Remaining Free Agent Speculation and Signings (Trades, too)

CR67dream

blue devils forevah!
Dope
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
7,553
I'm going home
You can't really call it the off-season when Spring Training is in full swing and we're less that two weeks from Opening Day. There is still unresolved business, however, and anything directly pertaining to that can go here.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,193
I got nothing other than Montgomery signing a three year with an opt out with some team other than Boston, and waiting until after opening day to do so to avoid a QO if/when he exercises the opt out.
 

CR67dream

blue devils forevah!
Dope
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
7,553
I'm going home
I got nothing other than Montgomery signing a three year with an opt out with some team other than Boston, and waiting until after opening day to do so to avoid a QO if/when he exercises the opt out.
I was thinking more of reported speculation, but SoSH gonna SoSH..... ;) :)
 

Cassvt2023

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 17, 2023
533
I just heard on MLB radio that the Yankees are considering Lorenzen now, and his window of anything more than a 1 yr deal has probably passed. They speculated that his hesitation to sign there may be that once Cole comes back, he may be bumped to the bullpen, therefore decreasing has value for next offseason.

So basically two of the biggest spenders in the game, the Yankees and the Mets, are both looking at their top SP opening the season on IL, with uncertainty when they do come back, and one is looking at a fringe SP maybe multi inning reliever on a 1 yr deal and the other is rolling Jose Quintana out on opening day while Blake Snell and Jordan Montgomery are unemployed. Boras really misread their value.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
5,130
I was gonna say him or Odorizzi, but Odorizzi just signed with Tampa. I don't know what Clevinger is holding out for, but at this rate a one-year deal seems likely, no?
He's not necessarily holding out, it could just be that the domestic violence case has made him toxic to teams despite the lack of MLB disciplinary action.

I know I certainly don't want him on my team.
 

Cassvt2023

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 17, 2023
533
He's not necessarily holding out, it could just be that the domestic violence case has made him toxic to teams despite the lack of MLB disciplinary action.

I know I certainly don't want him on my team.
+1 to that. Aside from the DV accusation, he has been a douchebag wherever he has been, no need for a guy like that poisoning a clubhouse. Yes we need another 150+ innings from somewhere but not there.
 

santadevil

wears depends
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
6,488
Saskatchestan
He's not necessarily holding out, it could just be that the domestic violence case has made him toxic to teams despite the lack of MLB disciplinary action.

I know I certainly don't want him on my team.
+1 to that. Aside from the DV accusation, he has been a douchebag wherever he has been, no need for a guy like that poisoning a clubhouse. Yes we need another 150+ innings from somewhere but not there.
+1 for both of these
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,193

CR67dream

blue devils forevah!
Dope
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
7,553
I'm going home
Oops...link fixed. :p
Interesting that there's not a peep about Montgomery. Did we ever figure out if the QO rule considers a "full season" the day MLB starts playing games, or if it has to be after the actual signing team's opening day? If it's the former, maybe we will see something happen by the end of this week.

I am just still completely gobsmacked that all this stuff is still going on.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,409
Hmmmm….. 2/66M for Snell with an opt-out??? That kinda sounds perfect! He’ll be motivated as fuck in year one. If he blows or underperforms it’s not a long term commitment.
And honestly after 2 seasons, I’d want to move on even if he was worth the $33M each season.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
71,092
Any starter that signs today will probably miss what, 3 starts? Or about 10% of the season? And of course the percenatge grows each day.
Snell threw four innings a few days ago against a college team with scouts watching, so maybe not as much of a ramp up as we expect.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,668
Rogers Park
Okay, here’s my new pitch to Boras.

Contingent on Montgomery signing here for 4/$80, with a vesting option on a fifth year at $30m that vests when he reaches 400 IP in a Sox uniform, we offer Snell:

2/$60, structured as follows:
1/$20m, followed by an opt-out before a $40m year that the Sox can void by giving him a third year at $40m.

Then we trade Jansen and Martin to clear payroll and add to the farm, move Houck, Whit and Winck back to the bullpen, and go to war with a Snell/Montgomery/Bello/Pivetta/Crawford rotation and an unspeakably deep bullpen.

