A Realistic View of the 2025 Red Sox: Part I

[mvp 78]

22 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

MLBTR's top FAs still not signed:

3. Bregman- looks like TOR or DET (outside chance HOU or BOS)

7. Alonso (1Bmen have seen their stock tumble)

8. Flaherty (Injury concerns)

25. Heaney (not sure why he was ranked 25th.)

28. Pivetta (no rumors that I know of.)

33. Scherzer (not sure he's still got enough in the tank)

41. Kyle Gibson (nope)

47. David Robertson (turns 40 in April)

49. H Bader and 50. Turnbull

Others" Jansen, Grichuk, Lance Lynn, J Junis, JD and Turner

Pivetta could be a great closer IMO. Not sure he wants to go that direction though. His agent really screwed him over IMO. 

[Hugh2]

56 minutes ago, Hitch said:

I don't know what you've been reading, but it certainly is not me acting like it's a forgone conclusion we get Bregman. I don't think we get him, even a little bit. I do think we have made an offer, which rubbishes your continued point that if we did keep O'Neil we wouldn't have got Buehler. 

We're definitely on a budget, no doubt. But it's also pretty clear it's not the exact price point we're at now. 

I never said it's the exact price point were at now.  I literally never said that.  But if you go by the last several years one can decipher we are somewhere near that number.  Given we don't know what other moves are to be made I don't think anyone can also definitely say a $21 million dollar man would not have affected other offseason moves at this point.  Perhaps it has not but I certainly don't think it's absurd to suggest it may.  There's a very real chance it may, that what happens when you're operating under a budget.  Suggesting that may be the case is a far cry from "forgone conclusion".  

 

Also, remember budgets are more than just ONE year.  Sox are under budget, but you don't think they would have planned to expand that budget a little bit if they signed SOTO? you don't think access to certain players change that.  Maybe they do expand the budget for Bregman who is clearly a better player than O'Neill.  But there's a difference paying him $25-30 million for 4 years vs. 7. BIG DIFFERENCE.  The years probably plays into their budgetary issues as well. 

I don't really give a s***, the exact price point where we are on the budget is not a concern of mine, and I consider it a mute point.  I don't think it made much sense to pay O'Neill $21 million dollars.  

[moonslav59]

2 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

Pivetta could be a great closer IMO. Not sure he wants to go that direction though. His agent really screwed him over IMO. 

He might make a good closer.

I can't really blame the agent, although I did not think he deserved a QO.

I thought he could get $60M/4 or $50M/3.

Has there been any reported offer or serious discussions?

I know I'm a homer, but I thought he was pretty good, and he took the ball every 5 days, unless demoted.

Since 2021:

23rd in IP

47th in SIERA at 3.78 (tied or close to Nate, Ober, Castillo, Steele, Ragans, Lugo, Kikuchi & Houck)

Since 2023 (79 pitchers w 250+ PAs)

4th in SIERA 3.32

38th ERA- at 93

50th in fWAR at 3.9

[Hitch]

15 hours ago, Hugh2 said:

I never said it's the exact price point were at now.  I literally never said that.  But if you go by the last several years one can decipher we are somewhere near that number.  Given we don't know what other moves are to be made I don't think anyone can also definitely say a $21 million dollar man would not have affected other offseason moves at this point.  Perhaps it has not but I certainly don't think it's absurd to suggest it may.  There's a very real chance it may, that what happens when you're operating under a budget.  Suggesting that may be the case is a far cry from "forgone conclusion".  

 

Also, remember budgets are more than just ONE year.  Sox are under budget, but you don't think they would have planned to expand that budget a little bit if they signed SOTO? you don't think access to certain players change that.  Maybe they do expand the budget for Bregman who is clearly a better player than O'Neill.  But there's a difference paying him $25-30 million for 4 years vs. 7. BIG DIFFERENCE.  The years probably plays into their budgetary issues as well. 

