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 ematz1423 on Mar 27, 2024 10:23:57 GMT -5
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? Do I think Whitlock and Houck have earned being unquestionable SPs for the 2024 Boston Red Sox? No I don't. I'm not saying I don't think they can succeed, I think they both definitely can but they both have enough warts that in my opinion it is fair to question whether they should have gone after another SP FA option to push one of them to the bullpen. Clearly they are going to both be in the rotation to start the year so hopefully it's more swim than sink for them.
|
|
|
Post by puzzler on Mar 27, 2024 10:37:36 GMT -5
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? Do I think Whitlock and Houck have earned being unquestionable SPs for the 2024 Boston Red Sox? No I don't. I'm not saying I don't think they can succeed, I think they both definitely can but they both have enough warts that in my opinion it is fair to question whether they should have gone after another SP FA option to push one of them to the bullpen. Clearly they are going to both be in the rotation to start the year so hopefully it's more swim than sink for them. So just to clarify, you're saying that both Whitlock and Houck should start the season in the pen? Who are the two unquestionable SPs they should have signed for those two spots? Own your argument, because it isn't making any sense given the timeline of events and who was available.
|
|
|
Post by chaimtime on Mar 27, 2024 10:42:42 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. That’s fair, we just have different evaluations of the players. I felt the same way as you going into the offseason, but the more I trawled the FG and BPro leaderboards to find out who I wanted them to target, the more confident I got in the guys they have—or maybe the less confident I got in the options available. Imanaga is really the only one I’m disappointed about, but he comes with plenty of questions in his own right. I don’t think Houck and Whitlock are very far from being solid starters, and it looks like they and the pitching coaches have worked very hard and very deliberately this offseason to take that next step. I think there’s a very strong chance that adding one of those one-year guys to kick one of them to the pen makes the opening day rotation worse. I don’t see the point in dropping eight figures for that privilege.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Mar 27, 2024 10:47:04 GMT -5
Do I think Whitlock and Houck have earned being unquestionable SPs for the 2024 Boston Red Sox? No I don't. I'm not saying I don't think they can succeed, I think they both definitely can but they both have enough warts that in my opinion it is fair to question whether they should have gone after another SP FA option to push one of them to the bullpen. Clearly they are going to both be in the rotation to start the year so hopefully it's more swim than sink for them. So just to clarify, you're saying that both Whitlock and Houck should start the season in the pen? Who are the two unquestionable SPs they should have signed for those two spots? Own your argument, because it isn't making any sense given the timeline of events and who was available. No I'm not saying as of today that they should start the season in the pen, as of today they are clearly in the top 5 options to be SPs on opening day in the org. However at the beginning of the offseason I said that I wanted to see the Sox sign two SPs. Back then I was saying give me something like Montgomery and Giolito. They signed Giolito, obviously that didn't work out. They could have pretty easily signed Montgomery and made the money work to stay under the LT if that was the mission. What had Whitlock and Houck proven in their past as SPs to say that on day one of the offseason they should be penciled into the starting rotation at that moment? I'm not the only one on this site that has this same thought that they should have signed one more SP so just because it "doesn't make sense" to you doesn't mean I'm out here on the ledge by myself.
|
|
|
Post by puzzler on Mar 27, 2024 10:52:50 GMT -5
So just to clarify, you're saying that both Whitlock and Houck should start the season in the pen? Who are the two unquestionable SPs they should have signed for those two spots? Own your argument, because it isn't making any sense given the timeline of events and who was available. No I'm not saying as of today that they should start the season in the pen, as of today they are clearly in the top 5 options to be SPs on opening day in the org. However at the beginning of the offseason I said that I wanted to see the Sox sign two SPs. Back then I was saying give me something like Montgomery and Giolito. They signed Giolito, obviously that didn't work out. They could have pretty easily signed Montgomery and made the money work to stay under the LT if that was the mission. What had Whitlock and Houck proven in their past as SPs to say that on day one of the offseason they should be penciled into the starting rotation at that moment? I'm not the only one on this site that has this same thought that they should have signed one more SP so just because it "doesn't make sense" to you doesn't mean I'm out here on the ledge by myself. You were just talking about signing someone to 'compete' with Whitlock and Houck and the only guy you can mention is Montgomery? Of course that doesn't make sense. You're saying that Montgomery would be 'competing' with Whitlock and Houck? You are so disingenuous - it's unreal. That's a massive goalpost shift. I'm done. EDIT: "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." That's you.
