Remaining Free Agent Speculation and Signings (Trades, too)

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
7,987
Boston, MA
With the Frailty of the Modern Pitcher, it's foolish to be planning for next year now. Gerrit Cole was the surest of sure things and he's going to miss 2 months or 2 years if he doesn't get better and needs surgery this summer. Montgomery may not throw a pitch for the Red Sox in 2025 even if he's signed for 4 years.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,668
Rogers Park
Now Jansen scratched “with back tightness.” This either means he can’t be traded to clear salary for Montgomery, or that his trade is imminent.
 

SouthernBoSox

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2005
12,104
Just to be clear - I had no interest in Snell (reasonably speaking), and I'd be beyond pissed if the Red Sox gave him this exact deal.

The team needs stability in it's rotation for 2024 and beyond. I think it's nuts to project "this prospect that has shown nothing at AA or above arrives at this time" that are multiple seasons down the road but to then say "there's plenty of time between now and the start of the 2025 season" with regards to actual MLB players, but to each their own.

Montgomery I really want - but only on a long term deal. I have no interest in him on 2/$50m with an opt out after one.

Agree totally with @simplicio that Snell was always a bad fit for the Sox. Honestly, I have no idea what the Giants are doing, but that's not my concern at all.
Signing good to great (Snell) players on what seem like very reasonable contracts?

View: https://twitter.com/redsoxstats/status/1769902041193681027?s=46
 
Last edited:

CR67dream

blue devils forevah!
Dope
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
7,553
I'm going home
---------------------
My guess is Montgomery goes to Houston or New York (both of whom were in on Snell).
And when that happens I will be frustrated. The state of the rotation in '25 is Giolito (recovering from surgery), Bello, Crawford and one of Houck/Whitlock. Pivetta will be a free agent.
-------------------

Edit: forgot to quote post.

Unfortunately, If Houston wants Monty, the premium the Sox would have to pay to pry him here will be high. The only way I want them to be that aggressive is if there isn't an opt out until after at least year 2, and that Breslow/Bailey actually see him as a fit, and Monty's all in. Anything less than that, no thanks.

Also, why only one of Houck/Whitlock? There's certainly a chance they both prove themselves serviceable or better this year. Also, extending Pivetta is certainly not out of the question if he's getting the job done, with Giolito back he'd be penciled back into 3 slot in '25 most likely. And with all these pillow deals, there will likely be more free agents out there than was previously expected. In no way is the Sox pitching situation for '25 in a great place today, but there are a lot of moving parts and a lot will happen between now and then.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,675
The Snell deal would have been great for the Sox but there's been nothing to suggest wanted to leave the West Coast, so whatever.

At this point I'm mostly eager for this absurd offseason discourse to end. Seems like there's an alright shot we sign Montgomery, though I'm exhausted just thinking about it.

What may be likelier at this point is trading for one of the Giants' pitchers. I definitely didn't see them acquiring three capable starters this offseason (Snell, Hicks, Ray) with a good amount of depth already in place (Cobb, Winn, Whisenhunt, Hjelle, Black, Roupp, Teng, Enlow). They've suffered some injuries but it still looks like Cobb and Ray's return will push some guys off the 26 (not all those guys I listed are on the 40-man). With Bailey's obvious familiarity with the system I wonder if there's a trade fit.
 

Cassvt2023

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 17, 2023
533
It is after 10:30am and the Sox have not announced their ST lineup for a 1:05 start. This is over an hour later than I've been getting my alert from mlb.com. Maybe there is a trade being finalized?
 

E5 Yaz

polka king
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,456
Oregon
Now Jansen scratched “with back tightness.” This either means he can’t be traded to clear salary for Montgomery, or that his trade is imminent.
Or, and stay with me on this ... he has a tight back
 

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
1,201
I'm right here with you. I do subscribe to the idea that if you can get into the playoffs you've got a shot, but I also want the team to take a step toward stabilizing the rotation for the next (at least) two seasons beyond this year. I'd like Montgomery here, but ideally on a 3-4 year deal.
Sure. But this always goes to my assertion that the playoffs are more of a poker game than a crap shoot. Or - put another way - what is built best to win in the regular season (depth) generally isn't the most important thing in the playoffs (top of the rotation; high end talent).

