Red Sox Have "Aggressive" Offer On Table For Alex Bregman

[moonslav59]

11 minutes ago, Old Red said:

 

MVP summed that up pretty well in a previous post also. It’s not that complicated.🙈🤭

Nobody is disagreeing that spending was cut and things changed after 2018 or 2019. No, it's not complicated unless you choose to argue with strawmen.

Have you also noticed a significant uptick in spending since the Devers extension? Is 2025-2026 really that similar to 2029-2020 and maybe the next 3-4 years?

When you said "today" you meant 2019 to 2026? All of it?

I'd say the difference between 2025-2026 and 2020-2024 is wider than the difference between 2020-2024 and 2003.

We have seen some big changes since the Devers extension- some of them historic:

$313M/10 Devers extension blows all extensions away, as well as prices $217M/7 FA deal back in 2017. The extension kicked in for 2024, so from 2024 to today- 2 seasons and 3 offseasons counting this one.

The Crochet trade rivals the Sale, Beckett and Pedro trades. 

The Crochet extension, both in terms of years and dollars rivals the Sale and any other extensions given out, except the Devers one from the same time frame I am presenting.

$40M AAV to Bregman blows all other Sox AAVs away by a longshot.

$21M AAV given to Buehler was the most since the Sale extension. The most given to a FA SP'er since Price.

When was the last time we extended 4 rookies to 6 or more years? There is a short answer: never. We did this in the last 2 years- never close to this before.

While the Jansen deal outprices the Chapman deal, we then extended Chapman to 2 years.

After the Sale extension and Nate re-sign for 2019 and beyond, we signed no FA SP'ers to more than 2 years, unless you count the Paxton on the IL year one type deals until...you guessed it- 2024 and 2025 with Gio and then Sandoval on a Paxton type deal in 2025.

Is this getting too complicated for you?

You seriously think this all looks like 2019-2023?

 

[mvp 78]

2 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Have you also noticed a significant uptick in spending since the Devers extension? 

NO

2022: 240M 

Devers signs extension

2023: 214M

2024: 222M

2025: 243M

2026: 234M+?

How is the Devers extension the demarcation line? '23 and '24 were both lower than '22? '25 was basically flat from '22. 

 

[drewski6]

36 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Did you know Rodon is expected to begin the season on the IL?

If you double Cole's 2023 fWAR, it would be at 3.6. That's damn good, and it matches Sonny Gray's 2025 fWAR.

Cole is projected at 1.9 or 2.0 for 2026. Gray is projected at 3.6 to 3.9.

Another words, the darn yanks are in our crosshairs and i love it!

[moonslav59]

11 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

NO

2022: 240M 

Devers signs extension

2023: 214M

2024: 222M

2025: 243M

2026: 234M+?

How is the Devers extension the demarcation line? '23 and '24 were both lower than '22? '25 was basically flat from '22. 

 

The Devers extension kicked in in 2024. It marked a change in spending big to keep young stars, but not so much on the budget. The $8M gain from 2023 to 2024 is not all that noteworthy, but it was significantly higher than 2021.

The jump from 2024 to 2025 was one of the largest jumps under JH, and if he hadn't dumped Devers, it would have been more. (Note: I made a point of saying much of the uptick seen from JH was "undone by the Devers dump," and this offseason is not over, so that undoing might not be rectified.)

I'm not making a prediction on 2026. I'm just saying some highly significant changes in spending philosophies have occurred since the Devers signing. Do you disagree with that?

Linking the start of the devers extension period in 2024 to the 2019-2023 period seems as off as linking 2025-2026 to 2003.

[Old Red]

4 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

The problem even with that whole issue is that Werner said "full throttle" and he doesn't have the final say. Werner probably wants to spend more than Henry does. Werner wants the tv stars. Werner wants the ratings. Werner wants the FA signings. Henry is more the guy that we see at the end of Moneyball no matter how truthy it is or not. We all know in our hearts, the bottom line is more important to Henry than the rings at this point. Back when he first bought the Red Sox, he was convinced otherwise. He needs a guy like Lucchino or Dombrowski who can convince him to spend. Instead, he's surrounding himself with yes men. 