I don't really give a s***, the exact price point where we are on the budget is not a concern of mine, and I consider it a mute point.  I don't think it made much sense to pay O'Neill $21 million dollars.  

"It makes sense they didn't offer him one, they'd rather of spent that money on pitching and effectively did with a Buehler signing."

"The front office obviously has a budget, I'm not spending $21 million a year on O'Neill if that meant not signing the pitchers we did this offseason."

"but if my options are Buehler and bank on Campbell/Anthony vs. O’Neill and bank on Richard Fitts I’ll take the former."

 

These are your quotes. You clearly believe we are near our budget as you state resolutely we would not have signed Buehler if we had O'Neil.

I have absolutely no idea why you're bringing up the other points. I don't know if you're arguing against other people and using the reply to me to get your thoughts down, or you're arguing against a voice in your head. Either way, at this point I feel like I'm having a discussion with someone shouting at me on the freeway. While driving the other way. 

Neither of us would actually want O'Neil to be signed for $20m at the outset. But I sure wouldn't mind him instead of the absolute nothing we have here now. Especially on a one year deal. Hopefully the FO still has surprises to hand out and deliver us the RH power bat we badly need.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

2 hours ago, Hitch said:

Especially on a one year deal. Hopefully the FO still has surprises to hand out and deliver us the RH power bat we badly need.

Wrecking my brain trying to think of actual FO surprises in the post-Mookie Error: Story, when we already had a shortstop? Yoshida, when nobody else in the world thought he was worth $90 million? In retrospect, it has to be Devers' extension -- though at the time most fans thought locking up your best young player is what rich and respectable franchises are supposed to do.

Maybe the Crochet trade; not because the Red Sox were one of the few MLB clubs with the prospect capital to land him, but because they finally used their resources to seal the deal. What other surprises did Boston acquire this offseason? Certainly not more starting pitchers with elbow issues, old relievers, or back-up catchers.

It's not even a surprise some of us believed Sam Kennedy when he said the Sox would spend to fortify the roster for a run at a division title... we're not Mets fans, so don't tell us, "You Gotta Believe!" Red Sox CBOs didn't just go to Yale for degrees in Classics and Micro-Biology. They minored in Sports Psychology and the lifelong desperation of Red Sox Nation... "We WANNA Believe!"

 

 

 

[moonslav59]

While I think losing Pivetta may be more significant than some think, I can't help but get excited about the rotation and rotation depth this team has. Many have lingering questions that may seem larger or more profound than pitchers like Burnes and Fried, but many of the guys we have can throw some nasty stuff and have proven they can dominate in their roles.

Crochet is looking to step up his IP, much like Houck and Crawford did in 2024, but there is no doubt, the guy can dominate.

Buehler reminds me of Sale, missing so much time and not being fully dominant when pitching in between injuries, but again, this guy can dominate and showed he can, last October.

The 2024 addition of Giolito might as well be considered a 2025 addition, and while he has not shown the dominance he once had a few years back, over a full season, he is not old, and he has had some pretty long stretches of looking really good, not too long ago.

Houck's 2024 success is fresh on our minds. There is a worry he cannot do it again, but the guy can pitch- and pitch very well.

Bello and Crawford seemed to look better in 2023 than 2024, but both showed they can take the ball every 5 days and are at an age where a break out or "career" season often occurs.

We are one of just 3 teams, the Reds and Rays are the others, who have 6 SP'ers with projected fWARs of over 1.1. On top of these 6, we probably have top 5 or 10 AAA SP'er depth in Criswell, Fitts, Priester, Dobbins and no 40 man guys Fulmer, Gambrell and Drohan.

The pen lost Jansen and Martin, along with as many innings of easily replaceable scrubs, but we added Chapman, Hendriks and Wilson. Once could count Whitlock as a "new pitcher," since his role has changed back to where he had some great success. His past success was no fluke. The guy can pitch. He even had a 1.96 ERA, last year, before going on the IL. Hendriks and Chapman have had some great success, even recently. Slaten had one of the Sox best fWAR years as a RP'er in a long time.

