and Co. want Houck and Crawford and Bello to approach anything near 200 innings? Bello just turned 25 so he's still pretty young and they've made a big investment.

As for the idea of a consensus, as an example, in recent years the Tigers were limiting Skubal and Mize in their innings totals (and they still got hurt). I think the assessment needs to be based on the individual pitcher and I think we've moved beyond the black/white approach of the Verducci Rules. But I do still think there is a consensus that a huge swing in innings from year to year is a bad idea, especially if the time missed was due to injury. I'd much rather that teams looks at pitches thrown rather than innings, but, that's a different point.

As for Giolito's injury, I think most of us correctly anticipated that Whitlock, Houck, Crawford, Bello, and Pivetta would not make it all season without injuries. And three of the four have already been injured. The question was whether there was a free agent pitcher who was better than Criswell that could/should have been signed.

 

[richgedman'sghost]

Not to derail the thread, but re:Kirby Puckett, Lou Gorman made a big push to sign him during the ‘91/‘92 offseason, and while he ultimately returned to the Twins, it was reported at the time that he came very close to actually signing with the Sox. I don’t recall any reporting that he ultimately turned down Boston because of the city’s reputation back then. OTOH, I do have a strong recollection of Tim Raines saying around the same time that he would never consider playing in Boston because he perceived it as a racist city.

And regarding the poll in The Athletic, I would just point out that only 86 players responded to the question about which team you would want to play for, so the 9.3% for the Sox equates to 8 players out of the ~750 on major league rosters. I certainly would like it to be true that Boston is now a favored destination, but not sure that poll is particularly meaningful.

Sorry I confused Tim Raines with Kirby Puckett. My mistake. Not easy to confuse the two since they were totally different types of players.

 

[Yo La Tengo]

They're stretching out Winckowski as the 5th starter. So for depth, I think we'll see: Houck/Pivetta/Bello/Crawford/Winckowki/Criswell/Uwasawa/Anderson. Hopefully Fitts will be closer to ready in the second half and can get them some extra rest days.

The thing I can't figure out about your critique is this - where do these mythical two starters go on the roster? How does it actually work?

If the Sox had signed another MLB ready starter, I think they could have used a modified 6 man rotation to start the season and then had Whitlock (or the less effective other starter) pitch out of the bullpen until there was the inevitable injury. If they had signed two, I imagine the second would have been someone like Lorenzen who could have played a similar swing role since he didn't sign until the end of March and was likely available for that price earlier in the winter.

And I am also hopeful about Fitts, since he seems to have some legit upside.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Not to derail the thread, but re:Kirby Puckett, Lou Gorman made a big push to sign him during the ‘91/‘92 offseason, and while he ultimately returned to the Twins, it was reported at the time that he came very close to actually signing with the Sox. I

I'm pretty sure the contract the Twins gave him to stay was a "highest paid player in the league" deal. While Kirby might have been seriously considering Boston, it was much more likely he was using the Sox as leverage to get more money to stay in Minnesota which is probably what he wanted all along.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

I'm pretty sure the contract the Twins gave him to stay was a "highest paid player in the league" deal. While Kirby might have been seriously considering Boston, it was much more likely he was using the Sox as leverage to get more money to stay in Minnesota which is probably what he wanted all along.

That's exactly what he was doing. If anyone ever read "Lord of the Realm" there is some really pointed remarks from agents about Lou Gorman and how many of them specifically used him to drive up contracts for their clients.

 

[8slim]

There was a time not too long ago where African American free agents DID avoid Boston in general and the Red Sox in particular because of their racist reputations (rightly so). Barry Bonds and I think Kirby Puckett both said they would never sign with the Red Sox because of the reputation. Granted; the reputation of both the city and the team have changed over the past few decades thanx to Mo Vaughn, Pedro, Big Papi etc.
There's still the occasional Adam Jones incident but as the survey shows, the image of Boston is greatly improved among players.

That’s fine, but as you said, it’s been a good 2 1/2 decades since that seemed to be an impediment. The conversation on this board was about the off-season of 2023-24. Seems clear it’s not much of an issue anymore.

 

[Rovin Romine]

If the Sox had signed another MLB ready starter, I think they could have used a modified 6 man rotation to start the season and then had Whitlock (or the less effective other starter) pitch out of the bullpen until there was the inevitable injury. If they had signed two, I imagine the second would have been someone like Lorenzen who could have played a similar swing role since he didn't sign until the end of March and was likely available for that price earlier in the winter.

And I am also hopeful about Fitts, since he seems to have some legit upside.

I still don't understand - honestly. I get that you'd go with a six man starting rotation: Starter A, Houck, Bello, Pivetta, Crawford, Whitlock, with Lorenzen in a swing role to cover innings. Then move Whitlock (who was pitching fine with a 1.96 ERA) to the pen if there wasn't an injury.

But meanwhile, you're stuck with the 6 man or a demotion. But you can't run guys out to 6-7 inning starts in the early going, and a 6 man just makes that a heavier burden for the pen. The Sox went with a 5 man to open the season this year.

(This scenario also assumes Lorenzen, who got a chance to start for Texas, would have signed as a dedicated swing man and the number 7 guy on the depth chart? OK - that might be possible. But they could have just as easily signed another long man who wasn't as good.)

