Article: The Red Sox Have Begun Extension Talks With Garrett Crochet

[Old Red]

8 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

35 starts? Guess they are going with a much smaller rotation than I thought!

I’m counting postseason. Aren’t you?

[moonslav59]

2 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

He did say no pitcher that HE knows of. 

It was mentioned to him by me, when he asked.

[Old Red]

1 minute ago, moonslav59 said:

It was mentioned to him by me, when he asked.

FACT is there was no one with that so few amount of innings under his belt.

[moonslav59]

Largest Signings in MLB History (first year of deal and age when 1st year started):

$325M/12 Yamamoto '24 & 24 y/o

$324M/9 Cole '20 & 29 y/o

$245M/7 Starsburg '20 $ 31 y/o

$218M/8 Fried '25 & 31

$217M/7 Price '16 & 30

$215M/7 Kershaw '14 & 26

$210M/7 Scherzer '15 & 30

$210M/6 Burnes '25 & 30 (Hometown discount)

$207M/6 Greinke '16 & 32

$185M/5 deGrom '23 & 35

$182M/5 Snell '25 &32

$180M/7 Verlander '13 & 30

The underlined pitchers are the only two who signed large and long under the age of 29. 9 of the top 12 were signed at age 30 or above. 3 of the top 6 contracts also are the youngest 3 on the list. That's no coincidence.

The big difference, of course, is that all these guys, except Yamamoto had long success in MLB, and they were open to being signed by any team, except Kershaw who had his last arb year bought out before the 2014 season. (I guess he could be a comp for Crochet, but he has one year left, not two, plus a big kicker: 2 Cy Young awards and  4 yrs in a row over 200 IP. Huge difference, so still apples to oranges. There is, however, examples of $200M+ for pitchers still in arb year or Yamo's no MLB experience example.

[moonslav59]

19 minutes ago, Old Red said:

FACT is there was no one with that so few amount of innings under his belt.

How many did Yamamoto have?

[Old Red]

3 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Largest Signings in MLB History (first year of deal and age when 1st year started):

$325M/12 Yamamoto '24 & 24 y/o

$324M/9 Cole '20 & 29 y/o

$245M/7 Starsburg '20 $ 31 y/o

$218M/8 Fried '25 & 31

$217M/7 Price '16 & 30

$215M/7 Kershaw '14 & 26

$210M/7 Scherzer '15 & 30

$210M/6 Burnes '25 & 30 (Hometown discount)

$207M/6 Greinke '16 & 32

$185M/5 deGrom '23 & 35

$182M/5 Snell '25 &32

$180M/7 Verlander '13 & 30

The underlined pitchers are the only two who signed large and long under the age of 29. 9 of the top 12 were signed at age 30 or above. 3 of the top 6 contracts also are the youngest 3 on the list. That's no coincidence.

The big difference, of course, is that all these guys, except Yamamoto had long success in MLB, and they were open to being signed by any team, except Kershaw who had his last arb year bought out before the 2014 season. (I guess he could be a comp for Crochet, but he has one year left, not two, plus a big kicker: 2 Cy Young awards and  4 yrs in a row over 200 IP. Huge difference, so still apples to oranges. There is, however, examples of $200M+ for pitchers still in arb year or Yamo's no MLB experience example.

But there NO one with only 219 innings pitched, and only 136 as a starter, which has been the MAIN point all along. Yam Man had 897 innings under his belt, which is a lot more innings to get judged by.

[Old Red]

6 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

How many did Yamamoto have?

Notin has already mentioned that figure hours ago.

[moonslav59]

1 minute ago, Old Red said:

But there NO one with only 219 innings pitched, and only 136 as a starter, which has been the MAIN point all along. Yam Man had 897 innings under his belt, which is a lot more innings to get judged by.

Oh, count Japan but not the minors or college.

Yamo also got 12 years: we are saying 6 yrs (7-8 if arbs years, included)

Yamo also got $324M: we are suggesting $140-$200M, depending on the arb buyout years.

BTW, Yamo had no comp before he signed the largest deal for a pitcher only. I'm not sure why "no comp" is somehow the winning argument.

[moonslav59]

4 minutes ago, Old Red said:

Notin has already mentioned that figure hours ago.

We know the number. It is zero MLB IP before signing. (Yes he had over 800 in Japan starting at like age 18.  His deal was still made on mostly speculation and observation of his skill level.

