The Time Has Come: Why the Red Sox Must Trade from Their Outfield Depth This Offseason

[drewski6]

1 minute ago, notin said:

Let’s go all George Carlin and put land mines in the OF, too!

I just miss Canseco and Clemens and rising from my chair and screaming at my TV.  But Im fine cuz I also watch hockey (and wrestling). I do think baseball needs a good fight tho.

[drewski6]

9 minutes ago, notin said:

With Gerrit Cole several years into his $36mill AAV, Skubal is going to break scary records…

Meant to respond off this but Im jumping tabs too much.  But my point is - with this in mind, arent you GLAD that crochets contract isnt for 3 years?  Because Skubal is gonna change the game, set a new precedent all that stuff and we got our boy locked in first.

Theres a positive side to going long.  It protects against inflation risk

Obvs i understand far more dont work out than do but im a cost of doing business kinda guy

[drewski6]

The reason why you cant approach your roster strategy from a standpoint of trying to minimize mistakes and bad contracts and be super shy to take a risk and go long....The reason why you cant go about it this way is simple:

Scared money dont make money

You reallllllly dont wanna be scared money at the poker table with sharks like me in the water

[moonslav59]

I'm fine avoiding large and long with pitchers. It's not just because of our nice success trading for top pitchers, but also because so many of them fail- often year 1 or 2.

It makes sense to go large and long on a big bat, this year. We should have a 3-5 year window.

[notin]

1 hour ago, drewski6 said:

The reason why you cant approach your roster strategy from a standpoint of trying to minimize mistakes and bad contracts and be super shy to take a risk and go long....The reason why you cant go about it this way is simple:

Scared money dont make money

You reallllllly dont wanna be scared money at the poker table with sharks like me in the water

And yet the Brewers made the postseason while the Mets got to stay home and watch the Brewers…

[Hugh2]

2 hours ago, notin said:

The thing is, the shorter deals expire faster.  If I sign Michael King to a 3 year deal, and he is out for the first two, that deal is over 3 years from now.  But if you sign Tarik Skubal to a 10 year deal, and he has arm problems early on, youre paying him for 10 years and he might never be the same even when he returns.

Price signed for 7 years and couldn’t go two years without getting hurt .  And he was also never the same again.   And had that injury happened two years later, it might not have mattered to Boston, because he had an opt out after 3 years he probably (?) would have exercised…

Yeah look that's silly, you're right here.  But at the end of the day if you don't pay the price of admission you don't get into the show. But go down the list of past world series winners, almost every single one of them has big name free agent pitchers on their roster. 

You get what you pay for, and yes that involves risk.  But the boy who never asks a girl to dance never dances with a girl. 

[notin]

39 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

Yeah look that's silly, you're right here.  But at the end of the day if you don't pay the price of admission you don't get into the show. But go down the list of past world series winners, almost every single one of them has big name free agent pitchers on their roster. 

You get what you pay for, and yes that involves risk.  But the boy who never asks a girl to dance never dances with a girl. 

Not all the champions have big name free agent pitchers on long, large deals.

I only had to go back to the 2023 Texas Rangers.  Eovaldi was on a 3 year deal.  Sure they had deGrom, but he only started 6 games that year.  Technically, they did HAVE the big free agent pitcher in deGrom per your point.  But per mine, they proved they could win without him.

Also the 2021 Braves, 2017 Astros and 2015 Royals did not have any big free agent pitching contracts…

[Hugh2]

18 minutes ago, notin said:

Not all the champions have big name free agent pitchers on long, large deals.

I only had to go back to the 2023 Texas Rangers.  Eovaldi was on a 3 year deal.  Sure they had deGrom, but he only started 6 games that year.  Technically, they did HAVE the big free agent pitcher in deGrom per your point.  But per mine, they proved they could win without him.

Also the 2021 Braves, 2017 Astros and 2015 Royals did not have any big free agent pitching contracts…

So 3 in the past 20 years? and I mean, how many years did those teams suck to get top 3 picks to get there? the braves were horribly for like an entire decade.  We are not a small market team.  It IS possible to win, spend, and develop players.  The Dodgers have a loaded farm system, and spend like crazy and yet still manage to dip below the luxury tax every few years.  The Sox could easily do that with the revenue they have and enjoy sustained success.  They just need the will and the demand for it. 

[notin]

1 hour ago, Hugh2 said:

So 3 in the past 20 years? and I mean, how many years did those teams suck to get top 3 picks to get there? the braves were horribly for like an entire decade.  We are not a small market team.  It IS possible to win, spend, and develop players.  The Dodgers have a loaded farm system, and spend like crazy and yet still manage to dip below the luxury tax every few years.  The Sox could easily do that with the revenue they have and enjoy sustained success.  They just need the will and the demand for it. 

