So, if the Sox offer Fried 5/180, and another team offers 5/160, then Fried is going to sign elsewhere because of Mookie Betts? Yeah, don't think so. Carrabis is right; Olney lost his fastball a while ago.
‘Ready to deliver’ – The 2025 Offseason News (& rumors?) Thread
- Thread starter chawson
- Start date
I don’t know that he’s saying that; just that the Sox don’t have a great reputation right now and they aren’t a team that players are dying to go to. Given the amount of players the Sox have been interested in who haven’t signed here over the past few years, maybe there’s some truth to it? Hard to say- since Olney then says the Sox are being aggressive with offers, without any examples given.
Free agents care a lot more about the contract offer in front of them than the fact that the team traded Mookie Betts 5 years ago. Whether the Sox are giving the best offers remains to be seen, obviously.
Sure, but the Sox need to get into the consideration set first. Would benefit from some better reporting here- they were supposedly interested in Snell, right? Did they meet with him? In person / virtual? Did they make another, etc etc.
The Sox have not really been a winning team for awhile. Whatever traction they might’ve got from ‘21 was squandered immediately afterwards. And then the team has been bad and ownership hasn’t wanted to spend, neither of which are going to be attractive to FAs. Hell, they were even getting turned down for POBO interviews, with rumors about their ability to spend making the job (and by extension the org) not very appealing. Being interest kings is only going to change the perception when it leads to actual signings.
What free agent in the last few years do you think did not sign with them because they were not a winning team?
The bolded is certainly hard to say since we really don't know how interested the team has been in any given player that doesn't sign here. All we have to go on is media reports of possibly dubious origins. By dubious, I mean most likely from agents who may be ginning up "interest" for the sake of their player even when there's no real interest at all.
Case in point...
We don't know at all what their interest level in Snell was. We've got vague media reports of "interest" that might not have been anything more than a single conversation for the sake of due diligence. It's not exactly a secret Snell preferred the west coast so it's not hard to figure the Sox didn't necessarily prioritize him as a target, at least this early in the off-season.
Exactly... people hitting the panic button on a guy that was not the best fit to start with and would have complained about signing him after the fact. Lose- Lose.
Snell is definitely "works at the right price" free agent. For Boston, 5/182 is not the right price. Pitchers that walk a lot of batters in Fenway don't usually age well once the velocity starts ticking downward, which is likely to happen in the near term in this case.
Would people now say that 5/182 or very close to that is the going price for Fried? And do you expect them to offer that?
I’m sorry, I don’t see how this is accurate.
John Lackey’s contract was the third-largest SP contract in MLB at the time it was signed (Dec 2010, behind Zito and Johan Santana). Josh Beckett’s extension, covering his age 31-34 seasons, was the 11th-largest SP contract at the time. Daisuke of course was a $103M total outlay in 2007, though not all of it applied to AAV. The Sale extension was the 8th richest at the time, and Eovaldi’s re-signing was the 19th. The Porcello extension, through age 29, made him the 17th-highest paid pitcher in MLB.
Here’s another look, the # of the Top 20 SPs by total contract value per team, across three touchpoints from 2011-21.
2011
BOS, CHC, PHI - 3
NYY, STL - 2
ATL, CHW, DET, LAA, NYM, SEA, SFG - 1
2016
BOS, DET, LAA, NYY, SFG, STL - 2
ARI, CHC, CIN, LAD, MIA, SEA, TEX, WAS - 1
2021
LAD - 5 (including Price)
BOS, HOU, WAS - 2
ARI, LAA, NYM, NYY, PHI, SDP, SFG, STL, TOR - 1
The Athletic published a player poll in June that really strongly suggests that Olney is wrong here.
For what it's worth, I'm not at all upset about not giving Snell 5/$182m in the least bit. However, I will say that (while I understand the Sox liking to keep things close to the vest) it would actually in this particular environment probably help them to "quash" reports of their being interested in players before that player signs with another team. In some ways, I wouldn't be surprised if they WERE trying to do just that with McAdam the other day with how tepid he made their interest / involvement in Snell (along with Fried and Burnes) seem.
There have been many reports from two of the best in the game (Passan, Speier), someone I find credible but a tier down from those guys (Rosenthal, McAdam), and some less credible, or at least less objective individuals (Heyman, Olney, Nightengale) about the Red Sox landing at minimum one and possibly even two top of the rotation pieces. If they're not prepared to do whatever it takes (either in terms of money or trade assets) to come away with at least one pitcher like that, I do think they'd be better served getting that out there before the fact. Because if there are all these links out there about them doing that and they end up with something like a 1yr + an option deal to Kyle Gibson or Charlie Morton, they're going to get eviscerated - and rightly so.
