Offseason rumors

[EvilEmpire]

If Montgomery has a good year with the Sox and opts out, they can afford to pay him. If he likes it there, I think a new contract probably wouldn't break the bank either. I mean, he seems willing to take a little less to go back to Texas right now, but they've got issues. That could be Boston next year after a successful season.

I don't think the Red Sox have to lock in multiple years at what might be a bargain rate for it to be a good deal for them. They need more pitching and Montgomery is solid. He raises the floor of their starting rotation. There is value in seeing what kind of fit he is with the team before making a stronger commitment.

 

[Big Papi's Mango Salsa]

If Montgomery has a good year with the Sox and opts out, they can afford to pay him. If he likes it there, I think a new contract probably wouldn't break the bank either. I mean, he seems willing to take a little less to go back to Texas right now, but they've got issues. That could be Boston next year after a successful season.

I don't think the Red Sox have to lock in multiple years at what might be a bargain rate for it to be a good deal for them. They need more pitching and Montgomery is solid. He raises the floor of their starting rotation. There is value in seeing what kind of fit he is with the team before making a stronger commitment.

While I get your point in general, we're talking about having 3 pitchers that aren't exactly "kids" (they're all 28) and really having no idea if they're legitimate starters, bullpen pieces or what and a 4th that will be 26. Not exactly like making a call with Papelbon following his age 24 season (in terms of minor league success / major league success / prospect pedigree).

If Breslow / Bailey are confident enough right now to make the call that from that group pitchers 2, 3 and 4 have no place ever being in the Boston rotation, sure, I guess sign someone. But if they're not ready to make that call, see what those guys have. Don't waste another year so that again in the spring of 2025 (like 2023 and presently here in 2024) we're asking if these guys are starters or not.

 

[BigSoxFan]

If Montgomery has a good year with the Sox and opts out, they can afford to pay him. If he likes it there, I think a new contract probably wouldn't break the bank either. I mean, he seems willing to take a little less to go back to Texas right now, but they've got issues. That could be Boston next year after a successful season.

I don't think the Red Sox have to lock in multiple years at what might be a bargain rate for it to be a good deal for them. They need more pitching and Montgomery is solid. He raises the floor of their starting rotation. There is value in seeing what kind of fit he is with the team before making a stronger commitment.

And you’d have a nice rental asset to sell, if things go south this season, as many expect.

 

[Max Power]

While I get your point in general, we're talking about having 3 pitchers that aren't exactly "kids" (they're all 28) and really having no idea if they're legitimate starters, bullpen pieces or what and a 4th that will be 26. Not exactly like making a call with Papelbon following his age 24 season (in terms of minor league success / major league success / prospect pedigree).

If Breslow / Bailey are confident enough right now to make the call that from that group pitchers 2, 3 and 4 have no place ever being in the Boston rotation, sure, I guess sign someone. But if they're not ready to make that call, see what those guys have. Don't waste another year so that again in the spring of 2025 (like 2023 and presently here in 2024) we're asking if these guys are starters or not.

Even with Montgomery in the fold, there are going to be plenty of chances to start to go around. This team is not the 2004 version where the entire rotation is healthy all year. You can go 6 deep with starters and have Whitlock or Houck the long man out of the pen to start the season.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

If Montgomery has a good year with the Sox and opts out, they can afford to pay him. If he likes it there, I think a new contract probably wouldn't break the bank either. I mean, he seems willing to take a little less to go back to Texas right now, but they've got issues. That could be Boston next year after a successful season.

I don't think the Red Sox have to lock in multiple years at what might be a bargain rate for it to be a good deal for them. They need more pitching and Montgomery is solid. He raises the floor of their starting rotation. There is value in seeing what kind of fit he is with the team before making a stronger commitment.

The problem is that Texas is considered a winning organization and most players like to win. Or they like money. Because of where the Red Sox are, winning-wise, they would have to offer him a lot more money than a team like Texas. Or Baltimore. Or any other contender. I think that if all things are equal here and a contender offers x amount and Boston offers the exact same, Montgomery is going with that contending club. The one caveat is that his wife did her residence here and maybe likes the area. I don't know.