I named 4 in the past 10 years.  2025-2015 =10.

Really, it comes down to 4 of the last 11 WSC.  Thats still a significant percentage…

[moonslav59]

3 hours ago, notin said:

Not all the champions have big name free agent pitchers on long, large deals.

I only had to go back to the 2023 Texas Rangers.  Eovaldi was on a 3 year deal.  Sure they had deGrom, but he only started 6 games that year.  Technically, they did HAVE the big free agent pitcher in deGrom per your point.  But per mine, they proved they could win without him.

Also the 2021 Braves, 2017 Astros and 2015 Royals did not have any big free agent pitching contracts…

Somehow the Braves got Morton to keep signing one year deals year after year.

[Larry Cook]

Skubal, Greene alcanterra and gore probably off the table. 
gallen and cease got qo! 
ryan’s availability is still unknown! 
 

sale still sitting there. Atlanta going nowhere anytime soon! Hhhmmm!!!!!
 

[moonslav59]

Please, no Sale.

You just know what what will happen, if he comes back.

Can we please... just once...add a pitcher without so many concerns?

It's like the Sox have hypnotized us into only being able to see hobbled and broken-down pitchers as options.

[Larry Cook]

1 hour ago, moonslav59 said:

Please, no Sale.

You just know what what will happen, if he comes back.

Can we please... just once...add a pitcher without so many concerns?

It's like the Sox have hypnotized us into only being able to see hobbled and broken-down pitchers as options.

What other options are available to us? 
 

sale’s stuff = Bugatti 

sale’s body = 1978 ford pinto!!!  But even the pinto occasionally lasted more than 6 months before breaking down!!!! 

[Hugh2]

12 hours ago, notin said:

I named 4 in the past 10 years.  2025-2015 =10.

Really, it comes down to 4 of the last 11 WSC.  Thats still a significant percentage…

And of those 4 how many are "sustainable winners"? they were all window teams, with the exception of Houston who did seem to extend their window, but they also started paying guys to do that. 

You've proven that you don't have to be the biggest spender to win, but I never denied that fact, but it's still ALSO a fact that there is a correlation between spending and winning. 

The Red Sox have the 3rd highest valuation of any mlb team. Last year they had the 5th highest revenue, but if you exlcude NY and LA the other teams were only $10 million more than them. They've been top 5 the past 10 years, and I'd argue that if you take the losing seasons recently out, given Bostons market size we should be the 3rd highest revenue generating team. 

There is ZERO reason why we can't spend.  We can spend on players, player development, drafting, coaching, scouting etc etc. The point you're proving is that other things add value and create a winning atmosphere as well but when there is an undeniable link between spending and success a fan of the 3rd richest franchise in MLB should demand his club do both. 

Henry has spent in the past, he thinks he's the smartest guy in the room and tried to go cheap.  I fully expect he has it in him to pivot back and try to do both.  LA is the model to follow, of course we will never be LA, but we never had to be NY to beat NY but we acted pretty darn close to it to get there. 

I get there is risk, but to me, there is a difference between not spending heavily on free agent pitchers and then practically never spending.  Crochet was a good move, but aside from trades when is the last time we signed a big time free agent pitcher? you can't keep trading 4 top prospects for elite pitching, eventually you will have a few good players and no one else on your roster.  

A Boston team, that returns to it's winning ways AND DOES not fall back into the 2020-2024 trap is one that does both, spends resources on drafting, trading and developing talent but also goes out and take a few big rips. 

You can convince in any given offseason that a certain set of guys "aren't the guys" but I refuse to accept year after year without any big free agent pitching aquisitions is the way to go. 

[Hugh2]

9 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

Please, no Sale.

You just know what what will happen, if he comes back.

Can we please... just once...add a pitcher without so many concerns?

It's like the Sox have hypnotized us into only being able to see hobbled and broken-down pitchers as options.

I think it would be the most Red Sox thing ever to have Sale not be very good (injury related) for almost half a decade, go to another team and win a CY Young, and then come back here and either stink or get hurt again. 

And we'd see the same people who complained about him every day here, then complained about trading him, will complain about trading back for him. 

I like Sale, I wish we didn't trade him, but he is injury prone and will be 37 next year.  That ship has sailed. 

[Hugh2]

9 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

Please, no Sale.

You just know what what will happen, if he comes back.

Can we please... just once...add a pitcher without so many concerns?

It's like the Sox have hypnotized us into only being able to see hobbled and broken-down pitchers as options.

I like the "hobbled and broken-down pitchers" as projects, I don't like it when that's all they do.  I liked Buehler so much more last year because they ALSO went out and got Crochet.  Unlike a few years ago when all we got for Christmas was Corey Kluber

[moonslav59]

9 hours ago, Larry Cook said:

What other options are available to us? 
 

sale’s stuff = Bugatti 

sale’s body = 1978 ford pinto!!!  But even the pinto occasionally lasted more than 6 months before breaking down!!!! 

