SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Chaim Bloom/Ryan Weber - Poll
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 17, 2020 9:26:39 GMT -5
This discussion about the Rays and Red Sox makes me think of r-selection and k-selection in biology. Basically, there are two kind of adaptive strategies that animal genes might employ: in r-selection, animals have a bunch of offspring but short gestation, a short developmental period, and little parental investment, like mice or frogs. In k-selection, animals have few offspring, long gestation and devlopmental periods, and lots of parental investment, like elephants or humans. So there are two equilibria, but each of them entails a number of traits that all go together. Maybe the Rays and Red Sox (or small- and big-budget teams generally) are like this. If you are the Rays, you don't have the money to sign free agents, or even keep your own guys deep into arbitration sometimes, which means you have a high rate of churn ("many offspring, short development period"). Hence all the little dime-for-two-nickels deals they're always doing. If you're the Red Sox, you sign the big free agents and keep guys like Betts as long as you're getting value out of them ("few offspring, lots of parental investment"); but if you're doing that then you largely can't make the little marginal deals. E.g., you couldn't get value in return for trading David Price if you tried. All of which is to say, Bloom has gone from the former situation to the latter, and just because he made the moves that were appropriate for the former doesn't mean we should expect him to do that now. Like, we might hope for "as smart as the Rays have been, PLUS signing big-dollar free agents," but maybe it doesn't work like that. The Dodgers did just that with a guy from Tampa. Cutting what a 100 million in payroll? Trading one season of Puig and getting two guys that are top 100 guys now. Yet people act like we can't get anything for Betts. They fired DD because they wanted something different, not just the same old thing. People are acting like we can't stay remotely as competitive after a trade of Betts. You're also ignoring the many depth moves he has made, which was a severe issue last season. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 17, 2020 9:28:57 GMT -5
I get what you're saying and no, I'm not overwhelmed by them spending money on Perez and especially Peraza. Basically he traded in Porcello for Perez and Leon for Plawecki, and made some small reliever deals (more throw stuff against the wall and see what sticks kind of thing), which are margin moves that shave off a few bucks. If Peraza is for replacing Nunez, then ok, but if it's for him to start...hope not, just like if it's Perez to replace Porcello, ok, although I still think Porcello has more upside than Perez, but if it's to replace Price, yeesh. That said, I don't think he wanted to come in and right away rip out the core of the team. He's been here about five minutes relatively speaking. Maybe he wants to see what he has with his own eyes first, thus he's conservative? Or maybe there really hasn't been a deal on the table that's been palatable. Yeah, he can trade Bogaerts or Betts or whoever, but maybe the return is a net loss. I assume that the deals on the table for Price are lacking, not to mention he knows he cannot replace Price in the 2020 rotation and expect to compete? Maybe I'm making excuses for him, but I just think I need a lot more time to evaluate Bloom. I have a feeling when the deals do come, they're going to come fast and furious, whether it's the next few weeks, some time in July, or next offseason, and by then I should be able to get a better handle on just who Bloom is, so for the time being I'm reserving judgment (hey, isn't that what the Red Sox FO are asking us to do? Hah!!) I wouldn't be surprised if Bloom is waiting to see if the Sox seriously compete or not, see how much he can unload in July, still get under $208 million even with the pro-rations (Betts, Price, Martinez, Bradley), get back some talent and reshape the club next December when they got a ton of money to play with in addition to the talent they've already received in July deals.Glad to see you are coming around to my way of thinking. They don’t have to be under the cap to start the season, only at the end of the season. And that decision doesn’t have to be made until the trade deadline. There is no way in hell they're getting under the cap if they wait until the deadline to start cutting payroll. They'd have to trade away about $70-80 million in salary. |
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 17, 2020 9:34:46 GMT -5
Glad to see you are coming around to my way of thinking. They don’t have to be under the cap to start the season, only at the end of the season. And that decision doesn’t have to be made until the trade deadline. There is no way in hell they're getting under the cap if they wait until the deadline to start cutting payroll. They'd have to trade away about $70-80 million in salary. They'd shed Betts and $9 million, Martinez and about $7 million, JBJ for about $4 million, and a portion of Price's deal somehow. Say $10 plus million. That would get them to shed about 30 million and get them just under. |
