Much like Newman, the Sox are not “Ready to deliver”– The 2025 Offseason News (& rumors?) Thread

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
10,128
Agreed.

But for purposes of the discussion, assuming Burnes and / or Fried aren't walking through the door, how are you suggesting they do that.

Or - what are the young pieces you're moving to land Crochet/similar. I'm going to assume that Campbell, Anthony and Grissom can't be it since you have them in there already. Possibly / probably not Abreu too (depends on if you're saying Campbell at 3b and Grissom at 2b or having them splitting 2b). Because if you're putting Campbell at 3b, then it'd have to be Anthony in LF and Abreu in RF. Maybe that is now Campbell in LF and Anthony in RF with Abreu possible to be moved.
I think Abreu is clearly the most likely piece to be traded, as there's an immediate crunch in the OF if either Campbell or Anthony make the jump, let alone both. You could also argue for a Grissom trade but I think his value is currently down and won't get nearly as much as Abreu. If you need to hit a top 4 piece from the farm that's Mayer, as he's a little farther off and Story's still under contract for a while.

As for targets: Crochet, Woo, Jones.
 

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
1,886
I think Abreu is clearly the most likely piece to be traded, as there's an immediate crunch in the OF if either Campbell or Anthony make the jump, let alone both. You could also argue for a Grissom trade but I think his value is currently down and won't get nearly as much as Abreu. If you need to hit a top 4 piece from the farm that's Mayer, as he's a little farther off and Story's still under contract for a while.

As for targets: Crochet, Woo, Jones.
Makes sense.

For the record, I don't think Mayer + Abreu gets you Jones (not that I'm saying you think that's all it would take either) but I think that's about right for Crochet.

I'd be more than fine with trying (I have to assume):
Duran - LF
Story - SS
Devers - DH
Casas - 1b
Wong - C
Anthony - RF
Campbell - 3b
Grissom / Hamilton - 2b
Rafaela - CF

Yoshida, Hamilton/Grissom, Refsnyder and something that catches.

Crochet
Houck
Bello
Giolito
Crawford

I suppose I'd have preferred to sign a good long term LF there so that you're not depending on each of Anthony, Campbell, Grissom and Rafaela as starters from jump, but Hernandez is gone and I know you're not a Santander guy. But that would "help" the infield defense and not require spending on Bregman/Adames/Kim.

Appreciate the idea.
 

Yelling At Clouds

Post-darwinian
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
4,145
Sorry, I’ve seen a few references to Hernandez being off the market, but I can’t find what people are talking about, is there a link or something?
 

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
1,886
@Yelling At Clouds, we've been alluding to this.

No Teoscar. I choose to believe that this means we are signing Soto. Please respect my faith as you do other religious beliefs, no matter how absurd.
Boston Sports Gordo
@BOSSportsGordo


Teoscar Hernandez is hammering out the final details of a contract to return to the Los Angeles Dodgers, according to
@THEREAL_DV
.

I'll hope that the source isn't legit because Hernandez was a perfect fit for Boston last year and remains so now, but I have no reason to doubt this post.

Also, I mean, the Sox could have had him last year by simply tacking on a third year and not sacrificing a pick and didn't, so there is that. (Though I like to think that people can learn from mistakes and not just keep making the same mistake over and over and over.)
 

Yo La Tengo

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
1,395
Digging into some defensive stats on another post has me thinking how hard the sales pitch is for the Sox while trying to sign free agent pitchers this year:

Second most errors in baseball last year
Second highest offensive park factor in baseball over the last 3 years
Multiple pitchers injured while working with the new regime last year
Averaging 79 wins over the last 3 years
Bad defensive primary catcher
Plus all the usual stuff, some accurate some not, about how players might feel about playing in Boston

Which is a long way of saying that the Sox will likely be paying top dollar for any free agent pitching they sign this winter.
 

E5 Yaz

polka king
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
96,466
Oregon
David Vassegh is apparently a very well respected and reliable Dodgers reporter.
And yet not another credible reporter has piggybacked on this to verify it or shoot it down. At this time of year, that's a red flag
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
22,797
Rogers Park
Hernandez was a perfect fit for Boston last year and remains so now
Perfect fit? I wish he'd taken our two-year offer last year — we probably should have gone to three years — but I don't think I'd give up a good draft pick to give Hernandez a more expensive multiyear deal with Tyler O'Neill available and his injury backup waiting in Worcester.

edit:

To expand on that, Teo hit .272/.339/.501 with 188 K to 53 BB in 652 PA. .344 BABIP, but he hits the ball hard: he earned some of that. He'll be 32. Meanwhile, O'Neill hit .241/.336/.511 with 159 K and 53 BB in 473 PA. .305 BABIP, though, even though he hits the ball a touch harder than Teo. He'll be 30. The differences I see are that Teo is more durable, but O'Neill might have had the better batting line: same Ks, more walks, same OBP and same SLG despite a 40-point BABIP gap. The park adjustment makes it closer, and xwOBA likes Hernandez by a few thousandths. Both are poor defenders, but O'Neill at least used to be a good one.

