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.
Recent Posts
|
Post by dcb26 on Apr 1, 2024 22:33:14 GMT -5
You weren't here for the years he spent threatening to move the team because of how "cheap" the State was being in not building him a new Stadium, were you? For reference, he battled the State for years for public money, and eventually signed an agreement to move the team to Hartford, before the NFL stepped in and brought he and the State back to the negotiating table, settling on a deal that led to the NFL contributing and the State paying a large chunk for infrastructure improvements all around the stadium, while he paid for the stadium itself. Neither Kraft nor the State came out of that looking very good. (Note, this has nothing to do with my thoughts on the Patriots annual spending, which I do not have a strong feeling or opinion on) archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/sports/football/120498fbn-pats-stadium.htmlDo you have more information on Kraft battling for more money? From day one I see he was going to pay for the Stadium, Boston couldn't get it passed in South Boston. There was also some mega stadium with Red Sox that again the people voted down. He turned down "biggest give away in sports history " A new stadium paid for by CT, rent free, 17.5 million a year for unsold luxury boxes, pay teams insurance, catering rights to UConn home games, new $15 million practice facility, infrastructure improvements and CT pays for all major repairs. To get from what I see as $75 million for infrastructure improvements from Massachusetts, while Kraft pays 100% for his own stadium. No articles. My recollection is that the earlier proposals (I believe one was somewhere in South Boston, there were others but I don't recall any specifics) were asking for public money, but by the time the proposal in Foxboro was put forward Kraft would pay for the Stadium and the State for the infrastructure upgrades to support it. Which was rejected by the State, which seemed to be more about political posturing than any kind of sound logic. About the only thing I'd disagree with is the notion that Kraft wouldn't have moved the team to Hartford - as far as I know nobody but Kraft knows for sure if that was ultimately a bluff (and these days he's certainly quick to imply that the team was never leaving MA) but he definitely seemed serious about it at the time, signed all the papers etc. Clearing the site was delayed, which gave the NFL time to get involved and reopen negotiations between Kraft and the State, which ultimately led to the current setup. I'm not trying to call Kraft cheap, just pushing back on the idea of him as this purely benevolent force for Patriots fans - life was pretty miserable for a few years there as a Pats fan wondering what would happen to the team. Edit Add: took a very quick look and found this www.si.com/nfl/2017/01/23/nfl-new-england-patriots-abandoned-move-hartford-connecticut - didn't read it word for word but while it barely discusses the earlier negotiations between Kraft and the State it does have some background on the potential move to Hartford and how that was avoided.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Apr 1, 2024 21:02:06 GMT -5
Kraft paid for Gillette himself and didn’t make us foot the bill as taxpayers, he ain’t cheap. We wouldn’t have a local football team with the history it does without him You know how many scumbag billionaire owners make taxpayers pay for their construction projects? Most of em You weren't here for the years he spent threatening to move the team because of how "cheap" the State was being in not building him a new Stadium, were you? For reference, he battled the State for years for public money, and eventually signed an agreement to move the team to Hartford, before the NFL stepped in and brought he and the State back to the negotiating table, settling on a deal that led to the NFL contributing and the State paying a large chunk for infrastructure improvements all around the stadium, while he paid for the stadium itself. Neither Kraft nor the State came out of that looking very good. (Note, this has nothing to do with my thoughts on the Patriots annual spending, which I do not have a strong feeling or opinion on)
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 30, 2024 12:27:16 GMT -5
To add to the above: Winckowski is 25, he has a little over one year of MLB experience. That's the type of situation he needs to learn how to deal with. There are going to be some uncomfortable moments when dealing with a team largely comprised of young and/or unproven players. Let's hope most of them go as well as this.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 30, 2024 12:22:52 GMT -5