Yes we feel the bottom line is more important to JH than the rings at this point, and yes back when JH first bought the Red Sox he was convinced otherwise, and that is why JH is not the same guy today as when he first bought the Red Sox. Simple as that, and nothing more, and nothing less all IMO.👋

[moonslav59]

1 minute ago, Old Red said:

Yes we feel the bottom line is more important to JH than the rings at this point, and yes back when JH first bought the Red Sox he was convinced otherwise, and that is why JH is not the same guy today as when he first bought the Red Sox. Simple as that, and nothing more, and nothing less all IMO.👋

Do you remember the budgets when JH took over? Was his spending really the major factor, early on?

The 2001 budget (pre JH) was $110M on opening day and $114M at the end.

JH's group took over that winter.

The 2002 budget, according to cots was $108M and $110M at the end of 2002.

The 2003 budget went down again to $100M and finished at $104M.

Maybe you are talking about a few years into his reign, not when he first started.

We did see a big jump for 2004, and Foulke was a big piece for the ring year. but do you remember he cut the budget the next two years ($127>123>120.) There was a massive drop from end of year 2004 ($131M) to the end of year 2005 ($117M). Was it really as rosy as you portray it to be? The big spending years (2018-2019)came closer to 2026 than 2003. Sounds shocking, doesn't it?

We jumped the spending for 2007, bigly. (Again, with my "cycle" talk you abhor and ridicule.) We won a ring and guess what? Cuts again. ($143>134>122.) That was pretty major, as in a 15% cut.

It was time to cycle up again for 2010, but it didn't work as planned. We jumped the spending by $47M from 2009 to 2010 and stayed close to the same for 3 years, as we transitioned from Theo to Ben. We cut by more than $20M for 2013, but somehow won a ring, that year. We can't really call that ring a "JH desire to kill the evil empire" season, can we? 2014 saw about the same budget, then the DD era began, and I think this is the time frame we seem to be linking to 2002-2014. To me, many years in the 2002-2014 era look very similar to 2021 to 2024 and 2025. Ups and downs. Of course the big difference is we were top 3-4 spenders for many of those years.

Note: our ranking pre-JH:

T6th in '98 ($6M from NYY at #2)

6th in '99 ($4M from #3 and $17M from #1 NYY)

7th in '00 ($4M from #4 and $15M from #1 NYY)

#2 in 2001 (The year before JH) just $200K from #1 NYY. That was the JH starting point- essentially tied with the Yanks. Then...

-$17M year 1 from NYY

-$53M year 2

-$57M year 3 (2004)

-$84M year 4 (man, facts hurt, don't they?)

-$75M in 2006

-$46M year 6 (ring year)

-$76M in 2008 (4th place in spending)

-$79M year 8

-$44M in year 9 and -$40 year 10. Was this the golden era you speak of?

We didn't pass the Yanks until 2018. That was year 17 out of 24 seasons under JH.

[JoeBrady]

6 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

The problem even with that whole issue is that Werner said "full throttle"

These people should never be allowed to speak in public.  Theo said nothing.  DD would talk like it pained him to speak.  Everything is couched.  Nothing is explicit.  Saying 'full throttle' is just trying to get attention in the press.

[JoeBrady]

6 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

Is anyone in the camp of signing him at any and all cost?

IMO, no one should be.  I think he is a fine target, even though some disagree.  And they might be right.  But the best player in any sport can be a bad buy at the wrong price.

[JoeBrady]

5 hours ago, 5GoldGlovesOF,75 said:

the Sox better be ready to match rival bids that may be $20 mil or so above their current offer.

But we don't know that price.  Suppose AZ offered him $180M/6.  Does that mean we offer him $200M/6?

[Randy Red Sox]

On 1/7/2026 at 9:11 AM, moonslav59 said:

Just to satisfy the fans?

why do anything to satisfy the fans. Hell they dont help pay your bills. We will be just fine if the next 6 years are the same as the last 6.

[Behindenemylines]

On 1/2/2026 at 7:39 PM, Donnie Sadler was short said:

I just read its 160 for 5!   I think thats a massive overpay...mostly due to the years

Agree! I am good with 4 years, but the 5th I think at the $$$ is asking for trouble. 

[Larry Cook]

22 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

Gray is projected as our second best player, but you think he's a hole that needs fixing.

I think grey is a fine number 3 in our rotation. 
 

the “hole” is that our rotation does not have a number 2 starter. Someone that can take the ball in game 2 of a playoff series and have a reasonable expectation that he can outduel whoever Toronto, the Yankees. Cleveland, detriot  or Seattle is pitching against us!  
 

does anybody think grey can go toe to toe against fried??  I don’t!!  