O'Neill's performance dipped a bit against righties in 2024 (.693 OPS; .751 career), which prevented him from having a monster season. Eyeballing the math, if he'd posted his career lines in his 317 PA against righties and had his elite 2024 line (1.180 OPS) against lefties, he'd have had an .900ish OPS.

All I'm saying is that I'm not giving a pick to give Teo 3/$75m when I could give O'Neill 1/$13 with a vesting option for a second year or something. I know people here would freak out if we bring him back, but he was good for the role. I would've QO'd him.
 
Last edited:

BaseballJones

slappy happy
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
27,713
How would people here feel if this was the Sox' offseason, when all is said and done:

- Sign Aroldis Chapman for 1 year, $10.5 million (already done)
- Sign Justin Wilson for 1 year, $2.25 million (already done)
- Sign Tyler O'Neill for 3 years, ~$60 million
- Sign Nathan Eovaldi for 3 years, $~66 million
- Sign Walker Buehler for 3 years, ~$60 million

Five guys, none for longer than 3 years, for a grand total of just under $200 million, the big three of which would each run about $20-22 million a season.

The reality is, that kind of offseason probably improves the Boston Red Sox considerably. O'Neill resumes his role as moderate-defense, big HR power RH bat in the OF. Add two good (forget how much we don't like Chapman for a moment...this is just about the on-field product) LH relievers to bolster the bullpen, which will already be getting back Hendriks and Whitlock. And one really solid RH starter (Eovaldi) and another guy who, if he's healthy, could be another tremendous SP addition (Buehler). All while not remotely breaking the bank and leaving plenty of room for the young guys to come up.

I have NO idea if this is what will happen. But it's the kind of thing that could happen. How would we feel about this organization if something like this was what transpired?
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
10,128
I think it's an absolutely terrible idea to give O'Neill that much. I don't want him back at all let alone at 3/60.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,986
How would people here feel if this was the Sox' offseason, when all is said and done:

- Sign Aroldis Chapman for 1 year, $10.5 million (already done)
- Sign Justin Wilson for 1 year, $2.25 million (already done)
- Sign Tyler O'Neill for 3 years, ~$60 million
- Sign Nathan Eovaldi for 3 years, $~66 million
- Sign Walker Buehler for 3 years, ~$60 million

Five guys, none for longer than 3 years, for a grand total of just under $200 million, the big three of which would each run about $20-22 million a season.

The reality is, that kind of offseason probably improves the Boston Red Sox considerably. O'Neill resumes his role as moderate-defense, big HR power RH bat in the OF. Add two good (forget how much we don't like Chapman for a moment...this is just about the on-field product) LH relievers to bolster the bullpen, which will already be getting back Hendriks and Whitlock. And one really solid RH starter (Eovaldi) and another guy who, if he's healthy, could be another tremendous SP addition (Buehler). All while not remotely breaking the bank and leaving plenty of room for the young guys to come up.

I have NO idea if this is what will happen. But it's the kind of thing that could happen. How would we feel about this organization if something like this was what transpired?
This place would explode. And I would get it.

For one thing, why give that deal to O'Neill when you could have just QOd him. But even if you change that to one year/15 mil, it would be a huge disappointment.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
15,725
I don’t think Buehler signs a deal like that; he’s going to win either longer term or a one year pillow contract, or maybe mid/long term with an opt out. I wouldn’t have interest in O’Neill at more than a year given the teams depth in the OF; to not offer him a QO and then sign him that deal doesn’t make much sense to me. But adding Eovaldi, Buehler, and O’Neill players makes sense to me. Not sure you need both of the pitchers though.
 