|
|
|
Post by strike23 on Mar 27, 2024 10:52:55 GMT -5
The idea that Houck or Whitlock could start in the pen and prove their long term future is in the rotation borders on laughable. Crawford basically did that last year, was arguably our best pitcher, and the rotation thread this offseason wanted to kick him back into the pen this year. More specifically Houck wouldn't be able to build stamina to try to address 3rd time through the rotation concerns that continue to plague him and I can't imagine that Whitlock would be less injury prone being jerked between roles. I'll buy that getting an ace and pushing them to the pen is worth it but paying $10+ million to sign a 4/5 guy that has significantly less upside than either of them to be back in the same boat of not knowing what we have next offseason doesn't seem like good long term strategy. We came into spring training with 6 guys that pencil as 3-5 guys most of whom had at least 2 upside and our depth options (wink/criswell/walter/fitts) looked in line or better than most teams 7-10 guys. Since then we lost one starter to injury, all of crawford/houck/whitlock have looked far more like 3s than 5s, and criswell specifically has flashed enough that he would probably be getting a chance in several major league rotations. If our rotation really is snake-bitten and the rest of the team is good enough that we desperately need a 4th/5th starter to eat innings there's plenty of bad contracts (ex. Corbin) that we could probably take on and also get prospects back for. The post looking at games started by guys outside the top 5 is basically showing healthy rotation = good year unhealthy rotation = bad year, that's not really unique to the red sox (2019 being the exception because our previously good pitching staff imploded and still saw significant innings). The D-backs made the WS last year with only 2 good starting pitchers (I think our entire rotation slots in at 3 in their rotation) throwing money at JAGs isn't the solution to making this team better its just going to put us in the same place next year where we have a team of 2 WAR guys and no star power to get us to the next level. Houck/Whitlock/Crawford establishing themselves gives us either a cheap middle rotation so we can afford Fried/Burnes etc or extremely valuable trade chips for a higher caliber arm with less remaining control so that we can start addressing the talent concentration issue. If any of them or Bello turn into an ace given the opportunity then the problem solves itself. This is not a team that needs its floor raised, the difference between 69 and 72 wins is negligible and if enough things go wrong that we're worried about having Manea as a depth starter we aren't hitting our ceiling of 92-95 wins anyway.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 27, 2024 10:54:47 GMT -5
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? Do I think Whitlock and Houck have earned being unquestionable SPs for the 2024 Boston Red Sox? No I don't. I'm not saying I don't think they can succeed, I think they both definitely can but they both have enough warts that in my opinion it is fair to question whether they should have gone after another SP FA option to push one of them to the bullpen. Clearly they are going to both be in the rotation to start the year so hopefully it's more swim than sink for them. I think that if the Red Sox viewed it that way maybe Monty would have been an option but even more likely Winc would be starting in Worcester not relieving in Boston.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 27, 2024 11:02:20 GMT -5
I feel like the "The Red Sox don't need any more SP depth" side of this discussion is just assuming that all 6+ starters are created equal and automatically awful, rather than acknowledging that you can actually have a better rotation throughout the year by signing someone better - and while it may effect some players more than others, no, it doesn't automatically torpedo someone's season to switch between starting and relieving. I legitimately have never seen a "more than 5 potential MLB starting pitchers is too much pitching" argument before.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Mar 27, 2024 11:02:36 GMT -5
With regards to the thread, I am guessing Breslow gets the final call on extending Cora. Given the Sox track record with free agents who they let play out the season (and I'll lump Cora in this bucket), if he doesn't have a new contract before tonight's game, can we assume that Breslow is letting him walk, short of winning the World Series? Otherwise, he and the ownership group will likely be looking at topping Craig Counsel's $40m deal with the Cubs.
My only other thought is, at the end of the year, ownership offers — and Cora accepts — some kind of front office position. However, this would seem to make Breslow's seat a little warm, if not hot. I really don't anticipate the front office for Cora scenario occurring, but it's within the realm of possibility given how often we've been told the owners love Cora. Then again, they loved Theo, sooooo.....
