Offseason rumors

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,618
The only obvious team is the Red Sox, and they are operating like a cash strapped team.
This has been the narrative all offseason, and the only thing really supporting it is that we didn't immediately pay a Boras client his exorbitant salary demand.

If we want to say the Sox are being cheap, fine, that's subjective. But even looking through the lens of "full market value," isn't the problem at least as much that Boras is (reportedly) asking for Montgomery twice the price of what comparable pitchers made over the last decade? Is the incremental benefit of Jordan Montgomery over Tanner Houck worth $175 million?
 

BringBackMo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,303
Tea reading. They have stated from the begging they were using Carlos Rodon as a comp (6/162) as a comp. The market has obviously rejected that.

The teams that need starting pitching now vs November has shrunk considerably. The only obvious team is the Red Sox, and they are operating like a cash strapped team.

So he’s going to have to settle for a team that would like him - as a luxury but now need - which is going to be discounted from ask OR the cheap Red Sox.
Boras has more than once earned his clients surprisingly large deals late in an offseason. He has also misjudged the market more than once. His clients this year may well be looking at smaller contracts than they were expecting, but I don’t think we have any information at all about what Montgomery’s actual market is right now.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
View: https://twitter.com/bossportsgordo/status/1755797533652140192?s=46&t=7XazH1NKZP26a4WUZikbkQ


Updates from @JonHeyman:

Red Sox could still be an option for Montgomery
Teams are asking about Jarren Duran
Sox are fielding calls on Kenley Jansen, and the Padres and Dodgers are suitors.
Sounds like Heyman is sourcing SoSH :) For me Jansen is an interesting case. Conventional thinking is that he's worth more to teams in need as the trade deadline approaches. On the flip side if you can identify a team that does not appear to be a shoe in for the playoffs with a questionable back of the bullpen, you might get a good return from a team that views him as a season long difference maker. In a case like that I would hope that Breslow identifies and approaches such teams looking for a reasonable return that addresses our needs. Sometimes things happen in spring training that causes teams to reassess where they're at before the season begins. If Jansen were to be moved in that sort of scenario I'd like to see what Houck might be able to do in the closer's role.
 

HfxBob

New Member
Nov 13, 2005
348
This has been the narrative all offseason, and the only thing really supporting it is that we didn't immediately pay a Boras client his exorbitant salary demand.
That's hardly the only thing supporting the narrative. Some guy named Kennedy flat out told us the payroll would probably be lower than last year, and last year's payroll was comfortably under the first tax threshold, so not high at all, relative to past spending by the team, or relative to what the other big market teams are spending.
 

SouthernBoSox

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2005
12,018
This has been the narrative all offseason, and the only thing really supporting it is that we didn't immediately pay a Boras client his exorbitant salary demand.

If we want to say the Sox are being cheap, fine, that's subjective. But even looking through the lens of "full market value," isn't the problem at least as much that Boras is (reportedly) asking for Montgomery twice the price of what comparable pitchers made over the last decade? Is the incremental benefit of Jordan Montgomery over Tanner Houck worth $175 million?
I honest to god do not want to get into this again because it's all we talked about for 4 months now, but it's not just a narrative. When ownership says payroll will most likely be lower, which confirms every single local and national report, it's more than a narrative.

That being said, I agree I don't think just throwing 6/175mm at Montgomery cause you need a starting is good business at all. If the do end up signing him for say 4/110+mm than obviously they played this perfectly.

I remain skeptical.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
7,958
4/110 for Monty seems unlikely for this reason: Boras is going to want an opt-out if he doesn't get a mega deal, and 4 years is a big guarantee if the guy can opt-out after one good year. I'd guess two or three years with an opt out, or 5+ fully guaranteed.
 

BringBackMo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,303
The only obvious team is the Red Sox, and they are operating like a cash strapped team.

So he’s going to have to settle for a team that would like him - as a luxury but now need - which is going to be discounted from ask OR the cheap Red Sox.
Nearly all of your posting at this point has boiled down to this message. An honest question: Do you truly believe that the people running the team are cheap? Is that your actual opinion? Do you truly not believe that their salary allocations right now are part of a development strategy?

