So, who do you think the Red Sox will sign?

Which free agent do you think the Red Sox will sign?

  • Carlos Correa

    Votes: 7 3.0%
  • Trevor Story

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Freddie Freeman

    Votes: 5 2.1%
  • Kris Bryant

    Votes: 3 1.3%
  • Marcus Stroman

    Votes: 43 18.4%
  • Chris Taylor

    Votes: 15 6.4%
  • Kyle Schwarber

    Votes: 52 22.2%
  • Carlos Rodon

    Votes: 16 6.8%
  • Other

    Votes: 11 4.7%
  • Nobody at over 10 million AAV

    Votes: 82 35.0%

  • Total voters
    234

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
5,993
Big time players' market right now, but plenty of talent still out there. Are the Sox simply being patient or will they sit the market out altogether? What do you think they end up doing?

I went with Rodon. Perfect fit for a team that needs a starter, has money to spend, but doesn't want to make a long term commitment. 2 year deal with a 3rd year option based on innings pitched.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
2,495
Voted Stroman but think we’ll get Schwarber too. This market bodes well for a JDM trade.
 

mjs

lurker
Mar 30, 2020
12
Voted for Taylor because of his positional versatility (and maybe not as overvalued as some other names?). Alternates would be Schwarber and Rodon. But won't be surprised if it's no one over $10M AAV.
 

RG33

Certain Class of Poster
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2005
5,524
CA
Schwarber at 4/68
Stroman at 5/117
Taylor at 4/68
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Stroman's been durable and ground balls don't go over fences. That said he's now likely the "prize" among the remaining starters. I'd like for the Sox to be able to sign him, but I'm concerned about how this market might affect both the AAV and the years sought.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
3,764
Portland
I voted other but missed Taylor for whatever reason.

I think their best player(s) will come via trade and it will be a starter.
 

Mugsy's Jock

Eli apologist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 28, 2000
13,580
UWS, NYC
I voted nobody because I’m feeling curmudgeonly… but suspect Schwarber is the right answer.

Also think Seiya Suzuki should probably be in the list.
 

NickEsasky

Please Hammer, Don't Hurt 'Em
SoSH Member
Jul 24, 2001
8,415
Stroman's been durable and ground balls don't go over fences. That said he's now likely the "prize" among the remaining starters. I'd like for the Sox to be able to sign him, but I'm concerned about how this market might affect both the AAV and the years sought.
Yeah, but they do go under and past gloves. I have to imagine we'll be looking a lot at his XFIP next year wondering what he'd look like with great infield defense if he signed here.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Yeah, but they do go under and past gloves. I have to imagine we'll be looking a lot at his XFIP next year wondering what he'd look like with great infield defense if he signed here.
They absolutely do and while it's a legit concern I'm hoping measures would be taken to tighten that up in the next year or two. I'm guessing Stroman is going to demand at least five years and ideally I'd like to see someone like him in place to to build around when/if Sale and Eovaldi leave. Again, I'm concerned about the $$$ that has been tossed about this off season and the nice position it's left Stroman in.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
21,075
I think that they'll sign Schwarber, but they'll lead the league in "being in on player X". I think that they have an outside shot at Stroman, but I don't think that they'll match the years he wants.
 

Yelling At Clouds

Post-darwinian
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
2,207
I voted “nobody” though I don’t think that’s literally true. I think they’ll pick through the non-tenders to find more Renfroe/Pivetta/Arroyo types. Not my preference, but it worked for them last year.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
2,495
Stroman's been durable and ground balls don't go over fences. That said he's now likely the "prize" among the remaining starters. I'd like for the Sox to be able to sign him, but I'm concerned about how this market might affect both the AAV and the years sought.
I’d be a little worried about that too, but at least Gausman and Ray didn’t hit 6 years. I figure Stroman would need 5 to match the others.

