Red Sox hook Crochet for Kyle Teel, Braden Montgomery, Chase Meidroth and Wikelman Gonzalez

103mph Screwball

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 9, 2010
1,012
Upstate NY
I've always liked to search for trade partner message boards to get a feel for general fan reaction on the other side of the transaction.
No Sons of Ron Karkovice out there, so I settled for SOXTALK...Scrolled briefly through the 17 pages or so related to the Crochet trade, and although the posts don't possess a ton of depth, some made me chuckle, and the members seem to be overall pretty happy with the Crochet return, fwiw.

https://www.soxtalk.com/forums/topic/120594-crochet-traded-to-boston/
Not to derail the thread, but growing up< i was a huge fan of Frank Thomas. So I'd often make my way over to Soxtalk, and was pretty active there for the better part of a decade. Great message board with a great core of knowledgeable posters.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
25,828
I think in the context of the Crochet trade, it seems like the Sox knew they had the inside angle on Crochet and stopped pushing for Fried. I mean, it would be great to have both but they have other needs, too.
I don't think that they knew that they had the inside track to Crochet at all at the time Fried was signed. In fact, if reports are to be believed, the Red Sox were on the outside and didn't gain any traction until the White Sox GM was awakened yesterday morning with a text from Breslow saying that they'd include Teel and Montgomery.

I think that Breslow knew he needed a win here that's why he softened a bit on his original offer. Which is fine, that's how deals are done.
 

Auger34

used to be tbb
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
12,791
I cannot speak to what exactly is driving FSGs aversion to premium FAs but I think folks here get too hung up on contract length. My sense is that no teams in the MLB think or expect Soto or any of these players will perform for the duration of the deals. Instead we are getting these longer tenors for AAV smoothing purposes.

Now you may be correct that the length creates issues for FSG specifically but I think their shareholders and Henry simply make too much money as things are - adding big contracts won't net them much incremental value and may well diminish their returns.

It feels like they will continue to extend players on team friendly deals, sign some misfit toys in the hopes of bouncebacks and trade prospects to round things out.

As a fan, I wouldn't be too attached to Mayer for example but that's just my speculation.
I am not sure about the bolded but I think everything else is 1000% correct.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
9,978
Not even really a year since he barely pitched in the 2nd half last season
He was on an innings limit, but he made 32 starts. 146 innings is not far off a full work load.

2023 Crawford and Houck threw 129 and 106, respectively.
 

Auger34

used to be tbb
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
12,791
He’s likely to be better on the field than anyone available in FA.

If we do this right, we shouldn’t save much money. I would give Crochet today the total contract value that Snell or Fried got. But this way, such a contract covers through age 33 instead of 38.
Boy, I hope this isn't correct.

I think part of the appeal of getting Crochet (or players under contract for 2 or more years) vs. a free agent is that they will be able to get a more team-friendly contract extension because there are no other bidders.

I would expect him to get less than Fried/Snell. Not a ton less but maybe $3-$5M less AAV?
 

Auger34

used to be tbb
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
12,791
I don't think that they knew that they had the inside track to Crochet at all at the time Fried was signed. In fact, if reports are to be believed, the Red Sox were on the outside and didn't gain any traction until the White Sox GM was awakened yesterday morning with a text from Breslow saying that they'd include Teel and Montgomery.

I think that Breslow knew he needed a win here that's why he softened a bit on his original offer. Which is fine, that's how deals are done.
Yeah, I think that Bres really wanted Fried but realized that he wouldnt be able to match that length/AAV so he pivoted to Crochet. Which matches what Chris Getz said (that they were involved but really got serious with that text in the morning)
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
9,163
We don't have a number 1 starter in our pipeline, but we do have this thing called free agency. Guys are available.
True, but there are only a limited number of top-tier free agents each year and the number who do become available is always exceeded by the number of teams willing to bid on them. This year, there were three top-tier starting pitchers available via free agency. Snell and Fried were quickly snapped up by the Dodgers and Yankees. This left Breslow and the Sox battling with a group of other teams who are realistic landing spots for Burnes, including the Giants, Blue Jays and Orioles. The Mets, Cubs and the Phillies are also big-market teams who could conceivably decide that Burnes is worth the huge contract he will get. Even if John Henry gave Breslow an open checkbook there was no guarantee that the Red Sox could land one of the big three.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
9,978
Boy, I hope this isn't correct.