But the key part of this strategy is you're really doing this to get Lorenzen starts to keep the innings total down on Houck, Bello, and Crawford? That's the part I don't get. How do you transition him from long-man to starter, or, most likely 2 inning man to starter mid-season, and what do you do with the bullpen in the meantime? There are only 13 pitching spots on the roster.

The sox basically had a long man in the beginning with Winckowski and Anderson. And they had Criswell in the minors since he had an option. Who they called up when Pivetta went down. They kept him up after Whitlock went down and Pivetta came back - and now they're stretching out Winckowski as a starter in AAA, because he has options. Lorenzen doesn't (I assume), nor would the other FAs they could have signed over Criswell.

My basic point is this is the same number of pitchers in pretty much similar roles. Replacing Criswell or Anderson or Winckowski with different long-men/possible starters would not change anything in terms of the expected innings totals for Houck/Bello/Crawford.

 

[simplicio]

I think the main question about this rotation, even before Giolito went down, was how Houck/Crawford(/Whitlock) would handle career highs in innings. I think that's still a valid concern.

But I don't believe it's one that's solved by adding MOAR STARTERS in spring training and pushing them all into relief. If you worry about them breaking down, fine. I do too. But there's a trade deadline that's timed pretty perfectly to address that if the circumstances call for it. It's pretty clear that Breslow views them as starters, they all have years of control, so in a weird semi-lost/transitional year, let them start and see what they can do.

 

[Tony Pena's Gas Cloud]

That’s fine, but as you said, it’s been a good 2 1/2 decades since that seemed to be an impediment. The conversation on this board was about the off-season of 2023-24. Seems clear it’s not much of an issue anymore.

Why? Because a poll of 9% of players said so? Was the "random number" across many teams? Many ethnicities? Position players and pitchers equally?
You're referring to me because you blew a fucking gasket at me when I presented this argument months ago. My original statement was exactly what RovinRomine said in his response to you. Not ALL free agents would cross Boston off their list. But there is a myriad of reasons why a free agent would NOT be interested, some of which likely pertained to players in the 2023-24 class.
You refused to believe that.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I think the main question about this rotation, even before Giolito went down, was how Houck/Crawford(/Whitlock) would handle career highs in innings. I think that's still a valid concern.

But I don't believe it's one that's solved by adding MOAR STARTERS in spring training and pushing them all into relief. If you worry about them breaking down, fine. I do too. But there's a trade deadline that's timed pretty perfectly to address that if the circumstances call for it. It's pretty clear that Breslow views them as starters, they all have years of control, so in a weird semi-lost/transitional year, let them start and see what they can do.

I don't think the gameplan at this stage is to baby or ease up on any of the starters. Other than getting them all an extra day off where they can (as they did with the bullpen game yesterday), I expect they will all continue to be given the ball every time through the rotation. They'll pitch as deep into each start as circumstances allow. And they'll throw as many innings as they can until they seem to hit the proverbial wall.

Basically, I think they are going to let each guy empty their tank for the season and see how far they get before they run out. If that's September (or later), great! If it's sooner, then maybe that's where the trade deadline and/or the minor league depth (Winckowski, Uwasawa, Fitts, etc) comes into play. Pushing their limits this year will only stretch where the limits will be in future seasons.

 

[jon abbey]

Why? Because a poll of 9% of players said so?

Completely agreed with this, I didn't want to get involved on this but that poll was pretty poorly done all around as best I could tell, and I would not draw almost any conclusions from it personally. My favorite bit of silliness was the one player who voted for Soto as most overrated and said this:

“Could be a spite pick, to be honest. I feel like all he does is walk and hit singles, and doesn’t hit for power like he’s portrayed. Also not a good fielder.”

Yes, the same Juan Soto who is currently tied with Osuna (behind only Judge) for the 2nd highest SLG in MLB.

 

[8slim]

Why? Because a poll of 9% of players said so? Was the "random number" across many teams? Many ethnicities? Position players and pitchers equally?
You're referring to me because you blew a fucking gasket at me when I presented this argument months ago. My original statement was exactly what RovinRomine said in his response to you. Not ALL free agents would cross Boston off their list. But there is a myriad of reasons why a free agent would NOT be interested, some of which likely pertained to players in the 2023-24 class.
You refused to believe that.

I don't recall "blowing a gasket" on anyone, that's not generally how I post here. And of course some players don't want to play in Boston. I would never dispute that. I also was not one of those people who suggested that FAs only sign for the most money. So you really might have me confused with someone else.

My point, then and now, is that it is the Red Sox job to (a) identify players of value who will sign here (which they have certainly done over the years), and (b) find ways to convince those who may be skeptical (which they certainly have done over the years).

 

[Yo La Tengo]

I still don't understand - honestly. I get that you'd go with a six man starting rotation: Starter A, Houck, Bello, Pivetta, Crawford, Whitlock, with Lorenzen in a swing role to cover innings. Then move Whitlock (who was pitching fine with a 1.96 ERA) to the pen if there wasn't an injury.

But meanwhile, you're stuck with the 6 man or a demotion. But you can't run guys out to 6-7 inning starts in the early going, and a 6 man just makes that a heavier burden for the pen. The Sox went with a 5 man to open the season this year.