Not for nothing, but I think you might have started seeing that a little with McAdam as I mentioned (but then Speier kind of debunked that). I admit that I don't personally think they're going to sign a free agent top of the rotation pitcher (but I do think they MIGHT trade for one). But I do think it would help them to make it known that they're focused on the Eovaldi / Flaherty / Buehler / Bieber / Pivetta / Manaea tier because it's far better to under promise and over deliver than over promise and end up with Andrew Heaney and the 4 starters they already have.
So personally, I don't think they're spending at the top of the market for Fried or Burnes, and it sounds like the ChiSox are being unreasonable (because they're the ChiSox), so I would think / hope they'd be telling Speier (or McAdam) exactly that. I don't expect them to telegraph their moves - but if you continue to allow reports out there that you're going to add a top of the rotation talent and then you give another version of Corey Kluber, it's going to look horrendous. But their messaging has been pretty awful recently, so who knows...
Again, I don't think this means they're going to do nothing. But if you're more seriously shopping in the Eovaldi, etc tier, probably better to make that known. If you're shopping in the Sandoval / Gibson tier, it's better to make that known. Their (in)action the past several years has really hurt the brand. If the reports continue that they're going to make a serious addition - and they don't - it's going to hurt it even further.
Edit to respond to @chawson -
Yeah, Lackey was a huge deal to an over 30 covering up to his age 35 season (36 with the option about the year at league minimum) and you are totally right, so two in 23 years (I had it in my head that it was only a 4 through age 32 or something). Happy Gilmore mea culpa (I'm stupid, you're smart. You were right, I was wrong. You're the best, I'm the worst. You're very good looking, I am unattractive, etc, etc).
As you and I both mentioned, Beckett, Sale and Porcello - and Schilling were all extensions (ie not an open bid situation). We agree, I think that a trade and extension is a serious possibility. Like I said, I think it's entirely possible they trade for and extend (not an open bid) situation someone like Crochet or a Seattle starter.
Matsuzaka's deal ended at 31. Eovaldi's ended at 32. I think it's entirely possible they give Flaherty something like 4/$100m going through his age 32 season or Nate Eovaldi 3 and $66m going through his age 37 season. (FWIW, I actually believe they probably offered Yamamoto something like 7/$225m going through his age 32 season last year, which ended up not being close, but I'd absolutely believe they offered him something in that range).
Fried is almost certain to sign a deal that goes through his age 35 or 36 season. Burnes through at least 35 and maybe 36.
If you think I should upgrade it to an 8% chance from a less than 2% chance (2 in 23 years, not one) fine. But I think a lot of people would agree that the FSG mindset was different 15 years ago (when Lackey signed) and where it is now, and I still think it's incredibly unlikely they sign Fried or Burnes. (I also hope to be very, VERY, VERY wrong and will gladly admit I was should it happen as such).
Last edited:
They weren’t just a loosing team, they were a big market team that was losing and was being cheap.
Last offseason they lost Teoscar Hernandez, who would’ve supplied RHH power on a multiyear deal and who we’re now apparently considering signing for more money and a lost draft pick, because with the Dodgers he had a chance to win.
The year before they couldn't outbid the Rays for Efflin. Yes, he liked playing for his hometown team, but the Sox could neither offer more money to overcome that (apparently) , nor point to a better chance to make the playoffs than the Rays.
The optimistic crowd last year kept resorting to the excuse of “Well, Player X didn’t really want to play in Boston” but if that’s the case at what point do you think that that sentiment might start permeate the player pool? I get that Olney isn’t popular, but if we didn’t root for the Sox, would we be surprised that Boston isn’t a top choice for free agents based on their recent performance?
no. I think more like 5/155. Snell is a two time Cy young winner, and misses more bats.
My guess is that Fried will get more than Snell, he is a year younger and not limited to West Coast teams like Snell reportedly was.
I suspect that this board skews low in terms of expectations around sports transactions. It feels like most folks here who fancy themselves relative value types consistently are surprised when a deal like Snell's is inked.
That, in turn, raises the question about what actual information infoms these views but my main point is maybe "we" aren't informed enough to really clock these markets.
I bet ownership loves when fans scream "overpay" at other teams though. Takes all the heat off especially when its not accurate.
That, in turn, raises the question about what actual information infoms these views but my main point is maybe "we" aren't informed enough to really clock these markets.