I think part of the appeal of getting Crochet (or players under contract for 2 or more years) vs. a free agent is that they will be able to get a more team-friendly contract extension because there are no other bidders.

I would expect him to get less than Fried/Snell. Not a ton less but maybe $3-$5M less AAV?
Putting the Fried deal on a 25 year old ace in arb2 is team friendly. He's not a rookie.

If he was a free agent right now he'd clear $400m.
 

SouthernBoSox

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2005
12,660
Putting the Fried deal on a 25 year old ace in arb2 is team friendly. He's not a rookie.

If he was a free agent right now he'd clear $400m.
Yea that’s what people don’t really understand. Given his age, and dominance, he’d command the largest pitching contact in history.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
13,142
around the way
I don't think "everyone" is OK with a continuing relative lack of spending. I know I'm not.

However, the Sox have been talking to Chicago about Crochet since last summer. Breslow clearly coveted Crochet. This deal, in and of itself, does not preclude the FO from spending this offseason. If the next 6 weeks pass and they haven't spent meaningfully, then we'll have every right to be pissed. I'm just not inclined to ding this trade because of what might not happen in the near future.
I think that we're aligned here. If they add more to the system, I guarantee you that I'll be on the list of folks attending the fireworks night. These guys gave me four championships. They have spent before and might again. I'll always be a fan of this ownership group. I just don't want another five years of "hey, it's possible if everything goes perfectly".

It seems like from available tweets that "next steps" is sending away more blue chip future players for more help, rather than just reaching into their pockets. We don't know for sure that this is the case, so fine, I'll stfu until we know for sure what their plans are. I will really try at least.

I won't speak for others, but to me, I want to know that the team is doing everything in their power to make the team as good as possible, with 'better' broadly defined, so that it could mean short term, long term, etc. Deciding not to trade away prospects is one thing, since that might be the better long term move, but choosing not to spend money doesn't have an analogous trade-off. That is, they could use payroll space to improve the team with short-term deals if there are concerns about future payroll crunches, or use the space to sign extensions that shift future payroll into the current year, or use it to take a bad contract to acquire assets. But unused payroll space doesn't help anyone outside of ownership, so choosing not to leverage it to improve the team feels like leaving opportunities on the table.
The team is not doing everything possible to improve the team if they're leaving out one key way of improving the team (top FA talent), one which the other high revenue/"always in the mix" teams use. Agreed that there are many ways to use their financial power. I'm just asking for them to do so.

The team has decided that pursuing pitchers over 30 isn't prudent. I think history proves them right.
This would be a more convincing argument if the approach were working.
 
Last edited:

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
22,968
Maine
Putting the Fried deal on a 25 year old ace in arb2 is team friendly. He's not a rookie.

If he was a free agent right now he'd clear $400m.
This seems a bit hyperbolic. I get that he'd be young for a free agent but I can't see a guy with one year of starting experience getting $400M on the free agent market, even as good as Crochet's tools appear to be. Unless you're arguing that he'd get Fried's deal plus about 6 years. Not a chance a pitcher is getting a 13-14 year deal.

If Crochet performs as we hope he will for the next couple years, he'd most definitely be in line for $350-400M+ in December 2026. That is the argument for offering him the Fried deal now, which would turn out to be a bargain by comparison.
 

Fishy1

Head Mason
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
8,424
@finnVT I get that people want to see them make a commitment. I think that's fair. I don't like it either that they won't just spend spend spend like the Mets, Dodgers, and Yankees, but that's the world we live in, and I'm willing to accept that.

Let me try to lay out my thinking rather than being snarky (and I apologize for being snarky, to everyone, especially @Jimbodandy ).

The team's strategy when it was most successful was to spread out a large payroll over one or two big commitments and then the rest over a lot of smaller commitments. They abandoned that approach when they signed Price and extended Sale and Bogaerts all at once, and it worked for a little while, and then it blew up in their faces. Yes 2018 was worth it, but they had to deal Price and Mookie (or felt they had to) get out from under those deals. Again, I don't like it, in fact I hated it, but that's the world we live in.