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Mar 27, 2024 11:04:42 GMT -5
With regards to the thread, I am guessing Breslow gets the final call on extending Cora. Given the Sox track record with free agents who they let play out the season (and I'll lump Cora in this bucket), if he doesn't have a new contract before tonight's game, can we assume that Breslow is letting him walk, short of winning the World Series? Otherwise, he and the ownership group will likely be looking at topping Craig Counsel's $40m deal with the Cubs. My only other thought is, at the end of the year, ownership offers — and Cora accepts — some kind of front office position. However, this would seem to make Breslow's seat a little warm, if not hot. I really don't anticipate the front office for Cora scenario occurring, but it's within the realm of possibility given how often we've been told the owners love Cora. Then again, they loved Theo, sooooo..... Cora himself says he does not want to manage forever... its a stressful job
|
|
|
Post by chaimtime on Mar 27, 2024 11:05:58 GMT -5
So just to clarify, you're saying that both Whitlock and Houck should start the season in the pen? Who are the two unquestionable SPs they should have signed for those two spots? Own your argument, because it isn't making any sense given the timeline of events and who was available. No I'm not saying as of today that they should start the season in the pen, as of today they are clearly in the top 5 options to be SPs on opening day in the org. However at the beginning of the offseason I said that I wanted to see the Sox sign two SPs. Back then I was saying give me something like Montgomery and Giolito. They signed Giolito, obviously that didn't work out. They could have pretty easily signed Montgomery and made the money work to stay under the LT if that was the mission. What had Whitlock and Houck proven in their past as SPs to say that on day one of the offseason they should be penciled into the starting rotation at that moment?
I'm not the only one on this site that has this same thought that they should have signed one more SP so just because it "doesn't make sense" to you doesn't mean I'm out here on the ledge by myself. Tanner Houck has the same FIP- as a starting pitcher (so no bullpen innings mixed in to drive it down) as Jordan Montgomery since he debuted—86, for reference. The question marks about how deep he can go into games and just how many innings he can provide remain, but if they can help him settle into that sort of line while making one additional out per start, that sets him up for 155 innings of solidly above-average pitching over 30 starts. I think that’s an above-median outcome for him, but it’s not exactly a deluded fantasy to imagine him being slightly better than he’s been throughout his career going into his age-28 season.
|
|
|
Post by asm18 on Mar 27, 2024 11:14:29 GMT -5
That entire article is well worth the read... The comments on the article are a different story.. - “To me, it feels like, all right, let’s prove who we are quick. Let’s be ready to go. No using spring training to ramp up and get ready. We know what we can do. We know who we have in this clubhouse. We can show who we are right away. Kind of like a punch-people-in-the-mouth-early thing.” - Duran
- “I think if people aren’t laughing at your goals, they’re too low," - Casas
- “The goal is not ‘get better and see where we’re at. The goal is to win the World Series,” - Whitlock
F*** it - let's ride. Give me a team full of psychos in front of a crowd of Massholes, and I'll take take our chances.
|
|
|
Post by puzzler on Mar 27, 2024 11:15:06 GMT -5
With regards to the thread, I am guessing Breslow gets the final call on extending Cora. Given the Sox track record with free agents who they let play out the season (and I'll lump Cora in this bucket), if he doesn't have a new contract before tonight's game, can we assume that Breslow is letting him walk, short of winning the World Series? Otherwise, he and the ownership group will likely be looking at topping Craig Counsel's $40m deal with the Cubs. My only other thought is, at the end of the year, ownership offers — and Cora accepts — some kind of front office position. However, this would seem to make Breslow's seat a little warm, if not hot. I really don't anticipate the front office for Cora scenario occurring, but it's within the realm of possibility given how often we've been told the owners love Cora. Then again, they loved Theo, sooooo..... I agree that I'd put the odds of Cora returning the Red Sox in any capacity at no better than 5%. I like Cora as a manager - I think he manages the facing part of the job better than anyone in the game right now. The rest - he's good, but not great. I don't think he's worth $40m. I would not be shocked if Bailey is the manager, although he doesn't seem all that confident in front of the camera, so who knows. The only thing I wonder is whether there has even been a negotiation between Breslow and Cora - it could be that Cora just wants out after this season and so that wouldn't really be Breslow's call.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Mar 27, 2024 11:15:25 GMT -5
No I'm not saying as of today that they should start the season in the pen, as of today they are clearly in the top 5 options to be SPs on opening day in the org. However at the beginning of the offseason I said that I wanted to see the Sox sign two SPs. Back then I was saying give me something like Montgomery and Giolito. They signed Giolito, obviously that didn't work out. They could have pretty easily signed Montgomery and made the money work to stay under the LT if that was the mission. What had Whitlock and Houck proven in their past as SPs to say that on day one of the offseason they should be penciled into the starting rotation at that moment?
