I guess that depends on how much of an asset Jansen is (right now, probably not much of one), and how much Montgomery wants. Swapping Jansen’s salary slot for a SP is a good idea, in theory. If they could get the Phils to take Jansen and most of his contract for little in return, than they could theoretically sign Montgomery. For whatever reason, though, it doesn’t sound like they have the payroll flexibility to just add a FA SP without losing Jansen’s salary.
The difficult part in all of this for me is the question of what exactly is payroll flexibility when it comes to this team. We have a rough idea of where they stand vs the first tax threshold and we've been told that they will probably/possibly/likely (pick one), but not definitely come in below last season's payroll. IMO, flexibility means leaving yourself a bit of wiggle and that's fine, but it's hard to comment when we have no idea of the parameters.
We haven’t solved the 2B problem yet. We acquired a young guy with loads of potential. But he actually has to deliver on that and be a good major league second baseman for the position to actually be solved.
I have more faith in Grissom in the field than Devers fielding 3B.
Genuinely not aiming to be combative here but I think this is inaccurate in several ways. You’ve itemized this tidily so I’ll answer in that format.
Ya know you’re right, it’s basically indistinguishable from the Dodgers offseason: I can barely see the difference.
Was trading Verdugo purely salary related? That seemed like it was about adding pitchers to the system for the last year of a guy.
I’m not claiming 3D anything, but if they trade Jansen while paying some of his salary and get future assets in return, it can be part of a build, much like Sale/Grissom.
That’s true I think it was more about talent then dump, I exaggerated, but it was still a dump no?
If they pay the freight, as they did with Grissom, then yep.
I don’t have time right now to go through this but I linked every article in the previous post.
No, trading Verdugo was about swapping him and O'Neill, who hits righty and has more power. It was a better fit for the roster.
This is true, as far as actually getting production out of 2b. Grissom is not a sure thing. But I do think it's fair to say that 2b is "solved" in the sense that it's not an area in need of being addressed anymore. Between Grissom and Valdez with Yorke possibly coming up, and one or two of Story/Rafaela/eventually Mayer possibly rotating over from SS, I think the team is in pretty good shape for 2b in the short and long term. Of course it could all fall apart, but that's just how team building is.
So while we don't know what the final 2024 payroll number will be, it matters.greatly to a large chunk of Red Sox fandom and media. It says a lot about the team's intentions and priorities.
Agree he was off next years roster and I’m glad it was for lottery arms.
Well I’m glad where it landed, doubly so if one of those ex-Yankee arms come through - if wishing could make it so! Maybe it was all triangulated ahead of time, certainly possible.
Maybe I’m misreading you but I’m not seeing any links in your previous post.
I’m aiming for precision of language. I’m sorry if it seems picky. I’m homing in on your characterizations in that bulleted list of yours because they are interpretive. There’s a lot of inference and story-building in sports reporting and that’s fine — it’s entertainment — but the way these reporters are phrasing these reports matters a lot.
You’re absolutely right. No argument there. The spirit of your posts, however, strongly suggests that these moves were made because they wanted to lower payroll. That A) is unsubstantiated, B) is directly contradicted by Breslow and ownership’s statements, and C) doesn’t make sense when you look at the substance of those trades.
Why does it matter though? Swapping Verdugo for O'Neill isn't a downgrade because O'Neill's making less money, is it?
If Kennedy has to give an answer there, what he said is probably the safest thing because it reflects the current reality. If he says payroll would be equal or greater to last year, he’s throwing Breslow under a bus.
He could have simply said “we don’t know yet”. It would still cause some negativity from the fan base, but it would have been a better response.
What is Occam's razor, the explanation with the fewest assumptions, for this statement about the payroll, given at a press gaggle with reporters:
Assuming everything said here is true, don't you have to make a pretty big assumption that ownership has mandated that payroll be lower? That seems to me a bigger assumptive leap.
Sorry, would it be better if just retweeted INTEREST KINGS!!1! again and again?
At this point, it’s pretty clear that who the reporter is doesn’t matter to you, if it’s national or local is immaterial. The only thing that matters is if it’s positive about the Red Sox and then you will post about it as if it’s somehow better sourced reporting than anything somewhat negative. It’s all really tiring to read
I get it, but I’m really only interested in the “actually getting production” part.
I don't care if the payroll is higher than last year or not. The fact (and what everybody is pissed about) is that the weaknesses on this team in October are still the weaknesses today which means they haven't done what is necessary to get better. Go out and make the moves necessary to fix the starting pitching and RHH power issues and I guarantee you that the complaining ends.
I don’t think it dragged out as long. Teams all made their big moves in December and then they all prepared for Spring Training.
