SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Craig Breslow hired as Chief Baseball Officer
|
Post by itinerantherb on Mar 26, 2024 20:31:21 GMT -5
It's easy to go around and around on the "see what we have" versus "stabilize the rotation with proven starters" question because, in a vacuum, there's really no right answer, or at least not one we can know before we find out what we have. If Whitlock and Houck each pitch 170 innings and put up sub-4 ERAs, we'll be glad they decided to see what they had. If they're injured and/or ineffective, well, we should have signed some reliable vets.
I don't necessarily think that any of the pitchers on Incandenza's list are real difference makers (with the possible exception of Imanaga) but I do wish they'd added someone like Lorenzen for depth.
Either way, I'm excited to root for this team.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 26, 2024 21:19:37 GMT -5
Suppose the Red Sox put some weight on being good this year, while still staying under the LTT and mostly orienting toward the future. In this scenario they:
- do all the same Urias/Verdugo/O'Neill trades - sign Giolito (this is not a revisionist exercise, so no fore-knowledge that he'd get hurt)
- don't trade Sale, running instead with a Valdez/Reyes platoon at 2B, or maybe trading for Polanco or something, whatever you prefer - sign Montgomery for a couple million more than the Diamondbacks did - allow the Bello extension to kick in next year to stay under the LTT
They'd have a rotation of: - Sale - Montgomery - Bello - Pivetta - Crawford/Whitlock
Houck in the bullpen and also the #7 starter.
I think this would add about 3-4 wins to their projection for 2024. The long-term costs would be not adding Grissom, and Bello's AAV would be like $1.5 million higher or something starting next year.
Would this have been a better offseason?
|
|
|
Post by asm18 on Mar 26, 2024 21:35:55 GMT -5
Suppose the Red Sox put some weight on being good this year, while still staying under the LTT and mostly orienting toward the future. In this scenario they:
- do all the same Urias/Verdugo/O'Neill trades - sign Giolito (this is not a revisionist exercise, so no fore-knowledge that he'd get hurt)
- don't trade Sale, running instead with a Valdez/Reyes platoon at 2B, or maybe trading for Polanco or something, whatever you prefer - sign Montgomery for a couple million more than the Diamondbacks did - allow the Bello extension to kick in next year to stay under the LTT
They'd have a rotation of: - Sale - Montgomery - Bello - Pivetta - Crawford/Whitlock
Houck in the bullpen and also the #7 starter.
I think this would add about 3-4 wins to their projection for 2024. The long-term costs would be not adding Grissom, and Bello's AAV would be like $1.5 million higher or something starting next year.
Would this have been a better offseason?
Oh God yes. I can’t believe it’s really that simple. Pardon me while I go to stick my fork in an electrical socket now. I guess an alternative question would be with the financial restrictions inexplicably placed on the team, was this the most optimal use of resources? They used Sale’s contract to get a second baseman, Grissom. Giolito they gave 19 mil aav to, which really didn’t save that much in hindsight compared to other pitchers like Monty (and was more compared to other reclamation guys like Severino, Lance Lynn, Manaea). They coulda traded Kenley/Martin but who knows what the offers were and then you need to replace the hole in your pen. They could never quite land the white whale of a cost controlled starter via trade
|
|
|
Post by sxfan on Mar 26, 2024 21:42:11 GMT -5
Suppose the Red Sox put some weight on being good this year, while still staying under the LTT and mostly orienting toward the future. In this scenario they:
- do all the same Urias/Verdugo/O'Neill trades - sign Giolito (this is not a revisionist exercise, so no fore-knowledge that he'd get hurt)
- don't trade Sale, running instead with a Valdez/Reyes platoon at 2B, or maybe trading for Polanco or something, whatever you prefer - sign Montgomery for a couple million more than the Diamondbacks did - allow the Bello extension to kick in next year to stay under the LTT
They'd have a rotation of: - Sale - Montgomery - Bello - Pivetta - Crawford/Whitlock
Houck in the bullpen and also the #7 starter.
I think this would add about 3-4 wins to their projection for 2024. The long-term costs would be not adding Grissom, and Bello's AAV would be like $1.5 million higher or something starting next year.