But this is the problem when a team bottoms out, it takes awhile for that team's q-rating (for lack of a better term) to bump up where a player doesn't mind playing for a little less as long as he has a chance to win. It happens all the time in all of the sports, baseball is no different.

 

[chrisfont9]

If it is a deal with an opt out after year 1, just do it. Get him in the door and then if you like him, then spend the year selling him on Boston, the RS, hospitals for his wife, the pitching program, coaches, teammates. If he pitches well, he will probably be happy and may attribute it to all things Boston and the RS. Will give you a leg up on extending him.

Agree with this. You might not pull in outsiders with just money, but if they come on board and like it, that's another matter. Paxton, who is from Vancouver, wanted to stay once he got here, and he was here at what might turn out to be some of the hardest times for the team.

 

[TapeAndPosts]

Even with Montgomery in the fold, there are going to be plenty of chances to start to go around. This team is not the 2004 version where the entire rotation is healthy all year. You can go 6 deep with starters and have Whitlock or Houck the long man out of the pen to start the season.

I am never not amazed that the five main guys in 2004 started 157 games in the regular reason — 33, 33, 32, 30 and 29. Just unreal.

Trivia question: which 2004 pitcher was sixth on the team in starts, with 3?

 

[MuzzyField]

The problem is that Texas is considered a winning organization and most players like to win. Or they like money. Because of where the Red Sox are, winning-wise, they would have to offer him a lot more money than a team like Texas. Or Baltimore. Or any other contender. I think that if all things are equal here and a contender offers x amount and Boston offers the exact same, Montgomery is going with that contending club. The one caveat is that his wife did her residence here and maybe likes the area. I don't know.

But this is the problem when a team bottoms out, it takes awhile for that team's q-rating (for lack of a better term) to bump up where a player doesn't mind playing for a little less as long as he has a chance to win. It happens all the time in all of the sports, baseball is no different.

Are the Rangers a good example of this?

Sure the Rangers won the WS last year with a late surge, but how far back do you have to go to find a season other than 2023 where the Rangers had a better season than the Red Sox?

I went back to 2018 and 2023 is it and that includes the SOX 2020 COIVID tank-a-thon. Sox 24 wins, Rangers 22.

I think the Rangers are a great example of how quickly a team can turn around (sure helps not being in the AL East) and improve its "Q" rating.

 

[Salem's Lot]

I am never not amazed that the five main guys in 2004 started 157 games in the regular reason — 33, 33, 32, 30 and 29. Just unreal.

Trivia question: which 2004 pitcher was sixth on the team in starts, with 3?

Wasn’t is Ramiro Mendoza?

Edit: nope I’m wrong.

 

[bosockboy]

I am never not amazed that the five main guys in 2004 started 157 games in the regular reason — 33, 33, 32, 30 and 29. Just unreal.

Trivia question: which 2004 pitcher was sixth on the team in starts, with 3?

DiNardo?

 

[chrisfont9]

Trivia question: which 2004 pitcher was sixth on the team in starts, with 3?

I will be shocked if anyone gets this without looking.

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

I am never not amazed that the five main guys in 2004 started 157 games in the regular reason — 33, 33, 32, 30 and 29. Just unreal.

Trivia question: which 2004 pitcher was sixth on the team in starts, with 3?

I had to look it up. Never would have gotten that.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I am never not amazed that the five main guys in 2004 started 157 games in the regular reason — 33, 33, 32, 30 and 29. Just unreal.

Trivia question: which 2004 pitcher was sixth on the team in starts, with 3?

Byung-Hyun Kim.

edit to add: the other two starts were Abe Alvarez and Pedro Astacio.

 

[nayrbrey]

Wow that was a name I hadn’t thought about in years. Forgot he was even on the 2004 team.

 

[TapeAndPosts]

Byung-Hyun Kim.

edit to add: the other two starts were Abe Alvarez and Pedro Astacio.

This is correct!

