Red Sox sign Ranger Suarez. 5 years $130 Million

[Kimmi]

5 minutes ago, Old Red said:

Did Brez really think he was bidding against himself?🤔 If Brez was really betting against himself Bregman most likely would have signed with the Red Sox, and we would have hated the deal.

He didn't say he was bidding against himself.  He said he wanted to avoid bidding against himself.  There's a difference.

And yes, we would have hated the deal.  As they say, sometimes, the best deals are the ones that are never  made.  So what was really botched in all of this?

[moonslav59]

6 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Honestly, I don't believe the Betts story has changed all that much. The only thing that we ever heard later on was "we offered him 300M" and "no they did not." 

We did find out later, that DD almost traded him in summer 2019.

Yes, we heard that offer was made.

Then, we heard it was not.

There was never an "all accounts" on this one, in terms of the specifics on what went down- only the in general, we messed up, badly.

[mvp 78]

9 minutes ago, Old Red said:

Did Brez really think he was bidding against himself?🤔 If Brez was really betting against himself Bregman most likely would have signed with the Red Sox, and we would have hated the deal.

Internally, they didn't believe there was a real offer from the Cubs.

[moonslav59]

2 minutes ago, Kimmi said:

He didn't say he was bidding against himself.  He said he wanted to avoid bidding against himself.  There's a difference.

And yes, we would have hated the deal.  As they say, sometimes, the best deals are the ones that are never  made.  So what was really botched in all of this?

I did find this on Over the Monster...

If you’re wondering why Bregman wouldn’t give the Sox a chance to match Chicago, the answer seems to be primarily tied to the Sox’ refusal to grant him a no-trade clause. “Had the Sox granted him no-trade protection and negotiated more favorable deferrals, Bregman would still be with the team, according to a source familiar with the process.” (Pete Abraham, Boston Globe)

[moonslav59]

Just now, mvp 78 said:

Internally, they didn't believe there was a real offer from the Cubs.

Maybe we're arguing semantics, but is that a "botch?"

If you are playing poker and have a good hand, and you think the other guy is bluffing, but he wasn't, and you lost, was that a "botch" or a well-calculated choice made on teh fact that you had a good hand?

[Kimmi]

6 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

Ill believe AJP, Alex Speier, Buster Olney, Tyler Milliken and Jarred Carrabis putting their name and reputation on the line that Breslow was getting increasingly defiant and accusing Bregman of bluffing when Bregman told them they had a better offer and it got to the point where Bregman and Boras never went back to Breslow because he was just dense and couldnt be communicated with

I trust all of them over your gut. No offense, but I think its much much much more likely that they are right especially when it fits a pattern from breslow that ive seen before.  He knows baseball.  He did a great job getting Crochet.  But hes kind of a jerk and a bad communicator.

What those guys are saying may very well be right.  Or it might not be.  They certainly have more credibility than I have on the matter.  With all that said, I'm still not seeing anything about the deal being botched.  

Breslow made a more than fair offer.  Bregman was apparently upset that Breslow would not match the Cubs offer, and Breslow was right not to match it.  Bregman chose the Cubs.  No botching going on there.

Now, if you want an example of a botched contract situation, I give you Jon Lester.

[Kimmi]

11 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

I think if the Sox got Bregman on the Cubs deal, we would have been fine with it. At least we'd know where the lineup kinda stands. 

No.

I would have welcomed Bregman back with open arms, but I would not have been fine with the contract.

[Kimmi]

13 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

I dont hate this take.  Maybe it wasnt a botch.  But there was some clownishness along the way.

Not even clownishness.

It was a negotiation that didn't work out in the Red Sox favor.  (Or I could argue that it did work out in the Red Sox favor.)  Simple as that.

[drewski6]

14 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Internally, they didn't believe there was a real offer from the Cubs.

Yup.

[moonslav59]

1 minute ago, drewski6 said:

Yup.

That's "THE" botch?

[drewski6]

12 minutes ago, Kimmi said:

What those guys are saying may very well be right.  Or it might not be.  They certainly have more credibility than I have on the matter.  With all that said, I'm still not seeing anything about the deal being botched.  

Breslow made a more than fair offer.  Bregman was apparently upset that Breslow would not match the Cubs offer, and Breslow was right not to match it.  Bregman chose the Cubs.  No botching going on there.

Now, if you want an example of a botched contract situation, I give you Jon Lester.

Breslow did not refuse to match the cubs offer, he told him that he didnt believe it existed and bregman was bluffing.  At which point Bregman walked out with Breslow screaming "youre bluffing"

Then breslow turned to the guy next to him and said "hes bluffing , right? right?"