BEST RP'er fWAR in the last 10 years:

3.2 Kimbrel '17

2.1 Workman '19

1.8 Schreiber '22

1.6 Whitlock '21

1.5 Martin '23

1.4 Slaten '24 & Jansen '24

1.3 Uehara '15, Kimbrel '18 & Barnes '21

1.2 Barnes '19 & '18

Newbies: since 2019 (last 5 full seasons)

3.9 Hendriks '20

2.7 Hendriks '21

2.1 Chapman '20

1.8 Chapman '23

1.6 Hendriks '22

There are some good reasons to be optimistic about our pitching staff: 6 good starters and 4 RP'ers with some very nice success, over the past 5 seasons. We have a lot of decent pitching depth in AAA, as well.

Maybe, this will not be enough to compensate for doing little to improve the offense and defense, over the winter, but we do have 3 of America's top 25 prospects, who are all ML ready or very close to it. (Mayer would likely have made it 3 top 10 prospects, had he stayed healthy.

At what point is it okay to be optimistic?

[Bellhorn04]

3 hours ago, Hitch said:

Neither of us would actually want O'Neil to be signed for $20m at the outset. But I sure wouldn't mind him instead of the absolute nothing we have here now. Especially on a one year deal. Hopefully the FO still has surprises to hand out and deliver us the RH power bat we badly need.

My thoughts exactly, except I don't have very much hope about it at this point.

[Bellhorn04]

12 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

While I think losing Pivetta may be more significant than some think, I can't help but get excited about the rotation and rotation depth this team has. Many have lingering questions that may seem larger or more profound than pitchers like Burnes and Fried, but many of the guys we have can throw some nasty stuff and have proven they can dominate in their roles.

Crochet is looking to step up his IP, much like Houck and Crawford did in 2024, but there is no doubt, the guy can dominate.

Buehler reminds me of Sale, missing so much time and not being fully dominant when pitching in between injuries, but again, this guy can dominate and showed he can, last October.

The 2024 addition of Giolito might as well be considered a 2025 addition, and while he has not shown the dominance he once had a few years back, over a full season, he is not old, and he has had some pretty long stretches of looking really good, not too long ago.

Houck's 2024 success is fresh on our minds. There is a worry he cannot do it again, but the guy can pitch- and pitch very well.

Bello and Crawford seemed to look better in 2023 than 2024, but both showed they can take the ball every 5 days and are at an age where a break out or "career" season often occurs.

We are one of just 3 teams, the Reds and Rays are the others, who have 6 SP'ers with projected fWARs of over 1.1. On top of these 6, we probably have top 5 or 10 AAA SP'er depth in Criswell, Fitts, Priester, Dobbins and no 40 man guys Fulmer, Gambrell and Drohan.

The pen lost Jansen and Martin, along with as many innings of easily replaceable scrubs, but we added Chapman, Hendriks and Wilson. Once could count Whitlock as a "new pitcher," since his role has changed back to where he had some great success. His past success was no fluke. The guy can pitch. He even had a 1.96 ERA, last year, before going on the IL. Hendriks and Chapman have had some great success, even recently. Slaten had one of the Sox best fWAR years as a RP'er in a long time.

BEST RP'er fWAR in the last 10 years:

3.2 Kimbrel '17

2.1 Workman '19

1.8 Schreiber '22

1.6 Whitlock '21

1.5 Martin '23

1.4 Slaten '24 & Jansen '24

1.3 Uehara '15, Kimbrel '18 & Barnes '21

1.2 Barnes '19 & '18

Newbies: since 2019 (last 5 full seasons)

3.9 Hendriks '20

2.7 Hendriks '21

2.1 Chapman '20

1.8 Chapman '23

1.6 Hendriks '22

There are some good reasons to be optimistic about our pitching staff: 6 good starters and 4 RP'ers with some very nice success, over the past 5 seasons. We have a lot of decent pitching depth in AAA, as well.