Would this have been a better offseason?
They could never quite land the white whale of a cost controlled starter via trade Hard to acquire a good cost controlled starter when you're not willing to include Mayer, Teel, or Anthony in a trade to get one. Speier wrote they were off limits for the Sox in trade talks. Maybe they could have flipped Grissom, but they probably like Grissom as much of the Mayer, Anthony, and Teel group and he was probably off limits too.
|
|
|
Post by asm18 on Mar 26, 2024 21:59:20 GMT -5
They could never quite land the white whale of a cost controlled starter via trade Hard to acquire a good cost controlled starter when you're not willing to include Mayer, Teel, or Anthony in a trade to get one. Speier wrote they were off limits for the Sox in trade talks. Maybe they could have flipped Grissom, but they probably like Grissom as much of the Mayer, Anthony, and Teel group and he was probably off limits too. Yeah that sounds about right - at least for the big fish of like Glasnow, Cease, and the non-traded Luzardo, etc. Still there were dudes who were not high end starters that you’d have to imagine don’t cost you elite prospects (Paul Blackburn? Kopech? Steven Matz?) if you want at least SOME extra options who aren’t Chase Anderson.
|
|
|
Post by sxfan on Mar 26, 2024 22:14:16 GMT -5
Hard to acquire a good cost controlled starter when you're not willing to include Mayer, Teel, or Anthony in a trade to get one. Speier wrote they were off limits for the Sox in trade talks. Maybe they could have flipped Grissom, but they probably like Grissom as much of the Mayer, Anthony, and Teel group and he was probably off limits too. Yeah that sounds about right - at least for the big fish of like Glasnow, Cease, and the non-traded Luzardo, etc. Still there were dudes who were not high end starters that you’d have to imagine don’t cost you elite prospects (Paul Blackburn? Kopech? Steven Matz?) if you want at least SOME extra options who aren’t Chase Anderson. I was specifically referring to the white whale comment, which is a really talented starting pitcher with control. I'm not sure if Breslow was willing to go to what it takes to grab a back end type either. He doesn't know what the system looks like first hand, he probably doesn't want to trade someone who he thinks he should have kept if he had eyes on him personally. Plus, some of the options you named I wouldn't have wanted either. Kopech is viewed as a reliever with 30/30 MLB teams at this point. Matz is 33 and expensive dollars wise, has health issues a lot. I think what it really came down to is that Giolito was the only guy they thought had upside and not much else beyond that. Seth Lugo was the only other dude they made a real offer to (besides a low-ball offer to Montgomery), and they probably low-balled him too, to try and grab him for a good deal.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 26, 2024 22:18:15 GMT -5
So Red Sox are going to have a fully healthy starting 5 all year? It's going to be fun to watch this rotation when your normal injuries happen. Good thing Whitlock and Houck don't have a history of getting injured.
Let's call it for what this likely is, tank to get a high pick. Let's just hope our new GM doesn't mess up the deadline.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Mar 26, 2024 22:53:33 GMT -5
So Red Sox are going to have a fully healthy starting 5 all year? It's going to be fun to watch this rotation when your normal injuries happen. Good thing Whitlock and Houck don't have a history of getting injured. Let's call it for what this likely is, tank to get a high pick. Let's just hope our new GM doesn't mess up the deadline. Not only are injuries a concern but I think that there's not a lot of experience throwing innings. Whitlock hasn't even pitched 80 innings in a season. Is he suddenly going to pitch 140 innings? Houck hasn't pitched more than 110 innings. He's going to throw 150? Crawford might be able to handle 140 innings perhaps. I'm willing to buy the possibility of Pivetta throwing 180 innings and Bello throwing 170. But I do question if Houck, Crawford, and Houck can give them 400 combined innings without hitting the fatigue wall too hard. And if they get hurt or struggle to provide innings we see Criswell and Anderson or too many bullpen innings. That's a concern I have.