Obviously - you want BOTH, but when you look at the teams that are almost always held up as examples of teams that "surprise" in the post season, they almost always have at least one and more likely two certain top half of the rotation starters and some extremely high end talent in the line up.

People point to the Nats in 2019 or whatever year it was - when they had Scherzer, Strasubrg, Corbin, Trea Turner and Juan Soto. The 2022 Phillies had Wheeler, Nola, Harper. Schwarber and at the time the best catcher in the game (Realmuto). Last year's Dback's had Gallen anchoring the rotation, a very solid 2nd starter in Kelly and of course Corbin Carroll. They're closer to the exception (the KC Royals whatever year they won), but they ultimately of course lost to a team with Montgomery, Eovaldi, Seager and Semien.

Signing good to great (Snell) players on what seem like very reasonable contracts?

View: https://twitter.com/redsoxstats/status/1769902041193681027?s=46
I suppose one can look at it that way.

Though both the Chapman and Snell deals are basically one year deals unless the player gets injured / sucks. I have no interest in the Sox giving anyone that kind of deal (and while I like/d Gio the player, I hated the contract and said as much. I hate the contract even more now, but it is what it is...). Zero interest on literally anyone with a one year opt out.
 

HfxBob

New Member
Nov 13, 2005
602
Wait, why does the Snell news make a Montgomery signing here less likely? It seems closer to the opposite.
It's probably neutral.

We have no idea if the Red Sox are interested in signing Montgomery no matter how low the price goes.
 

RS2004foreever

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 15, 2022
577
---------------------
My guess is Montgomery goes to Houston or New York (both of whom were in on Snell).
And when that happens I will be frustrated. The state of the rotation in '25 is Giolito (recovering from surgery), Bello, Crawford and one of Houck/Whitlock. Pivetta will be a free agent.
-------------------

Edit: forgot to quote post.

Unfortunately, If Houston wants Monty, the premium the Sox would have to pay to pry him here will be high. The only way I want them to be that aggressive is if there isn't an opt out until after at least year 2, and that Breslow/Bailey actually see him as a fit, and Monty's all in. Anything less than that, no thanks.

Also, why only one of Houck/Whitlock? There's certainly a chance they both prove themselves serviceable or better this year. Also, extending Pivetta is certainly not out of the question if he's getting the job done, with Giolito back he'd be penciled back into 3 slot in '25 most likely. And with all these pillow deals, there will likely be more free agents out there than was previously expected. In no way is the Sox pitching situation for '25 in a great place today, but there are a lot of moving parts and a lot will happen between now and then.
I suspect one of Houck/Whitlock are in the pen. They could move back to starting I guess in '25.
I agree with you about avoiding the opt-out with Montgomery.
 

Dewey'sCannon

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
870
Maryland
I agree with those who wouldn't have given Snell the same deal the Giants did, because of the opt-out and the QO. And I also agree that he probably wouldn't have taken this deal from the RS because he had a preference for the West Coast.

And I join those who would not give Montgomery a deal with an opt-out after one year - the real benefit would be for years 2 and 3. If we could get him for 3/75 with vesting options, or 4/90-something with an opt-out after 3, that would work for me. But that assumes that Breslow and Co. see Montgomery as a valuable upgrade to our rotation over the next 3 years. I think most here assume that to be the case, but we don't really know how they view Montgomery and how that compares to what they think of Houck and Whitlock.

If Monty ends up taking a two-year deal with an opt-out after one, it won't be with the Red Sox.
 

IpswichSox

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
2,794
Suburbs of Washington, DC
Snell: 2 years/$62 million

ERod: 4 years/$80 million

As incredibly frustrating as this offseason has been for Boston fans, it's also been fascinating watching the market develop and try to understand where it's going to land, especially for starting pitchers. Have to think ERod is feeling pretty satisfied in the desert at the moment.
 

RS2004foreever

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 15, 2022
577
I have a friend in the TV business. For a while things were great - and then the streaming models collapsed (only Netflix really seems to know how to make it work and they have cut back) and she tells me it is much harder to find work. You could tell a similar story about the Newspaper business.

Maybe we are witnessing the opening act in something similar is sports. The MLBPA is talking removing their leader. As people cut the cord the revenue from Cable declines and it is not at all obvious teams can make up the difference from streaming.