(This scenario also assumes Lorenzen, who got a chance to start for Texas, would have signed as a dedicated swing man and the number 7 guy on the depth chart? OK - that might be possible. But they could have just as easily signed another long man who wasn't as good.)

But the key part of this strategy is you're really doing this to get Lorenzen starts to keep the innings total down on Houck, Bello, and Crawford? That's the part I don't get. How do you transition him from long-man to starter, or, most likely 2 inning man to starter mid-season, and what do you do with the bullpen in the meantime? There are only 13 pitching spots on the roster.

The sox basically had a long man in the beginning with Winckowski and Anderson. And they had Criswell in the minors since he had an option. Who they called up when Pivetta went down. They kept him up after Whitlock went down and Pivetta came back - and now they're stretching out Winckowski as a starter in AAA, because he has options. Lorenzen doesn't (I assume), nor would the other FAs they could have signed over Criswell.

My basic point is this is the same number of pitchers in pretty much similar roles. Replacing Criswell or Anderson or Winckowski with different long-men/possible starters would not change anything in terms of the expected innings totals for Houck/Bello/Crawford.

No- my point was that I expected the Sox could use two more starters. I anticipated injuries, which have happened, and innings limits, which are looming. And, as expected, thus far they have shown the need for more innings from starters (as an example, the wheels have come off Criswell, who has given up 19 runs over his last 22 innings... which is exactly as we should have expected), and I am worried it is going to get much, much worse from here.

More specifically, you say that the purpose is to get Lorenzen starts to keep the innings down on Houck, Bello, and Crawford. Looking at the injuries to date, the purpose of Lorenzen would be filling in as needed in the starts taken up by Criswell, Anderson, Kelly, to date and moving forward. (For reasons I don't totally understand, the team seems to perform well when Bernardino starts so he stays in my cherry-picked, hind sight is 20/20 plan).

Also, note that Imanaga has basically been on a 5 days of rest schedule, having thrown only 69 innings to date (as compared to Houck's 85 innings).

The team has cobbled together a decent first 2+ months of the season and the starting rotation has, as a whole, been great. Nonetheless, there has been space for another starter (the 15 games by Criswell, Anderson, Kelly, and Winkowski), especially if that starter was Imanaga, and I anticipate a lot more need for innings to come. As for an initial 6 man rotation being a bigger burden on the pen, I see no basis for that worry if the sixth starter is pitching as well/better than the other 5.

 

[nvalvo]

And yet we have more teams blowing past the tax thresholds than before. We had the most teams paying tax and the most tax paid in history last year.

So kind of an interesting contradiction there.

What is the contradiction? If the taxes get more onerous and the thresholds closer to where team payrolls are now, wouldn’t you expect more teams to have to pay tax? When the CBT came in 20 years ago, it was set at literally twice the mean payroll, and only one team paid. Now it’s only ~43% above the mean payroll, if I did that math right, and five or six teams exceed.

If we’re still talking about the Dodgers, the difference there is the TV deal they have: they’re getting a bit more than $300m/year from the TV deal *through 2039.* That’s their payroll (including CBT penalties!) basically sorted right there, before they sell a single ticket, parking space or Dodger Dog.

That deal, especially in its term, shelters them from the vagaries of the rough media economics we’ve seen in recent years. If the cable companies aren’t bidding as high for baseball games, that’s not the Dodgers’ problem (at least until Spectrum—who gave them that deal—declares bankruptcy, as has happened to Diamond Sports Group!).

But because the Red Sox own their own RSN, it might well be their problem.

 

[HfxBob]

What is the contradiction? If the taxes get more onerous and the thresholds closer to where team payrolls are now, wouldn’t you expect more teams to have to pay tax? When the CBT came in 20 years ago, it was set at literally twice the mean payroll, and only one team paid. Now it’s only ~43% above the mean payroll, if I did that math right, and five or six teams exceed.

If we’re still talking about the Dodgers, the difference there is the TV deal they have: they’re getting a bit more than $300m/year from the TV deal *through 2039.* That’s their payroll (including CBT penalties!) basically sorted right there, before they sell a single ticket, parking space or Dodger Dog.

That deal, especially in its term, shelters them from the vagaries of the rough media economics we’ve seen in recent years. If the cable companies aren’t bidding as high for baseball games, that’s not the Dodgers’ problem (at least until Spectrum—who gave them that deal—declares bankruptcy, as has happened to Diamond Sports Group!).

But because the Red Sox own their own RSN, it might well be their problem.

Nobody "has to" pay tax. It's a premeditated choice.

For me this isn't all about the Dodgers, no. For me the starting point is why the Red Sox have allowed themselves to drop out of the top 10 in payroll two years in a row.

One of the answers to this question that has been floated is that some of the teams that have passed the Sox are spending "irrationally". One of the reasons the spending could be deemed irrational is the taxes and other penalties that are incurred when you pass certain thresholds. These so-called guardrails are stiffer than ever, and yet more teams have decided to blow through them. This is the contradiction I'm asking about.

Others are explaining it as irrational and aberrant. Your explanation, which is that the thresholds are so much lower now in proportion to payrolls that teams "can't help" exceeding them, is a whole different take.

 

[Margo McCready]

Nobody "has to" pay tax. It's a premeditated choice.

For me this isn't all about the Dodgers, no. For me the starting point is why the Red Sox have allowed themselves to drop out of the top 10 in payroll two years in a row.