I don’t know if we’re catching the Orioles, but that’s probably a second place team in this division.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,193
Snell threw four innings a few days ago against a college team with scouts watching, so maybe not as much of a ramp up as we expect.
Possibly. But we know for certain that there would be some ramp up, and opening day for most teams is in 11 days. Figure every 5 days that goes by is another start out the window. Are teams offering a contract now going to offer him that same deal in two weeks?
 

LoLsapien

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 5, 2022
192
NIghtengale with an update:

-Snell wants at least 2 years at 33 mil AAV with a one year opt out.
-Pham is close to signing with San Diego for 3-4 mil.
-Clevinger wants 2 years at 10 mil AAV


Any starter that signs today will probably miss what, 3 starts? Or about 10% of the season? And of course the percenatge grows each day.


https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/columnist/bob-nightengale/2024/03/17/padres-dodgers-pandemic-espn-karl-ravech-eduardo-perez/73000437007/
I would be 100 percent on board with 2/66. Opt out, no opt out, whatever. For this pitcher and this team, that's the perfect contract.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
NIghtengale with an update:

-Snell wants at least 2 years at 33 mil AAV with a one year opt out.
-Pham is close to signing with San Diego for 3-4 mil.
-Clevinger wants 2 years at 10 mil AAV


Any starter that signs today will probably miss what, 3 starts? Or about 10% of the season? And of course the percenatge grows each day.


https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/columnist/bob-nightengale/2024/03/17/padres-dodgers-pandemic-espn-karl-ravech-eduardo-perez/73000437007/
Has anyone been linked to clevenger, ever? I mean, I’d like a Ferrari…
 

LoLsapien

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 5, 2022
192
With no true ace available, the opportunity to get a high variance pitcher with all-star capability on a short contract is perfect.
 

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 9, 2007
17,262
Washington
Possibly. But we know for certain that there would be some ramp up, and opening day for most teams is in 11 days. Figure every 5 days that goes by is another start out the window. Are teams offering a contract now going to offer him that same deal in two weeks?
A team more concerned about the playoffs than the regular season might be.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
5,130
With no true ace available, the opportunity to get a high variance pitcher with all-star capability on a short contract is perfect.
It's only perfect if ownership has been BSing all winter and actually doesn't care about going over CBT.
 

LoLsapien

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 5, 2022
192
And if that's the case, all the moaning and groaning this off-season was a tremendous waste of oxygen and electrons. However, my understanding is that the CBT limitation is speculation. The team supposedly had genuine interest in Yamamoto, we were told the team was going full throttle into the off-season. I personally think no big moves have been made because none of the acquisition targets really made sense for this team, or we were never really an option, because dodgers. The lowering of contract demands for Snell makes him a real option for this team. 5/150 would be a terrible contract for us. 2/66 is a totally different situation.
 

ZMart100

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2008
3,210
I like the idea of him on a short contract, but not at that price. Why do you think he's worth that much?
 

LogansDad

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
29,699
Alamogordo
I like the idea of him on a short contract, but not at that price. Why do you think he's worth that much?
I can't speak for others, but I think this team as currently constructed is a borderline playoff contender. I believe that if everything goes right they can get in, though I think they are probably third in the East at best.

Adding a Snell or a Montgomery adds one thing that can go "mostly right" as opposed to "best case scenario", and I think adding either one of them makes them a strong playoff contender, and potentially competing for the division.

Two years at $33M is A LOT, but it also gives them two more years to get the pitching development machine in place and would probably keep them under the tax next year because they wouldn't have to immediately go back into the free agent market the day that Chris Sale's contract comes off the books finally.

I don't think adding Snell or Montgomery is a MUST, but it would definitely make me that much more excited about this year's team, which I am already excited about.
 

LoLsapien

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 5, 2022
192
My understanding is that he first years of a free agent contract are, statistically, the years the team is going to get the most value from the player. The back end of a contract is when the team is most likely to being out dead money. With a 2-year contract, there's not a huge likelihood of needing to staple value to a player to dump the contract. Giolito and the frailty of the modern pitcher aside. 40 year old ace talents are getting 40 mil per year, so 33 mil on a short contract seems about right for Snell who maybe doesn't have the ceiling or reliability of a Verlander, but still has demonstrated the ability to be an excellent pitcher.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
5,130
Only way I'm interested in giving $33m for a year of Snell involves him hitting escalators. He's been that guy once every 4 years.
 