Mendoza and DiNardo were both excellent guesses as they were both on the 2004 team and had starts in other years, but they both had zero starts that year.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Wow that was a name I hadn’t thought about in years. Forgot he was even on the 2004 team.

Kim was originally going to be the 5th starter over Arroyo but started the year on the DL. Once he was healthy, he was put back in the rotation briefly before they gave the spot back to Arroyo.

 

[Stan Papi Was Framed]

I am never not amazed that the five main guys in 2004 started 157 games in the regular reason — 33, 33, 32, 30 and 29. Just unreal.

Trivia question: which 2004 pitcher was sixth on the team in starts, with 3?

it's sad to me that I no longer have a clear memory of all that happened in 2004--I'll guess Ramiro Mendoza?

Back to rumors....via Gammons earlier this week: "One NL executive yesterday [i.e. Sunday 2/25] said "we hear the Red Sox and Scott Boras had a good meeting recently and may get some deal eventually done on Jordan Montgomery." (I hope that is indeed where things are heading).

I realize this isn't fresh and probably posted before (I haven't read the whole thread), but wanted to try to answer the trivia question while not completely hijacking the thread.

 

[E5 Yaz]

I had to look it up. Never would have gotten that.

Same here

 

[Petagine in a Bottle]

Dammit- already answered.

 

[NeckDownAllStar]

I am never not amazed that the five main guys in 2004 started 157 games in the regular reason — 33, 33, 32, 30 and 29. Just unreal.

Ironically, the now infamous Curt Schilling reportedly talked about just that before the 2004 season.

“Curt Schilling has said a lot of things, and most of them aren’t worth listening to. But, prior to the start of the fateful 2004 season, he said something about pitching that’s as true as anything I’ve ever heard. He was talking about the importance of starting pitching health, and he said that, at the end of the season, the best team will often be the team whose top five pitchers started the most games.

That proved to be remarkably prescient that year, as the Sox top five pitchers in 2004 — Pedro Martinez, Derek Lowe, Tim Wakefield, Bronson Arroyo, and Schilling himself — would combine to start an astounding 157 of 162 games (shout-out to Byung-Hyun Kim, Pedro Astacio, and Abe Alvarez for covering the other 5.) Take a look at other successful Red Sox teams and you’ll see a similar pattern: the 2018 team had 4 pitchers who made at least 23 starts; the 2007 team had 5 pitchers who managed that feat; the 2013 team, often aspirationally compared to this one as a team of seeming castoffs who might nonetheless surprise, had 4 pitchers start at least 27 games.”

https://www.overthemonster.com/2023/6/5/23749271/pitching-with-a-monkeys-paw-chris-sale-the-risky-red-sox-rotation-on-the-brink-red-sox-analysis

After I read that last year, I poked around a little to see if Schilling’s comment had held up. His point has been true of the recent World Series teams too. The 2019 Nationals also had 4 pitchers start at least 27 games and three of them made over 30 starts. The 2019 Dodgers fit the pattern as have other recent Dodger teams – 2018 (5 pitchers over 20 starts) and 2017 (5 pitchers over 25 starts). I glanced back at the 1988 Dodger World Champions and the pattern was there again.

 

[joe dokes]

I would not give Montgomery a 1 year opt-out. As of now this is the '25 Red Sox rotation
Bello
Crawford
Houck (who probably belongs in the bullpen)

If Giolito is good he is gone. Pivetta is a free agent. There is no one on the farm projected to be ready to start in '25.

"Dont help the team this year because that help wont help them in 2025" does not make sense to me. At the beginning of 2023, I'm not sure a lot of people thought that Montgomery was going to be the star attraction for the 2024 season. The list of pitchers who might be available next January who will be able to help the team in 2025 hasn't been written yet. I don't think the team should be making decisions about 2024 based on such a non-existent list.

 

[LogansDad]

it's sad to me that I no longer have a clear memory of all that happened in 20024-

Don't beat yourself up too badly, that's like 18 thousand years from now. We probably won't even exist as a species anymore at that point.

 

[joe dokes]

Don't beat yourself up too badly, that's like 18 thousand years from now. We probably won't even exist as a species anymore at that point.

