Boston Red Sox "Like" Eugenio Suarez

I'm not thrilled with the Ks and the horrific defense, but the guy hits bombs and usually has an OPS over .780.

It might take 3 years to get him, or some sort of 2 year deal with a big buyout for year 3.

$24M + $24M with $21M team option for year 3 with 6M buyout. That makes it $23M x 3 or $27M x 2: team choice.

If that isn't enough, I don't see adding more money in the same light as for Bregman, as it's "just" 2 more year- not 5. I see us with a 5 year window or more.

37 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

I think Suarez will be fine for two years.  Anything more becomes questionable.  One note is that he has 4 HRs in 40 ABs in Fenway.

He also has an .891 OPS at Yankee Stadium.

To those who believe clutch is a repeatable skill:

.866 High Leverage

.809 Medium

.745 Low Leverage

He hits lefties well (.824,) but he's no slouch vs RHPs (.781.)

HRs per 650 PAs:

34 v R

35 v L

E. Suarez is not Plan B. He's Plan E and Plan K.

If extended for like three years, together they spell EEEKKK.

Just trade Duran for Paredes and let's go.

That way the never-in-the-Red Sox can save all the money from not having to pay Devers and Schwarber and Alonso and Bregman for another winter of not signing any top talent in the next free agent class. 

9 hours ago, JoeBrady said:

I think Suarez will be fine for two years.  Anything more becomes questionable.  One note is that he has 4 HRs in 40 ABs in Fenway.

AI models using Baseball Savant data have him hitting 50-53 home runs if he played ladt year on the Red Sox.  If he signs wuth Boston for 2026, the model predicts 42-50 home runs, 46-50 if he can maintain a contact profile like he had in 2025, but more likely and age-related regression to 42-45 home runs.

Impressive, but I have my doubts. Plus 42-45 home runs or not, what he does with the other PAs matters too..

15 minutes ago, 5GoldGlovesOF,75 said:

E. Suarez is not Plan B. He's Plan E and Plan K.

If extended for like three years, together they spell EEEKKK.

Just trade Duran for Paredes and let's go.

That way the never-in-the-Red Sox can save all the money from not having to pay Devers and Schwarber and Alonso and Bregman for another winter of not signing any top talent in the next free agent class. 

"Another winter of not signing top talent?"

Last winter we signed Bregman (highest AAV in team history) Buehler (highest FA Pitcher AAV since Price) and Chapman (who many of us felt was not enough.)

1 hour ago, mvp 78 said:

LOL... 

Savant says 48, but we'll just go with your models I guess???

Talk to the folks who do AI

Honestly, if Steamer projected 52 HRs and the player hit 48, would anyone call it a failure?

I still prefer Paredes.  Suarez is approaching an age where players can fall off rapidly snd without warning…

1 hour ago, notin said:

Talk to the folks who do AI

Honestly, if Steamer projected 52 HRs and the player hit 48, would anyone call it a failure?

I still prefer Paredes.  Suarez is approaching an age where players can fall off rapidly snd without warning…

Ai contradicts itself.

I did a search for the definition of "irrupt" and it gave this example: "the crowd irrupted in cheers."

That's not how I've ever spelled the verb, so I asked "irrupted in cheers or erupted in cheers" -- the reply: "the crowd erupted is the correct phrase" ... curiously, I went to re-type my search and here's what showed up: "the crowd erupted or the crowd erupted"

It was as if Ai was trying to erase what my own eyes actually witnessed... like videos or names on maps or on the face of buildings!

2 hours ago, Randy Red Sox said:

Sox are 3rd in revenue and 23rd in spending per revenue.

Yup. That is a great point.

I'm not defending stingy.

I'm just not going to say we don't sign anyone "every year."

2 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

But they signed the highest AAV pitcher since Price last season!!!

30 pitchers signed for higher AAV's since 2020 than Walker Buehler, none by the Sox and many of whom should have been signed by the Sox. 

Making that point does not refute the other.

I responded to the point about not signing any top FA, every year.

I'm not arguing against the spending vs Revenue point made by saying the truth.

1 hour ago, moonslav59 said:

Making that point does not refute the other.

I responded to the point about not signing any top FA, every year.

I'm not arguing against the spending vs Revenue point made by saying the truth.

It wasn't my post. I wrote the Sox may not sign top talent for "another" year in the next free agent winter.

I didn't ignore last winter, nor should any of us forget all the other bargain bin winters from this decade before then.

But this offseason was the one where we all -- you and I and Craig Breslow included -- saw as a window to keep upgrading a club that looked like it was finally once again on the verge of contention.

Ya, someone can say it's still early -- but 29 other teams that already signed guys they wanted can laugh at that notion.

1 minute ago, 5GoldGlovesOF,75 said:

It wasn't my post. I wrote the Sox may not sign top talent for "another" year in the next free agent winter.

Yes, I was responding to GG's post about us never signing big FAs, and gave examples of last winter's two to three signings. Then I got hell for pointing out that we do win some bidding wars. 

It's not refuting your claim.

Hard for anyone now to say landing Bregman in the middle of last February was worthy of lighting a cigar (though Henry was maybe celebrating the beginning of the end of having to pay Devers' $300 million).

What's bothersome is the very concept of the opt-out. Sure, it's an incentive to get a guy to sign... but it always seems like a way to convince someone to play in a place he's not sure he really wants to be. 

