moonslav59

I was talking about what Crochet will or might make when he becomes a FA after 2026. He will get FA money, then. I get the fact that signing an extension before you become a Free Agent does not mean you get FA money, especially when you just have just one year of doing well. If he had 3 years like 2024 and was a FA, and was a FA at 27, he'd get $35-40M a year x 6-8 years, easily. I'm not offering him that. This is not apples to apples. I'm for offering him the $1150M/6 others have suggested, but I'd go higher, if he does not get an opt out. I might go $180M/6 or $200M/7 with no opt out. I do not think he'd accept $150M/6. I would not, unless I think 2024 was a fluke.

Easier said than done. Good theory, but the reality is, these guys often suck the third time through. I'm wondering if we can use these starters for a batter or two on their "throwing day." The 6 man rotation does provide for a more balanced days off: 2 rest days- throwing day- 2 rest days, then a start.

They often under project everyone, but the rankings part is puzzling. Why did they shave off more value from the returning 2024 team than other teams that are older, as much or more injury prone, or did nothing to improve or even stay even in returning personnel? The O's are young, but they lost Santander and others from the previous year. The Yanks gain a couple nice everyday players but lost Soto and Torres and have some past prime players in key roles. The Astros lost Tucker & Bregman without equalling w replacements. The Ms lost Turner & Polanco and added what? Other teams did nothing special, this winter. (Neither did we with our everyday 13.)

This is how I see it. We started needing a 13 man staff, when SP'ers started getting a pat on the back for going 5 inning.

I get the difference between an opt out deal and no opt out. The guy only opts out, if he's doing well. I was only addressing the difference between 2 years and 3. I'd offer more money for him to drop the opt out demands, if he has them. It seems I'm willing to pay more than some, here. I do NOT want an opt out. I want him for more than 2 years. That is my #1 priority with him, right now.

Aside from the opt out discussion, not to the money.... $35M x 6 Burnes 31 years old (hometown discount) $27M x 8 Fried, 31 $36M x 5 Snell, 32 $25M x 3 Nate (35) and Manaea (33) Why would Crochet, who will be 27 when he hits the FA market, accept $25M x 6? Yes: piece of mind. Yes, you never know what might happen. Yes, he is largely unproven and knows that. But, he'd be betting against himself to sign up for that, now, IMO. To me, if we traded for Crochet, thinking we could get him to sign for $150M/6 or less, we made yet another mistake. I hope I am wrong. I'll be thrilled if he signs that deal with no opt out. I'll be thrilled at $175M/7 or $200M/8. This guy is young and can pitch. It's all about health and durability, which is a total unknown, right now. If we wait a year and he goes 180 IP, this year with similar numbers, he won't sign for $200M/7, IMO. Lock him up now and roll the dice with a young arm- not an older one.

I totally agree, and I'm willing to overpay to get it done. While guaranteeing money to such an "unproven" pitcher seems scary as hell, so is giving 7-8 years to guys like Burnes and Fried. deGrom proved he could pitch, but was his contract any less riskier than giving Crochet $180M/6 or $200M/7? The opt out does give Crochet a big upper hand. That is why we both hate the idea, but the worst thing that could happen, to me, is that Crochet walks after 2 years for nothing more than a comp pick. I can certainly see someone thinking, "No, the worst thing is, he sucks or has major injuries and does not opt out, and we're stuck with him. Well no opt out does the same thing. So, basically, it comes down to him doing great and opting out, leaving us stuck without an ace. Well, I'd rather have an ce for 3 years rather than 2. I also think a contract with no opt out would probably have to be a higher AAV to get him to sign, so if he gets hurt or disappoints, then the no opt out paid him more.

My question was about letting him walk after his two arb years, if he insists on a 2027 opt-out, which we all dislike. I missed your answer to that. I missed Bell's, too. I went back a little bit and did not find the replies to that Q. I'd rather have Crochet for 3 years over 2, and would do it, if that was our only choice, unless the terms of the money was something wildly absurd. I saw some "Nos" about $200M but not about a forced opt out or walk chocie.

Of course some players have their best season at ages 22-25 or 26, but for the most part, players do better from age 26-29 than 22-25. Not everyone follows the norm or "curve," but why project players get worse as they near or enter prime, or reach peak prime? fWAR 22-24 5.0>3.4>4.1 Devers -0.1> 2.5>6.7 Duran 0.4> 1.7>0.6 (injured) Casas 0.0>0.2>1.1 Wong Others have not played 3 years, like Abreu (3.1 in '24), DHam (1.7)and Rafaela (0.9). These are 7 of our top 10 everyday players. The others are Story (age 32), Yoshida (31) and Refsnyder (33-34) Why expect age regression? Yes, we lost a big bat in O'Neill. Losing McGuire from 2024 is an addition by subtraction. Jansen was a plus player. I'm not buying the idea we drop from 8th to 14th, and I don't think that is homerism.

