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.
Will the Red Sox add a front line starter for 2025?
|
Post by incandenza on Aug 17, 2024 13:55:40 GMT -5
Read the comments on this page to find out!
I'd be happy with Fried if it's on a reasonable contract. I'm having a Montgomery redux experience with Burnes: the more I look at the numbers the warier I get.
Burnes savant page might set your mind at ease baseballsavant.mlb.com/savant-player/corbin-burnes-669203?stats=statcast-r-pitching-mlbIt's about as red as you can get. Doesn't really compare to Montgomery who had great 2023 results but the underlying numbers are all kind of meh (except for his BB rate). That is a different perspective. Makes me wonder how he can have so much red yet be only 27th out of 61 qualified starters in FIP, 11th by xERA, 32nd by K/9, etc.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 17, 2024 14:45:19 GMT -5
That is a different perspective. Makes me wonder how he can have so much red yet be only 27th out of 61 qualified starters in FIP, 11th by xERA, 32nd by K/9, etc. He's got a weird thing going on where his whiff rate is pretty good but his K rate is kind of average. Not saying this is the correct answer, but you could go glass half-full and say that is an anomaly that is temporarily killing his k/9 and FIP this year. Yes. Honestly whis been better of the past few years including this year? And durability matters. He's pitching 180 innings plus. Other guys with better rates probably aren't throwing much more than 150 innings. He has been reliable and effective Meanwhile the Sox 2 best pitchers who had comparable results have smashed into the innings wall pretty hard. Being able to give 180 strong innings matter.
|
|
|
Post by nonothing on Aug 17, 2024 14:51:36 GMT -5
I think Burnes has a reasonable shot at 300 million, as in 8 years @ 37.5 million per year. If Sasaki isnt being posted, he is clearly the best combination of being the best pitcher and the most durable. Durability does matter. Sure, he could go Giolito at any minute, but so far so good. He will not likely be taking a hometown discount. He will be getting paid. At some point whatever deal he signs will likely be an albatross, but the question is how many good to great years will you get from him and how many seasons does that help them go to and/or win the LCS or World Series? You play to win championships, not to have the most statistically efficient payrolls. I'm not saying be irresponsible with the payroll, but I'm saying if you have financial advantages use it. Some team will. Unless of course, Bora$ absolutely has to Bora$ and makes demands so ridiculous (like 40 million plus per year long term) that Burnes is still unsigned come spring training, and doesnt get signed until nearly April, and then we can watch how having no spring training screws with his health and productivity. Don't know if that's the path Burnes will permit Bora$ to go, where Bora$ overplays his hand. But in normal circumstances I would anticipate that the market yields around 300 million for him. Unless you see a better free agent up ahead (Sasaki,but is he LA bound?) Or are willing to trade guys who could become cheap superstars for a young pitcher of a limited record of track success who will only be under control for about 2 or 3 years and then will want their 300 million if they dont get hurt or flop, then I'd say give Burnes his money unless Bora$ pulls the crap that he is prone to do. My fallback position would be Fried or Eovaldi. I don't think Burnes will stay unsigned until April. I think teams showed they won't fall Boras' so scarce commodity you need to hugely overpay a guy who is not likely to prove amazing going forward argument. If it doesn't happen by Feb, I imagine he drops his price and signs that month. It will not get better March and beyond. Teams make decisions, and you lose bidders for his game. After Burnes speak with Montgomery and Snell, I would be shocked if he allows that tactic to play out. If he gets offered 6x40 or 8x30, he ain't turning down $240M. No one is paying $300M. I think the question is whether he turns down 6x $30 = 180M (probably something he could command), hoping to get 6x $35 or 7x $30M = $210. I think Boras will want him to land north of the David Price deal. But he isn't left-handed, and I think injury risk is being priced in more heavily now than it used to be. But I think the question is $180ish, $210ish or $240ish for Burnes? I would not want to be over the $180ish mark for him and would then pref if it were a yr deal, that it could have a year added in case of major injury as with the Sale deal. I don't see Burnes/Boras going for that. So for that reason, fellow sharks... I am out on Burnes (well before $300M).