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

1 hour ago, JoeBrady said:

But we don't know that price.  Suppose AZ offered him $180M/6.  Does that mean we offer him $200M/6?

No. I'd say matching it would be good enough... but Boras wants us to beat it.

So: $180 million dollars and 99 cents.

[Randy Red Sox]

7 minutes ago, 5GoldGlovesOF,75 said:

No. I'd say matching it would be good enough... but Boras wants us to beat it.

So: $180 million dollars and 99 cents.

way too much-pass.  let someone else have him. he only cares about the $$$

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, JoeBrady said:

But we don't know that price.  Suppose AZ offered him $180M/6.  Does that mean we offer him $200M/6?

I guess we could try just matching it and hope Breggie likes BOS more, or offer $181M/6.

I would not go that high.

[moonslav59]

20 minutes ago, Randy Red Sox said:

way too much-pass.  let someone else have him. he only cares about the $$$

So, we pass on 99% of all players, then.

[Randy Red Sox]

1 hour ago, moonslav59 said:

So, we pass on 99% of all players, then.

We do anyway as it is.  Fans like myself have been waiting {not so} patiently for 3 months now with nothing other than Sonny Gray  and Contreras as so called "players we are interested in" [Alonso, Schwarber, Marte and the Japanese guys and others}  have all come off the board. Now we likely have to overpay to bring Bregman back or he will be gone too. I very much doubt we are at all in on Bichette and Breslow is simply waiting to see who is the warm body standing he can snag on a 1 yr deal.  Tell me I am wrong.

[moonslav59]

25 minutes ago, Randy Red Sox said:

We do anyway as it is.  Fans like myself have been waiting {not so} patiently for 3 months now with nothing other than Sonny Gray  and Contreras as so called "players we are interested in" [Alonso, Schwarber, Marte and the Japanese guys and others}  have all come off the board. Now we likely have to overpay to bring Bregman back or he will be gone too. I very much doubt we are at all in on Bichette and Breslow is simply waiting to see who is the warm body standing he can snag on a 1 yr deal.  Tell me I am wrong.

Not sure what that has to do with wanting to pass on every player looking to make the most money they can. We'd never get anyone, even many 1 year guys.

 

[Kimmi]

On 1/7/2026 at 3:58 PM, mvp 78 said:

There's risk, but that's why you develop overall org depth. I don't think just adding another 2 fWAR to the projected rotation fixes a loss of Crochet. However, adding another 2 fWAR to the offense is more likely to be sustainable throughout the year IMO. You kind of just have to cross your fingers and hope for the health luck we had in the WS years. 

I agree that replacing the loss of Crochet would be a difficult fix.  He was our best player by almost 2 fWAR.  That loss would be difficult for just about any team to overcome.

I agree 100% on the importance of develop overall organizational depth.  

[Kimmi]

On 1/7/2026 at 5:28 PM, moonslav59 said:

Is $115M/4 better to you?

Moot point now, but yes, it would be.  I have always been in favor of a higher AAV for fewer years, rather than a longer contract at a lower AAV.  I know that a higher AAV hurts us more in terms of the luxury tax, but too many years has always been a deal breaker for me.

[Kimmi]

On 1/7/2026 at 5:35 PM, moonslav59 said:

While technically true, the key word is "improving." If you replace a 1.1 WAR rotation pitcher with a 2 WAR better one, how much does getting a 3.1 WAR pitcher going to cost? It might not be possible.

I look at it this way: if we have enough to trade for or sign a 2 WAR player, getting a 2 WAR pitcher might improve our 5 slot by 0.8 WAR. (Of course the guy he boots out might give us 1.2 WAR from the pen, but that is doubtful.)

Instead, we replace a 0.5 infielder with a 2.0 WAR guy and we gain 1.5 and not just 0.8 in the rotation. That's where choosing where to "improve" can make a difference. We have to look at who plays where, if we don't add, and what they project as value and try to maximize the gain accordingly.

This is surely oversimplifying a complex choice that needs to be made, and yes, maybe we fill 2 holes by opening day, but I agree: I doubt we go over the second line. We may even end up closer to the first line than the second.

I was not saying to simply add a 2 WAR pitcher or position player.  I am saying that improving the pitching by 2 WAR has the same effect as improving the offense by 2 WAR.  Net improvement.

Yes, trying to improve the starting pitching is probably going to cost more and is probably more difficult to do.