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 17, 2020 9:38:48 GMT -5
This discussion about the Rays and Red Sox makes me think of r-selection and k-selection in biology. Basically, there are two kind of adaptive strategies that animal genes might employ: in r-selection, animals have a bunch of offspring but short gestation, a short developmental period, and little parental investment, like mice or frogs. In k-selection, animals have few offspring, long gestation and devlopmental periods, and lots of parental investment, like elephants or humans. So there are two equilibria, but each of them entails a number of traits that all go together. Maybe the Rays and Red Sox (or small- and big-budget teams generally) are like this. If you are the Rays, you don't have the money to sign free agents, or even keep your own guys deep into arbitration sometimes, which means you have a high rate of churn ("many offspring, short development period"). Hence all the little dime-for-two-nickels deals they're always doing. If you're the Red Sox, you sign the big free agents and keep guys like Betts as long as you're getting value out of them ("few offspring, lots of parental investment"); but if you're doing that then you largely can't make the little marginal deals. E.g., you couldn't get value in return for trading David Price if you tried. All of which is to say, Bloom has gone from the former situation to the latter, and just because he made the moves that were appropriate for the former doesn't mean we should expect him to do that now. Like, we might hope for "as smart as the Rays have been, PLUS signing big-dollar free agents," but maybe it doesn't work like that. The Dodgers did just that with a guy from Tampa. Cutting what a 100 million in payroll? Trading one season of Puig and getting two guys that are top 100 guys now. Yet people act like we can't get anything for Betts. They fired DD because they wanted something different, not just the same old thing. You need to start being more specific about what you mean by creativity. Because, to me, the only move that meets your definition of "creative," being the way the Rays trade cost-controlled talent while their value is high, would be a trade of Eduardo Rodriguez. Or, even more aggressively, a trade of Rafael Devers. Meeting a less narrowly-defined version of creativity? The Red Sox have, very much under-the-radar, beefed up the bottom quarter of the 40-man roster. Plawecki, Perez, Peraza, Brice, Osich, Mazza, Springs are marginally better than Leon, Nunez, Poyner, Travis, Josh Smith, Trevor Kelly, Marco Hernandez, etc. The Red Sox lost a lot of games at the margins, largely because Dombrowski didn't seem to understand filling the back end of the roster. It was a last-in/first-out system that enabled the likes Colten Brewer and Eduardo Nunez and Sandy Leon to stay on the 25-man even though they were either not ready or straight-up awful. You're defining "creativity" in a very narrow way, which is the opposite of creativity. |
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 17, 2020 9:39:55 GMT -5
I get what you're saying and no, I'm not overwhelmed by them spending money on Perez and especially Peraza. Basically he traded in Porcello for Perez and Leon for Plawecki, and made some small reliever deals (more throw stuff against the wall and see what sticks kind of thing), which are margin moves that shave off a few bucks. If Peraza is for replacing Nunez, then ok, but if it's for him to start...hope not, just like if it's Perez to replace Porcello, ok, although I still think Porcello has more upside than Perez, but if it's to replace Price, yeesh. That said, I don't think he wanted to come in and right away rip out the core of the team. He's been here about five minutes relatively speaking. Maybe he wants to see what he has with his own eyes first, thus he's conservative? Or maybe there really hasn't been a deal on the table that's been palatable. Yeah, he can trade Bogaerts or Betts or whoever, but maybe the return is a net loss. I assume that the deals on the table for Price are lacking, not to mention he knows he cannot replace Price in the 2020 rotation and expect to compete? Maybe I'm making excuses for him, but I just think I need a lot more time to evaluate Bloom. I have a feeling when the deals do come, they're going to come fast and furious, whether it's the next few weeks, some time in July, or next offseason, and by then I should be able to get a better handle on just who Bloom is, so for the time being I'm reserving judgment (hey, isn't that what the Red Sox FO are asking us to do? Hah!!) I wouldn't be surprised if Bloom is waiting to see if the Sox seriously compete or not, see how much he can unload in July, still get under $208 million even with the pro-rations (Betts, Price, Martinez, Bradley), get back some talent and reshape the club next December when they got a ton of money to play with in addition to the talent they've already received in July deals.Glad to see you are coming around to my way of thinking. They don’t have to be under the cap to start the season, only at the end of the season. And that decision doesn’t have to be made until the trade deadline. No, they don't and perhaps they dump JBJ before spring training to make it easier on themselves if they do decide to duck under. Maybe the leash is only toward the end of June to save another month's worth. Now, with the need to find a manager it'll be tougher to make a ton of moves at this point, so yeah, the signs are starting to point to, if they quickly compete, great, if not it's a perfect excuse to dump the massive contracts midseason. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 17, 2020 9:54:53 GMT -5
