The American League East is always an arms race, and the New York Yankees acquired some serious firepower on Friday.

Will the Boston Red Sox respond in kind?

The Yankees made their second huge move of the week, acquiring former Milwaukee Brewers All-Star closer Devin Williams for pitcher Nestor Cortes and infielder Caleb Durbin. After adding a new ace in Max Fried earlier in the week, the Yankees added a true lockdown reliever.

When the Yankees signed Fried, the Red Sox responded less than 24 hours later by trading for fellow lefty Garrett Crochet. Will history repeat itself, and will the Red Sox now go out and add another bullpen weapon to shore up one of their biggest roster holes?

On Friday, NESN’s Tim Crowley released a roster projection for the 2025 Red Sox, and it included the signing of lefty reliever Tanner Scott, who was an All-Star in 2024 with the Miami Marlins before being traded to the San Diego Padres.

“Boston already made a pair of additions to this group this offseason with the signings of Wilson and Chapman,” Crowley said. “Whitlock and Winckowski should respond well to work in the middle innings.”

“The final addition should absolutely be Scott.”

Scott has been positively dominant since the start of the 2023 season, posting a 2.04 ERA and 7.6 bWAR in 150 innings of work. He’s struck out 188 batters in that span, proving particularly effective at shutting down Los Angeles Dodgers superstar Shohei Ohtani in the playoffs.

With Justin Slaten and Liam Hendriks currently slated as the main two options to hold the closer role, Scott would have a very strong case as the new ninth-inning man for Alex Cora to deploy. He’s projected for a four-year, $64 million contract by Tim Britton of The Athletic.

Boston gave Kenley Jansen $32 million to be their closer two years ago, so spending double that is a big ask from Craig Breslow and the ownership group. Now is the time to prove the talk about spending big this winter wasn’t just talk, and land a new stud for the bullpen.

More MLB: Red Sox Predicted To Acquire $260 Million Superstar, Move Rafael Devers Off Third Base

WBUR announced Friday that it would be cancelling “Radio Boston,” a midday talk show that has been part of the station for 17 years.

The decision was made in order to enable a wider weekday programming shakeup that will include a longer “Morning Edition,” new times for “BBC NewsHour” and “On Point,” and an emphasis on original, local journalism, the station announced.

This was characterized as a “strategic move,” and no staff members are being cut.

“The exceptional work of the Radio Boston team will continue, but in a new way that goes beyond the confines of an hour-long daily radio show,” Dan Mauzy, executive editor of WBUR’s local newsroom, said in a statement. “This shift is a more contemporary approach to daily journalism — and will fuel our public news service throughout the day and across platforms.”

“Radio Boston” became a daily show in 2010, and has since served listeners as WBUR’s only show dedicated entirely to local news. The final show will be on Dec. 20.

In March, WBUR leadership said the station was struggling after losing close to half of its on-air sponsorship income over the last five years. By late April, seven staff members were laid off and 24 chose to take voluntary buyouts, affecting some 14% of the station’s staff.

“We want to make sure that we’re doing everything we can with the resources that we have, and having the biggest impact with our audiences,” Mauzy told WBUR reporters for a story on the situation.

Earlier this year, WBUR announced that “Radio Boston” host Tiziana Dearing would become the host of “Morning Edition.” In that role, she is continuing to interview local leaders like Gov. Maura Healey and Boston Mayor Michelle Wu.

“Morning Edition,” which also includes national and global news, will broadcast on WBUR from 5 a.m. to 10 a.m. on weekdays. “BBC NewsHour” will air at 10 a.m., “On Point” will shift to 11 a.m., and “Here & Now” will add an updated hour at 3 p.m.

The station says the new lineup is meant to bring “national and international shows together while supercharging local news throughout the day and on WBUR’s digital platforms.”

The current producers of “Radio Boston” will shift to work on “Morning Edition” and “All Things Considered,” which WBUR says will allow them to focus more on local reporting and arranging interviews with high-profile guests.

Both WBUR and GBH, Boston’s other NPR news station, struggled this year to brave financial headwinds. GBH laid off 31 employees in May, leaving some newsroom staff “blindsided.” WBUR generally has higher ratings than GBH, but the latter dominates midday hours with its popular “Boston Public Radio” program hosted by Jim Braude and Margery Eagan.