Yes, I saw that. The 14th placing is puzzling. We were 8th, last year and lost O'Neill and McGuire/Jansen. We could be adding Story, Casas and 1-3 top prospects to the mix. I'd think that would keep us close to even, at worst. It's not like other AL teams added so much, over the winter, to pass us. The Yanks lost Soto. HOU lost Bregman. BAL lost Santander. Who gained a lot? There are other teams as young as we are, but about 10 of our 13 everyday players are pre-prime, just entering prime or in peak prime. Our oldest everyday player is our short-side DH/LF platoon, Refsnyder at age 34. Then, a guy who barely played last year- Story at age 32. In terms of expected age progression, most key So everyday players should improve on 2024's numbers. The defense hurts their WAR. We were 5th in offense on fangraphs, last year and 12th on D.

I've never been a fan of the 6 man rotation, even after the roster was expanded to 26 (and 13 pitchers.) I want Crochet and Houck starting every 5 days- maybe Buehler, too. 32-33 starts not 27 (162/6=27.) It also takes away a RP'er, unless the plan includes using a SP'er on his "throwing day," if needed, in between starts. Our pen is bad enough, as it is. It would be better with Crawford as a bulk innings guy, even bulk high leverage innings. I can understand why they want to do it, at least to start the season, and if someone goes on the IL, it's easy to just flip to a 5 man, or bring up Criswell, Fitts or priester, but I'd pass on the idea.

I seriously doubt he takes that, unless he bets against himself. $25M x 6 for a pitcher who will be will be 26 when he signs a FA contract in 2027. Of course, there is a question about him being really good or not, but we obviously felt he was to give all we gave to get him. Now, we want to hedge our bets and let him walk after two? (Not saying you do.) Let's say he says the only way I take $150M/6 is with an opt out after 2027 or 2028. Give me that or $200M/6. Do you say no? My first question was, do you say no to him insisting on $200M/6 or 7 with an opt out after '27 or '28. I agree that as extreme, but what if that is the reality? Do you let him walk after 2 or give him that deal? I'm a yes, if it's an opt out after 2028 and a close to a yes on 2027. 3 years vs 2 is better, even at near $30M a year. Sure, if he ends up sucking or gets hurt, now we have a Price II situation, but I'll take the risk on a 26 year old over a 31 year old.

They agreed to a 2025 number, but an extension can be started in 2025 with a new number. Forget about the AAV or years, can you guys answer the question? Do you let him walk after his two arb years, because you refuse to give him an opt out after 2027 or 2028, even if he insists? Call it $150 or $200. hell, call it $120, do you do it or not? One of the big plusses we heard about this trade was how young Crochet was, compared to the FA options out there. Of course there is a great risk with signing a guy like Crochet to 6+ years, when he has just one year with a lot of IP, but we all know the great risk signings a 31-32 year old pitcher to 6-8 years. We pretty much know, their last few years will be a drag, or worse. We obviously rolled the dice on Crochet. We gave up a big chunk of our future hopes to make sure we got him, instead of other teams. Now, we are supposed to be all afraid he might suck as he reaches prime? Well, of course we should be afraid. Even the best pitchers of their time, like Sale and Price can become big letdowns. Crochet will turn 26 in June of 2026. A 6 year extension controls him from ages 27 to 32. Hisa time ends about a year after the age when Burnes and Fried's deal start in 2025. This is a major reason we chose this route- DON"T MESS IT UP! I hate the idea of an opt out after 2027 or 2028. It would totally suck, but Crochet has every right to insist on one, unless the annual AAV is greatly increased to compensate for the chance he ends up being great and misses out on a massive payday. Look what Yamo got with no ML experience. Yes, $150M/6 sounds about right, but he could make $240M/6 at age 26 on the open market, in 2 years. I seriously doubt he takes $150M/6 with no opt out. Again, please answer the question: do you let Crochet walk after two years, if he insists on an opt out after 2028? How about after 2027? (Yes, the money amount matter for the rest of the deal, but I'm just asking about the opt out part.) It is very likely he pushes hard for one, and he may insist on it or get $210M+/6 without one (or an opt out after 2029.) Why not answer? Can you at least explain why you won't answer?

We certainly have a boatload of TJS returnees, as well as other injury recoveries going on... Gio & Hendriks Buehler & Whitlock Sandoval and Chris Murphy likely to start 2025 on the 60 Day IL. Even guys like Slaten, I Campbell and a few others missed some time or dealt with injuries in 2024. Those are just the pitchers! Story is a story, all by himself. Devers missed time and played hurt for a while. Casas is close to the same as Story. Grissom had something going on. Yoshida and Ref couldn't even stay healthy as DHs.