Maybe, this will not be enough to compensate for doing little to improve the offense and defense, over the winter, but we do have 3 of America's top 25 prospects, who are all ML ready or very close to it. (Mayer would likely have made it 3 top 10 prospects, had he stayed healthy.

At what point is it okay to be optimistic?

There's reason to be optimistic about the pitching.  Brez has focused a lot of effort there. 

Obviously I've become increasingly disturbed that he hasn't focused any effort on the offense or the fielding.

 

  

 

[Bellhorn04]

Even with the pitching moves, you can't help noticing that all of them are short term and relatively low dollars (including Buehler), unless they sign Crochet to an extension, which is obviously critical.

 

[mvp 78]

15 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

He might make a good closer.

I can't really blame the agent, although I did not think he deserved a QO.

I thought he could get $60M/4 or $50M/3.

Has there been any reported offer or serious discussions?

Yeah, I can totally blame the agent. Pivetta is probably not worth the loss of a QO. His agent seemed to screw this one up. 

[Bellhorn04]

1 minute ago, mvp 78 said:

Yeah, I can totally blame the agent. Pivetta is probably not worth the loss of a QO. His agent seemed to screw this one up. 

His agent must have been reading Hugh's posts here:  "Pivetta is gonna get PAID!" 😉

 

[mvp 78]

17 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

There's reason to be optimistic about the pitching.  Brez has focused a lot of effort there. 

Obviously I've become increasingly disturbed that he hasn't focused any effort on the offense or the fielding.

Their farm is hitter heavy and ranked #2, so maybe they think the current focus should be on pitching and that hitting will work itself out internally? 

[Bellhorn04]

Just now, mvp 78 said:

Their farm is hitter heavy and ranked #2, so maybe they think the current focus should be on pitching and that hitting will work itself out internally? 

OK, but to me it feels like keeping the payroll down is still Job One.

[mvp 78]

1 minute ago, Bellhorn04 said:

OK, but to me it feels like keeping the payroll down is still Job One.

For sure, but that's different than solely focusing on pitching and not hitting. They've been keeping payroll down and still signed guys like Story and Masa in previous years. They haven't had an MLB FA hitter signing since Adam Duvall. They are just spending the little money they have differently than before. I don't think a Grichuk deal puts them over their budget though. 

[Bellhorn04]

1 minute ago, mvp 78 said:

For sure, but that's different than solely focusing on pitching and not hitting. They've been keeping payroll down and still signed guys like Story and Masa in previous years. They haven't had an MLB FA hitter signing since Adam Duvall. They are just spending the little money they have differently than before. I don't think a Grichuk deal puts them over their budget though. 

EVEN IF IT MEANS PAYING CBT WE'RE AIMING AT 90-95 WINS - Sam Kennedy 

[Hugh2]

4 hours ago, Hitch said:

"It makes sense they didn't offer him one, they'd rather of spent that money on pitching and effectively did with a Buehler signing."

"The front office obviously has a budget, I'm not spending $21 million a year on O'Neill if that meant not signing the pitchers we did this offseason."

"but if my options are Buehler and bank on Campbell/Anthony vs. O’Neill and bank on Richard Fitts I’ll take the former."

 

These are your quotes. You clearly believe we are near our budget as you state resolutely we would not have signed Buehler if we had O'Neil.

I have absolutely no idea why you're bringing up the other points. I don't know if you're arguing against other people and using the reply to me to get your thoughts down, or you're arguing against a voice in your head. Either way, at this point I feel like I'm having a discussion with someone shouting at me on the freeway. While driving the other way. 

Neither of us would actually want O'Neil to be signed for $20m at the outset. But I sure wouldn't mind him instead of the absolute nothing we have here now. Especially on a one year deal. Hopefully the FO still has surprises to hand out and deliver us the RH power bat we badly need.

Let me try rephrasing my point. 

You quote me and pass off my examples as me making definitive statements. I told you that was not the case, and If I led anyone to believe so I apologize.  