I bet ownership loves when fans scream "overpay" at other teams though. Takes all the heat off especially when its not accurate.
I wonder if there is any hard evidence of players not wanting to come to Boston. Do you know (not asked in adversarial way, actually curious)?
I know I read that Teoscar Hernandez and Jordan Montgomery both stated they were very interested in coming to the Red Sox last year. And I know TO said how much he enjoyed his Boston experience. A lot of players love the park and the history and the invested fans. Many of the legacy and more recent former players speak glowing of playing in Boston. Are there quotes for players saying they don't wanna come to Boston? Or is that conjecture? If it is, I certainly understand the logic of it, given the team's milquetoast commitment to the payroll the last few years. But like Texas two years ago signing Seager, man, that can change overnight with one signing. And I often come across players speaking positively about Boston.
Yes, this ^^^^^ ...I had seen this, more evidence that bucks the conventional wisdom that players don't want to Red Sox organization ...
This poll does nothing of the sort. Olney's point is that the Red Sox lost ground among free agents because they traded Mookie rather than pay him -- which involves both contracts and rosters. The poll removes those factors.
But do you actually believe the Red Sox lost ground with FA because of Mookie Betts 4 years ago? He wasn’t a free agent. He was a dev player. They have since signed a massive deal with a dev player.
They could have, and should have, signed Teoscar Hernandez last year if they offered him a third year. They didnt offer it. He didn’t choose the Dodgers for a 1 year deal to win, he choose it cause he didn’t have a better longer term offer.
All of this is non sense. If they offer the best money they’ll get the best free agents.
But do we actually think players are parsing things at this level? I think it’s more likely they just look at ”when it was time to pay the man, did they?” For better or worse Mookie is the demarcation line as to how the Sox have been approaching FA spending.
IIRC he did cite the Dodgers as a chance to win, and one reason why he took less money guaranteed over the Sox 2 year
Here’s hoping.
Last edited:
You have to avoid the FOMO sometimes. I think Snell is a great pitcher, but I don't think many of us would consider him a good 5 year fit for Fenway Park. Objectively, I think Snell made a great career move and is in the right place for him going forward.
If we one day learn that the Sox main offseason plan was Soto and Snell, I would conclude the front office is completely out of touch with reality and we better hope the kids pan out because the front office can't read the room. I don't believe that at all though. I think they bought a lottery ticket on Soto just in case he really wanted to play in Boston and something could be worked out. I think the probability is extremely low, but I don't think it hurts to be in the sweepstakes as long as that was not the main offseason goal. For example, if a miracle occurs and Soto does sign here, then it is a great problem to have and you go from there. I would guess most of their planning scenarios don't include Soto but they have a few outlier plan boards that do just in case. I am assuming Snell was never coming here anyway so it is of no concern.
We can only guess what the Red Sox plan is going forward. But, I think it will be interesting to watch unfold. We will have some answers one way or the other in a matter of a month or two. I do think the front office should have remained more measured in their statements. If they do nothing again, they will look like fools, even though that approach might end up being the best approach depending on the circumstances. Many will conclude they are being dishonest with the fanbase or are just reading the markets wrong over and over again. Either is not great.
And for the larger deals they will ask how the talent looks over the next [] years. Not what happened five years ago.
Similarly, if they were wondering whether this team could win, the answer was uncertain or even no, as recently as a year ago. Maybe it's just my opinion and not what a player would think, but there is no question the talent has changed a lot in a year, and at least compared to 20 or so other franchises, the Sox can point at the four recent titles for evidence that they win when the pieces fall into place. Throw in some more recent activity pursuing free agents and, well, at the very least the perception has to have changed some.
Last edited:
I think it’s incredibly clear that’s not what Olney is saying. I can’t even fathom that’s what you think Buster is saying.
it’s that if the Sox offered 5/100 and a team (like the Dodgers or another prestige team) offered 5/98 then that player might take the Dodgers offer.
The Sox may have to pay a freight of a couple of extra million dollars because of the Betts situation and that they’ve been sort of putrid the last 3 years
I know this board loves to take a scalpel to every single word from the media and demonize them for every possible perceived slight but I don’t think that tweet is even close to a hot take or proof that Olney has lost his fastball.
As far as I know Carrabis is not a member here and is in fact part of the media.
Come on, one of these things is a valid consideration for a prospective free agent and one of them is utter BS. Buster didn't say a thing about the team's performance.
ok, then I would say that the treatment of Betts would mean that the Sox still have to pay a few million more over the duration of a contract for a premier free agents?