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Aug 17, 2024 16:28:38 GMT -5
Re: the Burnes vs. Montgomery comparison, I get it, but the difference in Burnes' age, current performance, and past success sets him on a whole other level. I agree there's a concerning trend in some of the metrics, but with Montgomery you could see him turning into a guy who wasn't able to get MLB hitters out if things went wrong, whereas if Burnes falls to his floor he starts to look like, what, Nathan Eovaldi? Not someone I want to give a mega contract to but I don't see him being a complete disaster in terms of performance.
If the Sox choose to sign Burnes to any realistically possible contract, its really hard for me to imagine being angry about it - may not love it, may think its an overpay, but unless Breslow trades the big 3 for relief pitching or something, they should have enough cheap talent for the next few years to absorb the cost without too much trouble.
If the Sox choose to trade for pitching, the following offseason would be a better time than this upcoming one, in terms of them having a better idea of who to make available, I think.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Aug 17, 2024 19:57:52 GMT -5
Re: the Burnes vs. Montgomery comparison, I get it, but the difference in Burnes' age, current performance, and past success sets him on a whole other level. I agree there's a concerning trend in some of the metrics, but with Montgomery you could see him turning into a guy who wasn't able to get MLB hitters out if things went wrong, whereas if Burnes falls to his floor he starts to look like, what, Nathan Eovaldi? Not someone I want to give a mega contract to but I don't see him being a complete disaster in terms of performance. If the Sox choose to sign Burnes to any realistically possible contract, its really hard for me to imagine being angry about it - may not love it, may think its an overpay, but unless Breslow trades the big 3 for relief pitching or something, they should have enough cheap talent for the next few years to absorb the cost without too much trouble. If the Sox choose to trade for pitching, the following offseason would be a better time than this upcoming one, in terms of them having a better idea of who to make available, I think. Another thing I like about Burnes is in his career September has generally been the month where he has been at his best. Oddly August has usually been his worst month. The running on empty by September type SP has never appealed to me. I don't remotely see the Montgomery comparison. Snell is intriguing but the number of walks is concerning. That type of pitcher is going to do much better with the Yankees or Rays until we get fully automated balls and strikes. Which is yet another plus for Burnes as he barely walks anyone.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Aug 17, 2024 20:01:03 GMT -5
I also don't see $300m for Burnes. I'd love to make him choose between 7/$172m, or even 6/$210m, and 2/$95m ...
|
|
|
Post by nonothing on Aug 17, 2024 21:19:28 GMT -5
Re: the Burnes vs. Montgomery comparison, I get it, but the difference in Burnes' age, current performance, and past success sets him on a whole other level. I agree there's a concerning trend in some of the metrics, but with Montgomery you could see him turning into a guy who wasn't able to get MLB hitters out if things went wrong, whereas if Burnes falls to his floor he starts to look like, what, Nathan Eovaldi? Not someone I want to give a mega contract to but I don't see him being a complete disaster in terms of performance. If the Sox choose to sign Burnes to any realistically possible contract, its really hard for me to imagine being angry about it - may not love it, may think its an overpay, but unless Breslow trades the big 3 for relief pitching or something, they should have enough cheap talent for the next few years to absorb the cost without too much trouble. If the Sox choose to trade for pitching, the following offseason would be a better time than this upcoming one, in terms of them having a better idea of who to make available, I think. I would rather they trade for Eovaldi than sign Burnes.
|
|
|
Post by nonothing on Aug 17, 2024 21:28:47 GMT -5
I also don't see $300m for Burnes. I'd love to make him choose between 7/$172m, or even 6/$210m, and 2/$95m ... I would take 6/210 over 2/95, but 2/95 over 7/172. I wouldn't give you 5 more yrs for only $77M. But I would give you 4 more yrs for 115M. But I don't see him getting 2/95 offered. Maybe somebody would do 2/85 at most, and I think he would take a 6+ yr deal (which I do think will be offered to him) for $200M ballpark ($170-250M range) over a 2 yr deal for under $100M when he could get hurt and never pitch again (not him more than anyone else, but a real risk for every pitcher, every year).