If that is so maybe in the big picture FSG is ahead of the curve, and the long term deals that were made last year will look REALLY awful in 2 years.
 

Card042

New Member
Feb 13, 2006
18
CNY
Snell: 2 years/$62 million

ERod: 4 years/$80 million

As incredibly frustrating as this offseason has been for Boston fans, it's also been fascinating watching the market develop and try to understand where it's going to land, especially for starting pitchers. Have to think ERod is feeling pretty satisfied in the desert at the moment.
Not picking on you at all, as I agree with your point about the market developing, and also think it begs a bigger question; not only around potentially declining revenue/spending, but also what we're seeing around the volatility of starting pitcher's arms as impacted by the pitch clock.

To that point, which pitcher and deal would you rather have? ERod at 4/80 or Snell at 2/62? And on the other side of that, of course that's not the deal Snell wanted, but it will be interesting to see what decision both ERod and Snell would make after year two, if all things were equal. Would you rather bet on yourself two years from now, or to ask in another way, what's the likelihood Snell does or doesn't cash in/get another healthy paycheck (taking into consideration his age, inability to go deep, that he walks everyone always, etc)?

Again I don't have a dog in the fight, just finding it absolutely fascinating, the way the market has shifted.
 

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
1,201
Not picking on you at all, as I agree with your point about the market developing, and also think it begs a bigger question; not only around potentially declining revenue/spending, but also what we're seeing around the volatility of starting pitcher's arms as impacted by the pitch clock.

To that point, which pitcher and deal would you rather have? ERod at 4/80 or Snell at 2/62? And on the other side of that, of course that's not the deal Snell wanted, but it will be interesting to see what decision both ERod and Snell would make after year two, if all things were equal. Would you rather bet on yourself two years from now, or to ask in another way, what's the likelihood Snell does or doesn't cash in/get another healthy paycheck (taking into consideration his age, inability to go deep, that he walks everyone always, etc)?

Again I don't have a dog in the fight, just finding it absolutely fascinating, the way the market has shifted.
Not for nothing, but since the Giants only really get Snell for 2 years if he a) sucks or b) gets hurt, I'd far rather have ERod at 4/$80m than Snell at 1/$31m and losing a pick (though it's a 4th, so that isn't as much of a concern, I suppose).

I agree with the overall point though that it really is shocking how much the market shifted. I always looked at the Pepiot deal and couldn't see any scenario where Snell would have to settle for less than that as he's better and somehow far more durable (shocking to say about Blake Snell) than Pepiot. But the Dodgers spent $1B this year and very few other teams spent much at all.

I'm truly amazed / shocked / flabbergasted / choose your adjective at how much Boras cost Chapman (not taking the $100m extension offer from Toronto) and Snell (the 5/$150m offer from the Yanks) and misread the market, but I kind of adore it - even though it made my predictions for the Boras 4 Lloyd Christmas levels of "way off."


Edit - also to @Red(s)HawksFan point, I was certainly one that didn't bat an eye at the Sox not signing ERod. I also thought there was literally no chance they'd go into the season with a rotation of Bello, (Giolito), Crawford, Pivetta, Houck and Whitlock though, but here we are. In retrospect, I'd take the ERod deal 100x out of 100 (and I get that he might not have wanted to be here with Cora, I'm just saying I'd feel a lot better about the rotation with ERod on that deal).
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,859
Maine
Snell: 2 years/$62 million

ERod: 4 years/$80 million

As incredibly frustrating as this offseason has been for Boston fans, it's also been fascinating watching the market develop and try to understand where it's going to land, especially for starting pitchers. Have to think ERod is feeling pretty satisfied in the desert at the moment.
The funny thing is there were some that questioned ERod signing his deal as early as he did (similar reactions with Gray and Nola) that he might have been leaving money/years on the table to not wait out the market. Turns out he and his agents might have read it correctly and grabbed the best deal before the bottom seemed to fall out.
 

HfxBob

New Member
Nov 13, 2005
602
I have a friend in the TV business. For a while things were great - and then the streaming models collapsed (only Netflix really seems to know how to make it work and they have cut back) and she tells me it is much harder to find work. You could tell a similar story about the Newspaper business.