I understand that every time a reliever gives up a run it's because the manager is an idiot. But Winckowski didn't even give up a run! He was looking absolutely nasty. Then he lost the zone *a little bit* and walked two guys (one of whom was Julio Rodriguez, where a walk is not the worst imaginable outcome). And then he got out of it. Not every run is the manager’s fault. That’s a great straw man argument though. Frankly runs allowed is not even the best measure of a pitcher’s effectiveness. The simply fact is that many reliever’s effectiveness results from short outings. Relievers become less effective as their pitch count improves. Winckowski demonstrated same last night, which became obvious to those watching live, to Youkilis, and the M’s who stopped chasing. And it wasn’t simply missing the zone, the M’s hit every ball in they hit hard, as his command was gone. Just because something works out does not mean it was a smart decision. You can Swim in a shark tank without getting bit, that doesn’t mean it’s a smart decision. Winckowski demonstrated perfectly why he is not in the rotation, his effectiveness decreases as his pitch count increases. Winckowski has been successful as a multi-inning reliever, he was stretched out through most of spring training so pitching multiple innings isn't anything new, and he and Cora have both talked about how his role in the bullpen is likely to be as a multi-inning guy. I personally would have liked to have had someone warming behind Winckowski after he had a couple of guys on base, but I can accept a rationalization of "by the time they would have been ready to get in the game, things would have been a lot worse anyway." It's game two, this prevents them from taxing other players, and gets Winckowski into his intended role. There will be plenty of legitimate reasons to complain about the managing, I don't see this as one of them. For the record, I would have liked to see someone pinch running for McGuire - also would like to see Abreu at some point, but I can see how there weren't a lot of great opportunities to throw him in last night.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 28, 2024 15:25:49 GMT -5
When Pedro was his age he wasn't yet Pedro 1.0. I'm NOT saying Bello is ever going to be anything like Pedro, but to me he looks like he's still got another gear or two he can reach, and has both the control and the stuff to have a good chance to get there. When Pedro was 25, he was 17-8, 1.90 with 13 CG for the Expos in his fourth full season in the bigs. He had 305 K in 241.1 IP and gave up 158 hits. He received 25 of 28 CY votes to take home his first trophy and Lou Gorman was impressed enough to send Carl Pavano and Tony Armas to Montreal to acquire him. Here's hoping Bello enjoys a similar 25-yo season, without the subsequent trade. Yup this upcoming season would be the huge breakout season if Bello is in fact an exact Pedro Martinez clone. Again, he isn't, and hopefully nobody expects him to be. Only point is that Pedro changed a lot between ages 24 and 27, as do most players, so I think it's reasonable to expect the Bello we've seen to this point isn't all that he can become.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 28, 2024 9:15:21 GMT -5
Boras got Correa a one-year deal on a not especially high AAV, which backfired on Correa but worked out great for Boras, who was able to take a big commission on the long-term contract Correa eventually did sign after having switched agents. The whole Correa thing is Exhibit A of how Boras places his own interests ahead of his clients'. I mean, it backfired if there was a larger deal out there for Correa than the sum of that one-year deal and then the long-term one he ended up signing. Do we know that? (honest question.) It also seems likely to me that even before that one-year deal there were questions about his health and how he would hold up which impacted his value. At any rate I was referring to the deal you referenced in your post, as by that point the medical situation was definitely known to all teams
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 28, 2024 9:02:36 GMT -5
82-80. Duking it out with TB for 4th. We look a little like the Sox of the late 1950s-early 1960s to me. We'll be fun to watch offensively, but is our pitching staff any better this year? Achilles. Bello is not Pedro 2.0. I watched 2 of his spring games in person. His FB was mostly 93-95... Middling these days...good secondaries. On what team would he be #1? As an aside, if the Yankees don't win it this year after all that additional spending and Cap penalties...wondrous ear splitting primal screams will emanate from the Big Apple. When Pedro was his age he wasn't yet Pedro 1.0. I'm NOT saying Bello is ever going to be anything like Pedro, but to me he looks like he's still got another gear or two he can reach, and has both the control and the stuff to have a good chance to get there.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 28, 2024 8:51:48 GMT -5
Fangraphs did their crowd source free agent predictions thing in 4 of the last 5 seasons (not 2022 for some reason). The crowd usually has the right general idea but reliably underestimates the final contracts. 26 times they've projected a contract of more than $70 million, and only 6 times have they overestimated: Dallas Keuchel (2020): projected 70.4 million; actual 55.5 million Carlos Correa (2023): 256 million/200 million Cody Bellinger (2024): 144 million/80 million Blake Snell (2024): 125 million/62 million Jordan Montgomery (2024): 105 million/25 million Matt Chapman (2024): 80 million/54 million Every one of those guys is a Boras client. But he also got some of biggest overpays in that time period, like Bogaerts and Cole. He takes a high-risk approach, which benefits him, since he can spread the risk around; and sometimes it works out for his clients. But he has a much higher failure rate than any other agent. You could say he's really the only agent, in fact, who's screwed up the job of getting a good deal for top-tier free agents, and he's done it a number of times