There is no way in hell they're getting under the cap if they wait until the deadline to start cutting payroll. They'd have to trade away about $70-80 million in salary. They'd shed Betts and $9 million, Martinez and about $7 million, JBJ for about $4 million, and a portion of Price's deal somehow. Say $10 plus million. That would get them to shed about 30 million and get them just under. They'd have to be at least 10 games out of the wild card to even consider destroying the team. And it would still be difficult as hell to pull off. |
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 17, 2020 10:06:41 GMT -5
They'd shed Betts and $9 million, Martinez and about $7 million, JBJ for about $4 million, and a portion of Price's deal somehow. Say $10 plus million. That would get them to shed about 30 million and get them just under. They'd have to be at least 10 games out of the wild card to even consider destroying the team. And it would still be difficult as hell to pull off. I wouldn't go that far. If they're 7 games out and/or they have to jump over several other teams, they might pull the plug. They'll get the sense of where their team is going. This team is going to be on a shorter leash than usual. Obviously if they're in the thick of things they'll go for it, luxury tax be damned, but obviously they haven't really taken steps to improve the team other than hoping for bouncebacks and good health, so they're not that heavily invested (in other words, they're not "All in")in this year's team as they have been in other teams. It gives them better flexibility to pivot on their decisions. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 17, 2020 15:42:57 GMT -5
This discussion about the Rays and Red Sox makes me think of r-selection and k-selection in biology. Basically, there are two kind of adaptive strategies that animal genes might employ: in r-selection, animals have a bunch of offspring but short gestation, a short developmental period, and little parental investment, like mice or frogs. In k-selection, animals have few offspring, long gestation and devlopmental periods, and lots of parental investment, like elephants or humans. So there are two equilibria, but each of them entails a number of traits that all go together. Maybe the Rays and Red Sox (or small- and big-budget teams generally) are like this. If you are the Rays, you don't have the money to sign free agents, or even keep your own guys deep into arbitration sometimes, which means you have a high rate of churn ("many offspring, short development period"). Hence all the little dime-for-two-nickels deals they're always doing. If you're the Red Sox, you sign the big free agents and keep guys like Betts as long as you're getting value out of them ("few offspring, lots of parental investment"); but if you're doing that then you largely can't make the little marginal deals. E.g., you couldn't get value in return for trading David Price if you tried. All of which is to say, Bloom has gone from the former situation to the latter, and just because he made the moves that were appropriate for the former doesn't mean we should expect him to do that now. Like, we might hope for "as smart as the Rays have been, PLUS signing big-dollar free agents," but maybe it doesn't work like that. The Dodgers did just that with a guy from Tampa. Cutting what a 100 million in payroll? Trading one season of Puig and getting two guys that are top 100 guys now. Yet people act like we can't get anything for Betts. They fired DD because they wanted something different, not just the same old thing. The Dodgers cut 100M but over 3 years. They cut 40 million from 15-16 basically by FAs leaving and dead money coming off the books. It really didn't require much creativity. They cut the other 60 from 17-18 in part with the Atlanta useless player trade (Gonzo/Kazmir/McCarthy for Kemp) that moved 20 million onto the following year, in part was Ethier's 17.5M coming off as a FA, and in part was Crawford's dead 21.8M coming off. All Freidman did that was unique was the Braves trade, and he could do that because he had 3 guys who sucked who he could trade to a tanking team for their 1 guy who sucks but was getting paid over 2 years instead of 1. You keep bringing them up like they cut 100M in one offseason through genius-level moves. They didn't. They had an awesome farm system that produced guys like Seager and Bellinger and Buehler to replace expensive vets they let walk. |
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 17, 2020 16:15:18 GMT -5
I think it would be wise to expect the same from Bloom - slow and steady progress towards ownership's stated goal.