Maybe we are witnessing the opening act in something similar is sports. The MLBPA is talking removing their leader. As people cut the cord the revenue from Cable declines and it is not at all obvious teams can make up the difference from streaming.

If that is so maybe in the big picture FSG is ahead of the curve, and the long term deals that were made last year will look REALLY awful in 2 years.
An ominous perspective. The only real rebuttal I can offer is that I think the Dodgers are fairly shrewd financially, and their mega-investments in Ohtani and Yamamoto (not to mention Glasnow etc.) suggest they are not scared of where things are going. (Or maybe they just lost their marbles after the postseason failures of the last 3 years LOL)
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
12,256
An ominous perspective. The only real rebuttal I can offer is that I think the Dodgers are fairly shrewd financially, and their mega-investments in Ohtani and Yamamoto (not to mention Glasnow etc.) suggest they are not scared of where things are going. (Or maybe they just lost their marbles after the postseason failures of the last 3 years LOL)
The Dodgers have insanely good local TV deal that guarantees them something like $300M a year for the next decade, regardless of how many people cut the cord.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,859
Maine
An ominous perspective. The only real rebuttal I can offer is that I think the Dodgers are fairly shrewd financially, and their mega-investments in Ohtani and Yamamoto (not to mention Glasnow etc.) suggest they are not scared of where things are going. (Or maybe they just lost their marbles after the postseason failures of the last 3 years LOL)
Pretty easy for the Dodgers to not be scared when they're in the #2 media market in the country and have a huge TV deal with a fairly stable multi-billion dollar corporation (Spectrum). As opposed to the multiple teams in smaller (than LA) markets, such as the Rangers and Padres, whose big TV deal is/was with a company that just filed for bankruptcy last week.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,431
Pretty easy for the Dodgers to not be scared when they're in the #2 media market in the country and have a huge TV deal with a fairly stable multi-billion dollar corporation (Spectrum). As opposed to the multiple teams in smaller (than LA) markets, such as the Rangers and Padres, whose big TV deal is/was with a company that just filed for bankruptcy last week.
As well as those who were with the former RSN division of AT&T... (Ie Pittsburgh Pirates, Mariners,)
NBC Sports Regional Networks is one of the last remaining "global" RSN that has not had much financial trouble (as far as I can tell).. If they end up going belly up you can add: Chicago White Sox, Oakland, Philadelphia and the Giants to the mix of teams in Limbo)

All of the other RSN's are either standalone for a specific MLB team (Like YES/ Sports Net NY) or regional like MASN (BAL/WSH)
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
24,895
Unreal America
Pretty easy for the Dodgers to not be scared when they're in the #2 media market in the country and have a huge TV deal with a fairly stable multi-billion dollar corporation (Spectrum). As opposed to the multiple teams in smaller (than LA) markets, such as the Rangers and Padres, whose big TV deal is/was with a company that just filed for bankruptcy last week.
Diamond Sports filed for bankruptcy nearly a year ago. And it’s looking like they’re going to emerge from it with a decent-ish financial plan approved by the federal bankruptcy judge and backstopped by an investment from Amazon.

This isn’t to say that some markets are looking at a tough future in terms of local revenue. They are. But they have a reprieve for now.
 

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
1,643
Chicago, IL
I have a friend in the TV business. For a while things were great - and then the streaming models collapsed (only Netflix really seems to know how to make it work and they have cut back) and she tells me it is much harder to find work. You could tell a similar story about the Newspaper business.

Maybe we are witnessing the opening act in something similar is sports. The MLBPA is talking removing their leader. As people cut the cord the revenue from Cable declines and it is not at all obvious teams can make up the difference from streaming.