“This move is not in response to any competition,” Mauzy told a WBUR reporter. “We think that this is a smarter way for us to produce journalism.”

The following daily schedule will go into effect on Jan. 6:

• “Morning Edition,” 5 – 10 a.m.
• “BBC NewsHour,” 10 – 11 a.m.
• “On Point,” 11 a.m. – 12 p.m.
• “Here & Now,” 12 – 2 p.m.
• “Fresh Air,” 2 – 3 p.m.
• “Here & Now” (third hour), 3 – 4 p.m.
• “All Things Considered,” 4 – 6:30 p.m.
• “Marketplace,” 6:30 – 7 p.m.

No wonder Massachusetts residents voted in favor of auditing the Legislature, even if it’s not clear exactly what would be audited or whether it would make any difference. We just wanted some accountability.

Susan Clark

Brighton

My takeaway from the demise of Mayor Wu’s property tax proposal? The business and commercial property owners walked away from the negotiated settlement to share the burden of a tax increase with Boston residents and needed the Legislature to help them do it. Good lesson for voters, no matter where you live in the state: Ask your senators who they listen to when casting their votes.

Carolyn Royce

Jamaica Plain

In the article “Wu’s tax bid declared ‘dead’ on Beacon Hill,” the reporters suggest that the apparent failure of Mayor Michelle Wu’s plan to moderate property tax increases for homeowners is due to her “lack of pull in the upper chamber.” While the mayor may have foolishly thought the Massachusetts Senate would support her effort to help homeowners stay in their homes, the roadblock to the passage of her bill was one lawmaker, Nick Collins, who seems to be looking to become the Joe Manchin of the Senate, a Democrat in name only.

Collins was singlehandedly able to block a vote on the legislation, which the mayor had painstakingly and successfully negotiated until running into his power play. Collins has abandoned both homeowners and renters. His actions may be related to donations made to him recently from the real estate industry, reminding one of the frequent critique of federal and state lawmakers: that it is the best government money can buy.

Rosemary Kean

Dorchester

Re “In the end, the numbers didn’t add up for Wu” (Page A1, Dec. 12): A longtime commissioner of assessing who served under previous Boston mayors says that it was reasonable to expect property valuation numbers to change within a short period, with significant impact on the size of the increase in revenues required from Boston’s property taxes.

Therefore, some might argue that any compromise between representatives of the business community and the city regarding the bill that was reached based on estimates that proved to be incorrect should still be honored, and lawmakers should have passed the bill.

Yet strategic planning in the face of predictable uncertainty is a fact of life, not an oxymoron. Under these conditions, a responsible and competent mayoral administration should have had a fiscal plan B (and maybe even a plan C) ready to go to deal with the overall revenue shortfall the city is facing.

Such contingencies could have included choices of where to cut the budget and how to find additional revenues. These ideas were suggested by multiple parties including individuals and groups of residents, the Boston Municipal Research Bureau, and the Small Property Owners Association, with enough time for the administration to have had plans B and C at the ready. They were ignored. Now that plan A has not worked out, the administration is resorting to ad hominem attacks on those who refused to vote for it.

Martyn Roetter

Boston

The Senate’s refusal to take up Mayor Michelle Wu’s home rule petition to shift the city’s tax burden is a damning indictment of the home rule process in Massachusetts (“Wu’s defeat could put her on defensive: Tensions high with Senate, business leaders,” Page A1, Dec. 11).

Whenever a Republican Legislature in another state tries to block its liberal capital city from passing its own laws, liberals in Massachusetts are rightly outraged. But our Commonwealth beat those other states by almost half a century, reinforced repeatedly in the years since by Boston’s business class, who rallied behind Proposition 2½ in the early 1980s and against rent control in the early 1990s.

If the petitions from cities and towns to pass their own laws can’t even get a vote at the State House — and this is just one of a few examples from this session, including rejected petitions on real estate transfer fees and rent control — the fundamental mechanisms of democracy are not working.

Jonathan Cohn

Policy director

Progressive Mass

Boston