Red Sox sign Ranger Suarez. 5 years $130 Million

[moonslav59]

13 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

The only ones that could make a contrary report would be Bregman and Breslow.  GMs usually don't address issues like this.

Look how often the whole Betts situation was "reported." The narrative changed several times, and did just recently, once again.

Why should I believe accounts, even if it looks like "all accounts."

[Old Red]

10 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

The only ones that could make a contrary report would be Bregman and Breslow.  GMs usually don't address issues like this.

Where did AJ, and the rest get their info from?

[Old Red]

46 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Agreed. I also agree that we can't just blame "Breslow." If you're mad, just blame the FO as a whole. It's too hard to parse out who made what decision with all the cooks in the kitchen. 

I agree. I’ve said before that money, and no trade were obstacles in a deal, but the big question to me was if Brez was under any restrictions from JH, or was the decisions all Brez. I haven’t seen reporting either way.

[JoeBrady]

24 minutes ago, Old Red said:

Where did AJ, and the rest get their info from?

Who could it be?  It feels like is has to be from Boras.

• It won't be from the RS unless someone is out to undermine Breslow.
• It could be from Bregman.  But unless Bregman is dealing with Breslow directly, then Bregman could only get it from Boras.  And Bregman doesn't strike me as someone that would do that.
• Or it could be from Boras, and he could have motivation(s) to not be entirely truthful.

Do you see any other candidates?  I have some other Machiavellian theories, but some people already think I'm defending Breslow.

[drewski6]

3 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

But what if I don't like that reporting because it doesn't agree with my argument? 

Missed this, TY

This is exactly what is going on

[mvp 78]

35 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Look how often the whole Betts situation was "reported." The narrative changed several times, and did just recently, once again.

Why should I believe accounts, even if it looks like "all accounts."

What are the Betts changes exactly? 

[drewski6]

2 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

It's the only truth we have right now. Dismissing it right now doesn't make sense unless there are other reports that suggest it may not be the truth (and not simply message board conjecture).

Yup!!

[mvp 78]

53 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

Certainly not hurting for cash, but that puts an extra $40M in his pocket.  And that's without consideration of Japanese/US tax rates.  Some countries won't tax you depending how much of the year you spend abroad.  It's probably a non-issue, but it would be worth hiring an accountant to find out.

Pass. He got his translator put in jail. I'm not taking the fall for him.

[Kimmi]

23 hours ago, drewski6 said:

We have one. Its AJ Pierzynski. And he told you exactly what happened.  Breslow angered Bregman because Breslow isnt good with people, and Bregman wanted to come back, but he looked at Boras and hes like "this dude isnt listening to me, and its aggravating. Plus I have more money in hand from the cubs."  ANd Boras stayed silent cuz hes not the bad guy here.

Then Bregman told Breslow he was going to sign with the cubs, and thats when bregman upped his offer to 165m,...but he also increased the deferrals and wouldnt include the ntc, and bregman was like you gotta be kidding me

ANd now people wanna pretend that we dont know what happened or that it was breslow being shrewd. Hard line in the sand, i respect that.

None of it happened.  I told you guys that Breslow doesnt human good and it would bite us and there you go

Point Drewski

How do we know what Breslow's line in the sand was?  The line in the sand is not necessarily the first offer or even subsequent offers.  Nor should it be.

It takes two to tango.  Bregman got a better offer, which he accepted.  Breslow was not willing to go that high.

That doesn't translate into "Breslow botched it."

[Old Red]

3 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

Who could it be?  It feels like is has to be from Boras.

• It won't be from the RS unless someone is out to undermine Breslow.
• It could be from Bregman.  But unless Bregman is dealing with Breslow directly, then Bregman could only get it from Boras.  And Bregman doesn't strike me as someone that would do that.
• Or it could be from Boras, and he could have motivation(s) to not be entirely truthful.

Do you see any other candidates?  I have some other Machiavellian theories, but some people already think I'm defending Breslow.

I’m just saying of all the reports out there pretty much saying the same thing if there was a different version it would come out by somebody.

[Old Red]

40 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Look how often the whole Betts situation was "reported." The narrative changed several times, and did just recently, once again.

Why should I believe accounts, even if it looks like "all accounts."