4 minutes ago, Old Red said:

Notin has already mentioned that figure hours ago.

 

[Old Red]

48 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Oh, count Japan but not the minors or college.

Yamo also got 12 years: we are saying 6 yrs (7-8 if arbs years, included)

Yamo also got $324M: we are suggesting $140-$200M, depending on the arb buyout years.

BTW, Yamo had no comp before he signed the largest deal for a pitcher only. I'm not sure why "no comp" is somehow the winning argument.

Of course not what a pitcher does in college, or the minors, but definitely yes what one does in Japan. Do you really think the Yam Man would have gotten what he did for a contract if his 897 innings he pitched wasn’t counted??? Arb years, and FA has NOTHING to do with it with me. Lack of much of a resume does. I guess I’m not as star struck as you, and others are either with the Cro Man, or the suspects you claim was giving up the world.

[moonslav59]

35 minutes ago, Old Red said:

Of course not what a pitcher does in college, or the minors, but definitely yes what one does in Japan. Do you really think the Yam Man would have gotten what he did for a contract if his 897 innings he pitched wasn’t counted??? Arb years, and FA has NOTHING to do with it with me. Lack of much of a resume does. I guess I’m not as star struck as you, and others are either with the Cro Man, or the suspects you claim was giving up the world.

I explained "the world" comment was hyperbole. Do I need to explain what that word means?

Of course the 897 IP in Japan matters.

No, I'm not "star struck." I'm not a gambling man, but I think Crochet is a better gamble than a 30-31 year old guy with a long record of success and IP nearing an almost certain decline period.

Yamo had no comp for his situation. None. His contract has no comp, unless you count the two-way Ohtani. His age had very little comp. My point is, so what? Every case is different and we pick and choose what we value most, somewhat and least. I'm looking at Crochet's age, his skillset and yes, a very small sample size, and I happen to think the other factors outweigh the unknown created by the small sample size.

It's also unknown if Fried and Burnes will decline like most pitchers who move into post-prime years. It's unknown who will get hurt, but we tend to place more injury risk on those with injury history or who are getting older. A lot is unknown, when you have to project future value and durability. 

I'm going with the young guy. I'm not suggesting insane money, but I'm not afraid of giving something that has not been given before (like Yamo,) just because very few pitchers are at this point by age 25. Many that were in similar situations, never got extended, and I'm sure many fizzled out, some did okay and some went on to greatness, and likely got much more than the numbers some of us are suggesting.

No matter who we pay, it's a dice roll, just as the $324M/12 on Yamamoto was.

[Old Red]

34 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

I explained "the world" comment was hyperbole. Do I need to explain what that word means?

Of course the 897 IP in Japan matters.

No, I'm not "star struck." I'm not a gambling man, but I think Crochet is a better gamble than a 30-31 year old guy with a long record of success and IP nearing an almost certain decline period.

Yamo had no comp for his situation. None. His contract has no comp, unless you count the two-way Ohtani. His age had very little comp. My point is, so what? Every case is different and we pick and choose what we value most, somewhat and least. I'm looking at Crochet's age, his skillset and yes, a very small sample size, and I happen to think the other factors outweigh the unknown created by the small sample size.

It's also unknown if Fried and Burnes will decline like most pitchers who move into post-prime years. It's unknown who will get hurt, but we tend to place more injury risk on those with injury history or who are getting older. A lot is unknown, when you have to project future value and durability. 

I'm going with the young guy. I'm not suggesting insane money, but I'm not afraid of giving something that has not been given before (like Yamo,) just because very few pitchers are at this point by age 25. Many that were in similar situations, never got extended, and I'm sure many fizzled out, some did okay and some went on to greatness, and likely got much more than the numbers some of us are suggesting.

No matter who we pay, it's a dice roll, just as the $324M/12 on Yamamoto was.