The interesting thing to me about all of this is that when you’re not chastising the team for being cheap and demanding that they sign Montgomery, you’re posting your belief that the team isn’t good anyway and is unlikely to make the playoffs. If that’s true, then why do you want the Sox to sign him? Is it simply to prove to you that they are not cheap?
 

SouthernBoSox

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2005
12,018
4/110 for Monty seems unlikely for this reason: Boras is going to want an opt-out if he doesn't get a mega deal, and 4 years is a big guarantee if they guy can opt-out after one good year. I'd guess two or three years with an opt out, or 5+ fully guaranteed.
I agree that unless someone goes 5 or 6 years firm his contract will include significant structure with outs and incentives.
 

HfxBob

New Member
Nov 13, 2005
348
Nearly all of your posting at this point has boiled down to this message. An honest question: Do you truly believe that the people running the team are cheap? Is that your actual opinion? Do you truly not believe that their salary allocations right now are part of a development strategy?
Here's a question that arises: if the Red Sox do in fact end up say $25 million under the first tax threshold, how that can be construed as a good thing for the baseball team in any way? Do we think the $25 million will get spent in the future? Is that ever how this works?
 
Last edited:

SouthernBoSox

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2005
12,018
So not 4-$110 million?
Nearly all of your posting at this point has boiled down to this message. An honest question: Do you truly believe that the people running the team are cheap? Is that your actual opinion? Do you truly not believe that their salary allocations right now are part of a development strategy?

The interesting thing to me about all of this is that when you’re not chastising the team for being cheap and demanding that they sign Montgomery, you’re posting your belief that the team isn’t good anyway and is unlikely to make the playoffs. If that’s true, then why do you want the Sox to sign him? Is it simply to prove to you that they are not cheap?
I believe at this juncture 4 - $110 with favorable player structure would absolutely be competitive. It is a guess, which is literally the first thing I said when you asked where I came up with the number.

And on your bolded point. I didn't even say cash strapped as a point of opinion. I am regurgitating every. single. report that has come out this offseason. People want to live in a reality where the Red Sox are willing to spend huge dollars this offseason and are just buying their time. Every single piece of information we have been given as fans from reporters and even ownership, flies in the face of that. Maybe they do have some radical shift and grab

I am of the opinion the Boston Red Sox, within reason, should be spending money to field the best team they can. I cannot believe that is a controversial opinion.
 

Auger34

used to be tbb
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
9,023
I believe at this juncture 4 - $110 with favorable player structure would absolutely be competitive. It is a guess, which is literally the first thing I said when you asked where I came up with the number.

And on your bolded point. I didn't even say cash strapped as a point of opinion. I am regurgitating every. single. report that has come out this offseason. People want to live in a reality where the Red Sox are willing to spend huge dollars this offseason and are just buying their time. Every single piece of information we have been given as fans from reporters and even ownership, flies in the face of that. Maybe they do have some radical shift and grab

I am of the opinion the Boston Red Sox, within reason, should be spending money to field the best team they can. I cannot believe that is a controversial opinion.
I don't want to speak for you, so I will just ask, the post you're responding to said that you're constantly posting that the team isn't good. Haven't you been pretty clear that you think this team is somewhat of a sleeping giant and if they sign Montgomery you think they are a likely playoff team?
 

BringBackMo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,303
I believe at this juncture 4 - $110 with favorable player structure would absolutely be competitive. It is a guess, which is literally the first thing I said when you asked where I came up with the number.