I definitely think this bears watching going forward, as the 2024 contracts are hard to ignore - will be interesting to see if this continues in future offseasons, is it just Boras clients, etc. - but prior to this year I don't really see it. Correa had obvious extenuating circumstances and at least personally I was shocked he got as much as he did when all was said and done. Coming 15 million short of Dallas Keuchel's crowd-source projection doesn't seem all that damming to me, especially in light of the huge deals Boras clients *have* signed in the past few years. I'll admit I'm biased in the sense that I have felt for a long time that people have been desperate to generate ways to minimize Boras' accomplishments as an agent rather than just accepting how he operates, so maybe my perception is a bit skewed here. I would love to know how other agents feel about things at this point - glad to see their top competitor knocked down a peg, or worried that this is going to be a universal practice going forward?
|
|
|
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 dcb26 on Mar 24, 2024 19:23:40 GMT -5
I think the long-term prospects for the organization are stronger than last year, but that the team in the majors this year is a little worse. That said, I'll predict 83 wins as I think last year's record was influenced by excessive bad luck, excessive underperformance, and the manager quitting on the team with a month and a half left in the season. There is a lot that *could* go right this year, which should make them fun to root for and hopefully to watch. My skepticism comes from the fact that too many of these sound a little too much like "well, how bad a SS could Hernandez really be? It's not like he could singlehandedly tank the entire season" from a year ago. I don't think this offseason was handled very well, but there were definitely a couple of moves that look good, and I'm very happy to see that they didn't deplete the top prospect depth for quick fixes. I'll always root for the Red Sox to win, but especially in 2024 I'll be looking for a good draft, solid performances from the young players in the majors, and continued development from the minors; given that, the Red Sox could be in a very enviable position a year from now, despite all of the media noise that will suggest otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 23, 2024 20:12:21 GMT -5
I seriously doubt they would sign a guy like this and plan to keep him on the 26-man roster if they loved everyone previously projected for the bullpen. The end of Spring training, after a long time to evaluate the players on the periphery of the roster, is a time I'm most willing to trust the team's judgement of their players. If there was a spot they already weren't sold on and think there's a chance of fixing Anderson, cool.
Unless of course they just want someone as an emergency option for the initial rough stretch of games and are ok with optioning someone else for a couple of weeks to make that happen.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 22, 2024 17:12:51 GMT -5
I think offensively and defensively they'll be a solid enough squad, somewhere between average to above average with maybe even some possibility for more as you point out with mixing and matching. There's some interesting pieces on the roster I agree. As with every MLB squad though can they pitch well enough? I think there is enough upside to say yes it's possible but I'm not sure I'd bet on it yet and they're an injury or two away from potentially having a disastrous pitching staff. I just think that line of thinking is too worryful. Most teams are 2-3 injuries to starters away from a potentially disastrous rotation, nobody has 8 or 9 reliable starters laying around. If George Kirby and Logan Gilbert get hurt, the Mariners will have a tough season. If Bailey Ober and Joe Ryan get hurt, the Twins will have a tough season. If Gerrit Cole ends up needing TJ and Marcus Stroman gets hurt, the Yankees will have a tough season. If Max Fried, Chris Sale, and Charlie Morton get hurt, the Braves probably have the lineup to withstand it, but they’re gonna have a bad rotation. It is what it is. If everything else hits and they’re really just a reliable starter away from contention, they can afford one at the deadline. I would like another depth option, too, but I understand ownership and the FO not wanting to spend on an addition that isnt a clear upgrade on what they have. I'm honestly not trying to be a jerk here, but do you have anything to back up this idea that recent contenders haven't had any better pitching depth than the Sox do this year? I believe otherwise but fully admit I'm too lazy to do any sort of deep dive and so don't have anything to back up my opinion other a couple of random examples from memory. For the hypotheticals you gave, yes, any team that loses it's two best pitchers is going to have a worse rotation, especially if at least one of them is a true ace type - but I think the Sox are pretty well screwed if they lose even their four or five starter at this point, and that to me points to a concerning lack of depth, if you want this team to compete.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 15, 2024 11:18:11 GMT -5