That’s the beauty in all of this. You don’t have to believe anything you don’t want to, but that’s not going to stop anyone else, and nor is it going to stop any one else from coming to a different conclusion like JH is cheap.

[moonslav59]

2 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

What are the Betts changes exactly? 

Well, for one thing, there was never an "all accounts" storyline, except maybe in Red's world.

I guess it didn't really change recently when Betts made some statements about being surprised when he was traded and how he really wanted to stay in BOS, but as time goes by there are often new tidbits of information from other or new sources that give another side of the story.

[moonslav59]

8 minutes ago, Old Red said:

I’m just saying of all the reports out there pretty much saying the same thing if there was a different version it would come out by somebody.

Often differing reports come out years later. Certain parties may never reveal what really happened, especially the ones in the know.

[Kimmi]

21 hours ago, drewski6 said:

The funny part is I dont even care.  Im just here to tell you that people using - "hey, we just dont know"

Is something that people have been using as tactic to obfuscate and i see through it.

In this case, theres a lot of people lining up to tell us what happened, and its not what you wish happened

Maybe if you keep wishing though.

Those people that are lining up to tell us what happened don't really know what happened either.  They don't.

[drewski6]

2 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

I'm thinking it very likely happened. I wonder if it mattered.

Good for you coming around. Really, the only thing youve done wrong in this entire discussion is not fact check "alt facts Joe".  Learn the lesson there.  It was always right there for you on google.

Its well established that there was a communication breakdown, that the red sox deferred a lot more than the cubs offer, that the red sox wouldnt include the ntc, that the negotiations got testy, that breslow accused bregman of bluffing when breslow was dead wrong, that bregman was in disbelief at how dense breslow was being.  That the sox incorrectly thought they had Bregman in the bag.

All of that happened and its been confirmed 5x and it took you a little while to get here.  Because Joe didnt want to believe it and he was using tactics like "but were you there" (I dont need to be when 5 trustworthy sources are saying it). 

Haitians are not eating your cats, Alex Pretti didnt draw his gun, and yes Breslow can be and was being dense.  To deny it or cast doubt is unreasonable. Just like MVP said its the only account we have (other than Joe just making stuff up cuz that what he does) and its been corroborated 5x. 

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

Now moving on to you, nothing else youve said is unreasonable (other than temp believing Joes version of events).  Its possible that even had Breslow been a good communicator the sox would have still not provided the NTC and that would have always been a deal breaker. Not unreasonable. Despite how it broke down, Im glad we didnt overpay for Bregman and I think we would have had to overpay. Not unreasonable.  And I especially liked your comment that if all of this is true (it is) it doesnt bother me on Bregman but Im worried about future negotiations.  Thats more than reasonable, its wise and insightful.

You are a good poster and you have good takes.  Joe is a cancer though  

 

[Kimmi]

19 hours ago, drewski6 said:

According to Speier, the Red Sox felt confident in their five-year, $165 million offer and were reluctant to move aggressively early, wary of “bidding against themselves.” 

Not sure how that translates in "botched" either.

[moonslav59]

1 minute ago, drewski6 said:

Good for you coming around. Really, the only thing youve done wrong in this entire discussion is not fact check "alt facts Joe".  Learn the lesson there.  It was always right there for you on google.

Came around?

My position has not changed one bit.

1. I'm not certain Brez botched anything.

2. Neither are you.

3. If he did, it's concerning, but may not have mattered anyway, if we were never going to up the offer, add a no trade clause or defer less money- whichever might have been needed to get Breggie to yes.

I still feel the exact was as before. I never said "all accounts" were wrong. Not even close.

Please don't become like the mind-misreading Ole Red.

[drewski6]

2 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

1. CBT flexibility

2. To get to a known AAV that fit the Red Sox internal model

3. They wanted him enough to take the offer that was presented, no more apparently

 

One story I heard, I guess Boras did try to up the negotiations last year and go back to the Sox with another offer that was higher that didn't exist or something. When Boras went back to them this year after the Cubs offer, the Sox believed they were bidding against themselves again and weren't willing to budge. We don't know how flatfooted the Sox were by the Cubs signing Bregman. I'd say "at least somewhat." 