And on your bolded point. I didn't even say cash strapped as a point of opinion. I am regurgitating every. single. report that has come out this offseason. People want to live in a reality where the Red Sox are willing to spend huge dollars this offseason and are just buying their time. Every single piece of information we have been given as fans from reporters and even ownership, flies in the face of that. Maybe they do have some radical shift and grab

I am of the opinion the Boston Red Sox, within reason, should be spending money to field the best team they can. I cannot believe that is a controversial opinion.
No, you didn't say cash-strapped as a point of opinion. In fact, you didn't say they ARE cash strapped at all. You said they are acting as though they are cash strapped, in an effort to paint them as simply cheap. Than you just went ahead and called them "cheap." But, unfortunately, you did not answer the question I asked:
An honest question: Do you truly believe that the people running the team are cheap? Is that your actual opinion? Do you truly not believe that their salary allocations right now are part of a development strategy?
Let me ask again: Do you believe that the Red Sox new standard operating procedure is to be cheap? In other words, do you believe that their payroll--whatever it ends up being this year--will be illustrative of a cheapness that we can project five or ten seasons into the future? Or do you believe it will be illustrative of strategic decisions the team is making about its current place on the development cycle?

Finally, as to your comment that "People want to live in a reality where the Red Sox are willing to spend huge dollars this offseason and are just buying their time"--can you show me where anyeone has said this? Seriously, can you please quote from a post where someone has said anything that could be reasonably interprested as "the Red Sox are willing to spend huge dollars this offeason, and are just buying their time"?
 

ZMart100

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2008
3,130
4/110 seems high to me. I wouldn't be upset if someone else signs Montgomery for that.
 

BringBackMo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,303
I don't want to speak for you, so I will just ask, the post you're responding to said that you're constantly posting that the team isn't good. Haven't you been pretty clear that you think this team is somewhat of a sleeping giant and if they sign Montgomery you think they are a likely playoff team?
Dude, if you want to join the discussion, start by reading the relevant posts--which were already quoted--and then rather than sub-SOSH (or whatever our SOSH equivalent of a sub-Tweet is) just put your question directly to the person you're addressing.

Here is the post that started this entire exchange:

He won’t be available to the Red Sox at a discount. Bad defense with low playoff odds.

The Red Sox will have to be the highest bidder by more than a small margin to get him.
Is that how you describe sleeping giants?
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,618
I honest to god do not want to get into this again because it's all we talked about for 4 months now, but it's not just a narrative. When ownership says payroll will most likely be lower, which confirms every single local and national report, it's more than a narrative.
I don't want to get into this again either, but we should be clear that there never was a "report" that payroll will be lower. Kennedy said what he said, which is more than anything an on-the-spot reflection of the current payroll number (execs would never say anything that forces a GMs hand). Many people want to see it as confirmation that there is a directive to reduce payroll, but that has always been speculation and never been reported as fact.

The most we have otherwise is a second-hand report from an unnamed industry source that the Sox were not willing to spend at the top of the market and that they were looking to clear salary (aka trade an incumbent) before pursuing their player, both of which are almost certainly seeded by Boras or Rafa Nieves.
 

SouthernBoSox

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2005
12,018
No, you didn't say cash-strapped as a point of opinion. In fact, you didn't say they ARE cash strapped at all. You said they are acting as though they are cash strapped, in an effort to paint them as simply cheap. Than you just went ahead and called them "cheap." But, unfortunately, you did not answer the question I asked:

Let me ask again: Do you believe that the Red Sox new standard operating procedure is to be cheap? In other words, do you believe that their payroll--whatever it ends up being this year--will be illustrative of a cheapness that we can project five or ten seasons into the future? Or do you believe it will be illustrative of strategic decisions the team is making about its current place on the development cycle?

Finally, as to your comment that "People want to live in a reality where the Red Sox are willing to spend huge dollars this offseason and are just buying their time"--can you show me where anyeone has said this? Seriously, can you please quote from a post where someone has said anything that could be reasonably interprested as "the Red Sox are willing to spend huge dollars this offeason, and are just buying their time"?
I did not say this is some new standard operating procedure. I am saying they are currently operating as if they do not have money to spend aka cash strapped. This isn't controversial.