I'll not entirely opposed to taking a QB on the middle of the 1st. Not a fan of it, but I'm not entirely against it. I think a reminder of where QBs were picked and the reality of the situation. So while middle 1st is irritating. Anything after that is a massive gamble based on history. If we're painting in broad strokes rather than analyzing individual players, wouldn't it stand to reason that what should be a historically great QB draft should have better QB talent after the first few picks as well? Especially if you do look at the specifics this year and see the QB strength isn't so much one uber-prospect (yes, Williams is a great QB prospect, but he alone isn't what is making the QB position look so special in this draft) but the number of QB's who could legitimately turn into franchise players. I will be really interested to see how high some of these QB's go - do 5 or 6 really go in the top half of the first round, or is being the proverbial "5th best QB in the draft" enough to drop someone simply on the basis of the players who went earlier.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 15, 2024 11:08:15 GMT -5
So much talk about QB sitting if we take one, but who are you taking? There's a massive difference between Maye and Daniels. There's a massive difference between Penix, Nix and McCarthy. If you're taking Daniels, Nix or Penix but don't want them playing year one at all you probably shouldn't be drafting them. One of the biggest pluses of that group is way more experience than your average QB that gets drafted. Even Rattler has more experience than your average QB drafted My preference is Maye if he's there, or Penix if they go MHJ or trade back. I generally agree with your point, but no matter which (if any) QB the Pats draft I still want them on the bench for a while. Even if they have tons of experience, they still need to learn a new system/terminology/coaches/teammates/etc. I think there's a far greater chance to be hurt by being thrown into the fire than the opposite. Not saying "absolutely don't play at all in year one" but force them to really earn any game time they get.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 14, 2024 14:58:08 GMT -5
I wouldn't change my mind about any opening day assignments based on spring training stats. This. To the posts and question above, his PA's have been solid in my opinion. A lot of walks and getting deep into counts, so you could call that passive, but not like some others accused of the same where he looks unable or unwilling to swing. I can think of 3 or 4 K's he's had off the top of my head that were VERY questionable calls ("it's spring training for umpires too" etc. type of situations.) I wouldn't say it's a 100% certainty he makes the opening day roster - I've been thinking about the possibility of him starting the season in Worcester too, and you would like to see more contact and/or power in his PA's - but I certainly wouldn't say he looks lost or hopeless or anything like that.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 8, 2024 15:29:49 GMT -5
This is the kind of "risk" I want to see the Red Sox taking more of, and that I think their financial strength should allow them to continue to take. Yes, there is absolutely a risk that the Red Sox pay Bello more than he ends up being worth or that they would have paid him if they went year to year. But - how big a risk is 10million AAV to the Sox? Not saying it's nothing, but even (especially?) if the Sox can't compete with the highest spending teams anymore (and I'm skeptical of that, although its more realistic than some fan expectations of how they should spend) they absolutely should have the payroll to support these kinds of deals going sour in a worst-case scenario. Meanwhile, the upsides are obvious, and extend beyond just having Bello on the roster. More like this, please.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 6, 2024 11:05:43 GMT -5
I was going to say "between rage at mentioning Criswell's name and the ridiculous conversation about releasing Giolito, things are really getting silly around here right now" - and then I realized it was the same person. Not saying this is outright trolling, but probably easier to just not engage further.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 5, 2024 15:16:06 GMT -5
Valdez is fun to watch hit (against RHP, anyway.) There are a few scenarios (reports about his improved 2B defense are legit, or figuring out how to hit LHP, being the most obvious ones) where he has a very successful MLB career.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 5, 2024 11:17:51 GMT -5
Desperate attempt at a glass-half-full take: This year was unlikely to be great anyway, but if Giolito pitched well he would have been gone at the end of the season. Now maybe he gets healthy this year, comes back next year, and contributes to an overall more competitive team next year? Sorry, that's the best I've got - I was already starting to feel like the Sox were being followed by a raincloud after Grissom got hurt
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 5, 2024 10:47:44 GMT -5
Heck, it's not even hypothetical, since Szymborski published 80th percentile outcomes: for Montgomery it's 4.0 WAR and a 3.35 ERA. But he also has a 20th percentile outcome of 1.8 WAR and a 4.56 ERA. No sensible team is going to look at distributions like this and decide to pay for the 80th percentile outcome. The Red Sox (or anyone else) could conceivably have much rosier projections that ZiPS, but I doubt that's actually the case because if it were he'd be signed by now. Also the public projections are really tightly clustered - all between 2.7 and 3.1 WAR and a 3.95-4.10 FIP - which is more reason to think that teams are probably not far off from those projections.
