They were also one of I believe three teams (Houston and Seattle) to have three home grown starters qualify for the ERA title.
‘Ready to deliver’ – The 2025 Offseason News (& rumors?) Thread
- Thread starter chawson
- Start date
Injuries happen to every team, especially on a pitching staff.
And yes having a couple of arms in Worcester could help but you can’t count on them.
What do these numbers mean? Throwing a bunch of numbers without any context isn’t a valuable post.
Our top three starters were really solid, and Pivetta was pretty good despite missing nearly a quarter of his starts. The problem was the 5th spot: 36 starts were either pure bullpen games or came from guys with a sub-5 IP average as starters (counting Paxton's injury game as a BP game but not holding it against his average). That really exposed the fact that we only had 3 high leverage guys in the pen, the mid tier guys got overworked and the pure flotsam at the bottom of the pile got too many opportunities to flots.
The bolded isn't exactly true. Blown saves are recorded when a bullpen is given a lead and they lose the lead. That doesn't necessarily equate to losses because a) the team can still come back and win and b) teams can record multiple blown saves in the same game if the lead see-saws back and forth (and still possibly win it).
Edit to add: the Red Sox recorded their 31 blown saves in 28 games and still ended up winning 10 of them.
Last edited:
Red Sox were among the most injured teams in baseball, for what it's worth. Dodgers, Angels, Yankees, Cincinnati, Colorado, Minnesota, and then us, and those last three were all within 50 games of each other. It also leaps out that the Dodgers and Yankees both managed to have a lot of success nonetheless because they just spent so much money.
Trying to thread the needle in this conversation a little, but I think both things are true: I happen to think we're better positioned than we were at the same time last year, in terms of AAA depth, and also think if we want to be a contender we need at least one big-time starter and one big-time reliever. That way we can push guys like Slaten/Whitlock/Hendriks/Booser and Crawford/Bello down the depth chart and improve our top-end outcomes. That way our depth is improved at both ends, if that makes sense.
I'm not going to continue beating this horse, but the Sox were seventh and the first and third teams made the World Series. And it's because of your second sentence: they spent a lot of money.
That's all I'm advocating for, the Sox to spend money on one or two starters that will (hopefully) stretch out the staff because like you said it's a waterfall. If you slot Fried and Crochet as 1-2, then you can put Houck and Bello as 3-4, have Giolito as a 5 and bolster your pen. And when the inevitable injuries occur, you can take one or two of those bullpen arms and slot them into the starting staff without a lot of roster/responsibility fluctuations.
I don't think what I'm proposing here is that controversial.
Why not? Criswell just gave us 18 starts at a 3.49 ERA. We need to get his innings up (4.72 IP per start) but they just brought Crawford from 4.68 IP/s in 2023 to 5.57 this year so I don't think it's unreasonable to expect progress there. Fitts came up in September and looked very ready.
We didn't have guys like that in AAA this year to step up when Bello, Pivetta and Whitlock were all down at once in April.
I think it'd be great if they spent on (or acquired) two top of the rotation arms, just to be entirely clear on that.
However, when we look at the projections of what SPs were looking at (and I'm using FanGraphs here, someone feel free to correct me if they're not a good barometer and let me know what would be better, I'll use that), the SP market is just blowing by it.
Kikuch was projected at 3/$54m/$18m and got 3/$63m/$21m.
Snell was projected at 4/$120m/$30m and got 5/$182m/~$34.5m.
For what it's worth, I agree entirely that it'd be great if the Sox did land guys like that just like you're saying @Fishy1 or @John Marzano Olympic Hero. However as to the likelihood of it happening, I think there is a far better chance that the Red Sox sign Juan Soto than Corbin Burnes (should blow through the 6/$180m/$30m) or Max Fried (should blow through 5/$125m/$25m), and I think it's like a 1% chance they sign Soto.
However, when we look at the projections of what SPs were looking at (and I'm using FanGraphs here, someone feel free to correct me if they're not a good barometer and let me know what would be better, I'll use that), the SP market is just blowing by it.