And since that's the world we live in, I don't want to see them just spending money on risky free agents like pitchers in their 30's to prove something. What I think is most likely going to happen is we're going to see a bunch of extensions in the next year: Crochet at 8/200 or so, Campbell and Anthony at something similar (remember, not even a year and a half ago they extended Devers for one of the fifteen richest contracts in baseball history, and followed that quickly with team-friendly extensions for Bello and Rafaela). If those extensions happen, we'll pretty quickly be in the top ten or even higher in payroll again.

And yeah, I'd rather they did that than blow money on Fried or Burnes, because what happens when we do that is in two or three years they'll say "oh, we can't afford this" and staple Anthony to Burnes to get rid of the contract.
 

Auger34

used to be tbb
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
12,791
This seems a bit hyperbolic. I get that he'd be young for a free agent but I can't see a guy with one year of starting experience getting $400M on the free agent market, even as good as Crochet's tools appear to be. Unless you're arguing that he'd get Fried's deal plus about 6 years. Not a chance a pitcher is getting a 13-14 year deal.

If Crochet performs as we hope he will for the next couple years, he'd most definitely be in line for $350-400M+ in December 2026. That is the argument for offering him the Fried deal now, which would turn out to be a bargain by comparison.
Agreed with this.

Will be interesting to see what the extension looks like...and I fully expect them to agree on an extension. I think Crochet values the instant stability based off of his actions last year
 

Murderer's Crow

Dragon Wangler 216
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
25,422
Garden City
Ill modify this slighty to be: (i) they sign him to an extension; and (ii) he continues to be a top pitcher. Because I dont see any reasonable expectation that they would be able to retain him if he goes into FA after 2026 if maintains his level of performance.
I would agree with that. Unless you think your winning window is this year or next year (Crochet under contract), you better believe that you can extend him. It's easier to extend a player 2 years out than 1 year out but at the same time, nothing about this free agency era seems to point to players wanting to sign extensions until they are 30 or 31.
 

chawson

Hoping for delivery
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
5,207
Good post, I agree.

I understand why a team may not want to give an 8 year/$250 million deal to a 31 year old starter. There's logic to that strategy.

However, there many other ways to spend. And there's absolutely no excuse for the Sox not to spend to the limit of the cap, and go over when necessary. Especially right now, in this offseason, when the farm is flush, young players populate the major league roster, and the team is in position to compete again after a crummy 5 years.
I agree here. As good of a dopamine hit as it would be if we signed Burnes, I’d be pretty concerned about the last 4-5 years of an 8-year deal.

Maybe we see a deal for Jones, but it also sounds like they’re trying to liberate a pricier veteran starter from one of these smaller-market teams cutting payroll after being affected by various broadcasting deals.

The Twins need to trim payroll and have a rotation of Lopez, Ryan, Ober, Woods Richardson, and Paddack, with Zebby Matthews and David Festa ready, and Marco Raya and Andrew Morris quite soon. What would they want for Pablo Lopez (3/$65.5) and Christian Vazquez (1/$10M)? That’s a deal I’d be more inclined to give up Casas for.
 

TomRicardo

rusty cohlebone
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2006
21,909
Row 14
We don't have a number 1 starter in our pipeline, but we do have this thing called free agency. Guys are available.

Why is everyone ok with being #10-#15 in payroll again?
Damn you, damn you to hell.

It is because payroll doesn't matter if they build a winning team in the short term. Granted they are still RHH bat away from being respectable however they certainly have built a team at this point you would expect to be above .500. Getting Crochet is better than spending 200 million on a Flaherty.

I mean there is a huge concern the ownership has given up on building a perennial winner and will just cycle between competitive and bottom feeders like John Henry did in Florida. We agree on that. However getting Crochet is the second biggest addition by a team this off season. Hopefully Naravez will get more run behind the plate. Between that, Whitlock moving to pen, and Crochet this team has a realistic shot at the third wild card. Yesterday was the best day the Red Sox have had in a long while.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
33,316
I agree here. As good of a dopamine hit as it would be if we signed Burnes, I’d be pretty concerned about the last 4-5 years of an 8-year deal.
And it's not even the money (or not *only* the money). Having a guy who isn't very good on the roster hurts the team. Signing up for 4 years of that is a bold move
 

BravesField

New Member
Oct 27, 2021
275
Agreed with this.

Will be interesting to see what the extension looks like...and I fully expect them to agree on an extension. I think Crochet values the instant stability based off of his actions last year
I hope you're right, but if I were Crochet's agent, I'd advise no extension. If he has 2 more years of results like 2024, he'll break the bank.
 