|
|
|
Post by chaimtime on Mar 27, 2024 0:59:31 GMT -5
So Red Sox are going to have a fully healthy starting 5 all year? It's going to be fun to watch this rotation when your normal injuries happen. Good thing Whitlock and Houck don't have a history of getting injured. Let's call it for what this likely is, tank to get a high pick. Let's just hope our new GM doesn't mess up the deadline. If they’re tanking for a high pick they’ve done a pretty poor job of it. I’d say even worse than if they were trying to build a playoff team.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Mar 27, 2024 1:35:52 GMT -5
So Red Sox are going to have a fully healthy starting 5 all year? It's going to be fun to watch this rotation when your normal injuries happen. Good thing Whitlock and Houck don't have a history of getting injured. Let's call it for what this likely is, tank to get a high pick. Let's just hope our new GM doesn't mess up the deadline. How about really call it like it is. Poor trades over the years. not retaining franchise and quality players. Drafting and signing IFA talent, which have generally not been optimal with the exception of a few the last 8-10y. It's not hard to see why the smart breslow isn't inclined to pay a mid rotation montgomery 25m guaranteed for 1 y, plus be on the hook for more when this poor looking team (as it currently sits) could very well finish in last place a 3rd year in a row. Why not try and retool once again, rather than pander to a never satisfied NE media and never satisfied portion of the Sox fanbase who refuse to see how bad this current team is?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 27, 2024 1:46:39 GMT -5
So Red Sox are going to have a fully healthy starting 5 all year? It's going to be fun to watch this rotation when your normal injuries happen. Good thing Whitlock and Houck don't have a history of getting injured. Let's call it for what this likely is, tank to get a high pick. Let's just hope our new GM doesn't mess up the deadline. If they’re tanking for a high pick they’ve done a pretty poor job of it. I’d say even worse than if they were trying to build a playoff team. Take a team that got 12th pick, remove two of your best pitchers and 3 of your best positional players. The one pitcher you added is done, oh wait maybe Chase Anderson will give you 200 innings and a bunch of bwar to replace Sale and Paxton. Yeah maybe O'Neil will equal Verdugo, Turner and Duval. This team had major pitching issues last year. Yeah it's Baseball and anything can happen, expecting that many young guys to step up and others not getting worse isn't likely. A few injuries and it could get ugly quickly. So I don't see how this can be anything but tank for a draft pick. If you are trying to win, you would add pitching. It's frustrating after the Bloom years, but maybe it's the right play. Figure out what you have, add more to the farm system and start next year. If that's not our new GM plan, I don't know what to say.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Mar 27, 2024 7:44:33 GMT -5
I still don’t buy the case that you couldn’t sign another guy because you had to see what you have in Whitlock and Houck. Even if you did sign another pitcher Whitlock and Houck were always going to get opportunities to start because at some point someone gets hurt (or it would be they themselves who gets injured in which case the team now has seemingly no real depth).
|
|
|
Post by itinerantherb on Mar 27, 2024 7:53:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Mar 27, 2024 8:01:08 GMT -5
I still don’t buy the case that you couldn’t sign another guy because you had to see what you have in Whitlock and Houck. Even if you did sign another pitcher Whitlock and Houck were always going to get opportunities to start because at some point someone gets hurt (or it would be they themselves who gets injured in which case the team now has seemingly no real depth). This is where I am at as well, even if Criswell ends up being a viable 6th starter depth type what happens when there are multiple injuries to the rotation? I don't really want to see Walter starting all that much nor do I want to see bullpen games. I just don't see how signing another viable MLB 5th SP would have taken opportunities from Whitlock and Houck should they both earn the right to stay in the rotation. I still think this is a team that can overachieve vs what the media and many around the league seem to think but the margin for error is very thin and a rash of bad injury luck especially to pitchers early in the season could have this team out of it by July.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 27, 2024 8:29:37 GMT -5
For context, here are the IP by starters, outside of the top five starters by IP, in recent seasons:
2023: 205 (26% of all starters' IP) 2022: 189 (23%) 2021: 108 (13%) 2020: 69 (28%) 2019: 120 (15%) 2018: 163 (19%)
It's a pretty safe bet that 1/6th to 1/4th of all SP innings will go to someone outside of the top 5 starters.*
*actually it could well be higher, because I didn't distinguish between top 5 by IP and the expected top 5, e.g. I counted Winckowski as one of the top 5 in 2022 just based on IP while Sale was outside of the top 5. So if, say, Houck goes down for much of the season and Criswell ends up being one of the top 5 in IP, that would bump the percentage up even higher.
