Red Sox, Orioles, Dodgers Interested In Teoscar Hernández

What you seem to be missing, Suit, is that these bad contracts are the *RESULT* of going cheap. If you pay the fat price for the top free agents, you may spend more money but you get a LOT more bang for the buck.

Story signed for the “bargain” price of $140M, vs. Semien at $175M and Seager at $325M. Story has delivered +3.5 WAR over the first three years of the deal, while Semien has +14.8 WAR and Seager has +15.2 WAR.

Yoshida at $90M was a bargain vs. Nimmo at $162M, but Yoshida has produced just 1.4 WAR (he can’t play defense) while Nimmo has already turned in +6.9 WAR.

The solution to overpriced free agents is not to sign second-rate talents. Those very quickly fade to oblivion, leaving you with players who are still paid large amounts and fill a lineup spot that could be better used for a more productive player.

The solution is to fill most of your needs internally, and to go big on the handful of free agents that are actually worth the big money. Use free agent signings to add star talent to the roster, guys who actually add to the team.

If they actually go big on somebody this winter, I will be happy. I’m just not convinced they are willing to spend what it takes to compete. Most of the playoff teams spend more than the Red Sox, and the others get advantages for playing in a small market.

If you wait until 2027 to compete, the window will be almost closed. That is Houck’s walk year, and the FA piles up after that. They need to open the window of contention now, and that should give them a solid 4-5 year chance.

The “very competitive” teams that made the LCS were the Guardians, Yankees, Mets, and Dodgers. The three top payrolls in the game, all with CBT payrolls over $320M, and *one* of the 27 team below that level.

Or look at all 12 teams that made the playoffs (including some that had no business being there). The Mets, Dodgers, Yankees, Braves, Philies, Astros, and Giants all exceeded the luxury tax threshold. Five others didn’t.

The teams that are willing to exceed the threshold made the playoffs in 7 out of 8 cases. The teams that didn’t made the playoffs in 5 out of 22 cases.

I agree with you that this strategy is likely to get the Red Sox into the playoffs roughly once every four years (5 out of 22). I’m just baffled why you feel that is good enough.

The O”s, Rays, and D’Backs are all CBT *recipients*. They get additional draft picks and international bonus pool as a result, allowing them significantly more talent from the draft and international markets.

There are two ways to contend. Either you are a big market team and you spend big money, or you are a small market team and MLB gives you extra talent. Free draft picks, improved compensation for losing a free agent, and so forth. The Red Sox are not in the bottom ten in either market size or revenue, therefore they will never get the CBT advantages that the small market teams.

I agree with you that spending doesn’t guarantee anything, but a big market team can’t contend without spending money up to and beyond the luxury tax. They can probably stay under the luxury tax this year and still add an ace starter and ace reliever. Next year they might have to go over to continue improving the team.

As for the Dodgers? Let’s see… Twelve straight playoff appearances, four World Series appearances, two World Series wins. Seems they are doing okay for themselves?!?

In contrast, the Diamondbacks (are they to be our model for contention?) have just *four* playoff appearances in the last *twenty* years, caught fire at the right time to make it to the World Series once, but even then fell short. They weren’t even able to make the playoffs the following year.

Despite their CBT advantages, the D’Backs have just four playoff appearances and one WS appearance (no rings) in twenty years. That is the path that the Red Sox have been following since 2020. I believe the Red Sox can and should expect more of themselves than one playoff appearance and an early exit every five years.

Signing top flight players tends to work out a lot better than chasing the second tier. Players are already 29-30 when they hit free agency in most cases, and only the best players are likely to be productive into their mid 30s. So when you sign second tier players like Story or Yoshida or Giolito, you get a couple years of disappointing production followed by a steep decline. Top talent may also give you a couple years of decline at the end of the deal, but first you get to enjoy 3-4 years of high level performance.

I don’t expect guarantees, but their best shot is to ramp up the payroll to the $300M level that their competition already spends (not all at once – over 3-5 years). It doesn’t replace the need to develop talent internally, but done right it supplements that need.