I don't know exactly what the Sox budget is.  I don't know what the exact opportunity cost of signing O'Neill for $21 million, what I do know is there is one.  So, my examples could be amorphous, this is why I never saw your comment for the "AHH HAA GOTCHYA" moment that maybe you thought it was. 

If we go by the last several years, one could infer we are at or close to the budget.  If you wanted to put a gun to my head I'd say it's about $225.  And let me point out once again that this is conjecture but I believe that budget is amorphous and not every player is the same.  They'd probably be more willing to break that budget for Soto than Bregman. 

You're right, I don't know that Buehler was only signed because O'Neill wasn't offered a Q.O. But I do know the roster would look different.  We also have to factor in the offseason is not over, we do not know what extensions are coming that play into 2025's budget that also might not of been possible if they're operating under a budget and they had an extra $21 million on the payroll. 

RHB is a need, and I get people want to replace those home runs.  I do too, I also wanted pitching, pitching, and more pitching, a second baseman, a catcher, and extensions for the young kids.  If we were the LA Dodgers I'd expect them to just cough up $21 million or have gone out and signed someone else, but they're not LA.  There's an opportunity cost, if you want to tell me I don't definitely know what that is? sure, you got me there, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make and never was.  Perhaps I should been more clear of my speculations. 

[mvp 78]

7 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

EVEN IF IT MEANS PAYING CBT WE'RE AIMING AT 90-95 WINS - Sam Kennedy 

They are "aiming at 90 wins." Aren't they doing that every year? It's not a guarantee. Also, the "even if it means" is really used car salesman speak. I don't take too much from that dumb quote. It doesn't outright say they are going over the CBT. They would have for Soto or maybe for Fried/Burnes if the contracts were in their market valuation. 

[Bellhorn04]

11 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

They are "aiming at 90 wins." Aren't they doing that every year? It's not a guarantee. Also, the "even if it means" is really used car salesman speak. I don't take too much from that dumb quote. It doesn't outright say they are going over the CBT. They would have for Soto or maybe for Fried/Burnes if the contracts were in their market valuation. 

Their BS is getting more blatant all the time.  They won 81 last year and it looks like they've maybe added 4 wins, based on all the objective data out there.  To me they obviously haven't done enough to indicate they're realistically shooting for 90.  

If 75% of things go right they might sniff 90.  If 75% of things go wrong they're looking at 80. 

[mvp 78]

33 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Their BS is getting more blatant all the time.  They won 81 last year and it looks like they've maybe added 4 wins, based on all the objective data out there.  To me they obviously haven't done enough to indicate they're realistically shooting for 90.  

If 75% of things go right they might sniff 90.  If 75% of things go wrong they're looking at 80. 

I think they need more than 75% of things to break right to get to 90 and I'm expecting this team to catch a few breaks this year. 

[Bellhorn04]

4 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

I think they need more than 75% of things to break right to get to 90 and I'm expecting this team to catch a few breaks this year. 

Law of averages?

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, Bellhorn04 said:

There's reason to be optimistic about the pitching.  Brez has focused a lot of effort there. 

Obviously I've become increasingly disturbed that he hasn't focused any effort on the offense or the fielding. 

 

Maybe he feels like having 3 of the best ML ready prospects in America and the return of Casas is all the focus he needs on O.

Maybe he feels like the return of Story to SS will leap us from bottom 5 to middle 10 on D.

It's not like there is nothing to base improvement on.

Almost every batter and defender we have on the 26 is moving towards prime, and going by age curve history, should get better.  The ones that are not approaching peak prime are either in peak prime (Devers, Duran, Romy and Wong,) near the end of prime (Story & Yoshida) or showing no signs of letting up in their post prime (Refsnyder, who is a short-side platoon DH/LF'er.)