PedroisGod

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 30, 2002
1,625
Hamilton, Canada
I agree here. As good of a dopamine hit as it would be if we signed Burnes, I’d be pretty concerned about the last 4-5 years of an 8-year deal.

Maybe we see a deal for Jones, but it also sounds like they’re trying to liberate a pricier veteran starter from one of these smaller-market teams cutting payroll after being affected by various broadcasting deals.

The Twins need to trim payroll and have a rotation of Lopez, Ryan, Ober, Woods Richardson, and Paddack, with Zebby Matthews and David Festa ready, and Marco Raya and Andrew Morris quite soon. What would they want for Pablo Lopez (3/$65.5) and Christian Vazquez (1/$10M)? That’s a deal I’d be more inclined to give up Casas for.
Good post. That's not a bad trade match, though I still wouldn't want to move Casas. I think I'd want any arm that we get at this point to be a guy you can reasonably count on to throw a ton of innings. Flaherty and Buehler worry me from that standpoint. Even a trade for Jared Jones would worry me there. I'd be ok with whoever would cost the least out of Castillo, Lopez, Framber, Cease, and Gallen. I did mention in the other thread that signing Burnes would be ideal, and I still mostly feel that way. I do think there's a chance it will age poorly, but that's the cost of acquiring elite talent. If I didn't think that they'd use that as an excuse to not push payroll forward and extend the kids when it's time, that would be my first choice.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
22,968
Maine
Agreed with this.

Will be interesting to see what the extension looks like...and I fully expect them to agree on an extension. I think Crochet values the instant stability based off of his actions last year
I really don't read anything into his comments about wanting an extension back in July. Or at least, I wouldn't see it as evidence that he's more open to an extension than the average player or that he'd take a discount of any kind. Those comments were more self-preservation as he knew and likely approved of the program he was on with the White Sox to build up his innings count. He saw being moved at the deadline to a contender as a change to that program that could put his future earnings at risk if he was over-used and got hurt again. I don't think he has that same mindset now that he's through the season and presumably the training wheels and the kid gloves will be off moving forward.
 

chawson

Hoping for delivery
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
5,207
And it's not even the money (or not *only* the money). Having a guy who isn't very good on the roster hurts the team. Signing up for 4 years of that is a bold move
Exactly, yeah. That gets overlooked too.

You usually can’t just DFA one of these former all star-types when they’re on mega deals. For an extreme case, just look at Rendon. Strasburg had the grace to retire (his contract is up after 2026), but Price was just kind of a 6th starter/mop-up guy for the last two years of his deal after the DNP/covid season. The roster spots are valuable.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
16,969
The team has decided that pursuing pitchers over 30 isn't prudent. I think history proves them right.
It has been nearly three days since they offered a pitcher over 30 a seven-year contract.

edit - it would be more accurate to say “The team has decided that outbidding the Yankees isn’t prudent.”
 

Fishy1

Head Mason
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
8,424
I hope you're right, but if I were Crochet's agent, I'd advise no extension. If he has 2 more years of results like 2024, he'll break the bank.
It's different for pitchers. Guys who've been advised to take that route have a variety of outcomes. It worked out for Blake Snell. Jordan Montgomery, on the other hand, is probably out a hundred million dollars or so unless he bounces back this season.

Look at Spencer Strider. We saw Spencer Strider sign a 6/75 million dollar prearb extension in October of 2022. His 2022 looks very similar to Crochet's 2024.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
9,978
This seems a bit hyperbolic. I get that he'd be young for a free agent but I can't see a guy with one year of starting experience getting $400M on the free agent market, even as good as Crochet's tools appear to be. Unless you're arguing that he'd get Fried's deal plus about 6 years. Not a chance a pitcher is getting a 13-14 year deal.