One of the answers to this question that has been floated is that some of the teams that have passed the Sox are spending "irrationally". One of the reasons the spending could be deemed irrational is the taxes and other penalties that are incurred when you pass certain thresholds. These so-called guardrails are stiffer than ever, and yet more teams have decided to blow through them. This is the contradiction I'm asking about.

Others are explaining it as irrational and aberrant. Your explanation, which is that the thresholds are so much lower now in proportion to payrolls that teams "can't help" exceeding them, is a whole different take.

I’m definitely not the smartest guy in the room, but from my vantage point, it seems the most likely answer to this specific question is that they’re saving the money to buy out the first few FA years of their (hopefully) productive home grown players, i.e. Bello, Rafaella and their reported attempt to sign Casas to a long term contract. My guess is that it’s also very likely they’ll pursue the same scenario if they’re lucky enough for any of Mayer, Teel, Anthony, etc. to be a hit.

My best guess moving forward (and it’s only just that - a guess) is that they’ve brought in Breslow, Bailey, and the new pitching infrastructure so that they can smartly avoid the Chris Sale extension and backend of Price’s contact experience. If that is the case, it appears they may be able to actually pull this off. As for hitters, my best guess is they absolutely will pull the trigger on a Manny Ramirez or JD Martinez-type masher to supplement the core *when the core is in place*. As you know, this becomes much easier to do without negatively impacting their ability to acquire top amateur talent when there isn’t dead money clogging up the payroll.

But then, maybe I’m way off here. My crystal ball may be no clearer than anyone else’s. Time will tell.

 

[BigSoxFan]

I’m definitely not the smartest guy in the room, but from my vantage point, it seems the most likely answer to this specific question is that they’re saving the money to buy out the first few FA years of their (hopefully) productive home grown players, i.e. Bello, Rafaella and their reported attempt to sign Casas to a long term contract. My guess is that it’s also very likely they’ll pursue the same scenario if they’re lucky enough for any of Mayer, Teel, Anthony, etc. to be a hit.

My best guess moving forward (and it’s only just that - a guess) is that they’ve brought in Breslow, Bailey, and the new pitching infrastructure so that they can smartly avoid the Chris Sale extension and backend of Price’s contact experience. If that is the case, it appears they may be able to actually pull this off. As for hitters, my best guess is they absolutely will pull the trigger on a Manny Ramirez or JD Martinez-type masher to supplement the core *when the core is in place*. As you know, this becomes much easier to do without negatively impacting their ability to acquire top amateur talent when there isn’t dead money clogging up the payroll.

But then, maybe I’m way off here. My crystal ball may be no clearer than anyone else’s. Time will tell.

I want to probe further on the “when the core is in place” line. Why does this team need to wait for this undefined “core” to arrive before spending big, if there is an impact bat or arm out there? They already have Devers in place. They have Casas in place. Duran is looking like a real asset as well. He is in place. Rafaela is having his moments. He’s in place. Grissom hasn’t hit yet but he’s here for the long haul. Houck is in place (although needs an extension). Bello is in place. Crawford is in place. These are all impact guys who are ready to win now but need help.

Any big signing would be part of the core so why does this team need to wait for Mayer, Anthony, Teel and others to arrive before spending? IMO, it would be far better to treat those unknown MLB quantities as supplements to the core rather than waiting for them to demonstrate they’re the next Mookie, Bogaerts, Devers, etc.

Based on how the prospects look in AA this year, I’m comfortable predicting (sans injury issues) at least 1-2 arriving next year. So, I would expect that this front office will be far more willing to spend this offseason than they were last offseason. And I’ll be disappointed if they don’t because of some arbitrary “waiting for the core to arrive” kind of reason.

 

[Yo La Tengo]

Nobody "has to" pay tax. It's a premeditated choice.

For me this isn't all about the Dodgers, no. For me the starting point is why the Red Sox have allowed themselves to drop out of the top 10 in payroll two years in a row.

One of the answers to this question that has been floated is that some of the teams that have passed the Sox are spending "irrationally". One of the reasons the spending could be deemed irrational is the taxes and other penalties that are incurred when you pass certain thresholds. These so-called guardrails are stiffer than ever, and yet more teams have decided to blow through them. This is the contradiction I'm asking about.

Others are explaining it as irrational and aberrant. Your explanation, which is that the thresholds are so much lower now in proportion to payrolls that teams "can't help" exceeding them, is a whole different take.

Regarding the bolded portion, I think there is a common idea that there are big penalties for exceeding the initial tax threshold, and that's just not true. The more significant threshold is exceeding the CBT line by $40 million, at which point a team's first round pick gets bumped back 10 spots.

For example, if the Sox have a CBT payroll of $277 million next year, the penalty would a payment of $12.8 million. (there are also potential shifts if the Sox sign or lose a player who has been offered a Qualifying Offer)

Here's a link with some additional context/discussion: https://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?threads/to-exceed-the-cbt-or-not-that-is-the-question.41512/

 

[Fishy1]

I want to probe further on the “when the core is in place” line. Why does this team need to wait for this undefined “core” to arrive before spending big, if there is an impact bat or arm out there? They already have Devers in place. They have Casas in place. Duran is looking like a real asset as well. He is in place. Rafaela is having his moments. He’s in place. Grissom hasn’t hit yet but he’s here for the long haul. Houck is in place (although needs an extension). Bello is in place. Crawford is in place. These are all impact guys who are ready to win now but need help.