If that is so maybe in the big picture FSG is ahead of the curve, and the long term deals that were made last year will look REALLY awful in 2 years.
A big difference is that out of 8 billion people on earth there are 1,200 on 40 man rosters in MLB. That's it - a fixed number. And major league baseball isn't about to contract. There are tens of thousands of writers (and as far as actors are concerned hundreds of thousands), seeking freelance work, going job to job, if lucky. There is a set number of MLB players who have already defied gargantuan odds. Maybe we do see an adjustment in the biggest free agent salaries due to lost revenue, or with which players/positions are valued the most. But the jobs for those elite 1200 ain't going anywhere.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
Snell: 2 years/$62 million

ERod: 4 years/$80 million

As incredibly frustrating as this offseason has been for Boston fans, it's also been fascinating watching the market develop and try to understand where it's going to land, especially for starting pitchers. Have to think ERod is feeling pretty satisfied in the desert at the moment.
And now he's got pain in his lat.
 

allmanbro

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
362
Portland, Maine
I've been thinking about this comparison a lot. Personally, I am extremely happy the Red Sox have followed the path they have this offseason over the Giants path. The Giants will finish 4th in their division, and probably finish with 5-6 teams ahead of them in the WC standings. If they keep this up, they will do that again next year, and then find themselves in about the place the Sox were in about 2020 for a rebuild. And about 2026 or so is exactly when age starts to really hit the Padres and Dodgers.

Of course they might catch lightning in a bottle like they did in 2021, and I think baseball overall is better when more teams are trying. But I wouldn't trade the Red Sox current position for the Giants.
 

pdub

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 2, 2007
517
I could see Houston grabbing Montgomery. Apparently they were in on Snell, so there's a fit, but also Montgomery may want to go there since its still in Texas. I am really hoping the Sox swoop in and get him, at the end of the day they need to rebuild that rotation somehow, and he would slot in nicely.
 

Sin Duda

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
836
(B)Austin Texas
I could see Houston grabbing Montgomery. Apparently they were in on Snell, so there's a fit, but also Montgomery may want to go there since its still in Texas. I am really hoping the Sox swoop in and get him, at the end of the day they need to rebuild that rotation somehow, and he would slot in nicely.
I would much rather spend Apr - Oct in Boston than Houston.
 

CR67dream

blue devils forevah!
Dope
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
7,553
I'm going home
I would much rather spend Apr - Oct in Boston than Houston.
Sure, in a vacuum. These guys aren't like us, though. And it's not like they spend the entire time frame where they play their home games. Not to mention the fact that the Astros are already pretty stacked and the thought of chasing another ring may matter to Monty at this point in his career.

The meat of the issue is that if Houston wants him, given his reported preferences, the Red Sox would have to come in at a considerable premium in order to coax him here. And as I said above, the only way I want the Sox to be that aggressive is if Breslow/Bailey really love the guy for their plan, If there are no opt outs until after year 2, and that Monty is all in as well.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,859
Maine
Sure, in a vacuum. These guys aren't like us, though. And it's not like they spend the entire time frame where they play their home games. Not to mention the fact that the Astros are already pretty stacked and the thought of chasing another ring may matter to Monty at this point in his career.

The meat of the issue is that if Houston wants him, given his reported preferences, the Red Sox would have to come in at a considerable premium in order to coax him here. And as I said above, the only way I want the Sox to be that aggressive is if Breslow/Bailey really love the guy for their plan, If there are no opt outs until after year 2, and that Monty is all in as well.
I have to think if the bolded were true enough for the Red Sox to pay a premium to entice Montgomery, they'd have paid it by now. Same can be said with regard to any effect that Giolito's injury might have had on the equation. My view on the Sox and Montgomery hasn't really changed since mid-winter: the Sox have a number (years and dollars) they're willing to go, Montgomery knows what it is, and they're just waiting for him to take it (or find something better).
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Sure, in a vacuum. These guys aren't like us, though. And it's not like they spend the entire time frame where they play their home games. Not to mention the fact that the Astros are already pretty stacked and the thought of chasing another ring may matter to Monty at this point in his career.

The meat of the issue is that if Houston wants him, given his reported preferences, the Red Sox would have to come in at a considerable premium in order to coax him here. And as I said above, the only way I want the Sox to be that aggressive is if Breslow/Bailey really love the guy for their plan, If there are no opt outs until after year 2, and that Monty is all in as well.
Add to this while Montgomery may have a preference for the Rangers, Houston would certainly provide some familiarities in that he's apparently fine with playing and living in the state of Texas and he'll remain in the same division.
 