There are plenty of pitchers "available" to us with less concerns than Sale. Sure, there best stuff does not compare in almost all cases, but Buehler had great stuff when healthy and in a groove. Kluber was a multiple Cy Young winner. Richards and Wacha and moments in the sun. Paxton, too. We have one right now in Sandoval. Crawford & Dobbins for 2026. Houck for 2027. We're booked solid.

I get the fact that anyone can get hurt at anytime, but recent injury history has been a good predictor of what is to come. Even the Sale "success story" saw him miss the ends of both seasons in ATL.

[moonslav59]

2 hours ago, Hugh2 said:

I like the "hobbled and broken-down pitchers" as projects, I don't like it when that's all they do.  I liked Buehler so much more last year because they ALSO went out and got Crochet.  Unlike a few years ago when all we got for Christmas was Corey Kluber

I'll take back Sale, as long as the cost is not too high AND we also add Ryan, Lodolo or the like. We know better. That ain't happening.

[moonslav59]

One could argue we are due to hit gold on a hobbled/broken-down SP'er, soon.

We have Sandoval, Crawford, Dobbins and Houck, already. Only one will be on the 60 to start the season, so how many 40 man slots do we want to reserve for these types?

[Hugh2]

2 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

One could argue we are due to hit gold on a hobbled/broken-down SP'er, soon.

We have Sandoval, Crawford, Dobbins and Houck, already. Only one will be on the 60 to start the season, so how many 40 man slots do we want to reserve for these types?

I'm done with pitchers over 35 years old.  I don't mind paying for a few years on the back end of a contract if I'm getting a guy in his prime but I don't want to add AARP guys to our staff. 

[Hugh2]

4 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

One could argue we are due to hit gold on a hobbled/broken-down SP'er, soon.

We have Sandoval, Crawford, Dobbins and Houck, already. Only one will be on the 60 to start the season, so how many 40 man slots do we want to reserve for these types?

BTV accepts Kyson Witherspoon and Vaughn Grissom for Chris Sale

[moonslav59]

4 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

BTV accepts Kyson Witherspoon and Vaughn Grissom for Chris Sale

If we got Ryan or Lodolo and Sale, I'd be okay with that trade. I'd even give DHam over Grissom, just so Cora can't play him got 300+ PAs.

[drewski6]

16 hours ago, notin said:

Not all the champions have big name free agent pitchers on long, large deals.

I only had to go back to the 2023 Texas Rangers.  Eovaldi was on a 3 year deal.  Sure they had deGrom, but he only started 6 games that year.  Technically, they did HAVE the big free agent pitcher in deGrom per your point.  But per mine, they proved they could win without him.

Also the 2021 Braves, 2017 Astros and 2015 Royals did not have any big free agent pitching contracts…

Youre actually making good points for both sides of the debate.  Yes the Rangers won without contributions from their big contract pitcher (DeGrom), but this also shows that they were able to overcome all that dead money. Partly becaues these didnt let it stop them from pursuing Eovaldi or other pitchers. Understood it prob made them pause on "large and long" contracts for at least awhile and thats understandable.

But the point here is that even in your examples of a team winning without a large and long contract for a contributing pitcher, they were still able to overcome the bad contract in DeGrom.

Im also thinking back to the 90s/2000s Yankees teams where they would seem to always have a bad contract like Kevin Brown or Ellsbury and we would always think woohoo, this is gonna slow them.  And they just went right over it with a speed bump.

Im not necessarily saying you cant win without a large and long contract for a pitcher or anyone, Im really just saying that when we start talking about how we dont want them, or how they dont help, or how thats the yankees/dodgers way...Well those of us who say that, it feels a lot like towing the company line and I dont lick boots. Not to imply that you or anyone else is actually doing that.  But I like the comment about gotta pay to play. There are exceptions to that rule, for sure.  So maybe you dont HAVE to pay to play, but you are disadvanting yourself considerably by not paying to play.

And I wonder how much Seager was making when the Rangers won.  Im a dont avoid a bad contract at all costs guy, Im not a you need to have one high paid FA pitcher, that might be a distinction between me and Hughs views, even though I mostly agree and like what Hugh2 is saying.

[notin]

48 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

I'm done with pitchers over 35 years old.  I don't mind paying for a few years on the back end of a contract if I'm getting a guy in his prime but I don't want to add AARP guys to our staff. 

Worked with Aroldis…

[Hugh2]

2 minutes ago, notin said:

Worked with Aroldis…

It was also a one year deal and we didn't have to give up any assets to get him, but yeah I get it.  Some of the old timers can still get it. 

