Article: BREAKING: Red Sox Trade For White Sox Ace Garrett Crochet

[Nick]

12 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

That would be something. I'd say we would be big faves to make the playoffs and maybe even be in the top 5-7 odds to win the WS. With HOU looking like a rebuilding team, and the Yanks losing Soto, the AL top teams need more additions to stay highly rated.

The other thing about your picks is that we'd surely trade Abreu, if we added TH. That would bring us another key piece (maybe a big pen upgrade.) With Bregman at 3B, our defense could approach top 10 after being bottom 5.

1. Duran CF

2. Bregman 3B

3. Devers 1B/DH

4. Tesocar LF

5. Casas DH/1B

6. Story SS

7. Anthony RF

8. Campbell 2B

9. Wong-Narvaez

Bench: Rafaela, DHam, Yoshida/Grissom, Narvaez

Damn, that's nice!

Crochet is estimated to add only $3M to our payroll. John Henry is probably doing backflips.

The key is not to slow down. We're still close to $65M under the cap. There were indications that we didn't mind going over the first luxury tax hurdle.

We need to improve our defense and add right handed bat(s).

The lineup you've outlined above would be great. I love having Anthony and Campbell in the mix already. You then have Mayer as a backup to Story. Rafaela becomes the super sub. Playing many games without having a starting position. 

Add a bullpen help and this looks like a playoff contender. (and more importantly a team that I would watch)

[moonslav59]

3 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

How would you (or anyone else who wants to chime in) rank these reasons of why the sox stopped at 700M for Soto

A. They stopped at 700m because it was all a sham and they knew 700 wouldnt get it done and they didnt actually want to spend, just say they tried

B. They do not see Soto as a generational player

C. They are shy to commit these kind of dollars to any one person

D. They reached a point where they determined, if we go any higher for Soto, we are crossing a threshold where we are now in a place where we think we can have a better team if we use this money elsewhere (e.g. instead of going 750 for Soto, we think wed be better off with 3 additions that sum to 750)

E. They knew that no matter how high they went, Mets would go bigger , so they moved on

Heres my order of likelihood: D, C, E, B, A

So I honestly think they will spend. 

I have to think A is in play, but I'm not thinking that was true, here. I do not think B is true.

I'd go...

C

E

D (I like first part of D, but I do not think JH will spend the full $750M on others.)

[Hugh2]

50 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Hugh, I totally agree on spending, actually the lack of it. We need to spend to get over the hump. Trading away the whole future will just get us back to where we were for the last 6 years.

I am not for trading away Campbell and Anthony. I'd really like to keep Mayer and some others, too.

I'd much prefer we sign some FAs, hopefully not the real old ones, but a few.

When I suggest a trade, it is based on the idea that JH will not spend big to fix the holes I see needing fixing.

I hear you, can’t argue against that, thanks for clarifying.  I’ve taken the John Henry math route myself at times

[moonslav59]

5 minutes ago, Nick said:

Crochet is estimated to add only $3M to our payroll. John Henry is probably doing backflips.

The key is not to slow down. We're still close to $65M under the cap. There were indications that we didn't mind going over the first luxury tax hurdle.

We need to improve our defense and add right handed bat(s).

The lineup you've outlined above would be great. I love having Anthony and Campbell in the mix already. You then have Mayer as a backup to Story. Rafaela becomes the super sub. Playing many games without having a starting position. 

Add a bullpen help and this looks like a playoff contender. (and more importantly a team that I would watch)

That line-up is WS caliber.

Bregman at 3B and Devers to share 1B, with Story at SS and Campbell/DHam at 2B makes us a top 10 D.

Adding Crochet and Manaea, which pushed Crawford to the pen makes the rotation top 15 and the pen about the same or better, if we get by with few injuries. Adding Chapman, Crawford, Whitlock, Hendriks and Wilson to the pen should improve enough to offset losing Jansen & Martin.

[moonslav59]

Just now, Hugh2 said:

I hear you, can’t argue against that, thanks for clarifying.  I’ve taken the John Henry math route myself at times

I'm not shy about trading prospects, even if we are spending, but I am more in the camp of trying to keep a strong farm from near ML readiness, to A+ and AA ball to the rookie leagues and Salem.

Having a source of cheap players allows for more targeted spending.

[Nick]

3 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

That line-up is WS caliber.

Bregman at 3B and Devers to share 1B, with Story at SS and Campbell/DHam at 2B makes us a top 10 D.