The Lackey addition was not the shiny example to cement my point, but he was an important addition to the team, in terms of the 2013 ring. Look at all the mashing teams the Sox had that went nowhere, or lost quickly onc making the playoffs. Yes, some of them had decent pitching and even the exact same names as the teams that did win it all, but to be the strongest correlation to Sox teams winning, is when we made that extra step to add a solid SP'er to oen or two we already had. Adding big hitters helped, too. I'm not trying to minimize that. No Manny- No rings. No Papi- No rings. Adding JD was a big boost. Lynn & Rice. Baylor & Boggs...

We added Pedro and Schilling and won. We added Beckett and won. We added Lackey and won. We added Price & Sale and won. We traded one of the Sox greatest hitters, Nomar, for a glove at SS and won. Of course hitting matters, bigtime, but the Sox have traditionally been great hitting teams for decades, even beyond the park padding stats, but we tend to win, or come close to winning, when we boost the pitching, or have some elite pitchers. (Lonborg '67, Tiant & Lee '75, added Torrez in '78, Clemens & Co in '86...

TJS now means Tommy John Sox.

It's not like McGuire was doing great things, last year. Losing Jansen hurt. I think Narvaez may be okay, and he's good on D, but I'd feel better with someone else- not for back-up, but as a starter. On the everyday player side of the coin, the big losses were O'Neill and a couple months of Jansen. Our gains have to come from Narvaez and 2024 injured players (Story, Casas and a few other shorter stints) to make up for those losses, at least until we decide to call up the kids. The rotation made great gains. We replaced Pivetta with Crochet, Buehler, Giolito and Sandoval. Guys like Criswell, Fitts, Priester, Dobbins and Fulmer look better than our depth did, last January. The pen has some promise, but losing Jansen & Martin makes it a huge question mark. We added Chapman & Wilson, and may add more to come, but we also will see Hendriks & Whitlock and maybe our 6th starter and or Criswell & other AAA starters helping in the pen. To me, the pen looks deeper than last winter but lacking at the closer slot. The defense can improve with a near full season from Story, but that is sounding like a broken record. C, 3B and 1B remain awful. The OF should be better with Rafaela replacing O'Neills innings on OF D.

No Penn St completions to a WR. Notre Dame wins 27-24 after a late game INT and a 41 yard FG with 7 seconds left. WOW!

Tied up: 24-24 on 54 yard TD pass.

Orange Bowl nailbiter: Penn St 24- Notre Dame 17 with under 8 minutes to go. ND ball.

Carlos Narvaez is doing well in the Venezuela League playoffs. His team won the first 6 games, and he got on base 8 out of 17 times. (5 walks)

Only 15 of the 40 Man Roster players are non pitchers. One is in AA (Jh Garica) and one is Sogard. We do have the big three prospects ready to jump on the 40, when we are ready for them on the 26, but that is pretty amazing having 25 of the 40 as pitchers. On top of that, we have a pretty decent list of ML ready pitchers after those 25: Fulmer, I Campbell, Mata, Mills, A Adams, N Davis, J Adames, H Harris Well, we did use 34 players as pitchers in 2024, 3 were non pitchers in a clean-up role. 10 were added to the organization after opening day: Keller, Horn, Garcia, Sims, Paxton, Priester, Hill, Wingenter, Jacquez and Y Ramirez, so basically, we used 21 pitchers that started the year in the Sox organization. We might not have to go outside the organization, so much, this year.

Let's say we hold off trying to trade Yoshida and Abreu and make one RP'er signing like Carlos Estevez. (Maybe, we DFA Sogard or Shugart or make some minor trade to clear a spot.) How competitive is this team? SP: Crochet, Houck, Bello, Buehler, Giolito, Crawford (Sandoval 60 IL) (AAA: Criswell, Fitts, Priester, Dobbins- NR Fulmer) RP: Hendriks, Chapman, Slaten, Estevez, Whitlock, Winckowski, Wislon, Guerrero (AAA: Guerrero, Kelly, Bernardino, Penrod, Shugart- NR Campbell, Mata) C: Wong, Narvaez- NR Zavala 1B: Casas- NR Hickey 2B: DHam, Grissom- NR Campbell SS: Story, Romy- NR Mayer 3B: Devers- NR Eaton LF: Duran, Refsnyder CF: Rafaela- NR Anthony RF: Abreu- Sogard - NR Sikes DH: Yoshida

The exchanged numbers and might go to the arb. Still time before the hearings begin Jan 27th.