Red Sox sign Ranger Suarez. 5 years $130 Million

[drewski6]

2 hours ago, notin said:

The thing is, agents counter all the time with fake offers in hopes of getting teams to bid against themselves.  Boras was using that exact strategy on the Yankees with Bellinger while he was trying to get Breslow to up his bid.  Sometimes it’s real, but sometimes it’s just a blatant lie to get more money and even then it probably works.  No idea how often.

Breslow had no way of knowing if it was real or not.  Hes probably dealt with this exact same tactic from Boras before 

The good part is at least they pivoted to Suarez and landed him.  If they signed Bregman, that probably doesn’t happen.  So, yes he failed to land Bregman because he chose not to bid against himself.  Is that a bad thing?  And he wound up with a pretty good Plan B almost immediately.  Is that a bad thing?

Not sure why tjis is an issue at all…

This is reasonable and my only disagreement would be when you say that he chose not to bid against himself. The offer from the cubs existed, so it would have been impossible for him to bid against himself.  I do believe the sources that have said that they were confident in their offer, so maybe something like:

They decided against upping the offer because they took a calculated risk that their standing offer on the table was already enough to land Bregman

My market values tend to be a little higher than many people's here.  And Im thinking that real market value lies somewhere in the middle, so Im open to the possibility that Im a little off here (I thought Alonso would get more), but if day 1 you asked me if 165, heavy deferred, while declining a no-trade.....If you asked me if that would be enough I honestly woulda said "highly highly doubt it"

I honestly dont think Breslow should have believed that offer was enough.....I didnt think it was enough.  And I think he would have went higher.  Maybe it was a "thats as high as we are willing to go because any higher we'd rather pivot to Geno Suarez or trade" and we'll see if that happens.  That would have been more understandable but thats different than "got em where we want em". And indications are that they really thought their offer was best on the table.

I honestly believe another example of Breslow doesnt know market values (for batters) and Ill also submit getting smoked by the Orioles in the offer to Alonso and a third piece of evidence is that they havent signed a free agent batter this year, and really bregman last year, came together at the very end of free agency and was always designed to be a hold-over with a lets regroup next year vs an agreement on a multi year contract.

I think playoffs or hes canned.  But I want Cora in the role anyways.

[drewski6]

2 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

So Paredes or Donovan is the pivot then. That pivot hasn't yet happened. Just be honest about that then. 

I see both sides.  I think the whole we cant get the bats we want so lets build an elite staff can be perceived as a pivot, but I agree with you that the player swap doesnt feel like a pivot.

I feel like its a macro-pivot but not a micro-pivot.  Its a strategic pivot, but not a tactical pivot.

I like Ranger Suarez the pitcher, but I also prefer bat-first teams.

[Old Red]

49 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

I find it hard to believe they missed out on Breggie, and then began thinking about Suarez and signed him that quickly.

One on here thinks the Red Sox didn’t really want to sign Bregman. IDK for sure.

[Hugh2]

What I think would be interesting, is if Bregman would have taken the Sox offer, as is with the cash and PDV if they only added a full no trade clause.  

[moonslav59]

19 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

I see both sides.  I think the whole we cant get the bats we want so lets build an elite staff can be perceived as a pivot, but I agree with you that the player swap doesnt feel like a pivot.

I feel like its a macro-pivot but not a micro-pivot.  Its a strategic pivot, but not a tactical pivot.

I like Ranger Suarez the pitcher, but I also prefer bat-first teams.

I think in terms of the winter spending budget, the pivot fits: Bregman to Suarez.

[moonslav59]

20 minutes ago, Old Red said:

One on here thinks the Red Sox didn’t really want to sign Bregman. IDK for sure.

IMO, they wanted Breggie at the price they set and no more (and without a no trade clause.)

[drewski6]

3 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

What I think would be interesting, is if Bregman would have taken the Sox offer, as is with the cash and PDV if they only added a full no trade clause.  

I dont think so, I think that if they added the NTC and made the deferment schedule closer to the timeline of the offer made by the cubs, i think he would have left some money on the table.  I dont think they would have had to go up to 175 like the cubs offer, and even at 165 I even think they still coulda inked him deferring more than the cubs (assuming NTC inclusion) - but I think they also needed to change the deferral schedule.

Said another way:

Cubs offer: 175m, some deferred, NTC
Sox offer: 165m, heavy heavy deferred, refusal to include NTC

So your offer got beat thrice.

To get Bregman to a point where he would have said yes, I think, 1. CERTAINLY include NTC, but also 2. change the deferment schedule so its at lest close to cubs offer. I think if they got here, they would have gotten a yes:

Cubs offer: 175m, some deferred, NTC
Sox offer: 165m, still more deferred than cubs but closeish, NTC

ANd yes, I believe that they should have went there and I believe that it will ultimately cost Breslow his job.
 