Adding Crochet and Manaea, which pushed Crawford to the pen makes the rotation top 15 and the pen about the same or better, if we get by with few injuries. Adding Chapman, Crawford, Whitlock, Hendriks and Wilson to the pen should improve enough to offset losing Jansen & Martin.

I hope we don't half ass this..........we're so close now. It just takes willingness to spend some money like they said they would....we'll see.

[Old Red]

4 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

This isn't a team that is going to do enough damage in 2025 for it to be the only season to matter. If they were on the precipice of the WS last year and this move gets them over the top, fine. That's not where this franchise is. They still have a long way to go IMO. Short term moves aren't going to fix the inherent problems of the top of the organization. 

Has the finished product been completed yet? I don’t think so. Last year before the season even started you said the Red Sox wasn’t good enough even if they made the postseason so why bother. I don’t think most fans feel that way, and would gladly take getting  In even if the Red Sox were swept. I believe also that most fans care about the here, and now, and right now 2025 is the here, and now just like 2022, 2023, and 2024 was when it was happening, and not about 2025, and beyond. I also know some on here look at it differently, and that’s ok too. Most fans I believe too don’t follow, or care what Boy Wonder is doing down at Gulf Coast, and if he’ll be a savior in 2028. 2025 is coming up NEXT, and right now matters most to me long way to go, or not.

[Hugh2]

Two thoughts on a few things being said on this board that just seem flat out wrong to me. 

A.) THE RED SOX $700 MILLION DOLLAR SOTO OFFER WAS A SHAME - 

I'm almost entirely certain that is just non-sense.  If the Sox legit operated like that people wouldn't do business like that.  There's a language to business, and I'd like to think I speak it well.  There's certain things that just don't happen.  Consider this hypothetical conversation. 

Breslow "Hi Scott, it's Craig, we've come up on our offer and we are now sitting at 15 years $700 million"

Boras "Hi Craig, so I've talked it over with Soto, and we really like it in Boston, the Mets offered more but we believe in your future and we were looking for at least $700 million. Juan is very exceited"

Breslow "ohhhhhhh, well.......this is actually akward.  Ummmm, you see I don't actually have the money.  You see this was just a shame offer to make us look good to the fans.....year we're backing out"

I'm sorry but the above ^^^^^ that s*** doesn't happen. 

B.) The Red Sox traded for Crochet because they will not spend $ on pitchers

I actually disagree with this one as well.  I think it all comes back to age.  There's a reason they were in on Soto, there's a reason why they let Bogey walked and signed Devers and it's the same reason they traded for Crochet.  They want to pay younger guys, they want to pay for a guys prime and not his 30's as much as they can.  It's been widely speculated that Crochet would seek to extend with any team that signs him.  I don't think it's a slam dunk.....but I would expect an extension before opening day. 

[FredLynn]

9 hours ago, Hitch said:

 

Yes but Fried could be a bust by year 3 and a sunk cost. And the short memories/wilful ignorance of fans means Breslow would have been in the wrong then, too. The guy can't win any way he goes. But that's what being a fan seems to be these days. Find your imperfection and moan about it.

 

It's a step price but only Teel really hurts and I love the Narvaez trade.

 

I'm just glad we're involved at the premier player table and making moves again..

And Crochet could be a flash in the pan, a one season wonder. Don't forget: Crochet has just one good season as a SP so far. I'd have rather paid Fried and saved Teel as our future catcher-unless they open their wallets for Hernandez and another quality SP.

This relative penny pinching is getting old.

[notin]

42 minutes ago, FredLynn said:

And Crochet could be a flash in the pan, a one season wonder. Don't forget: Crochet has just one good season as a SP so far. I'd have rather paid Fried and saved Teel as our future catcher-unless they open their wallets for Hernandez and another quality SP.

This relative penny pinching is getting old.

Just because YOU prefer Fried doesn’t mean he has the better future.  Crochet might flop, but the risk is much less.  Sign Fried for 8 years at $220+ mill and if he turns into David Price 2.0, where does that leave the Sox?  Still needing pitching with a lot less to spend on it.  But hey, maybe Breslow can pair him up in a trade with Roman Anthony in hopes that some other team takes on half of that contract!

Also, why is Crochet with one good season a flash in the pan, but Teel with no seasons at all suddenly the “catcher of the future”?  