[moonslav59]

8 minutes ago, Kimmi said:

Not even clownishness.

It was a negotiation that didn't work out in the Red Sox favor.  (Or I could argue that it did work out in the Red Sox favor.)  Simple as that.

It is kinda funny, if they laughed at BorA$$ saying "Nah, nah, nah, there is no better offer," but there was.

[drewski6]

Just now, moonslav59 said:

That's "THE" botch?

It fits a pattern of Breslow being a bad communicator.

[drewski6]

Breslow made a joke of an offer to Alonso

Breslow made a bad offer for Bregman. Breslow wouldnt listen or read the room or know market value (see Alonso).  That was not a more than fair offer to Bregman , Im sorry.  

So we had to trade our prospects to get Contreras cuz we cant sign a FA bat.  Thats not particularly sustainable. And now we have 40 yr old contreras for 2 years. Better than nothing, though.

ANd to cover up for this clown-boy behavior, he went out and signed a pitcher we didnt need. Someone who is good but we didnt need.

Kutter Crawford will start game 2 of the playoffs because hes awesome.

[Old Red]

It’s just so funny how some are so bothered by the word BOTCHED.

[drewski6]

4 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

It is kinda funny, if they laughed at BorA$$ saying "Nah, nah, nah, there is no better offer," but there was.

I agree. Its 100% comical.

Like I said Breslow still doesnt believe that Bregman has an offer from the Cubs and he still doesnt believe that he should have traded for Josh Naylor last year and he still doesnt believe that Alonso is an Oriole.  He still believes that he doesnt have to eat his vegetables.  He just sits there defiantly with his arm folded across his chest in pure bratty man-child body language and you are right it is kind of funny.

But it will stop being funny when it costs us Cora.

[moonslav59]

1 minute ago, drewski6 said:

But it will stop being funny when it costs us Cora.

Now, that's not funny!

IMO, Cora will pass up Brez, someday, if not replace.

[moonslav59]

8 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

It fits a pattern of Breslow being a bad communicator.

I'll never disagree with that.

Some bad communicators accomplished some great feats, though.

[drewski6]

3 minutes ago, Old Red said:

It’s just so funny how some are so bothered by the word BOTCHED.

HOW DARE YOU!!!! NOT OUR LOVE!!!!

Im a nerdy Jew and nerdy Jew Breslow lost even me.  Not sure what he has on some of these folks but hes an established clown 6x over.

Not sure Id move on because he gets a leash from nailing the Crochet acquisition. And I think he is very good at knowing baseball.  Hes very good in some ways as a GM and very flawed in others.

Homerism is blinding I s'ppose. Im not sure if we should fire him right now, but I do see why he was GM choice #72 and I also see why the first 71 werent interested in the job.

[moonslav59]

6 minutes ago, Old Red said:

It’s just so funny how some are so bothered by the word BOTCHED.

Projecting again?

"Bothered?

Words matter. Words have meaning.

I know, I know- cue-- "You're overanalyzing..."

[drewski6]

Just now, moonslav59 said:

I'll never disagree with that.

Some bad communicators accomplished some great feats, though.

Yup.  I agree. 

If I bought the Red Sox tomorrow, I would pull Cora into a room and ask him if he trusts Breslow.

And if he said yes, I would keep Breslow and if he said no I would can him.

A lot of bad communicators lose staff, and I think Cora would be a huge loss and it would negatively impact the next 10 years.

[drewski6]

27 minutes ago, Kimmi said:

No.

I would have welcomed Bregman back with open arms, but I would not have been fine with the contract.

Well maybe if you wouldnt have been fine with the contracts for Bregman, Alonso, Schwarber that you need to update your perceived market values.

Or maybe you would have been fine with Alonso (the contract he got) or Schwarber (the contract he got) in which case you would have rather been aggressive there rather than hold the powder for Breggy.

[moonslav59]

1 minute ago, drewski6 said:

Yup.  I agree. 

If I bought the Red Sox tomorrow, I would pull Cora into a room and ask him if he trusts Breslow.

And if he said yes, I would keep Breslow and if he said no I would can him.

A lot of bad communicators lose staff, and I think Cora would be a huge loss and it would negatively impact the next 10 years.

Truth on bad communicators often lose top talent in an organization.

I look at the results of all the choices Brez has made and the bad ones made some sense at the time, and I liked the Sale trade when it happened (well a few days later) so I try not be two-faced and bash him for trying to fix 2B by ridding us of just one more oft-injured pitcher who just happened to win the Cy Young the next year.