“It probably will be lower than it was in 2023,” Kennedy said before the team’s Winter Weekend began at the MassMutual Center.
Sam Kennedy on lower payroll expectations

Industry officials opined that the Red Sox are the best fit for Montgomery, but every indication remains that the Sox won’t be pursuing long-term deals for Montgomery or Snell
Alex Speier on Red Sox pursuit

According to a baseball source, the Red Sox have told at least one free agent target that they need to shed more payroll before pursuing him as aggressively as they want to. It’s no coincidence, then that the Sox shaved nearly $4 million in salary by swapping Verdugo (projected to earn $9.2 million in arbitration) for O’Neill (projected $5.5 million) and $8.6 million more (based on CBT calculations) by moving on from Sale. The bigger question is why the team is being so fine when it comes to finances when current projections have them around $200 million in committed money, well under the first competitive balance tax threshold of $237 million.
Cotillo saying Sox need to cut payroll to sign additional free agents
 

BringBackMo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,303
I did not say this is some new standard operating procedure. I am saying they are currently operating as if they do not have money to spend aka cash strapped. This isn't controversial.



Sam Kennedy on lower payroll expectations



Alex Speier on Red Sox pursuit



Cotillo saying Sox need to cut payroll to sign additional free agents
An honest question: Do you truly believe that the people running the team are cheap? Is that your actual opinion? Do you truly not believe that their salary allocations right now are part of a development strategy?
Finally, as to your comment that "People want to live in a reality where the Red Sox are willing to spend huge dollars this offseason and are just buying their time"--can you show me where anyeone has said this? Seriously, can you please quote from a post where someone has said anything that could be reasonably interprested as "the Red Sox are willing to spend huge dollars this offeason, and are just buying their time"?
 

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
1,101
How to fix the offseason this week:

Trade Duran to the Padres for Snelling, Lesko or Thorpe
Sign Duvall for 1 year at like 8 mil
Trade Jansen to Dodgers for pitching depth and cash
Sign Montgomery for 5/140 with an opt out after 3 years

This solves your roster problems now and gives you the young and veteran rotation pieces needed for the future.

Hardest part of this is having SD give up one of their three best pitching prospects but if they're serious about getting a dynamic outfielder then Duran should be very intriguing to them.
I fully endorse this entire plan.

Snelling is whom I was going to suggest regarding Duran and San Diego as well. Boston would almost certainly have to kick in something else with Duran (yes, I know BTV says that Duran is worth more than Snelling, I happen to disagree, but I think it's close enough that Boston could bridge the gap and should).

If Heyman has it right that San Diego is one of the teams in on Jansen (which seems odd since they just signed a closer, but whatever...) I could see Jansen and Boston covering half the salary and Duran for Snelling possibly working for both sides.
 

RS2004foreever

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 15, 2022
304
Things we do not know:
1. How restrictive the Red Sox intend to be about payroll.
2. The state of Montgomery negotiations.
3. Whether a Jansen trade is anywhere close to happening.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,237
You'll be welcomed at the club of the pissed. I've moved on to low expectations.

I look forward to hearing why Monty made no sense anyway...because he didn't want to sign here because reasons, and well if you look more closely at his numbers, blah blah.
I still think there's reasons why certain players may not want to sign with Boston (and/or other teams) and I don't think they should be dismissed at all. I think Montgomery WANTS to pitch for the Rangers or possibly some other teams and the Sox are probably mid-tier on his list of teams he wants to play on and there'll be some penalty for that in the contract.
I can even reasonably see people arguing that he didn't make sense here but for me, those faults don't outweigh what he does bring so I'd be arguing against those points.
 

biollante

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 22, 2001
9,782
Land formerly of Sowheag
Why are the Red Sox having a Seinfeld anniversary night when we play the A's on July 9th ?

Maybe the Mets or Yankees should have an anniversary night, but not the Sox.

Or did I miss an episode ?
 

Yaz4Ever

MemBer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2004
11,226
MA-CA-RI-AZ-NC
I fully endorse this entire plan.

Snelling is whom I was going to suggest regarding Duran and San Diego as well. Boston would almost certainly have to kick in something else with Duran (yes, I know BTV says that Duran is worth more than Snelling, I happen to disagree, but I think it's close enough that Boston could bridge the gap and should).

If Heyman has it right that San Diego is one of the teams in on Jansen (which seems odd since they just signed a closer, but whatever...) I could see Jansen and Boston covering half the salary and Duran for Snelling possibly working for both sides.
Can we pay a little more of Jansen’s salary or include someone else to get Snelling and Pauley/Head together?
 