|
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jan 17, 2020 16:19:52 GMT -5
I get what you're saying and no, I'm not overwhelmed by them spending money on Perez and especially Peraza. Basically he traded in Porcello for Perez and Leon for Plawecki, and made some small reliever deals (more throw stuff against the wall and see what sticks kind of thing), which are margin moves that shave off a few bucks. If Peraza is for replacing Nunez, then ok, but if it's for him to start...hope not, just like if it's Perez to replace Porcello, ok, although I still think Porcello has more upside than Perez, but if it's to replace Price, yeesh. That said, I don't think he wanted to come in and right away rip out the core of the team. He's been here about five minutes relatively speaking. Maybe he wants to see what he has with his own eyes first, thus he's conservative? Or maybe there really hasn't been a deal on the table that's been palatable. Yeah, he can trade Bogaerts or Betts or whoever, but maybe the return is a net loss. I assume that the deals on the table for Price are lacking, not to mention he knows he cannot replace Price in the 2020 rotation and expect to compete? Maybe I'm making excuses for him, but I just think I need a lot more time to evaluate Bloom. I have a feeling when the deals do come, they're going to come fast and furious, whether it's the next few weeks, some time in July, or next offseason, and by then I should be able to get a better handle on just who Bloom is, so for the time being I'm reserving judgment (hey, isn't that what the Red Sox FO are asking us to do? Hah!!) I wouldn't be surprised if Bloom is waiting to see if the Sox seriously compete or not, see how much he can unload in July, still get under $208 million even with the pro-rations (Betts, Price, Martinez, Bradley), get back some talent and reshape the club next December when they got a ton of money to play with in addition to the talent they've already received in July deals.Glad to see you are coming around to my way of thinking. They don’t have to be under the cap to start the season, only at the end of the season. And that decision doesn’t have to be made until the trade deadline. Waiting till the deadline can be a disastrous scenario with the 2nd Wild Card spot. What are they going to do if they're 3 games out, but just won 9 of 10 or are 2 up, but just lost 9 of 10? They're too good right now to be out of a playoff spot completely. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 17, 2020 16:38:55 GMT -5
The Dodgers did just that with a guy from Tampa. Cutting what a 100 million in payroll? Trading one season of Puig and getting two guys that are top 100 guys now. Yet people act like we can't get anything for Betts. They fired DD because they wanted something different, not just the same old thing. People are acting like we can't stay remotely as competitive after a trade of Betts. You're also ignoring the many depth moves he has made, which was a severe issue last season. I think people just don't understand that one guy doesn't make a team, just see Mike Trout as a perfect example. I don't mind his moves, yet how do we have more depth? Replacing Nunez and Holt with Peraza, not replacing Moreland, just replacing Porcello with Perez. Nevermind we had hope that Dustin could play again last year and that isn't the case this year. Last year pitching depth killed us and we haven't addressed that at all. We haven't got under the 208 line and we basically aren't spending money either. Like pick a path. Given the market right now you could spend 10-15 million and add a ton of depth. I also agree I don't see how you go for it and then get under the line. Trading half the team seems crazy, just to say look we tried. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 17, 2020 16:56:40 GMT -5
