A Realistic Look at the 2026 Red Sox: Part I

[drewski6]

38 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

His OPS 7/18 - 9/30/26 was 587. Nothing is a given in this league with his approach. He seems to have refined it a bit so far, but we'll see. 

This is a good example of what I mean.  In hindsight/going forward Cedannes contract is probably "fine" but that doesnt mean it was a "fine" decision to extend him when we did.  

If Im going to extend, I want massive upside.  But if I take over as a GM , and a contract is par without a ton more upside, its not like that contract is killing me.  But I prob still try to move it lol.  I like churn.

[mvp 78]

17 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

This is a good example of what I mean.  In hindsight/going forward Cedannes contract is probably "fine" but that doesnt mean it was a "fine" decision to extend him when we did.  

If Im going to extend, I want massive upside.  But if I take over as a GM , and a contract is par without a ton more upside, its not like that contract is killing me.  But I prob still try to move it lol.  I like churn.

There's no reason to be stuck with guy for 8 years just because they were highly ranked at one point. Once you sign those extensions, they are also harder to trade because other teams don't want to be necessarily be locked into those extensions either. 

For Roman? Yes. For Ceddanne? No! Not enough upside as you've said. Sox have enough $$ that worrying about retaining him after his arb years shouldn't be a concern.

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, mvp 78 said:

His OPS 7/18 - 9/30/26 was 587. Nothing is a given in this league with his approach. He seems to have refined it a bit so far, but we'll see. 

Yes, as I said, he might hit .650. (He could be worse.)

Others have written off KC already. Most have written off Bello.

My point was that of Ceddanne continues as is until his contract ends (still before age 32,) he will be worth the contract or even more.

[moonslav59]

35 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

This is a good example of what I mean.  In hindsight/going forward Cedannes contract is probably "fine" but that doesnt mean it was a "fine" decision to extend him when we did.  

If Im going to extend, I want massive upside.  But if I take over as a GM , and a contract is par without a ton more upside, its not like that contract is killing me.  But I prob still try to move it lol.  I like churn.

If he does better than his contract indicated, it should be called "fine." 

It still is very much TBD, but he's already "earned" a big chunk of "value," especially if you use WAR as an indicator.

[moonslav59]

17 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

There's no reason to be stuck with guy for 8 years just because they were highly ranked at one point. Once you sign those extensions, they are also harder to trade because other teams don't want to be necessarily be locked into those extensions either. 

For Roman? Yes. For Ceddanne? No! Not enough upside as you've said. Sox have enough $$ that worrying about retaining him after his arb years shouldn't be a concern.

I think many GMs would view Ceddanne's contract as a plus or as something they would give something of value to get.

Cheap teams might trade him in 3-5 years.

[mvp 78]

8 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Yes, as I said, he might hit .650. (He could be worse.)

Others have written off KC already. Most have written off Bello.

My point was that of Ceddanne continues as is until his contract ends (still before age 32,) he will be worth the contract or even more.

Even if he "earns the contract" it doesn't really matter. He's not a guy that is breaking the bank. He's not a guy that you need to lock up post arbitration 6 years in advance. His FA years aren't going to be that expensive. Better business practices would be to go year to year with him IMO. There's no real cost savings with what they did with him.

[mvp 78]

5 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

I think many GMs would view Ceddanne's contract as a plus or as something they would give something of value to get.

Cheap teams might trade him in 3-5 years.

GM's would trade MORE for Ceddanne if there was no contract attached to him. I can guarantee that his BTV went down after signing his extension. It most likely does for every guy! Therefore, it reduces his trade value! 

[moonslav59]

1 minute ago, mvp 78 said:

Even if he "earns the contract" it doesn't really matter. He's not a guy that is breaking the bank. He's not a guy that you need to lock up post arbitration 6 years in advance. His FA years aren't going to be that expensive. Better business practices would be to go year to year with him IMO. There's no real cost savings with what they did with him.

If he breaks even of better, then the extension was "fine" or better.

All of these deals are TBD, so far- some look worse than others, and the worse off ones are being discussed, so I felt it was fair to brig up one that seems to be working, so far. 

It can still go bad or really bad.

[drewski6]

15 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

If he does better than his contract indicated, it should be called "fine." 