That still doesn’t equal $3+ million dollars a year or show that Buster has lost his fastball or whatever. Thats very clearly not what he meant.
And that media scalpel is reserved for the media members who dare discredit the Red Sox. If Speier said what Olney said, multiple posters would rip him to shreds for that…even though he’s pretty clearly proven himself to be reliable multiple times.
Could be in that range, though that seems top of the market to me.
Fangraphs crowdsourced Snell at 4/120 and Fried at 5/125 for what it's worth.
Also, based on the reported deferrals, sounds like Snell signed for the equivalent of 5/160 ish. People should use that number in their head when using it as a comp for Fried (or any other FA pitcher), not 182M.
The deferrals are balanced by the giant signing bonus, so 5/182 is the actual value while the AAV is $32-33M somewhere.
That's basically what I said in the Snell thread, so yes I agree.
AAV 32-33 seems to be Snell's # for 5 years so that's what I would use as a Fried comp.
I'd have been upset with a Snell deal regardless of what he got. I just don't see him as a competent pitcher in a hitter's park on a poor defensive team. I'm sure he'll be fine on a Dodgers team that can expect him to miss 10-15 starts. He'd be awful here.
Isn't a guy with Snell's ability to miss bats precisely the type of pitcher that would diminish the effects of playing in a hitter's park behind a poor defensive team? I get the durability/ability to provide innings concerns, and it's the reason I wouldn't commit big money to him, but the profile seems to fit.
Olney was the one with the absurd take that brought up the Mookie Betts trade as a factor among free agents. And he provided zero support for his statement, which tells me that he is just throwing shit against the wall to generate clicks and discussion (success on that front!). Reporters do that sometimes, including Olney.
I think McAdam is the ultimate example of this phenomenon.
McAdam says something critical: “he’s a hack trying to generate clicks”
McAdam with a positive report: “McAdam’s been around and knows people. This is a lock”
Media who criticize the Sox: bad, media who have a rosy outlook or act as mouthpieces for the front office: good. Even if it’s the same person.
McAdam says something critical: “he’s a hack trying to generate clicks”
McAdam with a positive report: “McAdam’s been around and knows people. This is a lock”
Media who criticize the Sox: bad, media who have a rosy outlook or act as mouthpieces for the front office: good. Even if it’s the same person.
I think we tend to get lost in whether Contract Z is an overpay. The market dictates - and if you don't accept that and instead apply your own value to certain players you might never sign anyone.
There are two top tier starters left: Fried and Burns. Making SURE you get one is going to cost $200+. I would have taken anyone of the top 3 - it will not be a good look if Boston doesn't get any of them.
But at the end of the day how it looks doesn't matter if you win.
There are two top tier starters left: Fried and Burns. Making SURE you get one is going to cost $200+. I would have taken anyone of the top 3 - it will not be a good look if Boston doesn't get any of them.
But at the end of the day how it looks doesn't matter if you win.
Why would Olney just make something up?
Did he take a scientific survey of every free agent since Mookie left? Definitely not. But if he’s talked to multiple players who have expressed reservations about how the Sox did their homegrown talent, wouldn’t that be worth a tweet?
Especially now that the Sox are open for business again?
I’m not sure why some posters here look for their fainting couches when a reporter provides information on why the Sox may have to pay a couple extra dollars or may lose out on some FAs.
Yep..... money is money...it's not like if the RedSox offer 20 million more than the next suitor that they say "Sorry, I want 25 million more because of the Mookie situation." Just ask Yoshida. Offering guaranteed contracts where they get paid what they agree to is not the same as being 26 and looking at your first big extension with the team that brought you in. The more appropriate comparison would young guys in the system tearing it up and not getting an extension like Mookie did. That's the more appropriate comparison... and we have some coming up that could certainly happen to and I am sure the Mookie comparisons will be flowing when that time comes.
Having some player say offhand "gee, what's their commitment to winning?" is one thing. I don't doubt that happened once or twice. But it's big leap from there to Juan Soto or whoever wanting the Red Sox to not just be the highest bidder, but to add a Mookie Tax on top of that in order to sign here.
I think what’s being missed here is that players need to have some level of interest in the Red Sox to get to the point of an active negotiation. If a player prioritizes certain teams over others, and is meeting with those teams first, in person, etc; while the Sox are relegated to a second tier (which may mean a virtual call) and seen as a backup, they may have a solid pitch and a fair offer, yet it may be never truly be considered if a team that the player is more interested in meets the players needs.
Seems like that top tier of teams being considered certainly includes LA, NYY, ATL, NYM, maybe SD? Not sure who else; but you certainly want to be in that consideration set and showing you will spend aggressively and consistently and win is probably the only way to get there.