Aroldis is also a physical freak of a humn being.  

[drewski6]

3 hours ago, Hugh2 said:

And of those 4 how many are "sustainable winners"? they were all window teams, with the exception of Houston who did seem to extend their window, but they also started paying guys to do that. 

You've proven that you don't have to be the biggest spender to win, but I never denied that fact, but it's still ALSO a fact that there is a correlation between spending and winning. 

The Red Sox have the 3rd highest valuation of any mlb team. Last year they had the 5th highest revenue, but if you exlcude NY and LA the other teams were only $10 million more than them. They've been top 5 the past 10 years, and I'd argue that if you take the losing seasons recently out, given Bostons market size we should be the 3rd highest revenue generating team. 

There is ZERO reason why we can't spend.  We can spend on players, player development, drafting, coaching, scouting etc etc. The point you're proving is that other things add value and create a winning atmosphere as well but when there is an undeniable link between spending and success a fan of the 3rd richest franchise in MLB should demand his club do both. 

Henry has spent in the past, he thinks he's the smartest guy in the room and tried to go cheap.  I fully expect he has it in him to pivot back and try to do both.  LA is the model to follow, of course we will never be LA, but we never had to be NY to beat NY but we acted pretty darn close to it to get there. 

I get there is risk, but to me, there is a difference between not spending heavily on free agent pitchers and then practically never spending.  Crochet was a good move, but aside from trades when is the last time we signed a big time free agent pitcher? you can't keep trading 4 top prospects for elite pitching, eventually you will have a few good players and no one else on your roster.  

A Boston team, that returns to it's winning ways AND DOES not fall back into the 2020-2024 trap is one that does both, spends resources on drafting, trading and developing talent but also goes out and take a few big rips. 

You can convince in any given offseason that a certain set of guys "aren't the guys" but I refuse to accept year after year without any big free agent pitching aquisitions is the way to go. 

Bravo, Hugh!

I especially like the bold.  Not saying be LA or be NY, just saying eat into the payroll gap!

[Hugh2]

23 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

Bravo, Hugh!

I especially like the bold.  Not saying be LA or be NY, just saying eat into the payroll gap!

Exactly, when you think about it, we should be somewhere around the 3rd to 4th highest spender yearly.  No reason why you can't do that, dip under the LT every once in a while and occassionally even swing big and out bid LA and NY. 

[notin]

3 hours ago, Hugh2 said:

And of those 4 how many are "sustainable winners"? they were all window teams, with the exception of Houston who did seem to extend their window, but they also started paying guys to do that. 

You've proven that you don't have to be the biggest spender to win, but I never denied that fact, but it's still ALSO a fact that there is a correlation between spending and winning. 

The Red Sox have the 3rd highest valuation of any mlb team. Last year they had the 5th highest revenue, but if you exlcude NY and LA the other teams were only $10 million more than them. They've been top 5 the past 10 years, and I'd argue that if you take the losing seasons recently out, given Bostons market size we should be the 3rd highest revenue generating team. 

There is ZERO reason why we can't spend.  We can spend on players, player development, drafting, coaching, scouting etc etc. The point you're proving is that other things add value and create a winning atmosphere as well but when there is an undeniable link between spending and success a fan of the 3rd richest franchise in MLB should demand his club do both. 

Henry has spent in the past, he thinks he's the smartest guy in the room and tried to go cheap.  I fully expect he has it in him to pivot back and try to do both.  LA is the model to follow, of course we will never be LA, but we never had to be NY to beat NY but we acted pretty darn close to it to get there. 

I get there is risk, but to me, there is a difference between not spending heavily on free agent pitchers and then practically never spending.  Crochet was a good move, but aside from trades when is the last time we signed a big time free agent pitcher? you can't keep trading 4 top prospects for elite pitching, eventually you will have a few good players and no one else on your roster.  

A Boston team, that returns to it's winning ways AND DOES not fall back into the 2020-2024 trap is one that does both, spends resources on drafting, trading and developing talent but also goes out and take a few big rips. 

You can convince in any given offseason that a certain set of guys "aren't the guys" but I refuse to accept year after year without any big free agent pitching aquisitions is the way to go. 

So if the Sox traded for Hunter Greene - not a free agent, not a huge contract, not already on the other side of 30 - that would be better, worse or the same as signing, say, Framber Valdez?

[moonslav59]

Back to the thread title:

YES!

WE HAVE TO TRADE

AN OUTFIELDER!

[Larry Cook]

8 hours ago, Hugh2 said:

It was also a one year deal and we didn't have to give up any assets to get him, but yeah I get it.  Some of the old timers can still get it. 

Aroldis is also a physical freak of a humn being.  

Sale has 1 year left on his deal!!!  Allows early and Tolle and Witherspoon more time to develop.