[drewski6]

11 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

I think in terms of the winter spending budget, the pivot fits: Bregman to Suarez.

I dont think budgets and payrolls are this rigid.  I think that every free agent decision is case by case and there really arent hard amoutns that JH demands we stay under.

I think that the red sox could have a 100m payroll and still say no to guys and I think they could have a 270m payroll and still say yes to guys.  I dont think its like a "need our payroll to stay between x and y" type thing. I think its more flexible than that.

But obvs if you are breslow and you spend 310m and have a terrible team, that looks worse , so of course there is risk in every contract you sign (I know you know this , sorry if that comes across condescending)

[Hitch]

14 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

What I think would be interesting, is if Bregman would have taken the Sox offer, as is with the cash and PDV if they only added a full no trade clause.  

From what I've read and heard from the man himself, my feelings are that he would have. I think he just wanted to settle down somewhere in a city and not be shunted about with a young family. 

I really would have liked him back for his leadership and clubhouse glue, but I do like the Suarez contract immeasurably more. 

I might like it less when we're kicking the ball all around the diamond and running up the strike outs this year.

[moonslav59]

2 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

ANd yes, I believe that they should have went there and I believe that it will ultimately cost Breslow his job.

Not if the no trade clause was prohibited.

Not if JH set an AAV price, and the deferments were the only way to meet the dollar amount.

Not if the offer Brez gave was the most he was allowed to give.

If Brez offered the most he could, it kinda doesn't matter if he misjudges, bungled or botched the talks. Breggie was a goner. Breggie is a goner.

It is kinda telling that the AAV on Suarez is about what the Breggie offer w deferments was. (Maybe it tells us nothing.)

[moonslav59]

3 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

I dont think budgets and payrolls are this rigid.  I think that every free agent decision is case by case and there really arent hard amoutns that JH demands we stay under.

I think that the red sox could have a 100m payroll and still say no to guys and I think they could have a 270m payroll and still say yes to guys.  I dont think its like a "need our payroll to stay between x and y" type thing. I think its more flexible than that.

But obvs if you are breslow and you spend 310m and have a terrible team, that looks worse , so of course there is risk in every contract you sign (I know you know this , sorry if that comes across condescending)

No way JH allows Breggie and Suarez to be signed. It was either or, hence the word "pivot" fits within that context.

[Old Red]

16 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

IMO, they wanted Breggie at the price they set and no more (and without a no trade clause.)

I think they would have been fine with the original deal of 3 years.

[moonslav59]

2 minutes ago, Hitch said:

I really would have liked him back for his leadership and clubhouse glue, but I do like the Suarez contract immeasurably more. 

BINGO!

Breggie also filled a bigger current need.

[moonslav59]

Just now, Old Red said:

I think they would have been fine with the original deal of 3 years.

Agreed, and that's why the offered that deal, last winter.

Same with the offer they gave a week ago. They'd have been fine if he said yes.

This wasn't a faux Soto offer.

They went as high as the were prepared to go, IMO, It wasn't enough. I don't think they bungled that, but they might have bungled how they handled the talks or "misread the room" as one brilliant poster often says.

[drewski6]

1 hour ago, moonslav59 said:

Not if the no trade clause was prohibited.

 

You can never ever ever ever ask someone to leave money on the table if you wont include a NTC.

Nobody is going to take less money to give you a more tradeable contract.

If you are refusing a NTC, you have to make sure you are offering the most money, or your ask is unfair

Its unreasonable, illogical, and reeks of more Breslow incompetence.

[drewski6]

Bregman: I have 175m from the cubs with some deferrals AND a NTC
RS: C'mon sign with us. Hometown discount. We love you.  165m and more heavily deferred than cubs offer so you are actually leaving more than 10m on the table, but please do this for us. Please
Bregman: no trade clause? That would mean a lot to me
RS: Cant do it
Bregman: Begrudgingly I accept. I really like you guys and I really like it here

(3 months later)

Red Sox trade Bregman to the cubs

[drewski6]

We blew our own chance at signing Bregman with unfair expectations, undershotting his market, while we insulted him and dared him to take other offers and accused him of bluffing.  While we also revolved our offseason around him.

Strong work, Bres

That Crochet acquisition got you a lot of leash but boy are you chewing through it.

Step back and hes out.

[moonslav59]

19 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

You can never ever ever ever ask someone to leave money on the table if you wont include a NTC.

Nobody is going to take less money to give you a more tradeable contract.

If you are refusing a NTC, you have to make sure you are offering the most money, or your ask is unfair

Its unreasonable, illogical, and reeks of more Breslow incompetence.

Are you assuming the refusal to give a NTC is all on Brez?

If I had to guess, it's not on him.