The position player contracts have exceeded MLBTR’s projections, but the pitcher contracts have been fairly on, even a little under in Gausman’s case. They have Stroman signing at 5/$110, and maybe he comes in a little higher than that to clear Ray. It’s a good chunk of money, but he’s been “worth” between $26.3 and $30 million in each of his last four full seasons (per that contentious Fangraphs player value board that I know some people have problems with).
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
2,495
I voted “nobody” though I don’t think that’s literally true. I think they’ll pick through the non-tenders to find more Renfroe/Pivetta/Arroyo types. Not my preference, but it worked for them last year.
That sort of thing works out for us with position players more than pitchers, who everyone needs. Can’t see a guy getting non-tendered only to sign a “prove it” deal playing in the 2nd most hitter-friendly park in baseball, and if he doesn’t have better options we probably don’t want him.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
Schwarber here. Taylor is 30 and does he really play all those positions well, now and into the future? Schwarber is two years younger and already a proven fit with a pretty large offensive impact. That's a pretty safe investment in something we know they can use down the line (post-JD). He even has some positional flexibility (plausible LF and occasional 1B), albeit not at the same spots as Taylor.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
I wonder if Bryant is a better fit for the team than Schwarber. Better defender, can play multiple positions.
Bryant plays 3B but are the Sox skipping ahead to moving Devers off the position now? Bryant's D metrics aren't anything special, so I don't think so. In which case you're really just looking at a bat. Schwarber is younger and has been more productive as a hitter.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
2,657
Bryant is a career 278/376/504 hitter compared to 237/343/493 for Schwarber. He’s an average defensive player at best but grades out better than Schwarber. No clue what the market expects but if the money and years are close I think Bryant is clearly preferable. Not sure either fits the teams immediate needs all that well though.
 
Last edited:

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
15,582
Maine
Bryant is a career 278/376/504 hitter compared to 237/343/493 for Schwarber. He’s an average defensive player at best but grades out better than Schwarber. No clue what the market expects but if the money and years are close I think Bryant is clearly preferable.
Except the real need in the lineup is a LHH. Right now, there are two LHH on the likely 26-man roster: Devers and Verdugo. I have no doubt that it won't come down to Bryant vs Schwarber, but I think side of the plate is a big reason Schwarber is a possible target and there's no smoke at all around Bryant. Well, that and Bryant seems likely to want to stay in SF or on the west coast in general.
 

Ale Xander

killed off Vin Scully
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
44,878
Voted no one above 10 AAV. The wallet at FSG is being pulled in increasingly multiple directions, they have a former Rays employee pulling the strings, because he's awesome with a tight wallet, and they, perhaps, correctly assume a lockout anyway.

/half serious
 

bohous

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
3,526
Framingham
I voted Schwarber but Taylor wouldn't surprise me. I don't see it being anybody else on the list for a variety of reasons (cost, fit) and think there will be smaller moves. However what I want is all in on Stroman
 

pdaj

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 15, 2002
3,261
From Waltham to Providence
I'd love to see Michael Conforto signed to a 1-year "prove it deal" or 2-3 year type of contract. He can be a plus defender at 1B and corner OF; and while coming off of a down year, he's more likely to be priced at a bargain. The Red Sox should be aiming to improve their defense, and the addition of Conforto over Schwarber achieves this.

Such a move would also support a similar 3-4 year deal for Stroman -- an above-average starting pitcher who pitches more to contact that you're typical top-of-the-rotation starter. Shit, add Taylor, as well, while we're at it, and I'll see you all at Fenway for the World Series!
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
Bryant is a career 278/376/504 hitter compared to 237/343/493 for Schwarber. He’s an average defensive player at best but grades out better than Schwarber. No clue what the market expects but if the money and years are close I think Bryant is clearly preferable. Not sure either fits the teams immediate needs all that well though.
Well Bryant's three best seasons were 2015-17, while Schwarber's was 2021. I suppose they are both fine options but Schwarber being a bit younger and with a better trendline seems relevant. Not to mention that he's already adjusted to Boston while Bryant has never set foot in the AL.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
I'd love to see Michael Conforto signed to a 1-year "prove it deal" or 2-3 year type of contract. He can be a plus defender at 1B and corner OF; and while coming off of a down year, he's more likely to be priced at a bargain. The Red Sox should be aiming to improve their defense, and the addition of Conforto over Schwarber achieves this.