This is fair, but I would add 4. They thought they could defer the money and still get him (I do believe the reporting that the red sox incorrectly thought that their offer was best on table)

This is my opinion and yours appears to be that you dont think they really wanted him at that price point for that length anyways and almost kind of sabotaged their own offer, and so Im okay if you dont believe my #4 and want to stick to your 3 reasons.

But for me its also that they thought they had the best offer on the table

[Kimmi]

19 hours ago, Duran Is The Man said:

i always got the idea that Bregman really wanted to stay with the Sox, but the f***ing stiff just couldn't get the deal done—because, well... he's a f***ing stiff.

Perhaps Bregman wanted to stay, but in order to do that, he has to be willing to negotiate.  It doesn't sound like Bregman was willing to do that.  It sounds like like the Sox had to match the Cubs offer or he was walking.  

[drewski6]

Just now, moonslav59 said:

Came around?

My position has not changed one bit.

1. I'm not certain Brez botched anything.

2. Neither are you.

3. If he did, it's concerning, but may not have mattered anyway, if we were never going to up the offer, add a no trade clause or defer less money- whichever might have been needed to get Breggie to yes.

I still feel the exact was as before. I never said "all accounts" were wrong. Not even close.

Please don't become like the mind-misreading Ole Red.

Alt facts Joe has been talking complete nonsense disputing verified information, moving goalposts , taking his beliefs and casting them as fact and making a darn clown of himself.  ANd Im not reading your mind or trying to but when you said "yeah this likely very well happened" to me , I was relieved.  

[drewski6]

6 minutes ago, Kimmi said:

Not sure how that translates in "botched" either.

they thought they had the highest offer on the table, they were wrong. By a lot

[Old Red]

3 minutes ago, Kimmi said:

Not sure how that translates in "botched" either.

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.

[moonslav59]

Is thinking the idea that there was not a higher offer out there, but there was an example of "botching?"

If that's your definition then okay, he likely "botched it," but to me it's only a botch, if you were prepared to go higher and win the negotiations but outsmarted/dumbed yourself and missed out on a guy you would have paid more for, okay maybe, bt even then, I'm not sure the term "botch" or "bungle" fits. They called a bluff and lost. 

If they were never going to go higher or make other concessions,then it doesn't matter.

To me, that's the point. People can feel free to focus on other points, but to me trying to guess if an agent is bluffing is common occurrences and not necessarily a GM's botch, if they misguess.

Does anybody have a shred of evidence that says Brez could have offered more or given any concessions to top the Cubs' offer?

[drewski6]

3 minutes ago, Kimmi said:

Perhaps Bregman wanted to stay, but in order to do that, he has to be willing to negotiate.  It doesn't sound like Bregman was willing to do that.  It sounds like like the Sox had to match the Cubs offer or he was walking.  

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.

[mvp 78]

16 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Well, for one thing, there was never an "all accounts" storyline, except maybe in Red's world.

I guess it didn't really change recently when Betts made some statements about being surprised when he was traded and how he really wanted to stay in BOS, but as time goes by there are often new tidbits of information from other or new sources that give another side of the story.

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." 

[moonslav59]

7 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

But for me its also that they thought they had the best offer on the table

That could be true, but calling a bluff, which turned out not to be bluff, automatically a "botch?"

[mvp 78]

2 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.

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. 

[drewski6]

1 minute ago, moonslav59 said:

Is thinking the idea that there was not a higher offer out there, but there was an example of "botching?"

If that's your definition then okay, he likely "botched it," but to me it's only a botch, if you were prepared to go higher and win the negotiations but outsmarted/dumbed yourself and missed out on a guy you would have paid more for, okay maybe, bt even then, I'm not sure the term "botch" or "bungle" fits. They called a bluff and lost. 

If they were never going to go higher or make other concessions,then it doesn't matter.

To me, that's the point. People can feel free to focus on other points, but to me trying to guess if an agent is bluffing is common occurrences and not necessarily a GM's botch, if they misguess.

Does anybody have a shred of evidence that says Brez could have offered more or given any concessions to top the Cubs' offer?

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

[Kimmi]

5 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

they thought they had the highest offer on the table, they were wrong. By a lot

Being wrong about whether they had the highest offer on the table does not mean the deal was botched.  Breslow was not going to match the Cubs offer, regardless.

[Old Red]

1 minute 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." 

I think Betts was a whole different situation also. It was JH who made the call on how high they would go.