[Bellhorn04]

1 hour ago, drewski6 said:

How would you (or anyone else who wants to chime in) rank these reasons of why the sox stopped at 700M for Soto

A. They stopped at 700m because it was all a sham and they knew 700 wouldnt get it done and they didnt actually want to spend, just say they tried

B. They do not see Soto as a generational player

C. They are shy to commit these kind of dollars to any one person

D. They reached a point where they determined, if we go any higher for Soto, we are crossing a threshold where we are now in a place where we think we can have a better team if we use this money elsewhere (e.g. instead of going 750 for Soto, we think wed be better off with 3 additions that sum to 750)

E. They knew that no matter how high they went, Mets would go bigger , so they moved on

Heres my order of likelihood: D, C, E, B, A

So I honestly think they will spend. 

D is probably the closest.

I would guess they went into it with a predetermined limit which appears to have been around $700.

[Hugh2]

8 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

D is probably the closest.

I would guess they went into it with a predetermined limit which appears to have been around $700.

I don't really believe this at all. Saying 3 $250 million dollar players is the same as Soto is just lazy. 

Also, that 700 would have been spread out over 15 years.  You're not signing other guys to 15 year deals or signing them in their 20's but rather their 30's. 

The AAV is around 46 AAV is really like going out and signing 2 guys to 7 year 163 million dollar deals.

That would be more par for the course, but I don't think people would view two 163 million dollar men the same.  

[Old Red]

1 hour ago, Hugh2 said:

Two thoughts on a few things being said on this board that just seem flat out wrong to me. 

A.) THE RED SOX $700 MILLION DOLLAR SOTO OFFER WAS A SHAME - 

I'm almost entirely certain that is just non-sense.  If the Sox legit operated like that people wouldn't do business like that.  There's a language to business, and I'd like to think I speak it well.  There's certain things that just don't happen.  Consider this hypothetical conversation. 

Breslow "Hi Scott, it's Craig, we've come up on our offer and we are now sitting at 15 years $700 million"

Boras "Hi Craig, so I've talked it over with Soto, and we really like it in Boston, the Mets offered more but we believe in your future and we were looking for at least $700 million. Juan is very exceited"

Breslow "ohhhhhhh, well.......this is actually akward.  Ummmm, you see I don't actually have the money.  You see this was just a shame offer to make us look good to the fans.....year we're backing out"

I'm sorry but the above ^^^^^ that s*** doesn't happen. 

B.) The Red Sox traded for Crochet because they will not spend $ on pitchers

I actually disagree with this one as well.  I think it all comes back to age.  There's a reason they were in on Soto, there's a reason why they let Bogey walked and signed Devers and it's the same reason they traded for Crochet.  They want to pay younger guys, they want to pay for a guys prime and not his 30's as much as they can.  It's been widely speculated that Crochet would seek to extend with any team that signs him.  I don't think it's a slam dunk.....but I would expect an extension before opening day. 

Do you think the Red Sox thought they could outbid not one, but three teams like the Yankees, Mets, and Dodgers? No different than last year with the Yam Man. It wasn’t going to happen, but it looked good to the fans who bought in again.

[notin]

1 hour ago, Hugh2 said:

Two thoughts on a few things being said on this board that just seem flat out wrong to me. 

A.) THE RED SOX $700 MILLION DOLLAR SOTO OFFER WAS A SHAME - 

I'm almost entirely certain that is just non-sense.  If the Sox legit operated like that people wouldn't do business like that.  There's a language to business, and I'd like to think I speak it well.  There's certain things that just don't happen.  Consider this hypothetical conversation. 

Breslow "Hi Scott, it's Craig, we've come up on our offer and we are now sitting at 15 years $700 million"

Boras "Hi Craig, so I've talked it over with Soto, and we really like it in Boston, the Mets offered more but we believe in your future and we were looking for at least $700 million. Juan is very exceited"

Breslow "ohhhhhhh, well.......this is actually akward.  Ummmm, you see I don't actually have the money.  You see this was just a shame offer to make us look good to the fans.....year we're backing out"

I'm sorry but the above ^^^^^ that s*** doesn't happen. 

B.) The Red Sox traded for Crochet because they will not spend $ on pitchers

I actually disagree with this one as well.  I think it all comes back to age.  There's a reason they were in on Soto, there's a reason why they let Bogey walked and signed Devers and it's the same reason they traded for Crochet.  They want to pay younger guys, they want to pay for a guys prime and not his 30's as much as they can.  It's been widely speculated that Crochet would seek to extend with any team that signs him.  I don't think it's a slam dunk.....but I would expect an extension before opening day. 

I do think owners have the opposite viewpoint as fans regarding spending.

As shown repeatedly on this thread, the fan logic is “but Fried only costs money.”