Any big signing would be part of the core so why does this team need to wait for Mayer, Anthony, Teel and others to arrive before spending? IMO, it would be far better to treat those unknown MLB quantities as supplements to the core rather than waiting for them to demonstrate they’re the next Mookie, Bogaerts, Devers, etc.

Based on how the prospects look in AA this year, I’m comfortable predicting (sans injury issues) at least 1-2 arriving next year. So, I would expect that this front office will be far more willing to spend this offseason than they were last offseason. And I’ll be disappointed if they don’t because of some arbitrary “waiting for the core to arrive” kind of reason.

I mean, you might argue the Sox have tried to make free agent splashes. Story, Yoshida, Giolito, Kenley and Chris Martin -- none of these guys were cheap. It's just that the signings they've made have largely been duds. Story might have worked out as 3-4 win guy, but he hasn't been able to stay on the field. It's too early to declare Yoshida a disaster, but the first season and a half hasn't been compelling unless you like ground balls to second base. Giolito hasn't pitched an inning, and Martin and Jansen have been good to great. They also backed up the Brink's truck for Devers.

The farm, in fact, has in the last few years, been more productive in generating high WAR players than any signings they've made. You could say the same for trades: Pivetta,, Wong, Abreu and Hamilton were all acquisitions. (Let's not rehash M**kie, though, folks). Hell, they've gotten more out of rule 5 guys and guys signed out of Indy ball than they have out of some of their free agents.

 

[Max Power]

The simpler answer is that those bats just aren't available now. Who in the last couple of offseasons was Manny Ramirez or prime JD Martinez? Soto is that guy this year, although the Red Sox are probably the worst fit in baseball for him with the other two best hitters being lefties Casas and Devers. I don't know why, but righties with power are very hard to come by these days.

 

[BigSoxFan]

I mean, you might argue the Sox have tried to make free agent splashes. Story, Yoshida, Giolito, Kenley and Chris Martin -- none of these guys were cheap. It's just that the signings they've made have largely been duds. Story might have worked out as 3-4 win guy, but he hasn't been able to stay on the field. It's too early to declare Yoshida a disaster, but the first season and a half hasn't been compelling unless you like ground balls to second base. Giolito hasn't pitched an inning, and Martin and Jansen have been good to great. They also backed up the Brink's truck for Devers.

The farm, in fact, has in the last few years, been more productive in generating high WAR players than any signings they've made. You could say the same for trades: Pivetta,, Wong, Abreu and Hamilton were all acquisitions. (Let's not rehash M**kie, though, folks). Hell, they've gotten more out of rule 5 guys and guys signed out of Indy ball than they have out of some of their free agents.

Outside of Story and Masa, those are all short money deals. They haven’t been willing to go big on dollars and years for a FA since Story. They at least tried somewhat on Yamamoto. My point isn’t they’re cheap, it’s that I don’t want them to wait for all their prospects to establish themselves before making the next big FA purchase.

 

[Fishy1]

Outside of Story and Masa, those are all short money deals. They haven’t been willing to go big on dollars and years for a FA since Story. They at least tried somewhat on Yamamoto. My point isn’t they’re cheap, it’s that I don’t want them to wait for all their prospects to establish themselves before making the next big FA purchase.

I mean, that feels a little dismissive of those deals. They count, even if we don't like them. The Story deal was just two years ago, and Masa was just a year ago, and ignoring Devers just because he was homegrown doesn't mean they didn't extend him for over 300 million. And Masa might not be a mega deal, but 5 years at 15-18 million ain't nothing.

The fact is a lot of those long-money deals end up being pretty regrettable, especially when doled out to guys in their 30's. I don't blame them for trying to supplement with short-money deals, even if some of the choices (Kluber, for example) ended up being painful.

 

[HfxBob]

The simpler answer is that those bats just aren't available now. Who in the last couple of offseasons was Manny Ramirez or prime JD Martinez? Soto is that guy this year, although the Red Sox are probably the worst fit in baseball for him with the other two best hitters being lefties Casas and Devers. I don't know why, but righties with power are very hard to come by these days.

Definitely no Manny or prime JDM available. Teoscar Hernandez was available for pretty short money, though. Career OPS of .806, 32 HR and 96 RBI per 162 games.

 

[simplicio]

Definitely no Manny or prime JDM available. Teoscar Hernandez was available for pretty short money, though. Career OPS of .806, 32 HR and 96 RBI per 162 games.

Whose spot does he take?

 

[Yo La Tengo]

The simpler answer is that those bats just aren't available now. Who in the last couple of offseasons was Manny Ramirez or prime JD Martinez? Soto is that guy this year, although the Red Sox are probably the worst fit in baseball for him with the other two best hitters being lefties Casas and Devers. I don't know why, but righties with power are very hard to come by these days.

And it doesn't get much better over the next few years. The Sox will likely be looking for a right handed hitting outfielder/DH, but the options in general are really limited: next year Goldschmidt, Alonso, Adames, Teoscar Hernández, Eloy Jimenez (maybe). The following year, Vlad Jr. and Ozuna will be free agents. Does anyone want to give any of those players a huge deal? (Likely Hernandez won't get a huge deal and he could be the best fit.)
There doesn't seem to be a RHH prospect on the horizon in the Sox system.