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 18, 2024 1:06:36 GMT -5
Re: the Burnes vs. Montgomery comparison, I get it, but the difference in Burnes' age, current performance, and past success sets him on a whole other level. I agree there's a concerning trend in some of the metrics, but with Montgomery you could see him turning into a guy who wasn't able to get MLB hitters out if things went wrong, whereas if Burnes falls to his floor he starts to look like, what, Nathan Eovaldi? Not someone I want to give a mega contract to but I don't see him being a complete disaster in terms of performance. If the Sox choose to sign Burnes to any realistically possible contract, its really hard for me to imagine being angry about it - may not love it, may think its an overpay, but unless Breslow trades the big 3 for relief pitching or something, they should have enough cheap talent for the next few years to absorb the cost without too much trouble. If the Sox choose to trade for pitching, the following offseason would be a better time than this upcoming one, in terms of them having a better idea of who to make available, I think. I would rather they trade for Eovaldi than sign Burnes. I think they wouldnt have to as I believe he will be a free agent this winter
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Aug 18, 2024 1:42:57 GMT -5
Burnes is probably going to get 7/8 years 280M or there abouts. There's almost 0 chance that he signs some sort of high AAV deal for 2/3 years.
|
|
|
Post by nonothing on Aug 18, 2024 8:54:50 GMT -5
I would rather they trade for Eovaldi than sign Burnes. I think they woukdnt have to as I believe he will be a free agent this winter I meant if he picked up the option, I would even do that before Burnes. But yes, think signing Eovaldi back for short deal if FA is obviously even better and would be better than signing Burnes.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Aug 18, 2024 8:54:59 GMT -5
Burnes is probably going to get 7/8 years 280M or there abouts. There's almost 0 chance that he signs some sort of high AAV deal for 2/3 years. Yeah he's 29 not 38. Not to mention he's been super durable particularly considering he gives a team 200 inning a year.
|
|
|
Post by nonothing on Aug 18, 2024 8:56:18 GMT -5
Burnes is probably going to get 7/8 years 280M or there abouts. There's almost 0 chance that he signs some sort of high AAV deal for 2/3 years. Agree on back half. Who do you think would pay 280 for him? I am not saying impossible, but I cannot think of a fit for team with spending capacity to do it. The Giants?
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Aug 18, 2024 8:59:51 GMT -5
Burnes is probably going to get 7/8 years 280M or there abouts. There's almost 0 chance that he signs some sort of high AAV deal for 2/3 years. Agree on back half. Who do you think would pay 280 for him? I am not saying impossible, but I cannot think of a fit for team with spending capacity to do it. The Giants? I'm not going to guess who would give him that type of deal I'm just saying that I've seen a few FA projections that had him getting something in that range. Perhaps it's a bit on the high side but he's certainly going to get paid a hefty deal.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 18, 2024 9:08:18 GMT -5
Burnes is probably going to get 7/8 years 280M or there abouts. There's almost 0 chance that he signs some sort of high AAV deal for 2/3 years. Agreed, what is worrisome is that Boras plays this damn stall game that even if it doesnt go into March or April it would likely be late Jan or the first half of Feb just before spring training so that if they dont pounce on one of their fallback positions first, like bringing back Eovaldi (I would think he would be amenable to coming back) or Fried, they then risk getting nobody of significance and then not even winding up with Burnes if one of Jon Heyman's mystery teams sweeps in to sign him. I think they almost have to make him a big offer if they want him rather than waiting out Boras hoping the price falls, an exploding offer, in a way, although knowing Boras he would turn it down and shoo it through his mouthpiece Heyman, but at least the Sox would put their best foot forward. They definitely need to upgrade and Pivetta's spot is the most obvious area as Pivetta is what he is, a decent innings eater, who will never have the consistency of a front line starter. Personally, I'd love to see the 2025 rotation feature 2 of Burnes, Fried, or Eovaldi, assuming Roki Sasaki is not being posted), but the presence of Gioloito complicates things. I was hoping 2024 would be one and done so they can upgrade on both his and Pivetta's spot in the rotation. Instead, with this injury, they're bound to Giolito for 2025 and have to hope that being healthy equals being effective, so all they can do is upgrade from the consistently inconsistent Pivetta and hope Houck, Crawford, and Bello continue to take strides forward.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 18, 2024 9:14:08 GMT -5