But there will still be debates about the Mookie trade within the post-mordial soup.

 

[TapeAndPosts]

Don't beat yourself up too badly, that's like 18 thousand years from now. We probably won't even exist as a species anymore at that point.

(Insert Dodgers still paying Ohtani joke here)

 

[Stan Papi Was Framed]

Don't beat yourself up too badly, that's like 18 thousand years from now. We probably won't even exist as a species anymore at that point.

ha! I was so mad at myself that I placed this event in the future.

 

[chrisfont9]

https://www.overthemonster.com/2023/6/5/23749271/pitching-with-a-monkeys-paw-chris-sale-the-risky-red-sox-rotation-on-the-brink-red-sox-analysis

After I read that last year, I poked around a little to see if Schilling’s comment had held up. His point has been true of the recent World Series teams too. The 2019 Nationals also had 4 pitchers start at least 27 games and three of them made over 30 starts. The 2019 Dodgers fit the pattern as have other recent Dodger teams – 2018 (5 pitchers over 20 starts) and 2017 (5 pitchers over 25 starts). I glanced back at the 1988 Dodger World Champions and the pattern was there again.

I've thought about this a lot. I half-remember him saying it at the time, as do probably others here, because it was an interesting point that ended up proving very, very true that year. And in the last two years, we have witnessed the corollary.

 

[TapeAndPosts]

After I read that last year, I poked around a little to see if Schilling’s comment had held up. His point has been true of the recent World Series teams too. The 2019 Nationals also had 4 pitchers start at least 27 games and three of them made over 30 starts. The 2019 Dodgers fit the pattern as have other recent Dodger teams – 2018 (5 pitchers over 20 starts) and 2017 (5 pitchers over 25 starts). I glanced back at the 1988 Dodger World Champions and the pattern was there again.

I enjoyed this post and indeed it seems very reasonable that teams who don't have to replace starts by their best pitcher with starts by their eighth-best pitcher will tend to do well.

Team seasons with four starters around 29+ starts are not that rare (2003 and 2005 Red Sox also did it, for example) but I'd be curious how many team seasons have had five starters in that range, so that your starting five really have almost every start, at least in the last 30 years or so. 2013 Tigers were one: 34, 32, 32, 29, 29 for 156 starts by five guys.

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

I enjoyed this post and indeed it seems very reasonable that teams who don't have to replace starts by their best pitcher with starts by their eighth-best pitcher will tend to do well.

Team seasons with four starters around 29+ starts are not that rare (2003 and 2005 Red Sox also did it, for example) but I'd be curious how many team seasons have had five starters in that range, so that your starting five really have almost every start, at least in the last 30 years or so. 2013 Tigers were one: 34, 32, 32, 29, 29 for 156 starts by five guys.

I don't understand WAR for pitchers or how it applies to number of starts, but the question of: is overall Pivetta as a starter more valuable over 162 games than Sale and 8th starter? Obviously in a playoff situation, you'd gamble on Sale over Pivetta.

 

[dynomite]

What do you think a reasonable deal that will land him looks like? Or is he someone you'd break the bank for? How high do you think they should be willing to go? Honest questions.

I mostly just don't think that, for a franchise with the Red Sox resources and the modest payroll on the books as of now for 2025 and beyond, the exact terms of Montgomery's deal matter so much that I would judge the deal by that measure.

If Montgomery is bad, the deal will look bad. If Montgomery is good, the deal will look good. If Montgomery is good and the Red Sox are good, the deal will look incredible.

I enjoyed this post and indeed it seems very reasonable that teams who don't have to replace starts by their best pitcher with starts by their eighth-best pitcher will tend to do well.

Team seasons with four starters around 29+ starts are not that rare (2003 and 2005 Red Sox also did it, for example) but I'd be curious how many team seasons have had five starters in that range, so that your starting five really have almost every start, at least in the last 30 years or so. 2013 Tigers were one: 34, 32, 32, 29, 29 for 156 starts by five guys.