Kikuch was projected at 3/$54m/$18m and got 3/$63m/$21m.
Snell was projected at 4/$120m/$30m and got 5/$182m/~$34.5m.
For what it's worth, I agree entirely that it'd be great if the Sox did land guys like that just like you're saying @Fishy1 or @John Marzano Olympic Hero. However as to the likelihood of it happening, I think there is a far better chance that the Red Sox sign Juan Soto than Corbin Burnes (should blow through the 6/$180m/$30m) or Max Fried (should blow through 5/$125m/$25m), and I think it's like a 1% chance they sign Soto.
Later in October - they will the World Series.
Interesting timeline.
I do feel like this happened at the beginning of last year. We saw a few big, surprising deals early on (Nola, Yamamota, Eduardo Rodriguez)... and then the market kind of petered out and the guys who held out ended up with really disappointing deals. And the rest of the market kind of ended up settling for less. Maybe I'm misremembering.
Because if you could count on them most would have been up and contributing last year. The 24 Sox staff wasn’t the 90s Braves and not only that but there were a bunch of injuries that a ready pitcher should have taken advantage of.
I’m not saying that all of the guys at AAA are lost causes but at the same time counting on them to make even a leap into even a slightly better than league average pitcher for 2025 is not prudent planning.
Yes they won the WS but that’s not the point. The point is they had to have bullpen games in the NLCS and World Series even though in ST everyone thought their staff was unbeatable and “too big”.
I don't think anyone is expecting a team's 7-9 starter depth to be even slightly better than league average. You just want them not to be abjectly terrible. Someone who can give 5 innings and give up 3 or 4 runs is much worse than average, but still an acceptable fill-in. It's when you bring up those guys and they can't get out of the 3rd inning that the real damage is done.
That's not... really fair at all?
Fitts was just getting his first taste of AAA last year, as was Guerrero. No, they're not super duper top prospects, but they acquitted themselves well once they got to pitch in the big leagues. And Criswell did acquit himself well this past year. Priester has just about 100 innings in the big leagues, and we've seen even really good pitchers will struggle on first exposure.
Again, I don't think @simplicio is arguing that we don't need to sign someone, just that the depth is better.
Yes and no, I suppose.
Yamamoto dragged on and on (didn't sign until 12/27/23). Gray signed early (11/27) as I recall, Lugo got more than I think many expected and was just after the meetings (12/14). Imanaga was late (1/11), and got more as well (he was the standard "I'm not worried because this guy is still out there and I think he's been the target all along"). Montgomery and Snell both got far less.
The bigger point being, the Red Sox (for better or worse) ended up with none of these pitchers. Could they land an Eovaldi / Manaea / Severino type. Sure. Get a "Giolito deal" on Bieber or Buehler, possible.
Burnes, Fried or even Flaherty, I don't think there is any chance. They haven't even bothered to sign a "3" in free agency the past 4 years despite there being an obvious need, so I don't think there is any chance they're signing a 1 now. Could they trade for someone, of course. But signing that pitcher, I'd say no chance.
(If anyone didn't know, MLB.com does a nice job of outlining free agent classes, and then listing for prior years the date signed and duration of deals agreed to. You need to click the links or look at something like BBRef to get the dollar amounts. You can just change the dates on the Google search - ie make "2023-24 free agents" into "2022-23 free agents" - for different years. https://www.mlb.com/news/2023-24-mlb-free-agents-by-position)
Last edited:
Yeah, this is absolutely true. Reporting would seem to indicate they're abandoning this spare-parts approach, but as always, the proof is in the pudding. I, like everyone else, will believe it when I see it.
Might as well get Jack Flaherty, too, and really get the Harvard-Westlake reunion going.
So that's kind of my point, the ones who could've grasped the reigns (like Criswell) didn't and Fitts and Guerrero need more time to be seasoned. Counting on them shouldn't be a plan for 2025.
Honestly I'm not sure exactly what simplicio is arguing here. All I said is that I hope that the Sox sign/trade for starting depth and I was hit with, "Uhmm actually, the Red Sox have depth at AAA." Which, no shit. But I'm not sure how you can say that's quality depth (shit can be stacked pretty deep too) especially for a team that hasn't developed any quality starters (aside from Houck) since Clay Buchholz.