I'm not the only one on this site that has this same thought that they should have signed one more SP so just because it "doesn't make sense" to you doesn't mean I'm out here on the ledge by myself. Tanner Houck has the same FIP- as a starting pitcher (so no bullpen innings mixed in to drive it down) as Jordan Montgomery since he debuted—86, for reference. The question marks about how deep he can go into games and just how many innings he can provide remain, but if they can help him settle into that sort of line while making one additional out per start, that sets him up for 155 innings of solidly above-average pitching over 30 starts. I think that’s an above-median outcome for him, but it’s not exactly a deluded fantasy to imagine him being slightly better than he’s been throughout his career going into his age-28 season. In 41 career games as a SP Houck has pitched 198 innings. That's less than 5 IP per start. I am not saying that he outright doesn't deserve the chance to start but as you point out the question is can he last 6 innings a start because lasting 5 IP or less isn't really going to cut it long term as a SP. It's not as if 41 starts is a small sample size but I would concede that it's not as easy as just looking at the IP per start with Houck since they've kind of jerked him around between SP and bullpen so I do agree he could easily have another level/gear in him to become a viable SP if he is given enough rope as an SP. We'll find out this year one way or another by the looks of it.
|
|
|
Post by strike23 on Mar 27, 2024 11:25:26 GMT -5
I feel like the "The Red Sox don't need any more SP depth" side of this discussion is just assuming that all 6+ starters are created equal and automatically awful, rather than acknowledging that you can actually have a better rotation throughout the year by signing someone better - and while it may effect some players more than others, no, it doesn't automatically torpedo someone's season to switch between starting and relieving. I legitimately have never seen a "more than 5 potential MLB starting pitchers is too much pitching" argument before. It doesn't necessarily torpedo a guys season but it does generally prevent the player switching from establishing ownership of the rotation spot. Crawford is the perfect example of this, he posted a 4.03 ERA (with a 3.2 xERA and 3.8 FIP) and most of this board wanted him in the pen because he didn't go deep enough into games (this is what happens when you switch between roles, not automatically becoming a bad pitcher). We had a minimum of 6 legitimate MLB rotation arms coming into spring training with 4 interesting depth options, thats as good (or better) than most MLB teams, the reason we project to have the ~20th rotation is because we're missing the top end not the depth. Signing a high floor low ceiling guy to block a high ceiling low floor guy is how the problem gets perpetuated. Just look at Kluber last year as an example of how signing a back end guy can make the team worse.
|
|
|
Post by chaimtime on Mar 27, 2024 11:40:14 GMT -5
Tanner Houck has the same FIP- as a starting pitcher (so no bullpen innings mixed in to drive it down) as Jordan Montgomery since he debuted—86, for reference. The question marks about how deep he can go into games and just how many innings he can provide remain, but if they can help him settle into that sort of line while making one additional out per start, that sets him up for 155 innings of solidly above-average pitching over 30 starts. I think that’s an above-median outcome for him, but it’s not exactly a deluded fantasy to imagine him being slightly better than he’s been throughout his career going into his age-28 season. In 41 career games as a SP Houck has pitched 198 innings. That's less than 5 IP per start. I am not saying that he outright doesn't deserve the chance to start but as you point out the question is can he last 6 innings a start because lasting 5 IP or less isn't really going to cut it long term as a SP. It's not as if 41 starts is a small sample size but I would concede that it's not as easy as just looking at the IP per start with Houck since they've kind of jerked him around between SP and bullpen so I do agree he could easily have another level/gear in him to become a viable SP if he is given enough rope as an SP. We'll find out this year one way or another by the looks of it. There were only 105 pitchers who made 20+ starts and averaged 5+ innings per start last year, and Tanner Houck was one of them. Only 14 (by my count) of those averaged 6+ innings per start. Very few pitchers are good enough to be worth keeping in the game that late night in and night out. If 5ish innings per start is too few for your fourth and fifth starters then you’re going to have trouble filling out your rotation. If he gives them 16 outs/start, I’d be pleased. If he qualifies for the ERA title, I’d be ecstatic. My point isn’t that everything is fine and there’s no potential for things to go badly. It’s more that, when you get into debates about the fifth starter on a team you’re getting into really marginal stuff, and I don’t think the guys who are on the team are getting enough credit for what they can provide compared to the alternatives.