CR67dream

blue devils forevah!
Dope
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
7,553
I'm going home
I have to think if the bolded were true enough for the Red Sox to pay a premium to entice Montgomery, they'd have paid it by now. Same can be said with regard to any effect that Giolito's injury might have had on the equation. My view on the Sox and Montgomery hasn't really changed since mid-winter: the Sox have a number (years and dollars) they're willing to go, Montgomery knows what it is, and they're just waiting for him to take it (or find something better).
I don't disagree with a word of this. My main point, which I reiterated in response to a post regarding geographical preference, is that if Houston comes in with an offer similar to the Sox, it would be pretty much game over, because it seems obvious to me that those three bolded things are not lining up at all from all we know.

Add to this while Montgomery may have a preference for the Rangers, Houston would certainly provide some familiarities in that he's apparently fine with playing and living in the state of Texas and he'll remain in the same division.
Yeah, that's what I mean. He's made the type of place he wants to go pretty clear through the media. Not to mention the state taxes. Bottom line, if Houston wants him, there's no reasonable way to stop it. And I wouldn't want them to.

I’ll find the tweet but Houston said yesterday they were out on him.

Found it.

View: https://twitter.com/jimbowdengm/status/1770108161262866562?s=46
Thank you! And on it goes.... But it is Bowden, so....
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,193
If I am figuring this correctly, adding Montgomery for 20 mil this year would actually cost Houston about 27 mil when you include the tax hit. With a 62.5% tax on every dollar above that.
 

TomRicardo

rusty cohlebone
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2006
20,648
Row 14
This board will completely melt down when Montgomery signs for another team on a contract that the Red Sox surely could have afforded.
I think ownership is totally out on paying 20+ million per season on starting pitchers over 30, and that Breslow doesn't think Montgomery is enough of an improvement to try to convince the owners to make an exception.

Giolito already going down for the year is only going to make it less likely that the team spends even more on a vet free agent starter IMO.

I'm concerned that Breslow is overrating the arms we have in house, but we will see if he and his pitching system can surprise us and pretty much all the pundits and prognosticators.
When was the last time a team won the World Series with a rotation that did not have a SP over 30? You can add 30+ YOs still under team control but it doesn't change the answer.

That would be 2003 Florida Marlins. Not signing free agent pitching is not a winning strategy.
 

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
16,847
When was the last time a team won the World Series with a rotation that did not have a SP over 30? You can add 30+ YOs still under team control but it doesn't change the answer.

That would be 2003 Florida Marlins. Not signing free agent pitching is not a winning strategy.
Where are you getting the idea that they won't sign free agent pitchers? I never said anything like that. They literally just signed Giolito to a free agent contract!

It's also obviously not that they will never have a starter over 30-- Pivetta is already over 30. They've had starters over 30 in the rotation every year.
It's the combination of being over 30, plus a long-term commitment at big money, that they don't seem to want to do anymore. (With pitchers dropping like flies, including ones we've signed, it might not be a bad idea.)

They've recently signed older pitchers to short-term contracts. They hoped to sign Yamamoto to a huge free agent contract this offseason, because he isn't old yet. They don't seem to want to sign Montgomery though because it would take a long term deal at big money to a guy over 30, and that's the combo that they seem to want to avoid.
I think they should make an exception for him but it doesn't matter what I think.
 

TomRicardo

rusty cohlebone
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2006
20,648
Row 14
Where are you getting the idea that they won't sign free agent pitchers? I never said anything like that. They literally just signed Giolito to a free agent contract!

It's also obviously not that they will never have a starter over 30-- Pivetta is already over 30. They've had starters over 30 in the rotation every year.
It's the combination of being over 30, plus a long-term commitment at big money, that they don't seem to want to do anymore. (With pitchers dropping like flies, including ones we've signed, it might not be a bad idea.)

They've recently signed older pitchers to short-term contracts. They hoped to sign Yamamoto to a huge free agent contract this offseason, because he isn't old yet. They don't seem to want to sign Montgomery though because it would take a long term deal at big money to a guy over 30, and that's the combo that they seem to want to avoid.
I think they should make an exception for him but it doesn't matter what I think.
Every team that has won a WS since 2003 Marlins had a free agent signing or extension like this. The fact is you need to pay for top end talent along with doing a much better job grabbing talent. Giolito was garbage picking with garbage results. Sometimes you can pick a gem from the rough but like Ortiz or Mueller but relying on that and not extending top line talent is losing strategy. The road to the Nashville Red Sox is filled with Oakland A's plays.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
24,332
Miami (oh, Miami!)
What's kind of amazing is that there seem to be some viable SP options out there with 8 days to go in spring training. Which means if they signed today, and showed up tomorrow to pitch some innings, they could at best go one more time before the end of spring training.