I think for ownership, the folks who pay those views, the logic is closer to “but Crochet only costs prospects.”  
 

And prospects can be enticing with their potential, but the reality is many are lottery tickets with regards to actual MLB output.  Now, if you could pay your bills with lottery tickets, wouldn’t you?  “I could put $15,000 down on that Tesla.  Or I could instead give you TEN CHANCES to win $50,000,000!!”   
 

 

[Hugh2]

Just now, Old Red said:

Do you think the Red Sox thought they could outbid not one, but three teams like the Yankees, Mets, and Dodgers? No different than last year with the Yam Man. It wasn’t going to happen, but it looked good to the fans who bought in again.

It doesn't matter whether I think they could, or they thought they could.  I don't believe people make offers they're not prepared to have the other side accept.  Actually, I'd be willing to be rather heavily on that, that's just not how business is conducted. 

[notin]

Just now, Old Red said:

Do you think the Red Sox thought they could outbid not one, but three teams like the Yankees, Mets, and Dodgers? No different than last year with the Yam Man. It wasn’t going to happen, but it looked good to the fans who bought in again.

So you’re saying they shouldn’t even try?

I’d have been a lot more disappointed if they said “well, we did want Soto.  But then the Mets got involved, so why bother?”

[Hugh2]

2 minutes ago, notin said:

I do think owners have the opposite viewpoint as fans regarding spending.

As shown repeatedly on this thread, the fan logic is “but Fried only costs money.”

I think for ownership, the folks who pay those views, the logic is closer to “but Crochet only costs prospects.”  
 

And prospects can be enticing with their potential, but the reality is many are lottery tickets with regards to actual MLB output.  Now, if you could pay your bills with lottery tickets, wouldn’t you?  “I could put $15,000 down on that Tesla.  Or I could instead give you TEN CHANCES to win $50,000,000!!”   
 

 

I think I would need to know the odds of every chance to win 50 million dollars. 

A loto ticket can have a 33% chance of paying something out, or a .01% chance.  Just like a top 25 prospect in all of baseball probably has a much better shot at returning MLB value than a guy who doens't rank does. 

[notin]

Just now, Hugh2 said:

I think I would need to know the odds of every chance to win 50 million dollars. 

A loto ticket can have a 33% chance of paying something out, or a .01% chance.  Just like a top 25 prospect in all of baseball probably has a much better shot at returning MLB value than a guy who doens't rank does. 

Ok, let’s make it 100 chances at $50,000,000.  You in yet?  (These are $2 tickets, by the way.  No 33% chance of winning anything here.)

[Hugh2]

3 minutes ago, notin said:

So you’re saying they shouldn’t even try?

I’d have been a lot more disappointed if they said “well, we did want Soto.  But then the Mets got involved, so why bother?”

If everyone thought they couldn't outbid the Mets, why would the Mets even offer 765? When they easily could have bid less? Eventually the bidding would come down to a point to where other teams would jump in. 

This is generally how bidding works, and like you said, I'd prefer they bid than not bid at all. 

[Hugh2]

2 minutes ago, notin said:

Ok, let’s make it 100 chances at $50,000,000.  You in yet?  (These are $2 tickets, by the way.  No 33% chance of winning anything here.)

Well, I don't gamble so....I'd take my $200 and put it in the bank.

But my point was, I don't think Crochet was traded for because they plan on not resigning him.  I think there will be an extension. 

[notin]

2 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

I think I would need to know the odds of every chance to win 50 million dollars. 

A loto ticket can have a 33% chance of paying something out, or a .01% chance.  Just like a top 25 prospect in all of baseball probably has a much better shot at returning MLB value than a guy who doens't rank does. 

Also, it is impossible to measure top 25 vs unranked.  The numbers are going to be lopsided.  There are certainly more players in MLB that were never ranked in the top 25 than ones that were, for example.  
 

Way back when, I briefly scoured a few years worth of BA Top 100 lists that were old enough (even at the time) that the players had established themselves.  I did find on any list of BA Top 100, you get (usually within +/- 5 the following:

10% All Stars, quite often multiple times

30% MLB starters, SPs and closers

30% Utility infielders, reserve outfielders, middle relievers

30% that simply never make MLB, beyond maybe a September call up.

Having good prospects is essential, but counting on them?   You’ll be disappear more often than elated…

[notin]

6 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

Well, I don't gamble so....I'd take my $200 and put it in the bank.

But my point was, I don't think Crochet was traded for because they plan on not resigning him.  I think there will be an extension. 