|
|
|
Post by strike23 on Mar 27, 2024 11:41:15 GMT -5
Tanner Houck has the same FIP- as a starting pitcher (so no bullpen innings mixed in to drive it down) as Jordan Montgomery since he debuted—86, for reference. The question marks about how deep he can go into games and just how many innings he can provide remain, but if they can help him settle into that sort of line while making one additional out per start, that sets him up for 155 innings of solidly above-average pitching over 30 starts. I think that’s an above-median outcome for him, but it’s not exactly a deluded fantasy to imagine him being slightly better than he’s been throughout his career going into his age-28 season. In 41 career games as a SP Houck has pitched 198 innings. That's less than 5 IP per start. I am not saying that he outright doesn't deserve the chance to start but as you point out the question is can he last 6 innings a start because lasting 5 IP or less isn't really going to cut it long term as a SP. It's not as if 41 starts is a small sample size but I would concede that it's not as easy as just looking at the IP per start with Houck since they've kind of jerked him around between SP and bullpen so I do agree he could easily have another level/gear in him to become a viable SP if he is given enough rope as an SP. We'll find out this year one way or another by the looks of it. in '20 he managed 5 2/3 as a pure starter in a very small sample, in '21 and '22 he was jerked around so I'm ignoring them then in '23 he was at ~5 1/3 per start pre injury and ~4 2/3 per start after the injury averaging over 5 for the full season. Very very few guys average 6 IP per start in today's game, if he can average 5 1/3 to 5 2/3 at his existing rate he's a more than viable 4. Coming off a healthy offseason and not being jerked around makes that feel achievable.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Mar 27, 2024 11:41:40 GMT -5
The point I feel keeps getting missed is this:
If the Red Sox signed another starter Houck and Whitlock both very very likely still would have opportunities to start this year because pitchers get hurt, or you run a 6 man rotation for some stretch.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Mar 27, 2024 11:47:10 GMT -5
With regards to the thread, I am guessing Breslow gets the final call on extending Cora. Given the Sox track record with free agents who they let play out the season (and I'll lump Cora in this bucket), if he doesn't have a new contract before tonight's game, can we assume that Breslow is letting him walk, short of winning the World Series? Otherwise, he and the ownership group will likely be looking at topping Craig Counsel's $40m deal with the Cubs. My only other thought is, at the end of the year, ownership offers — and Cora accepts — some kind of front office position. However, this would seem to make Breslow's seat a little warm, if not hot. I really don't anticipate the front office for Cora scenario occurring, but it's within the realm of possibility given how often we've been told the owners love Cora. Then again, they loved Theo, sooooo..... Cora himself says he does not want to manage forever... its a stressful job If Roberts or Boone wind up getting fired it wouldn't be that tough to imagine Cora managing in LA or NY for about 5 years before eventually getting a front office gig. In my opinion/guess either Jason Varitek or David Ross will wind up the manager of the Red Sox in 2025.
|
|
|
Post by chaimtime on Mar 27, 2024 11:55:38 GMT -5
Really great AMA with Speier today—sheds some insight on Breslow, what the team is working on organizationally, and the offseason as a whole:
https://www.reddit.com/r/redsox/comments/1boo41k/ama_im_alex_speier_a_sports_reporter_for_the/
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Mar 27, 2024 11:55:49 GMT -5
The point I feel keeps getting missed is this: If the Red Sox signed another starter Houck and Whitlock both very very likely still would have opportunities to start this year because pitchers get hurt, or you run a 6 man rotation for some stretch. Guys who aren't accustomed to throwing a lot of innings do hit the proverbial wall at some point and sometimes benefit from some down time. as well. You're not going to get the 2004 Red Sox where each guy took their turn each time plus provided innings.