Burnes is probably going to get 7/8 years 280M or there abouts. There's almost 0 chance that he signs some sort of high AAV deal for 2/3 years. Agree on back half. Who do you think would pay 280 for him? I am not saying impossible, but I cannot think of a fit for team with spending capacity to do it. The Giants? The Orioles have new ownership with money to spend. The Mets have the money. The Dodgers always find a way. The Giants could. The Red Sox could. The Astros could surprise or even the Rangers. The Padres find ways to acquire big ticket items. And yeah, the team that's always tapped out, the Yankees, always seem to find money to spend. While doubtful I'd even put the Cardinals, Cubs, or even the Diamondbacks on the list. Corbin Burnes will have suitors and I think 1 or 2 of those teams will offer to drop 275 - 300 million to get him.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Aug 18, 2024 9:30:39 GMT -5
Agree on back half. Who do you think would pay 280 for him? I am not saying impossible, but I cannot think of a fit for team with spending capacity to do it. The Giants? I'm not going to guess who would give him that type of deal I'm just saying that I've seen a few FA projections that had him getting something in that range. Perhaps it's a bit on the high side but he's certainly going to get paid a hefty deal. My opinion salaries are just going to get more and more insane. Might as well get ahead of the curve as Brad Stevens did with the Celtics. Salaries which look high now won't look so high (relatively) in a couple of years. MLB will probably fiddle with the current system to accommodate teams like the Yankees and Dodgers who are already over current CBT threshold.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Aug 18, 2024 9:36:52 GMT -5
I'm not going to guess who would give him that type of deal I'm just saying that I've seen a few FA projections that had him getting something in that range. Perhaps it's a bit on the high side but he's certainly going to get paid a hefty deal. My opinion salaries are just going to get more and more insane. Might as well get ahead of the curve as Brad Stevens did with the Celtics. Salaries which look high now won't look so high (relatively) in a couple of years. MLB will probably fiddle with the current system to accommodate teams like the Yankees and Dodgers who are already over current CBT threshold. I don't see the MLB doing the dodgers,Yankees or anyone else who blows by the CBT any favors. If anything I feel like they'll make things harsher for CBT offenders. Those small market teams aren't going to vote to help big market teams.
|
|
|
Post by awalkinthepark on Aug 18, 2024 9:45:24 GMT -5
I sort of find it hard to believe that the Red Sox would hire Craig Breslow with the specific task of creating a pitcher dev system and then turn around and hand out a 9 figure deal to a pitcher over 30. Those 2 things don't mesh to me.
I could definitely see them going after Walker Buehler this offseason, but as far as a big impact arm the only thing that makes sense to me is a trade.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 18, 2024 9:56:56 GMT -5
I sort of find it hard to believe that the Red Sox would hire Craig Breslow with the specific task of creating a pitcher dev system and then turn around and hand out a 9 figure deal to a pitcher over 30. Those 2 things don't mesh to me. I could definitely see them going after Walker Buehler this offseason, but as far as a big impact arm the only thing that makes sense to me is a trade. I dont think one precludes the other. It takes time to develop a pitching organization. What do they do while waiting? 2nd/3rd tier options and dumpster diving and always be short front line pitching while waiting? Dump needed blue chip positional prospects? I dont think it makes sense to cut off all avenues, especially one that allows the team to hang on to their top prospects.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Aug 18, 2024 11:05:16 GMT -5
Maybe I'm wrong but as a fan I 100 percent expect they at least spend as much in 2025 as they did in 2024. If that's the case that gives them 60-70M to spend. I could argue they don't need much if any offensive players other than an O'Neill replacement. I'd say they can probably get one of those for 10ish million. So that leaves 50-60M to spend on pitching and possibly extensions. Throw 35-40 of that at burnes or fried and then go get bullpen help with the rest.