If Crochet performs as we hope he will for the next couple years, he'd most definitely be in line for $350-400M+ in December 2026. That is the argument for offering him the Fried deal now, which would turn out to be a bargain by comparison.
I don't think it's hyperbolic at all. Yamamoto got $325m without throwing a single MLB inning, while Crochet has shown he can dominate there. (Also, prices have gone even more nuts this year than last, as I'm sure everyone recognizes)
 

Sin Duda

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
1,196
(B)Austin Texas
Being in Texas, I was listening to discussion on the MLB Winter meetings (which never happens in this football-crazed state) and the hosts had no problem discussing homegrown Astros stars RF Kyle Tucker and SP Framber Valdez being traded because they're both in their last year of arbitration. Our fans would be apoplectic with that idea given the value of those two players. Now the Red Sox are not the Astros, but both are huge markets. The Red Sox Front Office used to be considered the smartest in the room. Maybe, just maybe, not signing 30 yo SPs to exorbitant, 5+ year contracts is a new way to flex one's intellect as a market advantage (saving one's payroll budget for homegrown stars and short-term rolls of the dice). I choose to see it that way but maybe that's rose-red-colored glasses.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
22,968
Maine
It's different for pitchers. Guys who've been advised to take that route have a variety of outcomes. It worked out for Blake Snell. Jordan Montgomery, on the other hand, is probably out a hundred million dollars or so unless he bounces back this season.

Look at Spencer Strider. We saw Spencer Strider sign a 6/75 million dollar prearb extension in October of 2022. His 2022 looks very similar to Crochet's 2024.
Strider's deal came when he still had five years of team control remaining, so the deal buys out his first year of free agency only (two years if the option is exercised). He's still going to be a free agent at age 30-31. For Crochet to do the same, he'd be signing a 5 year deal today. I just don't see that happening unless it's an 8-9 year deal with an opt-out after 4 or 5.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
13,142
around the way
Damn you, damn you to hell.

It is because payroll doesn't matter if they build a winning team in the short term. Granted they are still RHH bat away from being respectable however they certainly have built a team at this point you would expect to be above .500. Getting Crochet is better than spending 200 million on a Flaherty.

I mean there is a huge concern the ownership has given up on building a perennial winner and will just cycle between competitive and bottom feeders like John Henry did in Florida. We agree on that. However getting Crochet is the second biggest addition by a team this off season. Hopefully Naravez will get more run behind the plate. Between that, Whitlock moving to pen, and Crochet this team has a realistic shot at the third wild card. Yesterday was the best day the Red Sox have had in a long while.
I've come around on the trade. To paraphrase John Rambo, I just want my team to love me as much as I love it.
 

Yo La Tengo

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
1,375
Maybe, just maybe, not signing 30 yo SPs to exorbitant, 5+ year contracts is a new way to flex one's intellect as a market advantage (saving one's payroll budget for homegrown stars and short-term rolls of the dice). I choose to see it that way but maybe that's rose-red-colored glasses.
I think it all depends on the particular team's competitive window. It makes good sense for the Yankees to sign Fried to a record setting, 8 year deal, since their core group of players (Cole, Judge, Rodon, and Stanton) are all early to mid 30s and the team needs to be immediately competitive next year and 2026 (and the NYY would not have lined up with the White Sox trade demands). But that is not a sustainable model, and in 3 years, when Cole is 36, Rodon is 34, Judge is 35, Stanton is 37, and Fried is 33, the situation could look pretty ugly.
 

Sausage in Section 17

Poker Champ
SoSH Member
Mar 17, 2004
2,317
Yeah, but, if he Crochet was 24, I would believe that John Henry cared. At 25, it is pretty fucking obvious to all of us with eyes, that he doesn’t. I hate rooting for this team. I may cancel both my NESN account and my subscription to the Sausage Guy TM for 2025.
Yeah, seriously. I mean, John Henry, John Harrington...what's the difference? We used to have Tom Yawkey, now we have Tom Werner.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...we won't get fooled again!
 

Fishy1

Head Mason
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
8,424
Strider's deal came when he still had five years of team control remaining, so the deal buys out his first year of free agency only (two years if the option is exercised). He's still going to be a free agent at age 30-31. For Crochet to do the same, he'd be signing a 5 year deal today. I just don't see that happening unless it's an 8-9 year deal with an opt-out after 4 or 5.
That's a good point. I get you skepticism. I think he still might try to sign an extension given his injury history. I think he's more likely to be risk averse than other pitchers are.
 