Yo La Tengo

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
1,395
How would people here feel if this was the Sox' offseason, when all is said and done:

- Sign Aroldis Chapman for 1 year, $10.5 million (already done)
- Sign Justin Wilson for 1 year, $2.25 million (already done)
- Sign Tyler O'Neill for 3 years, ~$60 million
- Sign Nathan Eovaldi for 3 years, $~66 million
- Sign Walker Buehler for 3 years, ~$60 million
Scratch Tyler ONeill and Buehler and let the young guys play. Use that money to sign Hughes or Hoffman for the pen. And a catcher too.

And I think Eovaldi will sign a 2 year deal. His last deal was 2 years/$38 million.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
33,427
I want availability. So Eovaldi yes. ONeil no. Not sure about Buehler; not totally on top of his injury history.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
10,128
Buehler + Eovaldi seems kinda like the Dodgers strategy of "sign a million guys who are never healthy!" to me (I think it's a dumb strategy). I'd be okay with either but don't see the appeal of pushing current starters out of the rotation to accommodate both.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
49,861
How would people here feel if this was the Sox' offseason, when all is said and done:

- Sign Aroldis Chapman for 1 year, $10.5 million (already done)
- Sign Justin Wilson for 1 year, $2.25 million (already done)
- Sign Tyler O'Neill for 3 years, ~$60 million
- Sign Nathan Eovaldi for 3 years, $~66 million
- Sign Walker Buehler for 3 years, ~$60 million

Five guys, none for longer than 3 years, for a grand total of just under $200 million, the big three of which would each run about $20-22 million a season.

The reality is, that kind of offseason probably improves the Boston Red Sox considerably. O'Neill resumes his role as moderate-defense, big HR power RH bat in the OF. Add two good (forget how much we don't like Chapman for a moment...this is just about the on-field product) LH relievers to bolster the bullpen, which will already be getting back Hendriks and Whitlock. And one really solid RH starter (Eovaldi) and another guy who, if he's healthy, could be another tremendous SP addition (Buehler). All while not remotely breaking the bank and leaving plenty of room for the young guys to come up.

I have NO idea if this is what will happen. But it's the kind of thing that could happen. How would we feel about this organization if something like this was what transpired?
I’d be very underwhelmed. Replace Buehler with Burnes/Fried and I’d feel much better.
 

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
1,867
Chicago, IL
I think that off season would look a lot like the off seasons of the past several years and would be incredibly disappointing. They need RHH thump (or Soto, given his even splits), and they need a a #1. Maybe Chapman, Wilson, Hendriks, and the emergence of Guerrero shores up the pen (with a whole lotta "ifs"). But you have not radically improved the rotation, nor added power from the right side that the team really needs.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
15,725
Buehler + Eovaldi seems kinda like the Dodgers strategy of "sign a million guys who are never healthy!" to me (I think it's a dumb strategy). I'd be okay with either but don't see the appeal of pushing current starters out of the rotation to accommodate both.
Are we again assuming perfect health? You need a lot of players, especially pitchers, to get through a major league season. Now you can fit only so many on the roster, but I don’t think the fear of Crawford or someone having to start the season in the minors or in the pen if everyone is healthy should drive decisions, it’s only an issue if everything goes eight, which almost never happens.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
22,797
Rogers Park
I want availability. So Eovaldi yes. ONeil no. Not sure about Buehler; not totally on top of his injury history.
Eovaldi is the wild outlier record holder for innings thrown by player after a second TJS. I guess this is true of all pitchers, but he's even more "each pitch could be his last" than most guys.
 

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
1,886
On Eovaldi specifically, I think you have a decent idea what you're getting.

20-25 good starts and someone that doesn't become a puddle in the playoffs. He's the type of move you can make when you have a lot of depth but not a lot of "good" in your rotation (which I think the Sox have). I like the "sign Eovaldi" part, because I think that is the type of FA signing that both makes them better and is realistic for FSG to do.

I suppose I'd rather have the rotation of Eovaldi, Houck, Buehler, Bello, Crawford/Gio than Eovaldi, Houck, Bello, Crawford, Gio and FAR more than Houck, Bello, Crawford, Gio, Priester / Fitts. So there is that.

But I cannot stress enough that I have no interest at all in O'Neill because even at the contract which I'd get wanting him back (1/$9m) I'd be incredibly upset that they cheaped out so badly when Hernandez / CWalker / Santander / Kim were all on the FA market and available for just cash.

(I understand that people would / will feel the same way about Eovaldi and Buehler vs Fried, Burnes, Snell, whatever, but I've made my peace long ago with the fact that while I WANT the Red Sox to spend big on a free agent pitcher there is zero part of me that believes they WILL, so I discount the possibility entirely. Much like I WANT to win Mass Mega Millions, but I entirely discount the possibility I WILL.)
 