I have no idea if the money aspect of the trade was the very highest Brez was allowed to go or Brez wanted to go, assuming he was allowed to go higher. That's the part "all accounts" is not sure about.

Without all those facts, assigning blame is subjective and opinionated. Even with all the facts, there is still a subjective component of assigning blame porportionally.

To me...

If Breg never would sign w/o a NTC, and Brez could never give one, it's not on Brez.

If Breg would never sign w so much deferred money, and Brez needed to defer that money to stay under a max AAV number, it's not on Brez.

If the number Brez offered was the most he was allowed to offer, it's not on Brez.

If Brez got Breggie upset with his antics, and that was the reason, Breggie said no, and it wasn't about $, NTC or deferments, then it's on Brez.

There is room for  shared blame, too.

There is room to say Brez botched it, but was never going to sign Brez unde rthe limits placed on him, too.

 

 

[drewski6]

9 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Are you assuming the refusal to give a NTC is all on Brez?

If I had to guess, it's not on him.

I have no idea if the money aspect of the trade was the very highest Brez was allowed to go or Brez wanted to go, assuming he was allowed to go higher. That's the part "all accounts" is not sure about.

Without all those facts, assigning blame is subjective and opinionated. Even with all the facts, there is still a subjective component of assigning blame porportionally.

To me...

If Breg never would sign w/o a NTC, and Brez could never give one, it's not on Brez.

If Breg would never sign w so much deferred money, and Brez needed to defer that money to stay under a max AAV number, it's not on Brez.

If the number Brez offered was the most he was allowed to offer, it's not on Brez.

If Brez got Breggie upset with his antics, and that was the reason, Breggie said no, and it wasn't about $, NTC or deferments, then it's on Brez.

There is room for  shared blame, too.

There is room to say Brez botched it, but was never going to sign Brez unde rthe limits placed on him, too.

 

 

What Im saying is that I think its dumb to ask someone to leave money on the table while also refusing to give a NTC. It makes no sense.  Nobody is going to take less money so you have a more tradeable contract.

[drewski6]

I think generally speaking, people blame ownership too much and Bloom and Breslow not enough.

Exhibit A - I point to current payroll

I dont think JH ever mandated that Bloom trade betts. I think he was frustrated with paying a big tax bill on a mediocre team and fired DD over that and bloom was like i better not do that so ill shed some money and build slow, cuz my options are a) shed money build slow b) build fast and win  or c) get canned ....And (Bloom) "b" isnt my strong suit so i better choose option "a"

Read: Bloom was the problem

I think Breslow deserves a lot of credit for getting Crochet, but other than that cant get out of his own way. I think hes  stiff/tool/ego/condescending/pompous

Read: Breslow is the problem

I think we're prob best served by firing Breslow and promoting Cora to president AND GM

[drewski6]

Or let Cora hire a GM.

[drewski6]

I think if we miss the playoffs this year (and we will), we should fire Breslow and Cora will get to do whatever he wants up to and including a 300m payroll, and i also think that breslow and bloom could have had a 300m payroll, they just would have had to accepted that with big money spent comes big pressure to win.

I think Breslow is less of a wimp than Bloom and thats why Breslows payroll is going up. And I do respect that. But I also think Breslow is getting in his own way a lot.

[Behindenemylines]

On 1/14/2026 at 2:54 PM, Michigan Adam2 said:

Certainly 2 thru 4 is very strong, with many strong options for number 5 and depth to trade from. 

This is as strong of a rotation the Sox have had in a long time. The depth is great as well. Having Bello as the 4, when last year he was number 2 shows the strength!

[drewski6]

2 hours ago, Hitch said:

From what I've read and heard from the man himself, my feelings are that he would have. I think he just wanted to settle down somewhere in a city and not be shunted about with a young family. 

I really would have liked him back for his leadership and clubhouse glue, but I do like the Suarez contract immeasurably more. 

I might like it less when we're kicking the ball all around the diamond and running up the strike outs this year.

I really like the way you use immeasurably here.  But I hope you mean it as I interpreted it, as in "hard to quantify" not as in " a lot"

[drewski6]

9 minutes ago, Behindenemylines said:

This is as strong of a rotation the Sox have had in a long time. The depth is great as well. Having Bello as the 4, when last year he was number 2 shows the strength!

Hes the 4 right now, but Kutter Crawford was really really good last time I saw him and Tolle is a 6'6 lefty who could turn a corner at any time.

Bello is good dont get me wrong, some people think hes lucky to get out of so many jams but i think its just what sinkerballers do, 

Rotation is beyond strong.

[moonslav59]

40 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

What Im saying is that I think its dumb to ask someone to leave money on the table while also refusing to give a NTC. It makes no sense.  Nobody is going to take less money so you have a more tradeable contract.

It makes total sense if they believe there was no bigger offer, and again, if thinking it was a bluff and it wasn't is a "botch," then I'm not sure I'd use that word in that context.