The Dodgers did just that with a guy from Tampa. Cutting what a 100 million in payroll? Trading one season of Puig and getting two guys that are top 100 guys now. Yet people act like we can't get anything for Betts. They fired DD because they wanted something different, not just the same old thing. You need to start being more specific about what you mean by creativity. Because, to me, the only move that meets your definition of "creative," being the way the Rays trade cost-controlled talent while their value is high, would be a trade of Eduardo Rodriguez. Or, even more aggressively, a trade of Rafael Devers. Meeting a less narrowly-defined version of creativity? The Red Sox have, very much under-the-radar, beefed up the bottom quarter of the 40-man roster. Plawecki, Perez, Peraza, Brice, Osich, Mazza, Springs are marginally better than Leon, Nunez, Poyner, Travis, Josh Smith, Trevor Kelly, Marco Hernandez, etc. The Red Sox lost a lot of games at the margins, largely because Dombrowski didn't seem to understand filling the back end of the roster. It was a last-in/first-out system that enabled the likes Colten Brewer and Eduardo Nunez and Sandy Leon to stay on the 25-man even though they were either not ready or straight-up awful. You're defining "creativity" in a very narrow way, which is the opposite of creativity. I listed seven players I think that is more than enough to be specific. I'm not going to try and come up with deals because that is rather fruitless. I haven't even defined creative other than to point out moves Tampa has made or guys from Tampa like the Dodgers have made. Is that not why we hired him? DD made moves like that, which just don't seem to notice them because they didn't workout. I certainly don't see filling out the backend of the roster as being creative, it's just what teams do every year. He found Braiser and Walden. He tried with Brewer it didn't workout. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 17, 2020 17:19:00 GMT -5
The Dodgers did just that with a guy from Tampa. Cutting what a 100 million in payroll? Trading one season of Puig and getting two guys that are top 100 guys now. Yet people act like we can't get anything for Betts. They fired DD because they wanted something different, not just the same old thing. The Dodgers cut 100M but over 3 years. They cut 40 million from 15-16 basically by FAs leaving and dead money coming off the books. It really didn't require much creativity. They cut the other 60 from 17-18 in part with the Atlanta useless player trade (Gonzo/Kazmir/McCarthy for Kemp) that moved 20 million onto the following year, in part was Ethier's 17.5M coming off as a FA, and in part was Crawford's dead 21.8M coming off. All Freidman did that was unique was the Braves trade, and he could do that because he had 3 guys who sucked who he could trade to a tanking team for their 1 guy who sucks but was getting paid over 2 years instead of 1. You keep bringing them up like they cut 100M in one offseason through genius-level moves. They didn't. They had an awesome farm system that produced guys like Seager and Bellinger and Buehler to replace expensive vets they let walk. I mentioned the Dodgers cutting payroll once and didn't act like they cut it in one season either. Just that they cut it and still remained a good team. I also pointed out the Puig trade as a creative type deal. Do you not agree? I thought that the Dodgers is exactly what we wanted to become. A team that spends money, but also acts like the Rays. The huge difference is they had an owner that had a plan, ours just did a 180 in one season. You don't sign Eovaldi for big money and then say getting below 208 million has always been the goal. That's like the Dodgers signing Grienke then saying they need to cut payroll. At the same time you can still do it, you just need to get creative. If you don't plan on resigning Betts like a bunch of reports say that seems like the easiest way. A smart GM could get a haul for him that still makes us competitive. Just like I worried our owner seems to care about the optics more than the best long-term moves for the team. Nothing wrong with a bridge year, but he won't every use that word again because it upsets the fans. |
|
|