It should be expected that our returning players, as a whole, do better in 2025 than 2024, and that is not even looking at returning players from injury, like Casas, Devers, Story, Yoshida and others with lesser injuries. (Yes, some will get hurt in 2025, but we lost a lot of our best batters in 2024, and some played hurt in many games.)

[moonslav59]

6 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Law of averages?

The law of averages says player approaching prime, usually improve.

[Bellhorn04]

8 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Maybe he feels like having 3 of the best ML ready prospects in America and the return of Casas is all the focus he needs on O.

Maybe he feels like the return of Story to SS will leap us from bottom 5 to middle 10 on D.

It's not like there is nothing to base improvement on.

Craig said he wanted to balance the lineup.  He actually came right out and said that. 

“Given that most of the heavy lifting in the rotation is largely done, I think we'll shift our focus to thinking about how to balance out the lineup,” Breslow said Monday. “We've talked about some right-handed bat helping to equalize the significant number of left-handed hitters that we have.Dec 30, 2024 

Maybe he's not that much different from Sam when it comes down to it.  Or maybe he says something like that and then the finance committee tells him differently.

[Bellhorn04]

18 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

The law of averages says player approaching prime, usually improve.

But you also have outliers and regression to the mean, that's why Duran is projected to be not as good in 2025 as he was in 2024, which is in itself a significant reason why our projections don't look as good as some think they should be.

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, mvp 78 said:

Their farm is hitter heavy and ranked #2, so maybe they think the current focus should be on pitching and that hitting will work itself out internally? 

That has to be the plan, and honestly, I don't think it's a bad one.

We have 3 top prospects- all ML ready or very close to it. I know prospects are no sure bet, but with 3, there is a very good chance 1-2 do well. There is always a chance, even a steady vet has an off year or gets hurt. Nothing is a guarantee in MLB. You try to put together the best team you can, on paper, and then see how they do.

The good thing is, our weakest areas for hitting are middle IF and OF vs LHPs, only, and our top prospects play MI (Campbell 2B and Mayer SS) and OF (Anthony has good splits and Campbell bats RH'd.). Okay, Catcher is an issue, too, but not really at hitting.

[moonslav59]

15 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Craig said he wanted to balance the lineup.  He actually came right out and said that. 

“Given that most of the heavy lifting in the rotation is largely done, I think we'll shift our focus to thinking about how to balance out the lineup,” Breslow said Monday. “We've talked about some right-handed bat helping to equalize the significant number of left-handed hitters that we have.Dec 30, 2024 

Maybe he's not that much different from Sam when it comes down to it.  Or maybe he says something like that and then the finance committee tells him differently.

Maybe Sam think he is just a Grichuk, Campbell and Anthony away from fixing that "balance."

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Anyone frequenting singles bars knows the richest guys always have the best shot with top available talent seeking longterm contracts.

Average players do better accepting mediocrity, especially on one-night commitments.

That's the origin of the term pillow contract.

[mvp 78]

3 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Maybe Sam think he is just a Grichuk, Campbell and Anthony away from fixing that "balance."

Clearly, nobody is paying Sam to think. 

[mvp 78]

7 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

But you also have outliers and regression to the mean, that's why Duran is projected to be not as good in 2025 as he was in 2024, which is in itself a significant reason why our projections don't look as good as some think they should be.

I would expect some regression too, but not to be a negative defender the way FanGraphs has him. His BsR will regress to below 3? Why? Is there an injury we don't know about? I get that his hitting may back up a bit, but I would think his defense and baserunning would be somewhat sustainable. 

[moonslav59]

12 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

But you also have outliers and regression to the mean, that's why Duran is projected to be not as good in 2025 as he was in 2024, which is in itself a significant reason why our projections don't look as good as some think they should be.

Of course, but as a group, I think it fair to expect a team with 12 out of 13 batters in pre-prime, peak prime or the end of prime, and the one guy outside of prime as a short-sided platoon guy, to do better than when they were younger. Only Duran had a career year. I don't count Abreu, because it was his first full year.

Some may regress, but more should progress. Can you agree with that principle?