The Red Sox love to give opt outs -- which are perfect for a franchise that doesn't want to pay market prices. if the player does well, it helps the Sox in the standings, and then the guy can leave as soon as he gets really expensive.

If a player opts in, it probably means he doesn't think he can get more money somewhere else. But Boston can always live with a mainstay who can fill a jersey and some seats with fans thirsty to identify with a returning core guy.

We often want a player to opt out: Price (who loathed the Boston media), JD (so we could keep Schwarber), Giolito (paid for rehabbing an entire season). Kudos to Story, for staying put after his first healthy year.

1 hour ago, Bellhorn04 said:

They extended Chapman too, which has not been mentioned much because it was eons ago LOL.  

I understand posters don't want to count that extension, as well as Campbell's and Anthony's as "spending more," not the somewhat pricey contracts for Gray and Contreras, but it is spending.

For years, perhaps the biggest beef by posters has been letting our top young talent bolt via free agency. I keep hearing I am "ignoring" this and that, which I don't think I am. I fully realize we are spending way less than our revenue ranking, but I could easily say that some might be ignoring the enormously beneficial shift we've made towards keeping the best of our best: Crochet, Chapman, Anthony, Rafaela, Bello and hopefully we can soon view Campbell as a great extension.

Saying this does not erase the harmful philosophies this FO has adhered to- like not giving no trade clauses and not going the "extra" extra mile to sign FAs we really know we need. I'm not happy with that either, but within the context of other factors, I still think we are very close to being a top contender. IMO, we still have time and options this winter to get there. 

Am I confident we do it? HELL NO! I have no idea what these guys will do. We know more about what they won't do with every passing day, and that sucks, for sure. I wish we had come closer to getting Alonso than we did. I can't bring myself to say or think I wish we'd given Breggie $180M/5. That's not the same as saying I'm glad he's gone. We are clearly worse without him. That being said, I'm not going to ignore what I think is a fact: had we signed Breggie for 5 years, we'd have been bigger misers for the next 5 years, and that would hurt- maybe more than how much Breggie helps- maybe not. There is a trade off.

People can scream all they want, "Well, JH can and should just spend more," but I'm not going to believe he will just so I'm happy for the moment we sign Bregman. I'm trying see the trade-off we'd have made. I'm fine if others don't see it like I do. I know I often view things way differently than others, and not just on sports issues. 

50 minutes ago, 5GoldGlovesOF,75 said:

Hard for anyone now to say landing Bregman in the middle of last February was worthy of lighting a cigar (though Henry was maybe celebrating the beginning of the end of having to pay Devers' $300 million).

What's bothersome is the very concept of the opt-out. Sure, it's an incentive to get a guy to sign... but it always seems like a way to convince someone to play in a place he's not sure he really wants to be. 

The Red Sox love to give opt outs -- which are perfect for a franchise that doesn't want to pay market prices. if the player does well, it helps the Sox in the standings, and then the guy can leave as soon as he gets really expensive.

If a player opts in, it probably means he doesn't think he can get more money somewhere else. But Boston can always live with a mainstay who can fill a jersey and some seats with fans thirsty to identify with a returning core guy.

We often want a player to opt out: Price (who loathed the Boston media), JD (so we could keep Schwarber), Giolito (paid for rehabbing an entire season). Kudos to Story, for staying put after his first healthy year.

I'm glad we made the playoffs, and if I smoked em, I'd have lit a fat one the day we made the playoffs.

It's not enough to say we did better last winter than the 5 or 6 before. I'm 100% in on the idea that the moment is now. The window is wide open.

I'm not going to ignore good changes started last winter. I hope they continue. I'm not optimistic, right now.

1 hour ago, moonslav59 said:

I understand posters don't want to count that extension, as well as Campbell's and Anthony's as "spending more," not the somewhat pricey contracts for Gray and Contreras, but it is spending.

For years, perhaps the biggest beef by posters has been letting our top young talent bolt via free agency. I keep hearing I am "ignoring" this and that, which I don't think I am. I fully realize we are spending way less than our revenue ranking, but I could easily say that some might be ignoring the enormously beneficial shift we've made towards keeping the best of our best: Crochet, Chapman, Anthony, Rafaela, Bello and hopefully we can soon view Campbell as a great extension.

Saying this does not erase the harmful philosophies this FO has adhered to- like not giving no trade clauses and not going the "extra" extra mile to sign FAs we really know we need. I'm not happy with that either, but within the context of other factors, I still think we are very close to being a top contender. IMO, we still have time and options this winter to get there. 

Am I confident we do it? HELL NO! I have no idea what these guys will do. We know more about what they won't do with every passing day, and that sucks, for sure. I wish we had come closer to getting Alonso than we did. I can't bring myself to say or think I wish we'd given Breggie $180M/5. That's not the same as saying I'm glad he's gone. We are clearly worse without him. That being said, I'm not going to ignore what I think is a fact: had we signed Breggie for 5 years, we'd have been bigger misers for the next 5 years, and that would hurt- maybe more than how much Breggie helps- maybe not. There is a trade off.

People can scream all they want, "Well, JH can and should just spend more," but I'm not going to believe he will just so I'm happy for the moment we sign Bregman. I'm trying see the trade-off we'd have made. I'm fine if others don't see it like I do. I know I often view things way differently than others, and not just on sports issues. 

Yes the Red Sox have been locking up the younger players, and all that payroll adds up, which gives less money to bring in FA, so which was is better? Time will tell, but if most of the young guys don’t turn out as well as some think it will hurt down the road, but if they turn out great.