Hard to find fault with the Dodgers or Yankees. They are perennial playoff teams. Trying to be a top contender without bringing in outside talent is much chancier path.

The only real drawback of a bad contract is that you have to wait before you reallocate that money. But if you aren’t spending that money anyways, or are wasting it on second tier talent, then it isn’t really any worse. At least give yourself a chance at a GOOD contract.

That’s all I’ve been asking! Spend up to the luxury tax this year, then work on extending the homegrown talent and maybe add another top FA in a year or two.

Have you looked at the roster? Even assuming Pivetta takes the QO, they still have $50M to go. Their roster needs are for one ace starter and one ace reliever. They don’t have roster space for more than that. Heck, they don’t have roster space for all the talented outfielders they have, and only one of Grissom or Campbell can play 2B.

That $50M gets you a top starting pitcher and a top reliever.

The Dodgers are on a 12 year playoff run. The Yankees have missed the playoffs just twice in the last decade. The Mets have made the playoffs in two out of three seasons since approaching that level. You begin with talent in the system, then you ramp up the FA budget and expect to make the playoffs maybe four years out of five.

In contrast, if you spend in the $150M to $200M, you expect to make the playoffs one year out of five. Maybe a little more often if you can take advantage of the extra draft picks.

If the Red Sox spend up to the luxury tax this year, and don’t balk at letting the payroll climb further over the next five years, they will make the playoffs in 2025 and possibly be a top team from 2027-2030. That’s enough of a playoff window that you have a really good shot at another World Series victory. Given that playoff series are basically a coin flip, you need to win your division four times or play in the Wild Card round eight times to reach the World Series once. A small edge to the stronger teams, of course.

If you slip in as a Wild Card once every five years, you should expect ~40 years in between World Series appearances. The Red Sox need to set their sights higher than that. Doubt I’ll be around for another 40 years.

Roster Resource has them at $169M, which is $72M shy. Set aside $21M for Pivetta, and $10M for the trade deadline if you wish, and they still have $41M of space.

But the only two remaining needs are an ace pitcher and an ace reliever. They have enough position players coming up (including some who are right handed) that they can’t really add more there unless they clear other space. I would prefer to give the time to Campbell, for example, rather than throwing large amounts of money at Teoscar Hernandez. If you look at the projections, they could be similarly good.

The Red Sox need a “first pace” ace starter, though. They have three “second page” guys in Houck, Bello, and Pivetta, and Houck could climb onto the first page if he repeats 2024, but they are clearly weak at the top.

If it comes down to an ace starter OR an ace reliever, give me the starter and pick up that reliever at the trade deadline. Relief pitching is pretty cheap then.

So it comes down to $40M of payroll space and one major need. Get it done! None of the available ace starters will exceed that $40M.

On top of that, I would be okay with trading Abreu and/or Crawford in the right deal. Lower end talents that are replaceable from within. That could potentially be competitive in a trade, even for Crochet. Teams are very unlikely to trade a top 20 prospect for him.

Burnes’ velocity and control are intact, so I’m less concerned about the declining K rate. He has a long history of inducing weak contact that continued this year. I’m concerned about ALL pitchers past the age of 29, but Burnes seems a better bet than most. Especially since he isn’t relying on extreme velocity to get those outs.

Agreed that Fried and Crochet are also risks. But you look at all three, assess the price (and prospects) to acquire them, and go with your best shot. History demonstrates that the second tier is almost as costly and far less productive.

I’d be a little surprised if Burnes went at $245M, but anything is possible. I would try to get Fried on a five year deal for $150M (and also kick the tires on Crochet).

The other factor is that Bloom was drafting HS talent (especially in the early years). High school players typically spend 2 more years in the minors than college players, and thus essentially ALL of the talent that Bloom drafted over four years is still in the minors. If he had been drafting college talent, half of that would have graduated by now and our minors would be thinner.

Not a criticism of the strategy, just an observation. By drafting young, he lengthened the period of mediocrity but also brought a fat crop of talent to the majors all at once.