|
|
|
Post by puzzler on Mar 27, 2024 8:51:56 GMT -5
I still don’t buy the case that you couldn’t sign another guy because you had to see what you have in Whitlock and Houck. Even if you did sign another pitcher Whitlock and Houck were always going to get opportunities to start because at some point someone gets hurt (or it would be they themselves who gets injured in which case the team now has seemingly no real depth). This is where I am at as well, even if Criswell ends up being a viable 6th starter depth type what happens when there are multiple injuries to the rotation? I don't really want to see Walter starting all that much nor do I want to see bullpen games. I just don't see how signing another viable MLB 5th SP would have taken opportunities from Whitlock and Houck should they both earn the right to stay in the rotation. I still think this is a team that can overachieve vs what the media and many around the league seem to think but the margin for error is very thin and a rash of bad injury luck especially to pitchers early in the season could have this team out of it by July. The Red Sox had 9 guys capable of starting last year and it didn't work. This desire to have depth is blinding a lot of you guys to reality. When you don't have starting pitching health, you don't win. There are other teams that have enough top end starting pitching to make up for an injury or two in the short term - but losing multiple guys for months or for the season will kill your season no matter how many 'starters' you sign. The other part is the nonsensical part about Whitlock and Houck throwing 80-90 innings and you calling that having an opportunity to start. They'll NEVER be starters if they do that - EVER. So your argument really isn't that you want depth - it's that you would rather have different pitchers starting than Whitlock and Houck. Houck started 21 games last year - how do you figure he does that if he isn't in the rotation? And if he is, who is the guy you signed who can start out of the pen? And does he really make that much more of a difference than Chase Anderson or Cooper Criswell?
|
|
|
Post by puzzler on Mar 27, 2024 8:55:55 GMT -5
For context, here are the IP by starters, outside of the top five starters by IP, in recent seasons: 2023: 205 (26% of all starters' IP)2022: 189 (23%) 2021: 108 (13%) 2020: 69 (28%) 2019: 120 (15%) 2018: 163 (19%) It's a pretty safe bet that 1/6th to 1/4th of all SP innings will go to someone outside of the top 5 starters.* *actually it could well be higher, because I didn't distinguish between top 5 by IP and the expected top 5, e.g. I counted Winckowski as one of the top 5 in 2022 just based on IP while Sale was outside of the top 5. So if, say, Houck goes down for much of the season and Criswell ends up being one of the top 5 in IP, that would bump the percentage up even higher.And there were 9 guys on the roster throughout the season that were semi-capable of starting games in 2023. And they still went 78-84. Let's say last season's injuries (which were numerous) is repeated this year - who is the ONE guy that fixes that problem? There isn't one. And not only that, but when you're relying on two guys in the bullpen (Whitlock and Houck) to be your fill in starters - it means that you have to replace their bullpen innings when they move into the rotation. So you get the step down from your injured starters to not stretched out Whitlock and Houck and then you get the step down from Whitlock and Houck in the pen to whoever they end up replacing them with - which means you end up relying on the top end of your bullpen even more. You're robbing Peter to pay Paul.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Mar 27, 2024 8:59:08 GMT -5
This is where I am at as well, even if Criswell ends up being a viable 6th starter depth type what happens when there are multiple injuries to the rotation? I don't really want to see Walter starting all that much nor do I want to see bullpen games. I just don't see how signing another viable MLB 5th SP would have taken opportunities from Whitlock and Houck should they both earn the right to stay in the rotation. I still think this is a team that can overachieve vs what the media and many around the league seem to think but the margin for error is very thin and a rash of bad injury luck especially to pitchers early in the season could have this team out of it by July. The Red Sox had 9 guys capable of starting last year and it didn't work. This desire to have depth is blinding a lot of you guys to reality. When you don't have starting pitching health, you don't win. There are other teams that have enough top end starting pitching to make up for an injury or two in the short term - but losing multiple guys for months or for the season will kill your season no matter how many 'starters' you sign. The other part is the nonsensical part about Whitlock and Houck throwing 80-90 innings and you calling that having an opportunity to start. They'll NEVER be starters if they do that - EVER. So your argument really isn't that you want depth - it's that you would rather have different pitchers starting than Whitlock and Houck. Houck started 21 games last year - how do you figure he does that if he isn't in the rotation? And if he is, who is the guy you signed who can start out of the pen? And does he really make that much more of a difference than Chase Anderson or Cooper Criswell? Not my argument at all so not sure why you are twisting what I am saying to claim that I don't want to give Whitlock and Houck a true chance to start. I do want them to have the chance to be a starter this season which for better or worse they clearly are going to have that chance. I just don't see the issue with having had competition and making them earn it rather than clearly being given it at this point. I hope it works out otherwise Breslow and the Sox offseason is going to look pretty bad in hindsight.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 27, 2024 9:03:36 GMT -5
For context, here are the IP by starters, outside of the top five starters by IP, in recent seasons: 2023: 205 (26% of all starters' IP)2022: 189 (23%) 2021: 108 (13%) 2020: 69 (28%) 2019: 120 (15%) 2018: 163 (19%) It's a pretty safe bet that 1/6th to 1/4th of all SP innings will go to someone outside of the top 5 starters.* *actually it could well be higher, because I didn't distinguish between top 5 by IP and the expected top 5, e.g. I counted Winckowski as one of the top 5 in 2022 just based on IP while Sale was outside of the top 5. So if, say, Houck goes down for much of the season and Criswell ends up being one of the top 5 in IP, that would bump the percentage up even higher.And there were 9 guys on the roster throughout the season that were semi-capable of starting games in 2023. And they still went 78-84. Let's say last season's injuries (which were numerous) is repeated this year - who is the ONE guy that fixes that problem? There isn't one. And not only that, but when you're relying on two guys in the bullpen (Whitlock and Houck) to be your fill in starters - it means that you have to replace their bullpen innings when they move into the rotation. So you get the step down from your injured starters to not stretched out Whitlock and Houck and then you get the step down from Whitlock and Houck in the pen to whoever they end up replacing them with - which means you end up relying on the top end of your bullpen even more. You're robbing Peter to pay Paul. I am having a very hard time reading the words you wrote here and figuring out how it is supposed to work as an argument for why they don't need more pitching depth.
|
|
|
Post by puzzler on Mar 27, 2024 9:13:57 GMT -5
The Red Sox had 9 guys capable of starting last year and it didn't work. This desire to have depth is blinding a lot of you guys to reality. When you don't have starting pitching health, you don't win. There are other teams that have enough top end starting pitching to make up for an injury or two in the short term - but losing multiple guys for months or for the season will kill your season no matter how many 'starters' you sign. The other part is the nonsensical part about Whitlock and Houck throwing 80-90 innings and you calling that having an opportunity to start. They'll NEVER be starters if they do that - EVER. So your argument really isn't that you want depth - it's that you would rather have different pitchers starting than Whitlock and Houck. Houck started 21 games last year - how do you figure he does that if he isn't in the rotation? And if he is, who is the guy you signed who can start out of the pen? And does he really make that much more of a difference than Chase Anderson or Cooper Criswell? Not my argument at all so not sure why you are twisting what I am saying to claim that I don't want to give Whitlock and Houck a true chance to start. I do want them to have the chance to be a starter this season which for better or worse they clearly are going to have that chance. I just don't see the issue with having had competition and making them earn it rather than clearly being given it at this point. I hope it works out otherwise Breslow and the Sox offseason is going to look pretty bad in hindsight. You don't think either Whitlock or Houck earned it? Name your competition names - who was the guy they could have signed who would have accepted the deal knowing they weren't guaranteed a rotation spot?