I think his point is that this years AAA depth is better than in the past. Which is likely true, although folks were gushing about Chris Murphy and Brandon Walter not that long ago too; in a year we will know whether Fitts and Priester and Dobbins was good depth or not. In the interim, they clearly need more high end SP.
I'm all for signing another starter, but again we signed a starter last winter and he made 0 starts, cause shit happens. We're talking about why our bullpens keep failing mid season, and I'm saying maybe spending 3 weeks in April/May with 3/5 of our rotation being bullpen games cause there was no league average (or slightly below) starting depth in AAA to bring up had a carrying effect later on, in addition to losing us games in the moment.
Simplicio can speak for himself, but I don't think he really disagrees with the bolded. I think you're arguing with ghosts
And yeah, Criswell didn't grab the reigns and turn into prime Derek Lowe, but he also didn't overturn the wagon. He gave them a 3.5 ERA as a starter. It wasn't ideal, but he was pretty good. Guerrero, Fitts, and Priester all probably start in AAA as the team is presently constituted, so I'm not, and nobody else is, suggesting they be our top options going forward. But they're better depth than what we had last year, IMO.
Booser, Slaten, and Martin all crapped out at the same time. That was when our season was lost.
There are 30 teams in MLB. If they all had an equal shot at signing Max Fried (they definitely don’t), any single one would have a shade over 3% chance.
You’re saying that the Red Sox — a team that has been linked to him for weeks, a longstanding big market franchise with a clear need and tons of payroll room, a team that’s a great ballpark and cultural fit for him, and who currently employs one of his best friends in an active recruiting effort — have a far less than 1 percent chance to sign him?
I don’t mean to single you out and I realize you’re exaggerating for effect. But the gut-take pessimism here can get pretty loud around here, and can make these arguments sound pretty ungrounded and silly. I don’t think the Sox decision not sign, say, Shota Imanaga or Jordan Montgomery in recent years has a ton of predictive value.
Loved those ten innings in the fall but I've still got serious concerns about his control problems. If he can sort that stuff out I'm confident he'll be elite, but if he cant, I don't know.
This is about the QO? Snell was the preference and part of that may be qualitative -- the insane K rate -- but Fried's overall performance is similar and he's not pining for the Pacific. So you suck it up and deal with the QO consequences.
The way I see it, is that we are just trading out a QO for Pivetta.... but maybe I just have a simple look at it.
Control is a fair concern, but I'd note that it wasn't purely a SSS showing in September: from July on he cut his walk rate to 3.21/9 and I can definitely live with that.
Sure, but with Snell you wouldn't have had to do even that, you just pocket the Pivetta benefits. But I suspect they can live with it.
Don't take this personally, but I've noticed a tendency on here to cut up a guys seasons this way. It's totally possible that's a new normal for him, and that would be great. But some guys also have stretches within a season where their control is great and stretches where it's horrible. Looking at a sample size of 15-25 IP and saying "he's figured it out" when the larger sample size is a guy who has walked, like, 6 per 9 innings for his entire professional career, is maybe premature.
I'm not saying you are definitely saying that he's figured it out...but for these reasons I'd rather not pencil him into the bullpen now. He's a fun toy to dream on and will have seasons, I have no doubt, where he's a very effective reliever.
But right now ahead of him in the bullpen I see... Mystery Acquisition #1 (hopefully a closer), Hendriks, Slaten, Whitlock, Weissert, Booser, Winck, Wilson, (and then we have the guys likely to begin the year in the minor leagues: Criswell, Kelly, Bernardino, Guerrero, Murphy/Fitts, among others). If he has a great spring I could see him being first man up or replacing someone like Winck (if Winck is even here come spring training).
Yep- never forget those 7 great innings Lucas Sims had right before the deadline and how it was going to be the new normal for him.
Feel free to single away in this one. I don't mind.