He's done an almost total makeover of the pitching staffs at every level of the system. Almost all is still TBD, but on paper, I like what I see. That's been a sore spot for the Sox since I can remember.

The Priester trade looked bad in 2025 but is really very much TBD. Since he was no great known commodity when we dealt him, it's hard to say that was horrible.

The Buehler signing was one of his highest dollar choices that completely stunk.

Almost every other major to moderate move looks from pretty good to great, except for the few that are still TBD.

I think we are on an upward trend, and Brez is a major part of that. (The core left to him is also a significant part, too.)

If hsi stiffness and poor communication skills messes up somethings, and it becomes a bigger minus than his pluses, then I'm fine with saying bye-bye.

[moonslav59]

6 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

Well maybe if you wouldnt have been fine with the contracts for Bregman, Alonso, Schwarber that you need to update your perceived market values.

Or maybe you would have been fine with Alonso (the contract he got) or Schwarber (the contract he got) in which case you would have rather been aggressive there rather than hold the powder for Breggy.

Drew, when you look at the success rates of the top spending deals in MLB history, maybe you need to "downdate" your perceived market values.

Kimmi has firm ground to stand on when saying no to any and all mega large and long deals to older players.

[drewski6]

9 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Drew, when you look at the success rates of the top spending deals in MLB history, maybe you need to "downdate" your perceived market values.

Kimmi has firm ground to stand on when saying no to any and all mega large and long deals to older players.

Why dont you let Kimmi answer the question, because I think she (like me) preferred Schwarber and would have signed Schwarber for what he got (but Im sure she would have preferred at least one less year). I also remember her saying that didnt love the alonso contract and isnt going to cry that hes not here, but she also wouldnt have hated that.

Also, while I agree that large and long deals backfire quite a bit, I cant remember a world series team that didnt have a large and long contract to an older player or a contract that would eventually become large and long to an aging player (like Seager in Tx).

[moonslav59]

11 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

Why dont you let Kimmi answer the question, because I think she (like me) preferred Schwarber and would have signed Schwarber for what he got (but Im sure she would have preferred at least one less year). I also remember her saying that didnt love the alonso contract and isnt going to cry that hes not here, but she also wouldnt have hated that.

Also, while I agree that large and long deals backfire quite a bit, I cant remember a world series team that didnt have a large and long contract to an older player or a contract that would eventually become large and long to an aging player (like Seager in Tx).

I almost prefaced my reply with, "I'll let Kimmi speak for herself..."

Big deals mostly suck for the team- that's me talking.

[JoeBrady]

1 hour ago, drewski6 said:

Joe Brady is a full blown lying Elon Musk worshipping clownboy.

You become more and more disturbed by the day.  You are in a complete meltdown.

[JoeBrady]

1 hour ago, moonslav59 said:

the answer seems to be primarily tied to the Sox’ refusal to grant him a no-trade clause. “Had the Sox granted him no-trade protection and negotiated more favorable deferrals, Bregman would still be with the team, according to a source familiar with the process.” (Pete Abraham, Boston Globe)

Nothing that hasn't been said before, or that doesn't make 100% sense.  We wouldn't go as high as Chicago, and we wouldn't give him a no-trade.  Like it or not, those are the facts.

[JoeBrady]

1 hour ago, moonslav59 said:

a "botch" or a well-calculated choice made on teh fact that you had a good hand?

Anyone that has played any amount of poker will have hands that they played perfectly, and lost.  And have had hands that their opponent played perfectly, and still lost.  The result of the hand doesn't impact whther or not you played the hand correctly.

[drewski6]

1 minute ago, JoeBrady said:

Nothing that hasn't been said before, or that doesn't make 100% sense.  We wouldn't go as high as Chicago, and we wouldn't give him a no-trade.  Like it or not, those are the facts.

Established fact: we didnt believe the Cubs offer existed.  We were screaming bluff as Bregman was laughing to himself walking out to the car.

What you are saying, we dont know if true.  Had we believed the cubs offer existed (it did) we dont know if they would have matched it.

THey thought there were no better offers on teh table and didnt want to bid against themselves. Whatever spin and alt facts you wanna attach.....Thats egg meet face.

I love how you obfuscate established facts, but then insert your own implications and beliefs as established fact (see OBP > HR or this here)

How you dont feel like a complete clown is beyond me.  Im not surprised though, mr insulted billie eilish becasue shes gay and then tripled down that she isnt gay.  Shes still gay btw.