I agree, the NTC is meaningless if we were never going to step up our offer. (We don't know if it was JH's limit or Brez's refusal to go higher on that aspect.)

[moonslav59]

31 minutes ago, Behindenemylines said:

This is as strong of a rotation the Sox have had in a long time. The depth is great as well. Having Bello as the 4, when last year he was number 2 shows the strength!

Indeed, and our 2024 ace will be on the 60 day IL all of 2026. Just imagine!

[moonslav59]

27 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

Rotation is beyond strong.

Yes. There are many ways to view a SP'er, but two major ways are:

1) What is your potential (and what have you shown you can do over an extended period of time, and if it's in the minors add speculative potential)

2) What have you done for me, lately- at times, we can even think you are only as good as your last start (or two.)

If you look at our SP'ers one-by-one, number 1's view looks rather astounding, by taking the best periods of time for each guy or read the scouting reports on guys like Tolle & Early.

Crochet: looks great on #1 and #2. He's a top 4-5 SP'er in MLB, right now. No stats are needed to make that claim.

Suarez: has had a very nice recent 2 year stretch, so he checks box 1 & 2. His 2 year ERA is 3.33 (129 ERA+) and a supporting FIP of 3.29. That's close to ace or #1 territory.

Sonny Gray may not look great with #2, but he has been damn good very recently, despite his age. From '22 to '23 he had a 2.90 ERA (144 ERA+) and a 3.05 FIP, That is #1 territory, but it was 2-3 years ago. His 3.6 fWAR, last year gives hope he can go one more year.

Houck could be ignored, since he's not in the 2026 mix, but it needs to be pointed out that he was our ace 2 years ago and started 2025 as our clear #3. He went almost 180 IP in '24 with a 3.12 ERA (133 ERA+) and 3.32 FIP. That's damn good!

Crawford looked real good in 2023: 4.04 (113) with a decent 3.83 FIP. His 1.11 WHIP was very nice, that year.

Sandoval was damn good before his injury. In 2022 his ERA was 2.91 (138) with a 3.09 FIP. He was pretty good in 2021, too.

Bello had his best ERA (3.35) and ERA+ (123) last year, but the 4.19 FIP in both 2024 and 2025 hint that maybe he's not all that great, but as a #4/5 SP'er, he's more than capable.

Harrison & Oviedo are mostly on the speculative side or hope.

Tolle & Early have enormous hope.

 

 

[Duran Is The Man]

19 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Yes. There are many ways to view a SP'er, but two major ways are:

1) What is your potential (and what have you shown you can do over an extended period of time, and if it's in the minors add speculative potential)

2) What have you done for me, lately- at times, we can even think you are only as good as your last start (or two.)

If you look at our SP'ers one-by-one, number 1's view looks rather astounding, by taking the best periods of time for each guy or read the scouting reports on guys like Tolle & Early.

Crochet: looks great on #1 and #2. He's a top 4-5 SP'er in MLB, right now. No stats are needed to make that claim.

Suarez: has had a very nice recent 2 year stretch, so he checks box 1 & 2. His 2 year ERA is 3.33 (129 ERA+) and a supporting FIP of 3.29. That's close to ace or #1 territory.

Sonny Gray may not look great with #2, but he has been damn good very recently, despite his age. From '22 to '23 he had a 2.90 ERA (144 ERA+) and a 3.05 FIP, That is #1 territory, but it was 2-3 years ago. His 3.6 fWAR, last year gives hope he can go one more year.

Houck could be ignored, since he's not in the 2026 mix, but it needs to be pointed out that he was our ace 2 years ago and started 2025 as our clear #3. He went almost 180 IP in '24 with a 3.12 ERA (133 ERA+) and 3.32 FIP. That's damn good!

Crawford looked real good in 2023: 4.04 (113) with a decent 3.83 FIP. His 1.11 WHIP was very nice, that year.

Sandoval was damn good before his injury. In 2022 his ERA was 2.91 (138) with a 3.09 FIP. He was pretty good in 2021, too.

Bello had his best ERA (3.35) and ERA+ (123) last year, but the 4.19 FIP in both 2024 and 2025 hint that maybe he's not all that great, but as a #4/5 SP'er, he's more than capable.

Harrison & Oviedo are mostly on the speculative side or hope.

Tolle & Early have enormous hope.

 

 

if Sandoval is so damn good....trade that SOB to the Astros for IP. or the Twins for Keaschall. or the Mets for Batty.

 

[moonslav59]

8 minutes ago, Duran Is The Man said:

if Sandoval is so damn good....trade that SOB to the Astros for IP. or the Twins for Keaschall. or the Mets for Batty.

 

Sandoval was the only guy on that list that has not been good since 2022. That cuts down on his trade value (see #2 on my major valuation criterias.)