It’s a dice roll on every pitcher, but once again 897 innings is a lot more to go on then 219, and that’s all I’m saying, and 219 innings to me is not enough on how to judge how good a pitcher is going to be. I get everything you’re saying, and why, and I’m not even saying you are wrong. How you want to judge something, and how I judge something are two different ways, which lead to different opinions, and I’m not even claiming I’m right. It’s just a different opinion, which I’m not going to change, and, you’re not going to change, and that’s where I’m going to leave it

[moonslav59]

5 minutes ago, Old Red said:

It’s a dice roll on every pitcher, but once again 897 innings is a lot more to go on then 219, and that’s all I’m saying, and 219 innings to me is not enough on how to judge how good a pitcher is going to be. I get everything you’re saying, and why, and I’m not even saying you are wrong. How you want to judge something, and how I judge something are two different ways, which lead to different opinions, and I’m not even claiming I’m right. It’s just a different opinion, which I’m not going to change, and, you’re not going to change, and that’s where I’m going to leave it

Yes, and I'm not trying to change your opinion. Certainly a larger sample size is more valid for knowing how good someone is, and in many cases, depending on age, it is often a useful tool in projecting how good someone will be.

I think Yamamoto will be good, but there is a lot more doubt for him vs someone like Kershaw, when he signed at age 26. I do think differing ways of judging someone have pluses and minuses, and I have never said going by longer recent sample sizes is a worse way of projecting how good someone will be vs looking more at age and very recent smaller sample sizes and skillset.

There are plenty of examples of getting it wrong (like w Price) and how we could have gotten it right (Lester.) No way is a surefire bet, or everyone would use that method.

I know I could be terribly wrong about Crochet. I have very serious doubts and concerns, for exactly the reasons you, other and even I have posted about his small sample size. I think I was the first to point out he never pitched over 35 IP, all the way back through college, until 2024.

Had we signed Fried (as I wanted us to, instead of Buehler & Sandoval) I'd be very concerned, too, but more about age decline or possible career ending injury, which tends to happen more to pitchers over 30 than those 24-29. We pick our poisons.

[Bellhorn04]

15 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

We know the number. It is zero MLB IP before signing. (Yes he had over 800 in Japan starting at like age 18.  His deal was still made on mostly speculation and observation of his skill level.

 

Exactly.  Yamamoto's deal was HIGHLY speculative.  

And of course not only did he get 325 million, the Dodgers had to pay a 51 million posting fee.

Total cost = 376 million for a pitcher with ZERO MLB INNINGS.

But oh yeah, that's totally rational stuff compared to our suggested deals for Crochet. 😁 

[Bellhorn04]

18 hours ago, notin said:

The difference is the bidding war for Yamamoto actually happened and isn’t some conditional future possibility like it is with Crochet…

I could be wrong but you seem to be arguing that potential free agent paydays have ZERO correlation to the amounts of extension offers.

[Bellhorn04]

I don't know if anyone else has mentioned this, but I'm sure I read that Crochet said he was okay with extension negotiations extending into the regular season.      

[mvp 78]

5 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

I don't know if anyone else has mentioned this, but I'm sure I read that Crochet said he was okay with extension negotiations extending into the regular season.      

Well, he wasn't a "just play ball" guy last season. He was going to sit out and not pitch the playoffs if any team traded for him and didn't extend him. I guess he does want some sort of pay increase. 

[Bellhorn04]

4 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Well, he wasn't a "just play ball" guy last season. He was going to sit out and not pitch the playoffs if any team traded for him and didn't extend him. I guess he does want some sort of pay increase. 

And that created some controversy.  But if you step back and take an objective look at it, I think Crochet was absolutely right to be looking out for himself there.  After all, who else would?

[mvp 78]

8 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

And that created some controversy.  But if you step back and take an objective look at it, I think Crochet was absolutely right to be looking out for himself there.  After all, who else would?

"Hey, I know I'm under contract, but if we get to the playoffs, I'm just going to sit out." On one hand, I get it. On another, I kind of worry how this will shake out in Boston. This could go sideways and rub a lot of people the wrong way really quickly.

[mvp 78]

"He's not a dirt dog." 

[Bellhorn04]

16 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

"Hey, I know I'm under contract, but if we get to the playoffs, I'm just going to sit out." On one hand, I get it. On another, I kind of worry how this will shake out in Boston. This could go sideways and rub a lot of people the wrong way really quickly.

The White Sox clearly had him on a pre-set innings limit, and for good reason given his history.  It's not like it was a radical position to take IMHO.

In 2012 Strasburg was allowed to pitch up to X number of innings (160 it looks like) and then shut down completely for the season.  That was a bit controversial too IIRC.   

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Exactly.  Yamamoto's deal was HIGHLY speculative.  

And of course not only did he get 325 million, the Dodgers had to pay a 51 million posting fee.

Total cost = 376 million for a pitcher with ZERO MLB INNINGS.