The Filthy One

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 11, 2005
3,657
Los Angeles
I have no insight into how Eovaldi feels about any of this, but if the Sox put together a big contender (in other words, they sign a front of the rotation pitcher and/or trade for another starter), I wonder if he'd be more amenable than other options to coming in without a guaranteed rotation spot. Given his history with the team and with Cora, maybe he comes on board in a swingman/sixth starter capacity. The likelihood is he would still probably make 20-ish starts, but if he doesn't, maybe he's a weapon out of the pen. I would not feel content with him as one of five starters they have going into the season, but I would love him in a more flexible sixth starter capacity.
 

OCD SS

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
@Yelling At Clouds

Also, I mean, the Sox could have had him last year by simply tacking on a third year and not sacrificing a pick and didn't, so there is that. (Though I like to think that people can learn from mistakes and not just keep making the same mistake over and over and over.)
As someone who’s assumed he’s off the table, I don’t think it’s a matter of learning from a mistake as much as how much did his having a good year really change your evaluation of the player? Did Breslow’s overhaul of the FO introduce a process switch or change to the model where he’s suddenly more valuable a year later?

Yes, learn from your mistakes, but IMO that means spend some money on pitching.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
10,128
Danny Jansen going to Tampa or whatever town they're in now, catching stock continues to dwindle.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
15,725
Danny Jansen going to Tampa or whatever town they're in now, catching stock continues to dwindle.
There’s zero evidence that the Sox are looking for a starting catcher; Higashioka and Jansen both choose oppprtuntiies to get playing time that are unlikely to exist with the 2025 Boston Red Sox.
 

TomRicardo

rusty cohlebone
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2006
21,940
Row 14
How would people here feel if this was the Sox' offseason, when all is said and done:

- Sign Aroldis Chapman for 1 year, $10.5 million (already done)
- Sign Justin Wilson for 1 year, $2.25 million (already done)
- Sign Tyler O'Neill for 3 years, ~$60 million
- Sign Nathan Eovaldi for 3 years, $~66 million
- Sign Walker Buehler for 3 years, ~$60 million

Five guys, none for longer than 3 years, for a grand total of just under $200 million, the big three of which would each run about $20-22 million a season.

The reality is, that kind of offseason probably improves the Boston Red Sox considerably. O'Neill resumes his role as moderate-defense, big HR power RH bat in the OF. Add two good (forget how much we don't like Chapman for a moment...this is just about the on-field product) LH relievers to bolster the bullpen, which will already be getting back Hendriks and Whitlock. And one really solid RH starter (Eovaldi) and another guy who, if he's healthy, could be another tremendous SP addition (Buehler). All while not remotely breaking the bank and leaving plenty of room for the young guys to come up.

I have NO idea if this is what will happen. But it's the kind of thing that could happen. How would we feel about this organization if something like this was what transpired?
That they should fire Breslow. That is not a competitive baseball team and already has a ton of question marks about if they even know what they are doing.

Take your O'Neill signing. If they were to sign O'Neill for 60/3 you should fire Breslow immediately. If they were prepared to take O'Neill for 60/3 they should have offered QO and dampened his market or get him on a 1 yr deal.

Also having a rotation of Eovaldi, Buehler, and Giolito is incredibly dangerous. Also why would you give 35 Eovaldi a three year commitment when he is often injured?
 

RS2004foreever

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 15, 2022
1,639
There kind is a case for a minimalist approach. Sign Eovaldi - play the kids. I wouldn't sign O'Neil - he just would block Anthony.
I think Boston adds 2 pitchers - and won't take the minimalist approach.
 

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
1,886
As someone who’s assumed he’s off the table, I don’t think it’s a matter of learning from a mistake as much as how much did his having a good year really change your evaluation of the player? Did Breslow’s overhaul of the FO introduce a process switch or change to the model where he’s suddenly more valuable a year later?

Yes, learn from your mistakes, but IMO that means spend some money on pitching.
I meant more learning from the mistake of refusing to give out deals of longer than two years to established MLB players. Breslow identified both Lugo and Hernandez as guys that he wanted last year (and I admit I personally had no interest in Lugo and was wrong) but the Red Sox wouldn't go over two years in either situation.

They haven't given out a deal of more than 2 years to any MLB player since Trevor Story before 2022. If they continue to not land any established MLB players that are able to command more than 2 years, they're going to be in trouble.