PrometheusWakefield

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2009
10,734
Boston, MA
I really don't read anything into his comments about wanting an extension back in July. Or at least, I wouldn't see it as evidence that he's more open to an extension than the average player or that he'd take a discount of any kind. Those comments were more self-preservation as he knew and likely approved of the program he was on with the White Sox to build up his innings count. He saw being moved at the deadline to a contender as a change to that program that could put his future earnings at risk if he was over-used and got hurt again. I don't think he has that same mindset now that he's through the season and presumably the training wheels and the kid gloves will be off moving forward.
He could get $200M guaranteed tomorrow, or he could get his arbitration contract for 2025 and live his life one pitch away from a career ending injury and walk away with nothing more than $2.5M. He's been through TJ surgery once, he knows how quickly this whole thing could disappear. He'll extend.
 

Sausage in Section 17

Poker Champ
SoSH Member
Mar 17, 2004
2,317
And it's not even the money (or not *only* the money). Having a guy who isn't very good on the roster hurts the team. Signing up for 4 years of that is a bold move
It really is just this simple. In 2021 and 2022, the Red Sox paid ~$45M each year for David Price and Chris Sale NOT to pitch for them. They had to massively subsidize Price (who had become a shell of his former self) to get the Dodgers to take him, while Sale gave us 48 innings over those 2 years, along with zero innings the year before, too..

Half the people in this thread act like that HAD NOTHING TO DO with the Sox struggles those years, and continue to advocate that the Sox make basically the same sorts of moves to address the hole that these contracts created for the team.

Signing long term deals to aging pitchers is, probably more than any other factor, the reason the Sox have struggled to compete the last few years. I want them to be more cautious.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
33,316
He could get $200M guaranteed tomorrow, or he could get his arbitration contract for 2025 and live his life one pitch away from a career ending injury and walk away with nothing more than $2.5M. He's been through TJ surgery once, he knows how quickly this whole thing could disappear. He'll extend.
I'd like to think you're right. But it seems that many/most pro athletes are more wired to "bet on themselves."
 

Norm loves Vera

Joe wants Trump to burn
SoSH Member
Dec 25, 2003
5,978
Peace Dale, RI
I was googling around to find out who Crochet''agent was (CAA) and found this page. I don't know anything about Spotrac but is this guess in line with what it would take for the Red Sox to sign pre Arb? First I heard of it, but my google fu is flawed.
93130
 

PedroisGod

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 30, 2002
1,625
Hamilton, Canada
Strider's deal came when he still had five years of team control remaining, so the deal buys out his first year of free agency only (two years if the option is exercised). He's still going to be a free agent at age 30-31. For Crochet to do the same, he'd be signing a 5 year deal today. I just don't see that happening unless it's an 8-9 year deal with an opt-out after 4 or 5.
Dan Szymborski just mentioned in his FG chat that is going on now that ZIPS projects a Crochet extension to be 7/211.
 
Mar 30, 2023
272
I think it all depends on the particular team's competitive window. It makes good sense for the Yankees to sign Fried to a record setting, 8 year deal, since their core group of players (Cole, Judge, Rodon, and Stanton) are all early to mid 30s and the team needs to be immediately competitive next year and 2026 (and the NYY would not have lined up with the White Sox trade demands). But that is not a sustainable model, and in 3 years, when Cole is 36, Rodon is 34, Judge is 35, Stanton is 37, and Fried is 33, the situation could look pretty ugly.
I've been waiting for the situation to "get pretty ugly" for the Yankees since 2008, when they made all those "bad deals" that would surely catch up to them for AJ Burnett, CC Sabathia, and Mark Teixiera (with A-Rod already on the books! How could they be so reckless?!?). It has not gotten ugly for the Yankees, and it is not going to get ugly for the Yankees because, if you have money, then the smart way to build your baseball team is to use that money. They don't need to build a cost-controlled core through the draft. No big market team does. People forget that Moneyball had a subtitle.
 
Last edited:

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
22,968
Maine
He could get $200M guaranteed tomorrow, or he could get his arbitration contract for 2025 and live his life one pitch away from a career ending injury and walk away with nothing more than $2.5M. He's been through TJ surgery once, he knows how quickly this whole thing could disappear. He'll extend.
I don't buy it. Sorry. We always try to project this kind of rational thinking on to players and 90%+ of them play it out year to year to get to free agency. The better they are, the more likely they take the risk. Even the guys who have injury histories like Crochet does.

I'm not arguing he absolutely won't sign an extension that satisfies all his wants and expectations. I'm arguing that it isn't going to be a discounted deal nor is it going to be a quick and easy negotiation to get it done. We just can't assume his level of enthusiasm for it.
 