But oh yeah, that's totally rational stuff compared to our suggested deals for Crochet. 😁 

Yes, we are told again and again, why can't we be more like LAD, then that extending Crochet like nobody has ever done before is a bad idea.

[moonslav59]

19 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

In 2012 Strasburg was allowed to pitch up to X number of innings (160 it looks like) and then shut down completely for the season.  That was a bit controversial too IIRC.   

Good thing they shut him down: it really extended his career!

 

LOL

[notin]

17 hours ago, Old Red said:

FACT is there was no one with that so few amount of innings under his belt.

I can’t find anyone, and it’s also difficult to find pitcher extensions greater than 5 years.

Maybe a good parallel is Sandy Alcantara.  After his age 25 season, he had 4 years of service time and only 486 IP, and was coming off a 4 bWAR season.  He had some injury issues the first few years but no TJ.  (He has had one since.)

His extension was 5 years $55mill.  Certainly inflation and baseball economics would dictate Crochet top that  AAV, but double it? And for longer?

The only pitcher my limited research has found to get a contract extension longer than 5 years was Jose Berrios.  That’s the list…

[notin]

56 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

The White Sox clearly had him on a pre-set innings limit, and for good reason given his history.  It's not like it was a radical position to take IMHO.

In 2012 Strasburg was allowed to pitch up to X number of innings (160 it looks like) and then shut down completely for the season.  That was a bit controversial too IIRC.   

Especially since they made the postseason that year and Strasburg didn’t pitch in their one series…

[notin]

1 hour ago, Bellhorn04 said:

I could be wrong but you seem to be arguing that potential free agent paydays have ZERO correlation to the amounts of extension offers.

It definitely seems that way with the years…

[drewski6]

15 hours ago, Old Red said:

It’s a dice roll on every pitcher, but once again 897 innings is a lot more to go on then 219, and that’s all I’m saying, and 219 innings to me is not enough on how to judge how good a pitcher is going to be. I get everything you’re saying, and why, and I’m not even saying you are wrong. How you want to judge something, and how I judge something are two different ways, which lead to different opinions, and I’m not even claiming I’m right. It’s just a different opinion, which I’m not going to change, and, you’re not going to change, and that’s where I’m going to leave it

After 800 innings , your paying for what he did. At 200 , you are paying for what he is going to do (nods at Notin).

Good scouts and GMs shouldnt need a long resume to know if he can get batters out. Trust the talent level that your scouts/coaches/front-office dudes assign to him (after all, you are paying your assessors). Trust your own eyes also.

Proof is for p*ssies. Take a leap.

[mvp 78]

32 minutes ago, notin said:

I can’t find anyone, and it’s also difficult to find pitcher extensions greater than 5 years.

Maybe a good parallel is Sandy Alcantara.  After his age 25 season, he had 4 years of service time and only 486 IP, and was coming off a 4 bWAR season.  He had some injury issues the first few years but no TJ.  (He has had one since.)

His extension was 5 years $55mill.  Certainly inflation and baseball economics would dictate Crochet top that  AAV, but double it? And for longer?

The only pitcher my limited research has found to get a contract extension longer than 5 years was Jose Berrios.  That’s the list…

If they are buying out FA years, it's going to be WAY more than 11 AAV. He might get 11M next season in ARB...

[Old Red]

3 hours ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Exactly.  Yamamoto's deal was HIGHLY speculative.  

And of course not only did he get 325 million, the Dodgers had to pay a 51 million posting fee.

Total cost = 376 million for a pitcher with ZERO MLB INNINGS.

But oh yeah, that's totally rational stuff compared to our suggested deals for Crochet. 😁 

You don’t think what a Japanese player does in Japan goes a long way in how MLB teams scout, and Judge players, and then determine what they will offer these players to come to the states? You don’t think with throwing ZERO innings in MLB the 897 innings Yam Man threw in Japan wasn’t what had all those MLB teams lining up to offer him all those big contracts. You don’t think what Masa did in Japan with ZERO AB in MLB didn’t influence Bloom, and his minions so much that they outbid everyone, and shut down the bidding in record time? Come on man!

[Old Red]

3 hours ago, Bellhorn04 said:

I could be wrong but you seem to be arguing that potential free agent paydays have ZERO correlation to the amounts of extension offers.

Do you think you should treat a players Arb years the same as FA years?