It sounds to me like the main difference is how much we each trust in the specifics of the ZiPS projection - not trying to put words in your mouth but it sounds like you place more weight in the specific WAR estimate than I do. I also don't disagree with the general point - I personally think Montgomery may be due for a down year next year and don't think signing him to more than 4 years is a particularly good idea, so I'll make this my last post on the topic. As to why I don't think the ZiPS projections should be the sole source of information for deciding Montgomery's future: The last 3 years are the only years in Montgomery's career in which he was not either a rookie, a reliever, or pitching in the covid season; looking at those 3 years, ZiPS projected WAR's were 1.5, 2.5, 3.0 for 2021-23 respectively. His actual fWAR in those seasons were 3.2, 2.7, 4.3 - ZiPS projected only 68% of the WAR he achieved. Additionally: Montgomery never underperformed his ZiPS projected WAR as a starter, is not at an age where you yet expect massive year-to-year drop-off, and has as recently as last season overperformed his ZiPS projection by a fairly major amount (+1.3 on a 3.0 projection.) Again, not trying to say he's destined to be great for the next few years, but I think its easy enough to imagine a scenario where Montgomery feels like he can pitch well in 2024 and then get paid, or where a team feels like he may be a sound investment for the next few years.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 5, 2024 0:26:05 GMT -5
Short of getting hurt or committing a crime I'm skeptical there's anything McGuire himself could do to significantly increase or decrease his chances of making the opening day roster. (My point being that they know who he is by now and its really up to the players around him to determine whether he looks like the best option.) Yeah, maybe so, but I'm thinking they may swap him out for Perez. He hasn't looked strong behind the plate. Not that Perez has done anything in the games so far. But as you say, they may have already made the decision one way or the other. I thought Perez had at least a pretty legitimate shot prior to the start of the Spring too - having seen him play a bit, and the shape he's in etc. I'm now very skeptical. Wouldn't rule it out but I'd certainly bet on McGuire, who seems like an incredibly safe option to be...fine
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 5, 2024 0:15:54 GMT -5
Those ZiPS projections I mentioned above... 2024: 2.9 2025: 2.4 2026: 1.9 ...got me to thinking. The Red Sox undoubtedly have their own projections for Montgomery, but assuming they're not too far from this... why would the team have any interest in Montgomery for 2026 or later? They might already have a full rotation of cost-controlled 2+ WAR pitchers for 2026 in Bello, Crawford, Whitlock, Houck, and Fitts; why add another guy on that tier for $20 million+?
Which also puts me in mind of Alex Speier's suggestion that a Red Sox offer to Montgomery might be right around what they gave Giolito - i.e., 2/40 or so. Which would be just about what ZiPS suggests Montgomery ought to be worth. So a) it seems pretty likely that the Red Sox are offering Montgomery a two-year deal. But b) they're still getting the most buzz for their engagement with him, which means no one else is going much beyond that offer. Prediction: this ends with something like a 2/45 deal for Montgomery, whether with the Red Sox or someone else. First year is $25 million, then an "opt out" and a $20 million second year. But the team could just offer the QO if he opts out and Montgomery might well accept it. So it's essentially a 2/45 contract but Boras can claim the opt out is there so that Montgomery can test the market next year "when more teams will be willing to spend for elite pitchers."