LoLsapien

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 5, 2022
192
Who else are we spending the money on next year? The biggest need on this team moving forward is pitching and the free agent class next year is Corbin Burnes, old, or an injury risk I wouldn't be excited about giving a 7 year contract. Except Sasaki who is obviously going to be a dodger.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
5,130
Montgomery has always made infinitely more sense to this team than Snell. We already have 3 guys who might not hit 120 IP; we don't need a 4th.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,193
I like the idea of him on a short contract, but not at that price. Why do you think he's worth that much?
It’s definitely worth paying a premium in terms of AAV for a shorter deal. Devil is the details, of course.
 

ZMart100

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2008
3,210
My understanding is that he first years of a free agent contract are, statistically, the years the team is going to get the most value from the player. The back end of a contract is when the team is most likely to being out dead money. With a 2-year contract, there's not a huge likelihood of needing to staple value to a player to dump the contract. Giolito and the frailty of the modern pitcher aside. 40 year old ace talents are getting 40 mil per year, so 33 mil on a short contract seems about right for Snell who maybe doesn't have the ceiling or reliability of a Verlander, but still has demonstrated the ability to be an excellent pitcher.
The Mets were willing to overpay and were throwing a lot of cash around so they aren't a great yardstick. Everybody thought they were wildly overpaying. Verlander was projected at 4.2 wins last year (fangraphs), so maybe Cohen gave him $120m expecting 10-11 wins. Snell is projected for 3.1 wins (also fangraphs) so using Verlander $33m/year seems almost reasonable. But the Sox shouldn't be eager to match an overpay. $9m/win is high and that would be $28m for a year. $8m is more reasonable and that would be $25m. Back of the envelope I think I'd max out at 2/52 with no opt out. 2/66 strikes me as a roughly 30% overpay and that's before the opt out adds a lot of risk and QO adds additional cost.
Who else are we spending the money on next year? The biggest need on this team moving forward is pitching and the free agent class next year is Corbin Burnes, old, or an injury risk I wouldn't be excited about giving a 7 year contract. Except Sasaki who is obviously going to be a dodger.
I don't know. Maybe we trade for someone or someone looks better after the season. Just because we don't have an obvious answer right now to where the money will go doesn't mean the Sox should light it on fire.
 

LoLsapien

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 5, 2022
192
You're not lighting that money on fire; you're giving it to a pretty damn good pitcher in a second straight contract year, or he's opted out.
 

AlNipper49

Huge Member
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 3, 2001
44,901
Mtigawi
The other benefit of overpaying on a short deal is that if the Sox end up sucking, Snell would probably bring a true blue chip prospect or two at the deadline for a team in contention. Kind of like what the Mets did.
 

DanoooME

above replacement level
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2008
19,879
Henderson, NV
I'd rather have Snell at 2/$66M than Montgomery at 2/$48M. This team doesn't need slightly above average. They need to take a shot at an ace. I think the odds are better than 50/50 with Snell.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
5,130
I'd rather have Snell at 2/$66M than Montgomery at 2/$48M. This team doesn't need slightly above average. They need to take a shot at an ace. I think the odds are better than 50/50 with Snell.
This is wrong. The team needs innings.

Crawford has never hit 130 IP in a season and has averaged 4.75 innings per start.
Houck has never hit 110 IP and has averaged 4.8.
Whitlock has never hit 80 IP and has averaged 4.7.

Even if these guys all perform above expectations it's extremely likely they'll burn out both themselves and the bullpen by August.
 

TeeJayOrTj

Active Member
Gold Supporter
Jul 21, 2005
30
I think if anything we learned over the past few months is that it’s easier to project talent over innings. Now I still might rather have Montgomery for the QQ aspect and not giving up a pick. But I just disagree with the innings premise
 

HfxBob

New Member
Nov 13, 2005
602
This is wrong. The team needs innings.

Crawford has never hit 130 IP in a season and has averaged 4.75 innings per start.
Houck has never hit 110 IP and has averaged 4.8.
Whitlock has never hit 80 IP and has averaged 4.7.

Even if these guys all perform above expectations it's extremely likely they'll burn out both themselves and the bullpen by August.
You are absolutely correct.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
5,130
Fine, you got me I guess? Whitlock actually threw nearly 93 innings last year and has demonstrated the ability to throw as many as 120 as recently as six seasons ago.
And Houck actually threw 114 and can go as high as 119 (also six seasons ago).