Are you selling your car any time soon?  Please let me know.

 

The offer was FIFTEEN THOUSAND or lottery tickets, and you only want the cost of the tickets?

[Hugh2]

1 minute ago, notin said:

Also, it is impossible to measure top 25 vs unranked.  The numbers are going to be lopsided.  There are certainly more players in MLB that were never ranked in the top 25 than ones that were, for example.  
 

Way back when, I briefly scoured a few years worth of BA Top 100 lists that were old enough (even at the time) that the players had established themselves.  I did find on any list of BA Top 100, you get (usually within +/- 5 the following:

10% All Stars, quite often multiple times

30% MLB starters, SPs and closers

30% Utility infielders, reserve outfielders, middle relievers

30% that simply never make MLB, beyond maybe a September call up.

Having good prospects is essential, but counting on them?   You’ll be disappear more often than elated…

And yet you still need them, because prospects turn into MLB players. 

You can't have a 26 man roster you traded for or all FA.  Even teams like LA, they're augmented by homegrown talent.  Also, the hit rate for BA top 25 looks a lot better the past 20 years than it did in the early 2000's and prior.  Scouting methodology has got better, much better, it will NEVER be perfect because no one can predict the future.  But I think a prospect ranked #25 today is more valuable than a guy ranked #25 20 years ago. 

 

[Old Red]

13 minutes ago, notin said:

So you’re saying they shouldn’t even try?

I’d have been a lot more disappointed if they said “well, we did want Soto.  But then the Mets got involved, so why bother?”

I guess it depends on what you really classify as trying. I thought the Red Sox had a 0% of getting either the Yam Man, or Soto.

[Hugh2]

1 minute ago, notin said:

Are you selling your car any time soon?  Please let me know.

 

The offer was FIFTEEN THOUSAND or lottery tickets, and you only want the cost of the tickets?

My point was I'm not a gambler, and I thought the you said 100 chances at winning 50 million? tickets cost $2 each.  That's $200.  I'd assume with those prices each individual chance at winning is significantly lower than 1%  again....I don't gamble and I'm confused now. 

[notin]

10 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

If everyone thought they couldn't outbid the Mets, why would the Mets even offer 765? When they easily could have bid less? Eventually the bidding would come down to a point to where other teams would jump in. 

This is generally how bidding works, and like you said, I'd prefer they bid than not bid at all. 

And sometimes it gets to the point where money is no longer a factor.

When Trea Turner reached free agency, San Diego was determined to sign him at all costs.  Philly was in it, too.  Offers went back and forth a few times and his deal kept escalating.  
 

But Turner’s wife is from Philadelphia, and she wanted to go back there.  Turner had to tell San Diego to please stop bidding.

 

And of course they did.  And took the bulk of the money they didn’t give Turner and spent it on another shortstop - Xander Bogaerts.  Which is why his contract got so ridiculous as well…

[Old Red]

9 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

Well, I don't gamble so....I'd take my $200 and put it in the bank.

But my point was, I don't think Crochet was traded for because they plan on not resigning him.  I think there will be an extension. 

I could seen a short extension like maybe 3 years, but not a long one with FA, and the possibility of a lot more money out there on the horizon, and an opt out like with Bogey would be there if on anything longer.

[Old Red]

16 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

If everyone thought they couldn't outbid the Mets, why would the Mets even offer 765? When they easily could have bid less? Eventually the bidding would come down to a point to where other teams would jump in. 

This is generally how bidding works, and like you said, I'd prefer they bid than not bid at all. 

The Dodgers, and Yankees could keep up with the Mets, but I don’t believe JH would want to play that game.

[Old Red]

24 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

It doesn't matter whether I think they could, or they thought they could.  I don't believe people make offers they're not prepared to have the other side accept.  Actually, I'd be willing to be rather heavily on that, that's just not how business is conducted. 

PR, or lack of PR is not JH strong suit on how he conducts business.

[Hugh2]

2 minutes ago, Old Red said:

I could seen a short extension like maybe 3 years, but not a long one with FA, and the possibility of a lot more money out there on the horizon, and an opt out like with Bogey would be there if on anything longer.

My guess is it's an extension like the Bogaerts extension.  It's going to buy out his team controlled years and take on a few extra.  It will be lower AAV than pitchers signing in this years free agent market but significantly more than what he's getting now.  Maybe in the 25 million AAV range.  

He will probably have an opt out in there around year 5.  This will allow him to get one more payday at age 30.  That's my guess