Seems like that top tier of teams being considered certainly includes LA, NYY, ATL, NYM, maybe SD? Not sure who else; but you certainly want to be in that consideration set and showing you will spend aggressively and consistently and win is probably the only way to get there.
They are already in an active negotiation with Soto. They had a three hour meeting and have upped their initial offer at least once (reportedly).
What Buster is saying is that ballplayers talk and they notice stuff and what they notice is the way that the Sox treated Mookie. Mookie did everything right (homegrown star, MVP, put up numbers, never got in trouble and was active in the community) and they still traded him.
Which was a business decision. That’s the way things go and whatever—there’s no point in debating whether this was “right” or not. But if a player sees that he may wonder, “if they did Mookie like that what would they do to me?”
Ballplayers are human and they talk, so it’s not surprising that there might be some sort of weariness of a star signing with the Sox.
Put it another way, if you’re interviewing with two companies that are equal and they both present you offers that are relatively the same but one has a perceived better corporate culture, which one would you choose? Maybe if the company without the culture offers you 10% more (the Mookie tax) you’d take that, but they’re paying for their lack of culture.
Unfortunately, according to Buster, the Red Sox have found themselves in the same position. Whether that’s right or not is not for me (or any of us to say) but that seems to be the case. No one is specifically saying, “you fucked Mookie, pay me!”
I think it’s perfectly possible that 5+ years ago the Red Sox were viewed as a club that would pay well, compete for coveted players most offseasons, and aim to be in the playoffs and compete for a title year in and year out, and that that perception has changed somewhat over the years, and that part of the reason it has changed is that the Red Sox had their greatest homegrown player since at least Carl Yastrzemski and decided not to keep him (at a price point that would look like a bargain now).
So where five years ago, a free agent might pick Boston over other teams everything else being equal (or perhaps even take a slight discount), they might need extra convincing now, which might mean slightly higher dollars. I think that’s all Olney is really saying.
And all Carrabis is really saying is that the Red Sox are making what he understands to be a convincing pitch to free agents that they’re going to compete at the highest level the next several years and they’re putting real money where their mouths are.
Pedro Martinez wrote in his autobiography (and I think has been pretty open about this generally) that he didn’t want to sign an extension when he was traded in part because he didn’t think the 1997-98 Red Sox were a contender, but Dan Duquette made a convincing presentation and made him the highest-paid player in baseball and he did sign an extension and within a couple years the Red Sox were a destination team.
So where five years ago, a free agent might pick Boston over other teams everything else being equal (or perhaps even take a slight discount), they might need extra convincing now, which might mean slightly higher dollars. I think that’s all Olney is really saying.
And all Carrabis is really saying is that the Red Sox are making what he understands to be a convincing pitch to free agents that they’re going to compete at the highest level the next several years and they’re putting real money where their mouths are.
Pedro Martinez wrote in his autobiography (and I think has been pretty open about this generally) that he didn’t want to sign an extension when he was traded in part because he didn’t think the 1997-98 Red Sox were a contender, but Dan Duquette made a convincing presentation and made him the highest-paid player in baseball and he did sign an extension and within a couple years the Red Sox were a destination team.
Then why does the actual player poll from June indicate that the RedSox are the second most likely team a player would sign with if all things were equal?
Well part of it is exactly that: everything else isn’t necessarily equal in terms of money on the table, being a contender, taxes (which may not make a huge difference especially as compared to NY/CA teams but has probably helped the Rangers, for example, on the margins).
But also, different players value different things. Some guys really care about the weather. Some want to be close to home. Some care about every last dollar. And some guys like the idea of playing for a historic club with an obsessive fan base in a stadium they compare to a museum. That’s entirely consistent with other guys being unimpressed with the Red Sox over the last five years and needing some extra convincing to sign here.
Brownsox said most of what I’d say but I’d add my guess is that this type of thinking has to do with star free agents that have a choice of where to sign. That poll included everyone.
No one, not me or Buster, is saying that no one wants to sign with the Sox. That’s ludicrous. But if the Sox are going to sign someone big they may have to pay a bit more. And that’s due to a couple of things: a. the perception of the Sox having deep pockets b. the city of Boston and where it’s located in the country and c. the recent culture towards star players.
The Sox have always had to pay a little more to sign free agents, this isn’t a surprise. And it shouldn’t be a surprise that if you chase off a generational player because of money and essentially turn off the money spigot for six years, other players (not all) might be weary to sign with the club.