I mean I'm a fellow optimist here RR, but these guys all need to demonstrate an ability to go deeper into games on a regular basis if they're going to compose the bulk of the rotation over the course of a full season.
 

Sin Duda

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
836
(B)Austin Texas
Fine, you got me I guess? Whitlock actually threw nearly 93 innings last year and has demonstrated the ability to throw as many as 120 as recently as six seasons ago.
And Houck actually threw 114 and can go as high as 119 (also six seasons ago).

I mean I'm a fellow optimist here RR, but these guys all need to demonstrate an ability to go deeper into games on a regular basis if they're going to compose the bulk of the rotation over the course of a full season.
I'm hopeful that greatly improved defense will help aid the cause. There's still room for optimism regarding the starting rotation.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
24,332
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Fine, you got me I guess? Whitlock actually threw nearly 93 innings last year and has demonstrated the ability to throw as many as 120 as recently as six seasons ago.
And Houck actually threw 114 and can go as high as 119 (also six seasons ago).

I mean I'm a fellow optimist here RR, but these guys all need to demonstrate an ability to go deeper into games on a regular basis if they're going to compose the bulk of the rotation over the course of a full season.
It wasn't a gotcha. There are legitimate concerns about durability (I share them with you), but IMO most of those are related to health, not talent or the physical ability to pitch a complete season.

For example, if you're going to project Houck, don't you have to take into account that he was on track for a full season of starts before he was put into the hospital by a comebacker that broke his skull? You can't just throw out 114 and act like it's some kind of context-neutral arm or conditioning limitation there's no possible way he can reasonably get beyond.

I'll have my fingers crossed for both Whitlock and Houck, and I also hope a predictable role will help them (instead of being yoinked into and out of the pen as the season goes on.)
 

CR67dream

blue devils forevah!
Dope
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
7,553
I'm going home
You are absolutely correct.
I mean, we are not discussing things that are absolutes here. From what I see in the last few exchanges, Simplicoio and Romine aren't far apart. It's true that there are durability question marks with the bottom of the rotation right now, and also true that we shouldn't assume the worst. And at some point, we have to see what these guys are truly capable of. I know it's not what a lot of people want to hear, but when better than now given the totality of the circumstances? Obviously losing Giolito is huge simply for the number of innings he was projected to provide, but it's also an opportunity for some other guys.

At the same time I'm not loving the depth in SP, and like just about everyone else, I'd like to add a quality established starter. Both the QO and the pricetag makes Snell a pipe dream IMO, not that I would be upset if it happened, just shocked. Montgomery, other than believing there's no way he inks any deal until the season starts at this point due to his own potential QO, is just confounding. I have absolutely no idea what he'll settle for or what his offers are, or even if he has all but committed to a club behind the scenes and is waiting out the clock to sign. Trades can still happen too, and when rosters are pared down, there may be lesser quality but decent depth arms that become available.

The thing I feel most differently about this year is that I'm confident the guys who now who are in charge of/ evaluate pitching are all over it and know the situation they face, what they have, and what they need. I look forward to seeing how they tackle the challenge
 
Last edited:

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,668
Rogers Park
Remember that Boras' line had been that he wanted Snell to sign before he would even discuss Montgomery. That might still be the case.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,193
Remember that Boras' line had been that he wanted Snell to sign before he would even discuss Montgomery. That might still be the case.
I would think he's not drawling a line in the sand there at this point. Though it may in fact work out that way if Montgomery waits until after opening day to avoid the QO.

Of course, the flip side of it making sense for Montgomery to wait so he avoids the QO is that is also makes sense for teams to view him as a little less valuable if they can't offer him a QO.

This all assumes the framework of a deal is 2 to 3 years with an opt-out this year.
 

RS2004foreever

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 15, 2022
577
Hmmmm….. 2/66M for Snell with an opt-out??? That kinda sounds perfect! He’ll be motivated as fuck in year one. If he blows or underperforms it’s not a long term commitment.
And honestly after 2 seasons, I’d want to move on even if he was worth the $33M each season.
Last year's Cy Young winner for that? Seems like an easy decision.
I still think we are going to sign Montgomery in the end, but I do not fully understand the QO stuff.