Likewise, there seem to be some legitimate bats out there: Belt, JDM, Pham, Solano, etc.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
Every team that has won a WS since 2003 Marlins had a free agent signing or extension like this. The fact is you need to pay for top end talent along with doing a much better job grabbing talent. Giolito was garbage picking with garbage results. Sometimes you can pick a gem from the rough but like Ortiz or Mueller but relying on that and not extending top line talent is losing strategy. The road to the Nashville Red Sox is filled with Oakland A's plays.
You need five good healthy starters. If none of them happen to come via free agency, I don't see that as holding anyone back. Correlation is not causation, and the market is always changing too.
 

Sin Duda

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
836
(B)Austin Texas
Can we agree the Sox are NOT in play if Montgomery is waiting on the start of the season to avoid the QO? Because if that's the case, he wants either a 1-year contract or one with a first year opt-out, which Craig should want no part of, since he seems to have pivoted to a development year.
 

OCD SS

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Can we agree the Sox are NOT in play if Montgomery is waiting on the start of the season to avoid the QO? Because if that's the case, he wants either a 1-year contract or one with a first year opt-out, which Craig should want no part of, since he seems to have pivoted to a development year.
Eh, I originally thought this, but I could see signing him for a one year deal, I just wouldn’t do a few years guaranteed with opt outs ala the Giants. After the Giolitto deal I’m pretty confident the FO would find a structure that gets them some playing time out of the player. Besides, if he’s doing well and the Sox aren’t, they can recoup some value by trading him…
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,859
Maine
Can we agree the Sox are NOT in play if Montgomery is waiting on the start of the season to avoid the QO? Because if that's the case, he wants either a 1-year contract or one with a first year opt-out, which Craig should want no part of, since he seems to have pivoted to a development year.
Not sure I can agree with that. If the price is right, I see no reason why they wouldn't go for it even on a one-year deal or one with an opt-out. Even in a development year, they're still going to need some innings covered. Worst comes to worst, they can trade him in three months to recoup something (since they don't get the benefit of a QO).

My only hesitation at this point is concern that they're going to miss out on roughly a month's worth of production as Montgomery goes through his own version of spring training, even if he's doing most of it on the big league roster in regular season games. But that can be off-set with a lower salary base (use incentives to get his final salary closer to what he'd want).
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,636
It’s hard to believe that the season is a little over a week away and Montgomery isn’t signed. I can’t imagine he’s too thrilled with that.
 

Yo La Tengo

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
921
Jordan Montgomery is like the last person chosen for the dodgeball team. Nobody seems to want him. The potential teams are starting to dwindle
View: https://twitter.com/ken_rosenthal/status/1770672781220581653?s=46
I wanted the Sox to sign Lorenzen. He is an extreme strike thrower, which Bailey and crew like. And, as previously noted, through Aug. 9th last year, the night Lorenzen pitched a no-hitter for the Phillies, he had a 3.23 ERA in 122 2/3 innings. Lorenzen threw 124 pitches in that game, 17 more than his previous career-high, and the effect on his subsequent performance — an 8.01 ERA in 30 1/3 innings — was noticeable.

I'm done trying to read the tea leaves with regard to Montgomery. But I will be so pissed if the Sox don't sign him at this point, having passed on Lorenzen.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
5,130
I wanted the Sox to sign Lorenzen. He is an extreme strike thrower, which Bailey and crew like. And, as previously noted, through Aug. 9th last year, the night Lorenzen pitched a no-hitter for the Phillies, he had a 3.23 ERA in 122 2/3 innings. Lorenzen threw 124 pitches in that game, 17 more than his previous career-high, and the effect on his subsequent performance — an 8.01 ERA in 30 1/3 innings — was noticeable.

I'm done trying to read the tea leaves with regard to Montgomery. But I will be so pissed if the Sox don't sign him at this point, having passed on Lorenzen.
That Lorenzen only got 4.5/1 makes me think there's more to that late season performance drop off than just being tired after the no hitter.