Potential trade targets? Houston has a logjam in the outfield and Chas McCormick is scuffling a bit after coming back from the IL. I wonder if he could be a target between now and the trade deadline.

 

[BigSoxFan]

I mean, that feels a little dismissive of those deals. They count, even if we don't like them. The Story deal was just two years ago, and Masa was just a year ago, and ignoring Devers just because he was homegrown doesn't mean they didn't extend him for over 300 million. And Masa might not be a mega deal, but 5 years at 15-18 million ain't nothing.

The fact is a lot of those long-money deals end up being pretty regrettable, especially when doled out to guys in their 30's. I don't blame them for trying to supplement with short-money deals, even if some of the choices (Kluber, for example) ended up being painful.

We’re not arguing the same point here. Thought I clarified it properly but I guess not.

 

[moondog80]

Acknowledging the left-hadnedness of the lineup/system, I'm not sure I see the Sox making a big signing for a hitter anytime soon.

1B -- Set with Casas
2B -- Maybe? Ha-Seong Kim will be a FA. But if we project Mayer for SS, this seems like a spot for Story, and I don't think they've given up on Grissom.
SS -- Mayer has the job by this point next year.
3B -- Set with Devers
OF -- Durran, Abreu, and Rafaella, and Roman Anthony in waiting
DH -- Yoshida, though they could cut bait on him. But I'm not sue they sign a top-tier FA just to DH. More like a Teoscar type.
C -- Connor Wong is a legit starter and Teel is an elite prospect, raking in AA.

 

[HfxBob]

Whose spot does he take?

Not sure, but they were reportedly interested in him, weren't they?

In any case, the question was about RH bats that were available.

 

[nvalvo]

Nobody "has to" pay tax. It's a premeditated choice.

Nobody had to impose the tax, either. None of this is exogenous. The owners and players chose the market structure that binds them.

As for the stiffness of the guardrails, that is sort of ambivalent. The draft and IFA penalties are onerous, but they clearly pale relative to the value of being able sign an Ohtani to a market-rate deal. But there are only a few clearly and obviously WORTH IT free agents, and committing to be over for a half decade for players who don’t move the needle can tank your franchise for a decade. The Padres and Mets are kind of in a tough spot, right? I think that is what people are calling “irrational.” I wouldn’t say that; it just didn’t work out for them in a way that highlights the risks of the strategy.

Still, as I think we all understand, once you’re over, the optimal move is to *go over.* Once you’ve borked your draft and IFA bonus pools for a year or two, why not sign a Téo Hernandez for a year?

But if you’re not doing that, you should stay under. Even the Dodgers, with their huge market and amazing TV deal, reset their tax rate in anticipation of this offseason’s splurge. And I bet they’ll be able to get back under in 2026, when the number gets up to $244m, or more likely in 2027.

So rather than a single judgment of whether the guardrails are “stiff” for all teams and in all circumstances, I would say that the optimal strategy under the current system is a high-amplitude sine wave of payroll. When you’re not in GFIN mode, stay under and enjoy the additional draft and IFA resources; but when you have a shot to contend, you can safely go over by tens of millions for a few years, knowing that it comes at a cost to your farm system, so long as you can get back under.

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

Acknowledging the left-hadnedness of the lineup/system, I'm not sure I see the Sox making a big signing for a hitter anytime soon.

1B -- Set with Casas
2B -- Maybe? Ha-Seong Kim will be a FA. But if we project Mayer for SS, this seems like a spot for Story, and I don't think they've given up on Grissom.
SS -- Mayer has the job by this point next year.
3B -- Set with Devers
OF -- Durran, Abreu, and Rafaella, and Roman Anthony in waiting
DH -- Yoshida, though they could cut bait on him. But I'm not sue they sign a top-tier FA just to DH. More like a Teoscar type.
C -- Connor Wong is a legit starter and Teel is an elite prospect, raking in AA.

I don’t know much about players on other teams honestly that would be available, but the obvious spot, yeah… it’s a RHH DH who can also play the corners. Maybe that’s Lugo?

 

[RS2004foreever]

I think the coming decline in TV revenue is going to make teams pull back, and I suspect current ownership is ahead of the curve on this.

What is the contradiction? If the taxes get more onerous and the thresholds closer to where team payrolls are now, wouldn’t you expect more teams to have to pay tax? When the CBT came in 20 years ago, it was set at literally twice the mean payroll, and only one team paid. Now it’s only ~43% above the mean payroll, if I did that math right, and five or six teams exceed.

If we’re still talking about the Dodgers, the difference there is the TV deal they have: they’re getting a bit more than $300m/year from the TV deal *through 2039.* That’s their payroll (including CBT penalties!) basically sorted right there, before they sell a single ticket, parking space or Dodger Dog.

That deal, especially in its term, shelters them from the vagaries of the rough media economics we’ve seen in recent years. If the cable companies aren’t bidding as high for baseball games, that’s not the Dodgers’ problem (at least until Spectrum—who gave them that deal—declares bankruptcy, as has happened to Diamond Sports Group!).

But because the Red Sox own their own RSN, it might well be their problem.