It still is very much TBD, but he's already "earned" a big chunk of "value," especially if you use WAR as an indicator.

I dont disagree, my point is that hindsight/results often do not align with what was a correct decision at the time.  So to me, looking back and determining if the contract was "fine" but going back in time without the element of hindsight, was that a good decision to extend?

These are different questions, IMO.

Not every good decision works out and not every bad decision does not.

[Duran Is The Man]

9 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

If he breaks even of better, then the extension was "fine" or better.

All of these deals are TBD, so far- some look worse than others, and the worse off ones are being discussed, so I felt it was fair to brig up one that seems to be working, so far. 

It can still go bad or really bad.

if it can still go bad or really bad, then why is there a need to do this? it's not like he's cranking out 30-35 home runs a year or OPSing .800. like Bello's and Campbell's, it's another needless extension that the Sox will eventually be upside-down on.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

12 minutes ago, Duran Is The Man said:

if it can still go bad or really bad, then why is there a need to do this? it's not like he's cranking out 30-35 home runs a year or OPSing .800. like Bello's and Campbell's, it's another needless extension that the Sox will eventually be upside-down on.

Right -- it's like they were worried he'd turn into another Mookie so better lock him up cheap so they wouldn't get excoriated for trading another generational player when refusing to pay him fair market value.

Comparisons may seem absurd now, but in the minors Ceddanne had more pop, could run, and was said to have a big league Gold Glove in CF and SS. That's potentially a five-tool star that could become very costly... when Betts was in the minors, no one projected him in the majors to win a batting crown, hit 3 homers in one game six times or make himself the best defensive rightfielder in the game.

[mvp 78]

2 minutes ago, 5GoldGlovesOF,75 said:

Right -- it's like they were worried he'd turn into another Mookie so better lock him up cheap so they wouldn't get excoriated for trading another generational player when refusing to pay him fair market value.

Comparisons may seem absurd now, but in the minors Ceddanne had more pop, could run, and was said to have a big league Gold Glove in CF and SS. That's potentially a five-tool star that could become very costly... when Betts was in the minors, no one projected him in the majors to win a batting crown, hit 3 homers in one game six times or make himself the best defensive rightfielder in the game.

He did not have a GG at SS in MiLB. I don't know where you got that from. He had an "average" glove. When he moved to the OF, his defense popped. It was nothing special in the IF. 

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

1 minute ago, mvp 78 said:

He did not have a GG at SS in MiLB. I don't know where you got that from. He had an "average" glove. When he moved to the OF, his defense popped. It was nothing special in the IF. 

I read an eval on him at the time that said he could be a GG at either. I don't remember the source, but I didn't make it up. I also saw him in person make special plays at short with range nobody else had in Boston at the time or since. 

 

[drewski6]

1 hour ago, mvp 78 said:

There's no reason to be stuck with guy for 8 years just because they were highly ranked at one point. Once you sign those extensions, they are also harder to trade because other teams don't want to be necessarily be locked into those extensions either. 

For Roman? Yes. For Ceddanne? No! Not enough upside as you've said. Sox have enough $$ that worrying about retaining him after his arb years shouldn't be a concern.

I agree. My added point is that it really doesnt matter what happens going forward when assessing whether the contract extension was wise but it does matter when determining if the contract going forward is "fine"

Stats can be a tool to avoid having to think.

"What do you mean they shouldnt have extended him? Look at his bwar or his OAA or his whatever." One might say.  

My point is there is a a difference between whether it worked out vs whether it was wise at the time....

[mvp 78]

If he was a projected GG SS, they would have kept him there as it's a much more important position. CF is about as important as 2B and 3B. SS and C are the two most important defensive positions on the field. 

 

[drewski6]

I dont think that extending our own problems is the whole problem, I think its a part of the problem which is too much scared money.

But what if Bregman ages further? What if Casas comes back and there is nowhere to play him? What if Cedanne/KC become so good that we have a tough decision on our hands down the line?

Bloom was certainly shy and cautious.  Breslow seems to have more balls, and I tried to like him, but I just cant get over how bad of a communicator he is, and I really think its gotten pretty ugly.

Its like some of you (not you, MVP) need to listen to some like rage against the machine.  "FU I WONT DO WHAT YOU TELL ME"

[drewski6]

8 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

If he was a projected GG SS, they would have kept him there as it's a much more important position. CF is about as important as 2B and 3B. SS and C are the two most important defensive positions on the field. 