Such a move would also support a similar 3-4 year deal for Stroman -- an above-average starting pitcher who pitches more to contact that you're typical top-of-the-rotation starter. Shit, add Taylor, as well, while we're at it, and I'll see you all at Fenway for the World Series!
Was he not healthy last year? bREF has a pretty negative defensive rating for him for RF last season.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
2,657
The problem with Conforto is QO, giving up a pick for a short term player seems likely to be a non-starter. If they want a LH batter who can play first, isn’t Rizzo a potential fit? Seems likely to take a 2-3 year deal and not block Casas.
 

pdaj

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 15, 2002
3,261
From Waltham to Providence
Was he not healthy last year? bREF has a pretty negative defensive rating for him for RF last season.
He had some lingering health issues last year, including an injured hamstring.

The problem with Conforto is QO, giving up a pick for a short term player seems likely to be a non-starter. If they want a LH batter who can play first, isn’t Rizzo a potential fit? Seems likely to take a 2-3 year deal and not block Casas.
Excellent point. Likely not being considered (strongly) at this time for that for exact reason.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
I'd love to see Michael Conforto signed to a 1-year "prove it deal" or 2-3 year type of contract. He can be a plus defender at 1B and corner OF; and while coming off of a down year, he's more likely to be priced at a bargain. The Red Sox should be aiming to improve their defense, and the addition of Conforto over Schwarber achieves this.

Such a move would also support a similar 3-4 year deal for Stroman -- an above-average starting pitcher who pitches more to contact that you're typical top-of-the-rotation starter. Shit, add Taylor, as well, while we're at it, and I'll see you all at Fenway for the World Series!
In his 7 MLB seasons, I don't belief Conforto has played an inning at 1B. That said he's a left handed bat with power who might serve the team well in a five man rotation with Kike', Verdugo, Renfroe and Arroyo with Kike' being the primary CF and getting a start or two every week at 2B.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/confomi01.shtml
 

amRadio

lurker
Feb 7, 2019
758
I voted for Stroman. We have very few players under contract post-2023. Pitching is always hard to find; give him the years he wants and improve the defense behind him as you go. I'm also hopeful for a big ticket reliever like Raisel Iglesias.
 

Philip Jeff Frye

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2001
8,428
I'd love to see Michael Conforto signed to a 1-year "prove it deal" or 2-3 year type of contract. He can be a plus defender at 1B and corner OF; and while coming off of a down year, he's more likely to be priced at a bargain. The Red Sox should be aiming to improve their defense, and the addition of Conforto over Schwarber achieves this.

Such a move would also support a similar 3-4 year deal for Stroman -- an above-average starting pitcher who pitches more to contact that you're typical top-of-the-rotation starter. Shit, add Taylor, as well, while we're at it, and I'll see you all at Fenway for the World Series!
Conforto just passed on a one year, $18 million deal when he declined the qualifying offer. Unless he's Kimbrelled himself, he's not signing a "prove it" deal.
 

pdaj

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 15, 2002
3,261
From Waltham to Providence
In his 7 MLB seasons, I don't belief Conforto has played an inning at 1B. That said he's a left handed bat with power who might serve the team well in a five man rotation with Kike', Verdugo, Renfroe and Arroyo with Kike' being the primary CF and getting a start or two every week at 2B.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/confomi01.shtml
Holy shit, I would have bet significant money that Conforto had played 1B on many occasions during his first few season. Though, after checking, it seems like you're correct. Another hit to the Conforto argument, but, man, do I love his swing.
 

sackamano

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 1, 2004
684
on the river
I'd love to see Michael Conforto signed to a 1-year "prove it deal" or 2-3 year type of contract. He can be a plus defender at 1B and corner OF; and while coming off of a down year, he's more likely to be priced at a bargain. The Red Sox should be aiming to improve their defense, and the addition of Conforto over Schwarber achieves this.
Interesting to consider Conforto a "plus defender" at 1B, when he's never played 1B at the MLB level.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
2,495
Surprised no one’s voted for Story. He seems like kind of a sneaky good alternative to Correa who could go at around 1/3-to-half the cost. There’s the Coors factor, but the exit velocity’s very solid and the lofty launch angle’s a good Fenway fit.

He was very much a plus defensive SS until hurting his right elbow last year, and I guess that remains a question.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
15,582
Maine
Surprised no one’s voted for Story. He seems like kind of a sneaky good alternative to Correa who could go at around 1/3-to-half the cost. There’s the Coors factor, but the exit velocity’s very solid and the lofty launch angle’s a good Fenway fit.