LA's cable deal is an incredible competitive advantage.
But I do think there is an argument that there is a bubble in TV revenues. Marc Cuban made this argument when it comes to the NBA. With people cutting the cord the predictable revenue stream teams used to get is becoming less predictable. I still buy cable - partly because I hear about problems with the NESN app. This MAY be why the Red Sox seemed unwilling to go beyond 2 years - they think the market is going to adjust downwards.

 

[Midnight Ryder Jones]

The simpler answer is that those bats just aren't available now. Who in the last couple of offseasons was Manny Ramirez or prime JD Martinez? Soto is that guy this year, although the Red Sox are probably the worst fit in baseball for him with the other two best hitters being lefties Casas and Devers. I don't know why, but righties with power are very hard to come by these days.

Juan Soto's OPS against lefties this year is .978 which, of course, is higher than any Red Sox player's total OPS against pitchers from both sides. The idea that the best hitter of his generation is somehow a bad fit for the Red Sox because Devers and Casas are also lefties is insane.

And I'm glad you brought Soto up, particularly in conjunction with this:

I want to probe further on the “when the core is in place” line. Why does this team need to wait for this undefined “core” to arrive before spending big, if there is an impact bat or arm out there? They already have Devers in place. They have Casas in place. Duran is looking like a real asset as well. He is in place. Rafaela is having his moments. He’s in place. Grissom hasn’t hit yet but he’s here for the long haul. Houck is in place (although needs an extension). Bello is in place. Crawford is in place. These are all impact guys who are ready to win now but need help.

Any big signing would be part of the core so why does this team need to wait for Mayer, Anthony, Teel and others to arrive before spending? IMO, it would be far better to treat those unknown MLB quantities as supplements to the core rather than waiting for them to demonstrate they’re the next Mookie, Bogaerts, Devers, etc.

Based on how the prospects look in AA this year, I’m comfortable predicting (sans injury issues) at least 1-2 arriving next year. So, I would expect that this front office will be far more willing to spend this offseason than they were last offseason. And I’ll be disappointed if they don’t because of some arbitrary “waiting for the core to arrive” kind of reason.

Just as many people said that the Sox shouldn't have been in the trade market for Soto last offseason because he was a lefty, many people also said that they shouldn't have gone after him because "their competitive window wasn't open yet." Well, if Juan Soto was the everyday DH on this team, the Sox would almost certainly be in a postseason spot right now. They'd also be better positioned to trade one of their young outfielders or Yoshida to help the roster elsewhere, AND they would still be looking forward to the imminent arrival of all their top prospects over the next few seasons.

The "competitive window" fallacy is just another way owners justify not spending money, and big market teams should never take a several years-long break from competing. The Yankees don't wait for a competitive window to open, which is why they're essentially in the postseason every single year despite operating with a farm system that has produced almost no position player talent outside of Judge and Volpe over the last 10 years.

 

[jon abbey]

Just as many people said that the Sox shouldn't have been in the trade market for Soto last offseason because he was a lefty, many people also said that they shouldn't have gone after him because "their competitive window wasn't open yet."

The Padres wanted pitching, NY sent them four pitchers, all essentially ready to contribute immediately (three were in MLB last year and the 4th, Drew Thorpe, got traded for Dylan Cease, has continued to dominate in the minors and is making his MLB debut today). I don't see a world in which BOS was going to give up 20+ combined years of control of helpful MLB pitchers for 1 year of Soto.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

The danger of the competitive window idea is that teams can get trapped in a "the window is 2 years away" loop for a long time. It's not inevitable that the Sox get that way, but we've seen countless other teams fall into that trap. At some point the FO will have to decide when it's go time. They had better be right.

 

[moondog80]

Well, if Juan Soto was the everyday DH on this team, the Sox would almost certainly be in a postseason spot right now.

What if they traded Jarren Duran as part of the package? I, for one, would have welcomed this. And yeah, I know the Padres wanted pithing -- let's say it was Duran AND Houck, with Duran flipped elsewhere for pitching? What would the SOSH approval rate been of that deal? I would have been OK with it.

 

[Cassvt2023]

As far as RHH bats w/ some pop go, you have Lugo and to a lesser extent Yorke already in AAA, Blaze Jordan in AA and hopefully the best bet, Miguel Bleis has just been promoted to High A. If just one of these were to pop, it'd go a long way to balancing out all of the LHH within the next couple years. Did I miss anyone of note?

 

[BigSoxFan]

The danger of the competitive window idea is that teams can get trapped in a "the window is 2 years away" loop for a long time. It's not inevitable that the Sox get that way, but we've seen countless other teams fall into that trap. At some point the FO will have to decide when it's go time. They had better be right.

Thank you, this is the point I was attempting to make. The Sox are a .500 team right now despite suffering a ridiculous amount of injuries. They clearly already are competitive given all that context. Imagine where they’d be with Story, Casas, Yoshida, Grissom, Giolito, etc. for a full year.

They also have 3 high upside prospects performing very well in AA and all 3 have very realistic chance of being in majors sometime in 2025.

This is a team that should be ready to spend up to the upper levels of their payroll, especially with all the cost controlled talent coming. My expectation is that they’ll be far more aggressive in this year’s FA class given the available talent and where the team currently sits. I’m hoping ownership feels the same way.