Re 30+ starts, I’ll cross post something I wrote in the Montgomery thread:

He's made 30+ starts with an ERA of 3.83 or less in three consecutive seasons. His FIP has been between 3.56 and 3.69 ever year. His ERA+ has been between 112 and 138. And as noted, by WAR he was one of the best SPs in the league last season.

The last Red Sox SP to start more than 30 games with an ERA below 3.83 was Eovaldi in 2021. Before that, it was ERod in 2019 and Price in 2018. Chris Sale only did it once in a Red Sox uniform (2017). I could be missing someone, but the last Red Sox SP I can find who did those two things in three consecutive seasons was Jon Lester. (And sure, it's cherrypicking two stats a bit, but I think 30+ starts and an ERA in the mid-3s are both reasonable indications of being a good SP)

I'm not saying Montgomery is as good as Lester in his prime. And I have to say I didn't pay much attention to Montgomery prior to his incredible 2023 postseason. But looking at his numbers, the fact is that he's been a very good pitcher for a while.

 

[Max Power]

I enjoyed this post and indeed it seems very reasonable that teams who don't have to replace starts by their best pitcher with starts by their eighth-best pitcher will tend to do well.

Team seasons with four starters around 29+ starts are not that rare (2003 and 2005 Red Sox also did it, for example) but I'd be curious how many team seasons have had five starters in that range, so that your starting five really have almost every start, at least in the last 30 years or so. 2013 Tigers were one: 34, 32, 32, 29, 29 for 156 starts by five guys.

I wonder how many bad teams have 4 pitchers make 29+ starts. If a team were bad, they'd try to switch out the starters, but I suppose it could have happened.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

Are the Rangers a good example of this?

Sure the Rangers won the WS last year with a late surge, but how far back do you have to go to find a season other than 2023 where the Rangers had a better season than the Red Sox?

I went back to 2018 and 2023 is it and that includes the SOX 2020 COIVID tank-a-thon. Sox 24 wins, Rangers 22.

I think the Rangers are a great example of how quickly a team can turn around (sure helps not being in the AL East) and improve its "Q" rating.

So if all things are equal and Montgomery wants to win and he has two offers: one from the team that just won the World Series and one that just finished in last place again and whose star just called out the ownership for not spending, which one do you think that he'd choose?

And it's more about recent history than even five years ago. The Rangers put money into their club, they've signed free agents to big contracts, they've traded for players with big contracts. The Sox have been a mess. Maybe the latter changes this year or next year, but right now I don't think that it has. Aside from overspending to land a free agent, there's no real reason for a player with options to choose Boston over other teams. It's just as simple as that and it's what happens when you let your team atrophy.

 

[6-5 Sadler]

Team seasons with four starters around 29+ starts are not that rare (2003 and 2005 Red Sox also did it, for example) but I'd be curious how many team seasons have had five starters in that range, so that your starting five really have almost every start, at least in the last 30 years or so. 2013 Tigers were one: 34, 32, 32, 29, 29 for 156 starts by five guys.

In the last 20 years, only 11 teams have had five starters with 29 game started. The last were in 2016: CHC and TOR.

If you extend that to 30 GS, it’s only 5 teams. The last two in 2012: CIN and SFG.

 

[TapeAndPosts]

In the last 20 years, only 11 teams have had five starters with 29 game started. The last were in 2016: CHC and TOR.

If you extend that to 30 GS, it’s only 5 teams. The last two in 2012: CIN and SFG.

Thanks! I was just coming back to report on that 2012 SFG team: 160 games started by Lincecum (33), Bumgarner (32), Cain (32), Zito (32), and Vogelsong (31). Pretty good, and they won the WS.

But this 2012 Reds team you have introduced me to is even more amazing: 161 games started by 5 guys! And who was one of those 5 guys? Bronson Arroyo!!

Now I am curious if there is a team where 5 guys started all 162...

 

[6-5 Sadler]

Now I am curious if there is a team where 5 guys started all 162...

Seattle was the last team in 2003. Freddy Garcia, Jamie Moyer, Ryan Franklin, Gil Meche, and Joel Pineiro.