He was very much a plus defensive SS until hurting his right elbow last year, and I guess that remains a question.
I think the lack of interest here in Story (and Correa though the contract is a bigger deal for him) is the fact that the Red Sox have an all star shortstop already. I know there's concern about him opting out and a desire to push him to a new position, but reality is he's there and bringing in a replacement for him before he's gone seems like a poor use of resources (square pegs in round holes no matter how you slice it). Not to mention it's going to guarantee Bogaerts leaves. He may leave next winter as things stand now anyway, but he absolutely will if they sign a big money free agent SS this winter.

I know he was a bit older and on the verge of a big decline, but I can't help but remember what the flirtation with ARod did to Nomar. Players don't like to be made to feel like a second choice.
 

curly2

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 8, 2003
4,495
I voted nobody on that list. I don't think Bloom is going to give anyone more than three years. If Schwarber would settle for three, I think he could come back.

I think the Sox will probably add Rich Hill or Collin McHugh and pick through the non-tenders.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
2,495
I think the lack of interest here in Story (and Correa though the contract is a bigger deal for him) is the fact that the Red Sox have an all star shortstop already. I know there's concern about him opting out and a desire to push him to a new position, but reality is he's there and bringing in a replacement for him before he's gone seems like a poor use of resources (square pegs in round holes no matter how you slice it). Not to mention it's going to guarantee Bogaerts leaves. He may leave next winter as things stand now anyway, but he absolutely will if they sign a big money free agent SS this winter.

I know he was a bit older and on the verge of a big decline, but I can't help but remember what the flirtation with ARod did to Nomar. Players don't like to be made to feel like a second choice.
Sure, I guess you’d have to accept as a first principle that we’re looking for a shortstop and that Bogaerts would either move to 2B (as he said he would) or we’d let him walk.

The fact Bloom was reportedly in on Baez suggests to me they're shopping. The Sox can publicly say they’re looking for a 2B to save face but there’s no point in spending that kind of money on a defensive whiz like Baez if you’re going to play him in at 2B in the era of the shift.
 
Sep 13, 2006
699
Voted for Taylor because of his positional versatility (and maybe not as overvalued as some other names?)...
For those hoping for CT, per the linked MassLive article: "Despite prior reports of Boston’s interest in Taylor, the Sox are not among the clubs aggressively pursuing him, according to a source familiar with the situation. In fact, it’s unclear if the Red Sox are even involved in the Taylor sweepstakes at all."

Link: https://www.masslive.com/redsox/2021/11/boston-red-sox-unlikely-to-sign-free-agent-chris-taylor-who-may-sign-by-wednesdays-cba-deadline.html
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
15,582
Maine
Sure, I guess you’d have to accept as a first principle that we’re looking for a shortstop and that Bogaerts would either move to 2B (as he said he would) or we’d let him walk.

The fact Bloom was reportedly in on Baez suggests to me they're shopping. The Sox can publicly say they’re looking for a 2B to save face but there’s no point in spending that kind of money on a defensive whiz like Baez if you’re going to play him in at 2B in the era of the shift.
Shopping for a player who can play 2B in 2022 and serve as possible insurance for a Bogaerts departure is a bit different than openly courting a SS who has no history of playing any other position. Though honestly I don't think an "in on Baez" report from agent mouthpiece Jon freaking Heyman is a very strong argument.

And personally, I think accepting your first principle is not the way a team should be operating, especially when it comes to a franchise player like Bogaerts. I don't care what that one report said about his willingness to change positions in the future, he certainly didn't mean he'd change immediately. He's effectively going into a walk year. If he wants to opt-out, he wants to cash in. The way to do that is as a shortstop, not a guy moving down the defensive spectrum. Him moving to 2B to accommodate a free agent is pure fan fantasy, not reality.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
15,582
Maine
Bogaerts statement about being willing to play second place, in what context was that made? Was he talking about the coming season or was this more of a somewhere in the future type thing?
This is the report about it (I believe). Sure seems like it was a somewhere in the future type thing.