 

[Midnight Ryder Jones]

What if they traded Jarren Duran as part of the package? I, for one, would have welcomed this.

Then they would still be a better team because Juan Soto is better than Jarren Duran by orders of magnitudes. But what if they'd traded Brayan Bello? Or Garrett Whitlock? Or Ceddanne? Or all three along with Dick Fitts?

There's no universe where adding Juan Soto to your team is a bad thing, unless you're goal isn't to win, but only to win without going over the CBT threshold. Given what we know about the revenue and value of the Red Sox and slight penalties for going over the first threshold, fans should not give FSG a pass for insisting on the latter.

 

[HfxBob]

Even the Dodgers, with their huge market and amazing TV deal, reset their tax rate in anticipation of this offseason’s splurge. And I bet they’ll be able to get back under in 2026, when the number gets up to $244m, or more likely in 2027.

The last time the Dodgers reset their tax rate was 2018. They stayed under in 2019 and 2020. They're been over since, this is their 4th year in a row. So I don't get what you're saying.

The "conventional wisdom" for a while was that teams would not go over 3 years in a row because year 3 was catastrophic. But that conventional wisdom has gone by the boards for some teams.

 

[Midnight Ryder Jones]

Thank you, this is the point I was attempting to make. The Sox are a .500 team right now despite suffering a ridiculous amount of injuries. They clearly already are competitive given all that context. Imagine where they’d be with Story, Casas, Yoshida, Grissom, Giolito, etc. for a full year.

Right, and Craig Breslow essentially agreed with this recently: "To say that you exceeded expectations I think should be followed up by wondering why didn’t we do more to improve and increase the expectations from being a roughly .500 team."

The Red Sox weren't aggressive this offseason because it wasn't time "to trade future wins for present wins," and all it's done is cost them a postseason berth, add yet another mediocre bridge year to their BR franchise page, and further alienate the fan base.

 

[simplicio]

Then they would still be a better team because Juan Soto is better than Jarren Duran by orders of magnitudes. But what if they'd traded Brayan Bello? Or Garrett Whitlock? Or Ceddanne? Or all three along with Dick Fitts?

There's no universe where adding Juan Soto to your team is a bad thing, unless you're goal isn't to win, but only to win without going over the CBT threshold. Given what we know about the revenue and value of the Red Sox and slight penalties for going over the first threshold, fans should not give FSG a pass for insisting on the latter.

It is when he elects free agency at the end of the year and you've spent 15+ years of controlled talent for that, and now your graduating prospects have a lesser team surrounding them.

 

[Midnight Ryder Jones]

It is when he elects free agency at the end of the year and you've spent 15+ years of controlled talent for that, and now your graduating prospects have a lesser team surrounding them.

That's when you sign him to the biggest non-Ohtani contract in the game, because you're the Red Sox and can easily do that. Maybe you even announce the signing during the World Series championship parade that the trade made possible.

As things stand, it's looking increasingly possible that he doesn't even get to free agency.

 

[moondog80]

Then they would still be a better team because Juan Soto is better than Jarren Duran by orders of magnitudes. But what if they'd traded Brayan Bello? Or Garrett Whitlock? Or Ceddanne? Or all three along with Dick Fitts?

bWAR
Soto 3.6
Duran 3.4

Maybe you can argue that bWAR is overstating the relative value of defense. You might be right. But you also have to factor in that it's one year of Soto vs 5 years of Duran, plus whatever else you would had to have given up.

 

[Rovin Romine]

The danger of the competitive window idea is that teams can get trapped in a "the window is 2 years away" loop for a long time. It's not inevitable that the Sox get that way, but we've seen countless other teams fall into that trap. At some point the FO will have to decide when it's go time. They had better be right.

IMO, this isn't that hard to figure out. Look at the spreadsheet below. The Bello/Houck/Crawford/Wicnkowski/Casas/Wong/Duran group are all in Arb 1 or Arb 2 by 2026. Houck is a FA in 2028 - everyone else (including Rafaela) is in 2029.

After this season, they've got something like $50M coming off the books, and would have to replace: O'Neill, Pivetta, Martin, and Jansen.

2025-2028 is their window. Sure, they've got some key guys perhaps coming up in 2025/26, but that's a bunch of talent exiting or getting huge pay raises at the same time.

View: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WWRsQNsGZkWuJZwlY8--xVBXMJGjh230D45KiHTHuvY/edit#gid=1520401900

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

Whose spot does he take?

This is a bit hindsight-ish, Rafaela wasn’t necessarily expected to make the team back in December/January when they were signing FAs - and one could certainly argue starting the season in AAA wouldn’t have been catastrophic for him - and Abreu only got the call when he did because of injury.

 

[Rovin Romine]

The last time the Dodgers reset their tax rate was 2018. They stayed under in 2019 and 2020. They're been over since, this is their 4th year in a row. So I don't get what you're saying.

The "conventional wisdom" for a while was that teams would not go over 3 years in a row because year 3 was catastrophic. But that conventional wisdom has gone by the boards for some teams.

Just to refresh your memory:

If we’re still talking about the Dodgers, the difference there is the TV deal they have: they’re getting a bit more than $300m/year from the TV deal *through 2039.* That’s their payroll (including CBT penalties!) basically sorted right there, before they sell a single ticket, parking space or Dodger Dog.

The rest of the post is worth reading as well.