 

[simplicio]

I wonder how many bad teams have 4 pitchers make 29+ starts. If a team were bad, they'd try to switch out the starters, but I suppose it could have happened.

Watch for the Cardinals to do it this year. Gray can obviously be great, but Mikolas/Gibson/Lynn are very likely to produce a million innings of mediocre to bad starts.

 

[pk1627]

I will be shocked if anyone gets this without looking.

Got it immediately. Everyone talks about how the SP that year didn’t miss a start, but BY Kim went down early. (And Schill, Pedro and even Lowe faced all sorts of issues).

 

[TapeAndPosts]

Seattle was the last team in 2003. Freddy Garcia, Jamie Moyer, Ryan Franklin, Gil Meche, and Joel Pineiro.

Cool, thanks!

And that was a good team (93 wins) if not a great one, 4th best in the AL but shut out of the playoffs with the only wild card going to the 95-win Red Sox...

 

[chrisfont9]

Got it immediately. Everyone talks about how the SP that year didn’t miss a start, but BY Kim went down early. (And Schill, Pedro and even Lowe faced all sorts of issues).

I am impressed!

 

[Big Papi's Mango Salsa]

I was going to guess Abe Alvarez, but he may have been 2005.

 

[Rice4HOF]

I will be shocked if anyone gets this without looking.

Haven’t looked yet. Frank Castillo?

 

[grimshaw]

I was going to go with Devern Hansack but was a few years off.

 

[Sin Duda]

But there will still be debates about the Mookie trade within the post-mordial soup.

Lock it! Comeback of the year!!

 

[AlbanyBird]

Abe Alvarez?

 

[bosockboy]

I was going to go with Devern Hansack but was a few years off.

2006 final day no hitter!

 

[8slim]

We’re talking about some real outliers in terms of teams having 4 or 5 guys throw 30+ starts.

But even at a lesser level it’s still immensely helpful. The ‘21 Sox had three SPs at 30+ starts.

‘18 had 2 at 30+ (and Sale at 27).

2017 had 3 with 30+, and ‘16 had 2 (with Wright at 24).

‘13 saw one over 30, and then 29, 29 and 27.

Maybe it’s stating the obvious, but historically the Sox don’t make the playoffs unless they get at least ~60% of their starts from 3 guys. Some of that is good fortune, and some of it is employing durable starting pitchers. We’ve whiffed on both of those counts the past couple seasons.

Without Montgomery I’m nervous about finding 60% of starts from 3 guys this year. But we’ll see.

 

[chrisfont9]

We’re talking about some real outliers in terms of teams having 4 or 5 guys throw 30+ starts.

But even at a lesser level it’s still immensely helpful. The ‘21 Sox had three SPs at 30+ starts.

‘18 had 2 at 30+ (and Sale at 27).

2017 had 3 with 30+, and ‘16 had 2 (with Wright at 24).

‘13 saw one over 30, and then 29, 29 and 27.

Maybe it’s stating the obvious, but historically the Sox don’t make the playoffs unless they get at least ~60% of their starts from 3 guys. Some of that is good fortune, and some of it is employing durable starting pitchers. We’ve whiffed on both of those counts the past couple seasons.

Without Montgomery I’m nervous about finding 60% of starts from 3 guys this year. But we’ll see.

And the Sox had one 30+ starts guy in 2022 (Pivetta) and zero last year. Offering for perspective.

 

[donutogre]

DiNardo?

That was my thought too. Forgot that Kim was still on the team that year.

 

[8slim]

And the Sox had one 30+ starts guy in 2022 (Pivetta) and zero last year. Offering for perspective.

Precisely. Like I said, we can debate whether that occurred solely because of bad luck, or because we filled the rotation with less durable pitchers. But the outcome was the same… suckage.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

Abe Alvarez?

Credit to us that old honest Abe Alvarez gets namechecked in the 2024 season rumors thread.

On the other hand, this is the highlight of the 2024 season rumors thread.

This is like when Wylie The Coyote notices that he has chased the Roadrunner off a cliff...

 

[Petagine in a Bottle]

Abe Alvarez had extreme pitchability, IIRC.