Fishy1

Head Mason
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
8,424
It really is just this simple. In 2021 and 2022, the Red Sox paid ~$45M each year for David Price and Chris Sale NOT to pitch for them. They had to massively subsidize Price (who had become a shell of his former self) to get the Dodgers to take him, while Sale gave us 48 innings over those 2 years, along with zero innings the year before, too..

Half the people in this thread act like that HAD NOTHING TO DO with the Sox struggles those years, and continue to advocate that the Sox make basically the same sorts of moves to address the hole that these contracts created for the team.

Signing long term deals to aging pitchers is, probably more than any other factor, the reason the Sox have struggled to compete the last few years. I want them to be more cautious.
100%. Which leads into...

I don't buy it. Sorry. We always try to project this kind of rational thinking on to players and 90%+ of them play it out year to year to get to free agency. The better they are, the more likely they take the risk. Even the guys who have injury histories like Crochet does.

I'm not arguing he absolutely won't sign an extension that satisfies all his wants and expectations. I'm arguing that it isn't going to be a discounted deal nor is it going to be a quick and easy negotiation to get it done. We just can't assume his level of enthusiasm for it.
This is totally fair. I think they get it done, but I think it will be expensive. And yet I would still prefer that at this juncture over the mega deals to pitchers in their 30's for the reasons outlined above.
 

LogansDad

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
33,169
Alamogordo
I was googling around to find out who Crochet''agent was (CAA) and found this page. I don't know anything about Spotrac but is this guess in line with what it would take for the Red Sox to sign pre Arb? First I heard of it, but my google fu is flawed.
View attachment 93130
I have not seen any news that they have signed him, so that tag line is weird, but I think the estimate is pretty close. He isn't pre-arb, though, he is arb-2, I think (thus only two years of team control).

Crochet has expressed interest in the past about getting an extension (it was part of the trade deadline discussion), but I don't know how much his desire changes now that he is out of Chicago.

I am curious if the team and player would be amenable to signing his arbitration contract and then doing an extension afterwards (similar to what they did with Devers), but they are so far under the CBT threshold that I kind of think the best option is to buy out the last two years of arbitration by offering him something along the lines of 5/$100. He gets way over his arbitration estimate for this year and next, the team doesn't take on huge 30+ risk, and he gets to go after a monster deal after 2029 if everything goes well.

If everything doesn't go well, the Sox aren't stuck with an aging pitcher right as their prime prospects are hitting their arb2/3 and free agent years, so they can hopefully extend the ones who work out.
 

Yo La Tengo

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
1,375
I've been waiting for the situation to "get pretty ugly" for the Yankees since 2008, when they made all those "bad deals" for AJ Burnett, CC Sabathia, and Mark Teixiera. It has not gotten ugly, and it is not going to get ugly because, if you have money, then the smart way to build your baseball team is to use that money. They don't need to build a cost-controlled core through the draft. No big market team does.
It becomes an inescapable cycle, as a team loses draft picks and pays the increasing tax penalties. If the Yankees had won the World Series last year, then it would have been worth it. But it is harder than it looks to build a championship team out of 30+ year old free agents, due to diminishing performance and increased injuries. The Dodgers may have figured out a way around this with their deferred salary structure... we'll see.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
22,968
Maine
I've been waiting for the situation to "get pretty ugly" for the Yankees since 2008, when they made all those "bad deals" for AJ Burnett, CC Sabathia, and Mark Teixiera. It has not gotten ugly, and it is not going to get ugly because, if you have money, then the smart way to build your baseball team is to use that money. They don't need to build a cost-controlled core through the draft. No big market team does.
How many titles do they have since 2008? You're correct that it hasn't necessarily gotten ugly like Baltimore 2017-2022 ugly but ugly is a relative term. 2013-2016 wasn't a great time in the Bronx. They finished in fourth place in the division just last year. It hasn't been all roses and mega-teams even for them and their boatloads of cash. They dial back on occasion same as anyone else.
 

4 6 3 DP

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 24, 2001
2,457
You pay that price for more than 2 years of control IMO. I can't imagine they paid it without the parameters of a deal in place. Further, the guy held his last team hostage refusing basically to pitch in the playoffs without an extension. I don't see why that would change just because he's wearing a different color Sox, so since the Red Sox would like him to pitch in the playoffs in 2025 they must believe there will be an extension.