|
|
|
Post by chaimtime on Mar 27, 2024 12:28:09 GMT -5
The point I feel keeps getting missed is this: If the Red Sox signed another starter Houck and Whitlock both very very likely still would have opportunities to start this year because pitchers get hurt, or you run a 6 man rotation for some stretch. I won’t speak for anyone else, but I just don’t think that’s a very good development plan for two guys who have the potential to play very large roles for the next great Red Sox team, either as a cost-controlled member of the rotation or as a key piece in a major trade. If you’re displacing them with a guy who has 4-WAR upside (like Giolito) that’s one thing, but for another back-end guy it doesn’t make sense to me. In a year where they’re on the outside looking in, it’s just another reason why making such a marginal move doesn’t inspire me very much. Give them the opportunity to well and truly fail and figure it out at the trade deadline if you need to. They’re in a good position to take risks, and this is one of the higher upside gambles they’re making.
|
|
|
Post by Smittyw on Mar 27, 2024 12:39:01 GMT -5
I have no issue with Houck and Whitlock starting, because I think the org needs to figure out what they have in those guys and whether they can be reliable starting contributors once and for all, but I think it needs acknowledging that
1) This absolutely was not the plan coming into the offseason. All of ownership/the FO's own statements indicated that they wanted and intended to add additional starters, they just failed to execute on that for whatever reason. Pretending that there was nothing, absolutely nothing, that could have been done to upgrade the rotation other than signing Giolito and, I guess, Criswell is just disingenuous.
2) We're left with paper-thin depth in the near-certain event that one or more of our starting five go down with injury at some point, which is incompatible with the stated goal of building a contending team in 2024.
|
|
|
Post by yuchangclan on Mar 27, 2024 12:41:52 GMT -5
With regards to the thread, I am guessing Breslow gets the final call on extending Cora. Given the Sox track record with free agents who they let play out the season (and I'll lump Cora in this bucket), if he doesn't have a new contract before tonight's game, can we assume that Breslow is letting him walk, short of winning the World Series? Otherwise, he and the ownership group will likely be looking at topping Craig Counsel's $40m deal with the Cubs. My only other thought is, at the end of the year, ownership offers — and Cora accepts — some kind of front office position. However, this would seem to make Breslow's seat a little warm, if not hot. I really don't anticipate the front office for Cora scenario occurring, but it's within the realm of possibility given how often we've been told the owners love Cora. Then again, they loved Theo, sooooo..... I agree that I'd put the odds of Cora returning the Red Sox in any capacity at no better than 5%. I like Cora as a manager - I think he manages the facing part of the job better than anyone in the game right now. The rest - he's good, but not great. I don't think he's worth $40m. I would not be shocked if Bailey is the manager, although he doesn't seem all that confident in front of the camera, so who knows. The only thing I wonder is whether there has even been a negotiation between Breslow and Cora - it could be that Cora just wants out after this season and so that wouldn't really be Breslow's call. $40m for Alex Cora…to manage? Absolutely not. I think he’s a pretty good manager overall, but he’s still unproven when not able to bang on trash cans and steal signs via video. Why not make Varitek the manager for 1/2 of that and put the rest into the roster? There’s a novel idea. Also, has Cora shown anything to make you believe he’d be an asset in a front office? I can’t say he has. I’m fine letting him walk after this season.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Mar 27, 2024 12:57:10 GMT -5
The writing feels like it is on the wall in regards to Cora. If I was a betting man I would bet just about all I have that this will be Cora's final season as the Sox manager. Based off some of his comments in the past and some reports I saw I would expect him to seek out a job in a front office. I don't think that will be in Boston since it would almost seem to undermine Breslow but who knows, ownership does seem to love him for some reason so maybe they would force Breslow's hand. Breslow has said that he plans to hire a GM to work under him at some point so could that end up being Cora? Perhaps but I wouldn't bet on him making the jump from manager to GM in one year even if the GM role with this org is more of a de facto GM and the organization as a whole would still be under Breslow's purview.
|
|
|