The Red Sox also face a looming crossroads with Bogaerts, who can opt out of the final three years of his six-year, $120 million contract at the end of 2022. According to sources close to Bogaerts, the shortstop currently plans on opting out of the contract after 2022, but hopes to remain in Boston and finish his career with the Red Sox. The three-time All-Star shortstop is also open to moving to second or third base down the road.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
2,495
Bogaerts statement about being willing to play second place, in what context was that made? Was he talking about the coming season or was this more of a somewhere in the future type thing?
It’s from this ESPN report and IIRC another from late October. The exact language is here:

According to sources close to Bogaerts, the shortstop currently plans on opting out of the contract after 2022, but hopes to remain in Boston and finish his career with the Red Sox. The three-time All-Star shortstop is also open to moving to second or third base down the road.

So, the timing is open-ended. But if he’s publicly stating that he wants to stay with the organization and is openly accepting a positional shift down the spectrum, does it really matter that he goes into his opt-out year playing shortstop for a full year?

I’m assuming that the “sources close to Bogaerts” are approved by X if not Boras or X him himself. It seems like he accepts a move off the position, which would seem to influence whether teams want to pay him a massive contract as a shortstop. None of this year’s free agents have said anything like that — not even Semien, who ended up signing as a 2B.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
15,582
Maine
It’s from this ESPN report and IIRC another from late October. The exact language is here:

According to sources close to Bogaerts, the shortstop currently plans on opting out of the contract after 2022, but hopes to remain in Boston and finish his career with the Red Sox. The three-time All-Star shortstop is also open to moving to second or third base down the road.

So, the timing is open-ended. But if he’s publicly stating that he wants to stay with the organization and is openly accepting a positional shift down the spectrum, does it really matter that he goes into his opt-out year playing shortstop for a full year?

I’m assuming that the “sources close to Bogaerts” are approved by X if not Boras or X him himself. It seems like he accepts a move off the position, which would seem to influence whether teams want to pay him a massive contract as a shortstop. None of this year’s free agents have said anything like that — not even Semien, who ended up signing as a 2B.
If he's opting out for more money it sure as hell does matter. If the money didn't matter and his goal was to stay in Boston and do whatever the team asked of him to achieve greater team success (changing positions to accommodate a free agent qualifies as that), why wouldn't he simply not opt out and continue to play out his very team-friendly contract?
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
This is the report about it (I believe). Sure seems like it was a somewhere in the future type thing.
Seems I was writing my post just about the same time that you were writing yours. I wasn't sure, but I thought it was more of a "down the road" sort of thing and not an in season experiment to appease his replacement in the year he's looking to maximize his earning potential.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
2,495
If he's opting out for more money it sure as hell does matter. If the money didn't matter and his goal was to stay in Boston and do whatever the team asked of him to achieve greater team success (changing positions to accommodate a free agent qualifies as that), why wouldn't he simply not opt out and continue to play out his very team-friendly contract?
It’s a little of both. He’d be opting out for more money and he wants to stay.

X has been kind of an unusual case across the board. I can’t name another player that has said publicly that he expects to use a future opt-out in his contract, nor one to publicly say he’d consider moving off a premium position. Doing that would seem to compromise your bargaining position. The fact that he says all of this as a Boras client is even more striking.

I think he’s opting out because he can and should, per Boras’s and the MLBPA’s counsel, but saying stuff like this doesn’t seem to me like he’s planning to weigh the Sox offer against the open shortstop market. If he were, then he wouldn’t telegraph to the league that he’s not a shortstop. It sounds to me more like he wants to stay and “restructure” the contract, but I can only speculate what that will look like.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Voted no one above 10 AAV. The wallet at FSG is being pulled in increasingly multiple directions, they have a former Rays employee pulling the strings, because he's awesome with a tight wallet, and they, perhaps, correctly assume a lockout anyway.

/half serious
I know you said Half Serious, but what have you seen to make you even a little bit serious about other FSG entities having anything to do with how they operate the Red Sox?
 

Lose Remerswaal

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Time and money being finite
There are billions and billions of dollars and available for their investments and hundreds of analytic guys and gals who have the time. It’s a tired trope here that the ownership’s other interests means less money and time spent on the Red Sox, that goes back a few years without evidence to support it.