I'm not even saying this from a point of "pessimism", if you will. I think they're going to make some legitimate moves this year (as in I think they land one of Hernandez /Santander / Adames / Kim / Walker and I think they land one of Eovaldi / Flaherty / Severino / Buehler / Bieber and I think they land one of Yates / Hoffman / Scott / Estevez). I also wouldn't be at all surprised if they trade for one of Crochet / Seattle Starter X / or someone I'm not thinking of and extend them (ala Schilling, Beckett, Sale, Porcello).
Do those things, which I'll call signing Adames, (and moving Yoshida), signing Eovaldi, signing Yates and I'd say it's been a "good" off-season (like a B/B+) add in a trade for someone like Crochet and I'd argue you've had really good (call it a A-) off-season. I think those are all totally feasible, if not likely.
John Henry took over the team roughly 23 off-seasons ago (12/20/01) years ago and in that time FSG has paid big dollars and big years for an on the market SP covering most of their age 30+ seasons exactly once (David Price), or roughly 4% of the time. They've been linked to PLENTY of top of the market, older, free agent starters in those other 22 off-seasons and landed none of them (Snell x2 and Montgomery just happen to be the two most recent). I'm not just using Jordan Montgomery and Snell as examples, I'm using 23 off-seasons of data with one truly huge commitment in dollars and years (what it will take to land Burnes or Fried) once.
I think they'll make some moves. I think they'll be pretty good ones. I'd love it if they signed Fried (it's what I'd do). Regardless of what I'd do, I think there is basically no chance that FSG signs Fried or Burnes, based on 23 seasons of track record.
Last edited:
As in recent seasons, our bullpen was good until it wasn't.
| Month | ERA | IP | OPSa | WHIP | BABIP |
| Mar/April | 3.41 | 118.2 | .660 | 1.214 | .289 |
| May | 3.58 | 100.2 | .655 | 1.262 | .312 |
| June | 3.54 | 104.1 | .655 | 1.141 | .283 |
| July | 6.22 | 85.1 | .847 | 1.629 | .317 |
| August | 5.79 | 110.1 | .865 | 1.505 | .330 |
| Sept/Oct | 4.13 | 93.2 | .701 | 1.377 | .304 |
I don't know about Murphy, but people were gushing about Brandon Walter when he was throwing mid-90s from the left side. Then he got hurt and came back throwing 90. It's a different guy; he's been bad in the minors since the injury, too.
He had a healthy offseason and is only 26, so if the velocity comes back, he could still be interesting in relief, but I'm not holding my breath.
All the more impressive, considering Kelly was left off the roster for each round of the playoffs due to a right shoulder injury
Just focusing on depth, and how the Dodgers accomplished so much without a healthy staff:
The 2024 Dodgers featured 12 pitchers who made starts (excluding the five guys who started bullpen games, even stud-muffin Brent Honeywell's lone 3ip start). Stone and Glasnow led the team in starts (4th place? Ol' friend James Paxton. Third was Yama). 8 of those 12 started 10 or more games; only two pitched more than 100 innings for the Dodgers (J-Flare with 162ip but only 55 for LAD; James Paxton with 100.1 but 11 of those were for the Sox). Of the entire roster, in terms of most IP, three of the top ten were relievers.
So they were an incredible patchwork, finding enough innings between all these guys and all the injuries.
After signing Snell and Ohtani/Glasnow back, their AAA rotation could be:
Michael Grove (homegrown)
River Ryan
Landon Knack (homegrown)
Justin Wrobleski (homegrown)
Jackson Ferris
[The first four all contributed at the big league level this year, as well - their combined 24 starts would have been second on the team.]
All could/will/should be on an MLB roster in 2025 (Ferris' likely arrival is 2026 - especially with all the LAD depth, but he was a stud in AA this year and might make the jump, or at least would on many other teams). Each could, in theory, be expendable and could fetch either a group of younger/lower-level prospects or an MLB piece. Beyond the pocketbook, the Dodgers trade pool is staggering (especially considering how many are blocked and blocked long-term).