Since I am assuming there will be an extension, I think this is a fantastic trade. Since it is unlikely we will win a bidding war with LA, NYM, and NYY for premiere free agents, the only way to get these premiere players is to either develop them or trade for them and extend. We have to pay a prospect premium for that negotiating exclusivity and access to the age 25-30 seasons that every team covets.

If the Red Sox strategy is to rely on homegrown pieces and then only older players on short term deals, never going out more than 2-3 years on those players, with the idea they will use prospect capital to get premium players when they can and to try and lock up younger talent with extensions whenever possible to try and get long term control of generational players, I have no issue with that strategy.

The filling in the blanks part is tough, though. Sometimes you sign a player with warts to a 5 year deal and they become JD Martinez and anchor a WS lineup. Other times they become Yoshida or Story. I'm not sure you can completely ignore the second tier FA market and win, but it's certainly fraught with uncertainty.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
7,608
Half the people in this thread act like that HAD NOTHING TO DO with the Sox struggles those years, and continue to advocate that the Sox make basically the same sorts of moves to address the hole that these contracts created for the team.

Signing long term deals to aging pitchers is, probably more than any other factor, the reason the Sox have struggled to compete the last few years. I want them to be more cautious.
I think a lot of those people see the massive profits of the Red Sox and wonder why they just can't spend their way out of shit like that? It's a reasonable request but it's also asking that ownership act foolish regarding money. They did spend a good chunk of money on duds to kinda lightly paint themselves into a "we're being competitive" (and they WERE every year... until around the end of July) model to keep people interested.
I just can't see any team operating for long, long terms perpetually paying players not to play for them. So say the ownership follows screaming troll fans like Tom Ricardo here and they just continue to purchase the biggest FA's to apparently satisfy these fans demand that they SHOW THEM that they're interested in competing.... and then those FA's (and lord knows there's been plenty) crash and burn after 2 years on 5-7 year deals... you're just carrying around so much garbage.
I'm not saying that the Sox can't do that, I just get that they don't want to... and it's their team. I just watch.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
49,809
I think a lot of those people see the massive profits of the Red Sox and wonder why they just can't spend their way out of shit like that? It's a reasonable request but it's also asking that ownership act foolish regarding money. They did spend a good chunk of money on duds to kinda lightly paint themselves into a "we're being competitive" (and they WERE every year... until around the end of July) model to keep people interested.
I just can't see any team operating for long, long terms perpetually paying players not to play for them. So say the ownership follows screaming troll fans like Tom Ricardo here and they just continue to purchase the biggest FA's to apparently satisfy these fans demand that they SHOW THEM that they're interested in competing.... and then those FA's (and lord knows there's been plenty) crash and burn after 2 years on 5-7 year deals... you're just carrying around so much garbage.
I'm not saying that the Sox can't do that, I just get that they don't want to... and it's their team. I just watch.
There has to be a mid point between ownership’s position and the casual fan’s position. We’d all love to avoid bad deals but they are a reality of the business. The fans pointing out the profitability of the team are 100% right. Sox owners are making a lot off of this team. That’s their right. But they also own the downside of that approach where they categorically reject most major FA deals.

Many of the bad FA deals that burned them were just poor evaluations. Some, like Sale and Story, just involved a ton of really bad luck.
 

dynomite

Member
SoSH Member
God, I woke up so, so excited this morning when I remembered the Crochet trade. For the 1st time in a long time I'm actually excited to see a Red Sox team come together in Spring Training.

And I'm reposting a graphic I posted when this news broke yesterday of all pitchers in MLB with 140+ IP last season. All of a sudden the Red Sox have a 25-year-old Cy Young contender atop the rotation, with more (we hope) to come. I'm thrilled.

93133

It'd be even better with someone either between Crochet and Houck, or between Houck and Bello.
Completely agreed, although it probably belongs in another thread.

Speaking of the chart above, I'm hoping for Jack Flaherty at this point. He won't get the top of the market deal that Burnes will, but still has potential to be a significant addition to the rotation. You can never have enough pitching and all that, and most of all we would go from having 0 of the 20 by xFIP to 2 of the top 5 (Pivetta was tied for 21st, Houck 23rd, Bello 35th).

Sox would have a shot against any team in MLB with a playoff rotation that begins Crochet, Flaherty, Houck.