I think the answer to this is largely similar to the answer to your previous question about why he might get roughly the same contract offer next year as this year - because his projected value, and WAR projections etc. - will go up if he has another good season. If he puts up something like 3.5+ WAR in 2024, ZiPS isn't going to project him for 2.4 in 2025 etc. - he's not at that "fall off a cliff" age yet, and has never put up a fWAR lower than 2.6 as a starter, and there arguments to be made that he's better now than he was earlier in his career. Another good year and his value likely goes up - but he's another year older and on the wrong side of 30, which very roughly puts him back where he stands now, imo. I don't really disagree with the general concept here, and I know you said "...assuming they're not too far from [the ZiPS projection]..." so I'm not trying to make this some "you're wrong" response; but if you're taking the ZiPS projections as an expected outcome, rather than simply the most likely out of many possible outcomes, I think that's dangerous. As far as how the Red Sox project Montgomery, I hope they have a system like this that aggregates a whole lot of data and tells them an expected average outcome - but I also hope they have a system that is more subjective to the individual player and their specific progression, and those two things could project different paths forward.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 4, 2024 16:38:27 GMT -5
I was just getting ready to post that I feel like McGuire's seat is getting hotter every second and he rips a double down the line. Short of getting hurt or committing a crime I'm skeptical there's anything McGuire himself could do to significantly increase or decrease his chances of making the opening day roster. (My point being that they know who he is by now and its really up to the players around him to determine whether he looks like the best option.)
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 4, 2024 16:26:03 GMT -5
By this logic they shouldn't sign any multi-year free agent until they're already competitive though, and seeing as you have to be willing to take on risk in any FA deal, I don't know why they would object to a deal like this. You pretty much are not going to get a better free agent pitcher on a deal with less risk than a guy like Montgomery on a pillow contract.
I also don't know how a second guaranteed year helps you mitigate risk unless it's only a two-year deal, which it wouldn't be. If your worry is about there not being enough upside for the Red Sox if he's good, I would argue that a solid year of Montgomery in 2024 and an extra second-round pick is plenty of upside, and the downside if he gets injured or falls off a cliff is already being priced in in the form of lower committed dollars and years than a pitcher of his caliber would typically command.
You have this backwards. If you want to reduce my statement to absurdity, it would be "don't ever sign free agents with one-year upside and multi-year downside when you aren't currently competitive" and to be clear - I'm not even saying that. You clearly see more upside for Montgomery in 2024 and less downside for him in 2025-6+ than I do, which is fine. Although personally I feel like he's due for a down year in 2024, overall he seems pretty safe as far as age 30+ FA pitchers go, but I still don't think that mitigates the potential risk to the next couple of years. Put simply, my point is that I don't think you have to strain too hard to see why the Sox might not be in love with having only one guaranteed year for him if it carries multi-year risk. To the other point about why would Montgomery even want a pillow/opt-out contract? Well if you (or he) think he could get, say, 4/90 either this year or next, then taking a one-year high-AAV deal now and signing the longer deal next year is very likely worth more than getting 4/90 now and then whatever he could get for one year after that.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 4, 2024 14:10:42 GMT -5
Regarding Montgomery, I don't think it’s the money as much as not giving the opt outs and the number ot years. They don't just want him for 1 year, but I'm sure Boras wants the opt outs, hence the protracted time it's taking for him to sign. Other teams may not want the opt outs either, who will give in?? I think they 100% would want him for just one year. Throw out nearly all decline risk, get a good pitcher for 2024, still don't pay the luxury tax, and likely pick up a 2nd round pick if he walks. If anyone doesn't want a pillow contract it's Montgomery, since he would have to contend with the QO next year, would be another year older, and probably isn't capable of a better season than his 2023. He wants to get paid now. I disagree - not that they wouldn't take him for a year for free, but Montgomery doesn't move the needle enough this year to drastically alter the outlook. If they offer him something like 3/75 with opt outs, then if something catastrophic happens that's a real burden in years where they likely will be even more competitive. I really think they need at least two years before an opt out for it to make real sense, unless the aav is just incredibly low
|
|
|