 

Is C as important as it use to be, in a world where automated ball/strikes cut down on the value of pitch framing, and pitch selection is mostly from the dugout?  I think C is still a position where D is significant, but I think its fallen below CF.  But really, all OF work together.  Many teams have the corners cover more ground so you can get through with a mediocre CF.

I would agree that SS is the only position where defense matters nearly as much as (and maybe even more than) the bat.

[mvp 78]

1 minute ago, drewski6 said:

I agree. My added point is that it really doesnt matter what happens going forward when assessing whether the contract was worth it.

Stats can be a tool to avoid having to think.

"What do you mean they shouldnt have extended him? Look at his bwar or his OAA or his whatever." One might say.  

My point is there is a a difference between whether worked out and whether it was wise at the time....

And I also have an overarching problem with how defense is calculated into bWAR vs fWAR. I don't think there's a perfect solution for grading a player's worth. Was Ceddanne really the 14th best OFer last season? His wRC+ was 42 out of 48 qualified hitters. 

[mvp 78]

23 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

Is C as important as it use to be, in a world where automated ball/strikes cut down on the value of pitch framing, and pitch selection is mostly from the dugout?  I think C is still a position where D is significant, but I think its fallen below CF.  But really, all OF work together.  Many teams have the corners cover more ground so you can get through with a mediocre CF.

I would agree that SS is the only position where defense matters nearly as much as (and maybe even more than) the bat.

It's still important as not all pitches are sent to ABS. You still play a factor throughout the game with passed balls, controlling the running game, etc. Until Fangraphs revises their positional adjustments, CF/2B/3B are staying in third place. 

[mvp 78]

32 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

Its like some of you (not you, MVP) need to listen to some like rage against the machine.  "FU I WONT DO WHAT YOU TELL ME"

As I've heard my son sing in the shower many times when he was in middle school "hope lies in the smoldering rubble of empires." Larry Lucchino knew this. Unfortunately, the empire came home and now NESN is "the numb black screen that be feelin' like home." 

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, Duran Is The Man said:

if it can still go bad or really bad, then why is there a need to do this? it's not like he's cranking out 30-35 home runs a year or OPSing .800. like Bello's and Campbell's, it's another needless extension that the Sox will eventually be upside-down on.

If it works out, it may still have been "needless" or help a little, but it's not bad, if it works.

All these deals are still TBD.

With what we know about JHY, any deal that "works" and saves something, is a good think- assuming the money saved goes to another addition and not JH's pocket.

This only matters if the guy sucks or does great, and the break even range is neutral.

 

[moonslav59]

24 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

And I also have an overarching problem with how defense is calculated into bWAR vs fWAR. I don't think there's a perfect solution for grading a player's worth. Was Ceddanne really the 14th best OFer last season? His wRC+ was 42 out of 48 qualified hitters. 

So, only use WAR on certain payers?

[drewski6]

8 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

As I've heard my son sing in the shower many times when he was in middle school "hope lies in the smoldering rubble of empires." Larry Lucchino knew this. Unfortunately, the empire came home and now NESN is "the numb black screen that be feelin' like home." 

How far we've fallen 😢

From the personable upstarts of a likable group with big lovable icons like Ortiz and Pedro and others who were treated like the stars they were.....To the shut up and dribble RS of today. 

The white hooded judges are back to dilute the voice of anyone who dares question the unalienable right of the rich and powerful to take more for themselves and leave less for us.  The bootlickers are back to explain to us why its better this way, even though they dont actually believe it, they just think if they quack like a pet, theyll get adopted.  

And when I see microcosms of this in my use to be beloved RS, it bothers me more than any win/loss record ever could.  

[JoeBrady]

17 hours ago, Old Red said:

but you could leave the bases loaded every inning, and not score.

And a meteor can land in my yard and strike an oil reservoir.  But we need to rely on math for this exercise.

[Kimmi]

23 hours ago, Old Red said:

Line of the day. The Red Sox have been talking about run prevention for the past few years, and they’ve finally accomplished that. The only problem is that it’s their own.

LOL   Ouch.

To be fair, the Red Sox have been a very good defensive team this year.  Very good.