That's just my opinion/recipe for them to jump into the tier of true contender instead of fringe contender.
|
|
|
Post by nonothing on Aug 18, 2024 22:41:14 GMT -5
Agree on back half. Who do you think would pay 280 for him? I am not saying impossible, but I cannot think of a fit for team with spending capacity to do it. The Giants? The Orioles have new ownership with money to spend. The Mets have the money. The Dodgers always find a way. The Giants could. The Red Sox could. The Astros could surprise or even the Rangers. The Padres find ways to acquire big ticket items. And yeah, the team that's always tapped out, the Yankees, always seem to find money to spend. While doubtful I'd even put the Cardinals, Cubs, or even the Diamondbacks on the list. Corbin Burnes will have suitors and I think 1 or 2 of those teams will offer to drop 275 - 300 million to get him. I will take the under on that prediction. Fun to see what happens either way, but I think he is not getting $100M more than Nola.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxpride34 on Aug 19, 2024 16:05:05 GMT -5
Maybe I'm wrong but as a fan I 100 percent expect they at least spend as much in 2025 as they did in 2024. If that's the case that gives them 60-70M to spend. I could argue they don't need much if any offensive players other than an O'Neill replacement. I'd say they can probably get one of those for 10ish million. So that leaves 50-60M to spend on pitching and possibly extensions. Throw 35-40 of that at burnes or fried and then go get bullpen help with the rest. That's just my opinion/recipe for them to jump into the tier of true contender instead of fringe contender. Agree and I think they should be spending above what they did this year as with the right moves the team could absolutely be a contender. The way the roster is looking for 2025 there are very clear needs. They should have plenty of money to spend on those needs with all of the young/cheap players currently on the roster and those that will be making the jump soon. They should be at the front of the line for Corbin Burnes. They should also be in contact with Juan Soto. The trade market is where they can look for pen help. The back end could use some significant help. Jansen and Martin are both FA's/old. I would not trust 36 yr Liam Hendriks to close next year. Him and Whitlock should be the set-up guys. Slaten just behind them. Outside of those 3 there isnt really any other locks. Closer and lefty reliever are the biggest needs. Mason Miller should be a target. Maybe a Devin Williams.
|
|
|
Post by nonothing on Aug 19, 2024 20:47:14 GMT -5
Maybe I'm wrong but as a fan I 100 percent expect they at least spend as much in 2025 as they did in 2024. If that's the case that gives them 60-70M to spend. I could argue they don't need much if any offensive players other than an O'Neill replacement. I'd say they can probably get one of those for 10ish million. So that leaves 50-60M to spend on pitching and possibly extensions. Throw 35-40 of that at burnes or fried and then go get bullpen help with the rest. That's just my opinion/recipe for them to jump into the tier of true contender instead of fringe contender. Agree and I think they should be spending above what they did this year as with the right moves the team could absolutely be a contender. The way the roster is looking for 2025 there are very clear needs. They should have plenty of money to spend on those needs with all of the young/cheap players currently on the roster and those that will be making the jump soon. They should be at the front of the line for Corbin Burnes. They should also be in contact with Juan Soto. The trade market is where they can look for pen help. The back end could use some significant help. Jansen and Martin are both FA's/old. I would not trust 36 yr Liam Hendriks to close next year. Him and Whitlock should be the set-up guys. Slaten just behind them. Outside of those 3 there isnt really any other locks. Closer and lefty reliever are the biggest needs. Mason Miller should be a target. Maybe a Devin Williams. If they have the players to get Miller, they should use them for a starter. They don't need to spend huge prospect capital on a guy who throws 70IP. They need one who throws 180+ IP.
|
|
|
Post by keninten on Aug 19, 2024 21:32:34 GMT -5
I`d only trade for Miller thinking of him as a SP. Which is a completely different debate. Oakland will probably put him in the rotation next year to increase his value. So I don`t think he`ll be traded this winter unless it`s for an outrageous price.
|
|
|