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
1,101
It's a game about nothing
Well done.

Can we pay a little more of Jansen’s salary or include someone else to get Snelling and Pauley/Head together?
Really like the idea of landing Pauley, and if the Sox could send Duran and a fully paid for Jansen to the Padres for Snelling and Pauley, I'd be very on board with that. Not sure SD would go for it, but I really don't know what their financial situation looks like at present with the moves they've made thus far.

I was honestly really surprised to see them linked to Jansen, truth be told, because they spent big on a closer already this off-season. On the one hand, it's Heyman so who the eff knows. On the other, I don't see any possible angle where connecting Jansen to the Padres benefits Boras, so maybe it's legit since I can't connect the dots as to make it JUST Heyman carrying water for Boras.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,414
Maine
Can we pay a little more of Jansen’s salary or include someone else to get Snelling and Pauley/Head together?
BTV suggests that Duran and Jansen for Snelling and Pauley or Head is close to even in value without adding any cash. If you add half of Jansen's salary, it tilts to a bit of an overpay by the Sox.

I think that makes a case that the Pads might be swayed by the cash to do it.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,435
SD only wanted SPs for Soto because they badly needed them, it’s not an accident they traded 2 OFs (Grisham too) for four SPs. They’re not going to reverse that in the same offseason.
 

OCD SS

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nearly all of your posting at this point has boiled down to this message. An honest question: Do you truly believe that the people running the team are cheap? Is that your actual opinion? Do you truly not believe that their salary allocations right now are part of a development strategy?
Not to speak for SBS, but for myself, I can see a discrepancy in how the team is approaching its spending more recently, which we’ve been over. To answer this specifically, I don’t see a developmental reason to not spend to improve the team, because the likely amount under discussion isn’t going to cripple them from spending more if they want to later on, so what’s being protected is a profit margin IMO.

So let’s turn it around: can you explain why the Sox, given the talent they have, might not want to spend to improve the 2024 roster? Are you OK with this year where ownership is less interested in being competitive?

The interesting thing to me about all of this is that when you’re not chastising the team for being cheap and demanding that they sign Montgomery, you’re posting your belief that the team isn’t good anyway and is unlikely to make the playoffs. If that’s true, then why do you want the Sox to sign him? Is it simply to prove to you that they are not cheap?
I didn’t take the “cheap Red Sox” comment as his characterization of the team, but that of the current media narrative and how it might be spun if the Sox do sign him. Again, speaking for myself, I want the Sox to sign JMonty because he improves the team. It’s not him vs Houck, it’s Monty vs Mata or whoever is at the back end of the roster.

The Sox should not have to clear salary to sign him. Moving Jansen should not be a prerequisite, because the Sox can use all the good pitchers they can get. I will withhold judgment based on the return, but a straight salary dump doesn’t help the team, only its profit margin.
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
32,971
He won’t be available to the Red Sox at a discount. Bad defense with low playoff odds.

The Red Sox will have to be the highest bidder by more than a small margin to get him.
I do'nt see why that's true with his wife in residency in the Boston area. Depends on what he cares about I guess.

Also our defense has a chance to be OK, need Rafaela to hit enough to stay up, Story to stay healthy and perhaps Grissom will be fine again now that he'll be locked into 2B. I"m not resigned to a league-worst defense this year just yet.
 

SouthernBoSox

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2005
12,018

RS2004foreever

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 15, 2022
304
David Vassegh said the Phillies are in “active talks” with the Red Sox regarding Kenley Jansen, via his podcast.
Makes sense since they let Kimbrel walk.

That is the first rumor in a while that says something is actually happening.
 

Yaz4Ever

MemBer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2004
11,226
MA-CA-RI-AZ-NC
David Vassegh said the Phillies are in “active talks” with the Red Sox regarding Kenley Jansen, via his podcast.
Makes sense since they let Kimbrel walk.

That is the first rumor in a while that says something is actually happening.
Straight up for Harper or will we have too many LHHs?