Also, I agree, they SHOULD spend money on pitching. I don't think they will play at the top of the FA market. Doesn't excuse them from NOT landing guys like Lugo, Bassitt, Taillon, Eovaldi, Flaherty, Severino and the like and just throwing a bunch of whomever will take one year deals against the wall. It also doesn't excuse them from not landing players like Hernandez (or this year Kim, Santander, CWalker and the like).
 

Hee Sox Choi

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 27, 2006
6,253
Clay Holmes is nearing a decision according to Jayson Stark. I believe he wants to start. I think he would be a great signing for the Sox. Let him try to start and if not, put him in the pen. His stuff is so filthy and his GB rate is absurd. Sounds like he will sign today and I wonder if he might be on Breslow & Bailey's radar.
 

Yo La Tengo

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
1,395
Clay Holmes is nearing a decision according to Jayson Stark. I believe he wants to start. I think he would be a great signing for the Sox. Let him try to start and if not, put him in the pen. His stuff is so filthy and his GB rate is absurd. Sounds like he will sign today and I wonder if he might be on Breslow & Bailey's radar.
I have been hoping the Sox would sign Holmes and have him be a swing starter in 2025, with a potential spot in the rotation in 2026. He'll be 32 next year and has thrown 63 innings each of the last 3 seasons.

92827
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,986
I actually wouldn't mind seeing O'Neill back if he accepted a one year deal. Which I think is not likely, but possible.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
33,427
What? Remember that time we had Nate for four and a half years and got one qualified season out of him?
29 starts last year, 25 the year before. These days, anything over 25 seems to be a rare commodity. I consider him reliable in 2025-speak.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
33,427
Pivetta or Eovaldi at the same price and years? Let's say 3/66 to throw a number out there.
Nate's age gives me some pause at 3/ side by side, but I think his pitching upside is higher. I think I'm ready to gamble on upside, with an inhouse like Crawford ready to step into the durable, around-average guy at the back of the rotation slot.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
20,608
29 starts last year, 25 the year before. These days, anything over 25 seems to be a rare commodity. I consider him reliable in 2025-speak.
Which means almost nothing going forward. Going into 2024, Lucas Giolito made 29 or more starts in 5 of the past 6 seasons (exception being 2020). Chris Sale made 29 more starts in 2024 than Giolito.
 

BeantownIdaho

New Member
Dec 5, 2005
652
Nampa, Idaho
Nate's age gives me some pause at 3/ side by side, but I think his pitching upside is higher. I think I'm ready to gamble on upside, with an inhouse like Crawford ready to step into the durable, around-average guy at the back of the rotation slot.
Yeah I agree. I think we have a lot of in house guys that can slot in the 3-5 range. I am hoping that we are in the running for a true #1 #2 by FA or trade. I'm really hoping we don't go tier 2 2 because we miss out.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
33,427
Which means almost nothing going forward. Going into 2024, Lucas Giolito made 29 or more starts in 5 of the past 6 seasons (exception being 2020). Chris Sale made 29 more starts in 2024 than Giolito.
If all starters are equally likely to explode (and they might just be) then it just washes out on either side of the equation. (pardon my math). As I've said, the FO doesn't want over 30 to long term. So -- with that self-imposed limitation -- the only other option other than a possibly unobtainable rotation of "all young and at least one or two really good," are successful older to shorter term. Hence Nate. (debating the merits of that over-30 strategy isn't part of this conversation, I hope)

Even developing your own is a risk, but the cost is mostly opportunity and maybe bonus money. Isringhausen, Wilson and Pulsipher were supposed to be the next Seaver, Koosman and Matlack.

I understand that Crochet has been a health issue. But, again, if health is just a near-random thing, then at least they get a younger guy who has shown he can get major leaguers out. Obviously the cost is more to trade for a "developed" guy like that than just drafting him. But, IMO, that's a reasonable allocation of resources for *this* team at *this* stage of its rise from the outhouse.
 
Last edited:

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
1,886
Nate's age gives me some pause at 3/ side by side, but I think his pitching upside is higher. I think I'm ready to gamble on upside, with an inhouse like Crawford ready to step into the durable, around-average guy at the back of the rotation slot.
Same.

Not to mention that Eovaldi has won two world series and proven not to be a puddle in the post season as a starting pitcher. They have both proven to be effective out of the bullpen in the post season, but Eovaldi to a greater degree. I also think there is something to be said for "scoreboard" and even if Pivetta's stuff is off the charts, Eovaldi has had better ERA and FIP numbers consistently, and neither are particularly close, and Eovaldi has done that in an extreme hitter's park (Fenway) and in a regular hitter's park (Texas) so it's not a function of pitching in Seattle or San Diego or whatever.