My point is, they say you can never have enough pitching. After putting that to the test, the Dodgers said: even enough is not enough, and went out and got more. Having arms in AAA isn't entirely about "count[ing] on them". It's also about gap-filling. If a couple of guys can turn games-otherwise-injured-starters-miss from laughers to toss-ups, you're gonna win some of those, and that's how you finish at the top of the table.
I'm not trying to wishcast him into something he's not. It could be that he had an uncharacteristically good second half as you say. But it could also be that we got a new pitching org in place that made effective adjustments with him and took him to the next level.
Here's the pitching+ numbers for RP with 10+ innings this year:
Added to that is:
Hendriks: 115/98/104 (2023)
Wilson: 104/104/104 (and if you're wondering why we signed a 37 year old with a 5.59 ERA I'd say it's these numbers)
Whitlock: 122/106/109 (2021, his only year as a pure reliever, with some concern that he was down to 99/101/103 in relief in 2023)
I see him as unproven, but currently the 4th best arm in the pen after Hendriks/Slaten/Whitlock with potential to be higher than that. I'd take him over Weissert/Winck/Kelly and the lefties.
@Buster_ESPN
One market factor that shifts cyclically is how some teams become a preferred destination for players, while other teams lose ground in the perception game. Boston is aggressive with dollars now, but the Red Sox will have to pay extra to overcome a negative player perception that really started growing when the team wouldn't pay Mookie Betts.
One market factor that shifts cyclically is how some teams become a preferred destination for players, while other teams lose ground in the perception game. Boston is aggressive with dollars now, but the Red Sox will have to pay extra to overcome a negative player perception that really started growing when the team wouldn't pay Mookie Betts.
Jared called out buster for that take.
And. Uh. The Devers extension ?
View: https://twitter.com/Jared_Carrabis/status/1861771129137836196
Carrabis's stance is proven by what, exactly?
Devers was not a free agent.
I'll believe they're back in the business of signing major free agents the next time they sign one.
I agree with you, but also, that tweet with Snell signing a 5 year 33mm AAV deal is silly. Snell didn’t choose the Dodgers because he took some discount to win.
They paid the freight.
Free agent will come to Boston if they pay the freight. It have absolutely nothing to do with perception of winning.
Neither was Betts.
If the sentiment that they won't pay is because they traded Betts away rather than pay him, the Devers extension absolutely counters that.
Who was the last "major" free agent the Sox signed? Story? Martinez? Price?
I guess it depends on how players view Betts vs Devers, but I can see the argument.
Overall, though, I get tired of the Carrabis types saying they know something is absolutely true/false without providing any evidence to back their claims.
Goes for Olney, too, of course.
The overall point is still true until proven otherwise, unfortunately. Until they sign a top-tier free agent at market rates, the perception is going to exist that they aren't serious players
Guess I still don't see how they're any different than about 27 other teams in terms of signing "top-tier free agents at market rates" because they've signed maybe three guys that fit that bill in the last 25 years: Manny, Crawford, and Price. If they have a rep as not being serious players at the top of the market, it goes back way further than Betts (who again was never a free agent). But yet, they are almost always on the short list of teams to which the top free agents market themselves.
Story and Yoshida are the only FA contracts for more than two years and $40mm since JDM in ‘18.
you can’t go by what they did 10-15 years ago after Henry’s speech in Sept 2019 at the press conference discussing DD’s ouster.
you can’t go by what they did 10-15 years ago after Henry’s speech in Sept 2019 at the press conference discussing DD’s ouster.
So star players won't come to Boston because FSG refuses to pay as much as other people. Cool.
They haven't signed non-reclamation piece since DD left besides overbidding for a decisively average Yoshida. Whether it is because players are mad at how stupidly FSG handled Mookie or it is because FSG hasn't seriously bid for a free agent, the failure has been on Sam Kennedy and FSG clown squad. It is great that John Henry was a great owner a decade before, but now he has let a goon squad of Private Equity takeover and they have been completely inept at creating a winning team. So either the new market inefficiency is losing (which I think there is something to, people are still paying a premium to watch a bottom tier product) or Sam Kennedy has absolutely no clue how to run a winning organization.