|
|
|
Post by puzzler on Mar 27, 2024 9:15:53 GMT -5
And there were 9 guys on the roster throughout the season that were semi-capable of starting games in 2023. And they still went 78-84. Let's say last season's injuries (which were numerous) is repeated this year - who is the ONE guy that fixes that problem? There isn't one. And not only that, but when you're relying on two guys in the bullpen (Whitlock and Houck) to be your fill in starters - it means that you have to replace their bullpen innings when they move into the rotation. So you get the step down from your injured starters to not stretched out Whitlock and Houck and then you get the step down from Whitlock and Houck in the pen to whoever they end up replacing them with - which means you end up relying on the top end of your bullpen even more. You're robbing Peter to pay Paul. I am having a very hard time reading the words you wrote here and figuring out how it is supposed to work as an argument for why they don't need more pitching depth. Who should they have signed that A) allows Whitlock and Houck to be be in the rotation and B) would have accepted a deal that doesn't guarantee them a spot in the rotation and C) that makes a real difference in the outcomes should any one starting pitcher get hurt? Name some names. If you don't think Whitlock or Houck should start - then fine, I accept your argument. Otherwise, name the names. Your original list doesn't include more than 1 or 2 guys that MAYBE POSSIBLY would have accepted a non-guaranteed rotation spot. And those guys all signed prior to Giolito getting hurt. Every single one.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 27, 2024 9:28:34 GMT -5
I am having a very hard time reading the words you wrote here and figuring out how it is supposed to work as an argument for why they don't need more pitching depth. Who should they have signed that A) allows Whitlock and Houck to be be in the rotation and B) would have accepted a deal that doesn't guarantee them a spot in the rotation and C) that makes a real difference in the outcomes should any one starting pitcher get hurt? Name some names. If you don't think Whitlock or Houck should start - then fine, I accept your argument. Otherwise, name the names. Your original list doesn't include more than 1 or 2 guys that MAYBE POSSIBLY would have accepted a non-guaranteed rotation spot. And those guys all signed prior to Giolito getting hurt. Every single one. What I (and others) have said over and over again is that a) it is not transcendently important to me that both Whitlock and Houck be guaranteed starting roles from day 1, and b) injuries will inevitably allow whichever one of them starts in the bullpen to make it into the rotation at some point. Concretely: I for sure would have signed Montgomery, and pushed Houck into a (high-leverage) long-relief role to accommodate him.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Mar 27, 2024 9:32:04 GMT -5
That entire article is well worth the read... The comments on the article are a different story..
|
|
|
Post by chaimtime on Mar 27, 2024 10:06:16 GMT -5
I get where you all are coming from, but I think you’re overestimating the impact the 7-9th starters have on your season and underestimating how bad the starting depth is on the average MLB team, how difficult it is to sell a guy on a one-year deal to be a swingman/depth option at Fenway when he has a guaranteed starting spot in a more pitcher-friendly environment, and how difficult it is to develop as a starter while jumping between the bullpen and the rotation. You can probably add just how good Houck and Whitlock are to that list, too—there’s a lot to like with both of them! It wasn’t that long ago that Houck was an offspeed pitch away from being a number 2.
The rotation isn’t ideal, and probably isn’t playoff caliber. I still haven’t really seen any explanation for how more guys who aren’t particularly good is gonna change that, though, which is why I find the consternation about what will happen if two more starters hit the 60-day to be confusing. If Criswell and Anderson are so terrible that they threaten an otherwise-promising season then they’ll trade for someone.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Mar 27, 2024 10:11:49 GMT -5
I get where you all are coming from, but I think you’re overestimating the impact the 7-9th starters have on your season and underestimating how bad the starting depth is on the average MLB team, how difficult it is to sell a guy on a one-year deal to be a swingman/depth option at Fenway when he has a guaranteed starting spot in a more pitcher-friendly environment, and how difficult it is to develop as a starter while jumping between the bullpen and the rotation. You can probably add just how good Houck and Whitlock are to that list, too—there’s a lot to like with both of them! It wasn’t that long ago that Houck was an offspeed pitch away from being a number 2. The rotation isn’t ideal, and probably isn’t playoff caliber. I still haven’t really seen any explanation for how more guys who aren’t particularly good is gonna change that, though, which is why I find the consternation about what will happen if two more starters hit the 60-day to be confusing. If Criswell and Anderson are so terrible that they threaten an otherwise-promising season then they’ll trade for someone. Re; the bolded, there are many pitchers I would have guaranteed a starting spot to, I don't take this as a given that they could not have done that or would have refused to do so had they had the requisite budget to sign these pitchers.
|
|
|