I don't expect Boston to land Fried or Burnes (or Snell) - I think we agree totally on this @joe dokes . As much as I'd like them to, I don't think they're landing Crochet or a Seattle arm either.

If they end the off-season and haven't added one of Eovaldi (my choice) or Flaherty (would have put Kikcuhi in this bucket too) it's going to be a massive mistake.
 

iddoc

New Member
Nov 17, 2006
212
Eovaldi's results have been quite consistent over the past 3 years, though he will be 35 and his fastball velocity is starting to fade. xERA 53 percentile on Savant this past season. I recall when he was on the Red Sox and his fastball velo was down a bit for whatever reason, the results weren't pretty, though perhaps he has learned better usage of his secondary offerings since then.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
33,427
I don't think they're landing Crochet or a Seattle arm either.
Its hard to have a good sense one way or the other on that. They certainly have the resources to make a deal with Chicago or Seattle. But, unlike with Soto, the "how much is too much" (and in terms of players, rather than money) question begins at a much earlier point.
 

E5 Yaz

polka king
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
96,466
Oregon
Its hard to have a good sense one way or the other on that. They certainly have the resources to make a deal with Chicago or Seattle. But, unlike with Soto, the "how much is too much" (and in terms of players, rather than money) question begins at a much earlier point.
I would not rule out another trade with the Pirates for a pitcher. Not Skenes, obviously, but they have some depth, more on the way, and they need bats
 

curly2

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 8, 2003
5,216
Buehler + Eovaldi seems kinda like the Dodgers strategy of "sign a million guys who are never healthy!" to me (I think it's a dumb strategy).
Eovaldi innings pitched, including postseason:

2021: 193
2022: 109.1
2023: 180.2
2024: 170.2

It's not predictive, and any pitcher can blow out at any time, especially a 35-year-old with two TJ surgeries, but it's not exactly "never healthy."
 

sean1562

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 17, 2011
3,740
I don't think the Pirates are going to trade us Jared Jones. He has a similar profile to Spencer Strider, had the third highest average fastball speed in baseball, a top 10 whiff percentage, and is only 23 years old. They do have a decent amount of high end pitching talent, but that is why the traded us Quinn Priester for Yorke. Shipping Mitch Keller out of town seems more their MO than trading a younger guy with loads of cheap team control.

That Henry Davis pick really blew up in their faces.
 

Dewey'sCannon

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
958
Maryland
Regardless of what happens with Soto, I'm still reasonably confident that they will be able to obtain a significant upgrade to the front of the rotation by FA acquisition or trade. Who they end up with, and whether it's one or two, depends on the price, but I think they'll step up and pay the requisite price ($$ or talent) for at least one. I think Eovaldi is the floor, but that they're aiming higher (and younger).
 

Dewey'sCannon

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
958
Maryland
I don't think the Pirates are going to trade us Jared Jones. He has a similar profile to Spencer Strider, had the third highest average fastball speed in baseball, a top 10 whiff percentage, and is only 23 years old. They do have a decent amount of high end pitching talent, but that is why the traded us Quinn Priester for Yorke. Shipping Mitch Keller out of town seems more their MO than trading a younger guy with loads of cheap team control.

That Henry Davis pick really blew up in their faces.
Agreed, but he's probably the only one I'd deal Casas for.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
20,608
I don't expect Boston to land Fried or Burnes (or Snell) - I think we agree totally on this @joe dokes . As much as I'd like them to, I don't think they're landing Crochet or a Seattle arm either.

If they end the off-season and haven't added one of Eovaldi (my choice) or Flaherty (would have put Kikcuhi in this bucket too) it's going to be a massive mistake.
Assuming the Sox strike out on the free agent pitchers (quite possible). If Crochet or a Seattle arm end up being dealt for a reasonable package to another team, then that would be an epic fail on behalf of Breslow and the entire Red Sox front office.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
10,128
Eovaldi innings pitched, including postseason:

2021: 193
2022: 109.1
2023: 180.2
2024: 170.2

It's not predictive, and any pitcher can blow out at any time, especially a 35-year-old with two TJ surgeries, but it's not exactly "never healthy."
Yes, if you take the most productive 4 year stretch of a 14 year career and pad it with postseason innings, it looks decent!