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.
Is Chaim Bloom good at his job?
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jul 31, 2022 12:30:27 GMT -5
maybe there are better words to use. However, not being entirely truthful about acknowledging that Bloom could have traded anyone at anytime and putting all the blame on DD is pretty close. There have been many posts saying such. The point about the big contracts he was saddled with is that those players were worth less than their contracts. So how was he going to trade them? Who was going to take Pedroia or Sale in 2020? No one, unless the Red Sox gave away value to get them to, like the Yankees did when they traded Ottavino to us.
And of course Bloom did do this with Price in the Betts deal. The result was to reduce the return in that trade, and yet the Red Sox are still saddled with $16 million/year of that contract to this day.
(I don't believe I said anything dishonest here and it would be nice to not be accused of doing so.)
Incandenza, not meant to accuse you of anything like that. He could have traded X, JDM, Barnes, Vasquez...hell Devers, at any point in the last 2.5 years. That is long time to change your roster. The Pedroia or Sale can't be moved for sure, but everyone is tradable. I mean if he could do the Price trade what is to prevent him from doing others ? He has total control over the roster.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Jul 31, 2022 12:34:33 GMT -5
I think to evaluate if Bloom's good at his job you have to think of it in two parts:
1) Do you agree with his general approach to team/org building? 2) Is he good at executing on that approach?
Using Dombrowski as a comparison, his approach (with the Red Sox) was pretty easy to pick out: identify the best possible player at a position of interest and beat the market to get them. I don't really agree with his approach overall as something that's sustainable for a long period of time because he sacrificed a ton of the depth in the system to do it, but he was good at executing on it, and had the right ingredients before he came in (home grown stars on affordable contracts) to make it work during his window. He obviously made some mistakes (e.g the Sale contract), but overall he was effective at what he was going for.
For Bloom, he's focused on maintaining financial flexibility and building out a deep overall system. I agree with the approach and I think most of the choices he's made have been reasonable towards executing on it, but by nature it's going to take a longer time to figure out if he's actually good at it than it did to figure out if Dombrowski was, because the approach is much longer term. There's still questions we need to answer to determine if he's really going to excel: Is he good at identifying undervalued MLB talent to fill gaps on the roster? I think RF is an example where he failed at that this year, even if I am okay with the logic of the overall series of moves there, and Pivetta is an example of success at that. Is he good at picking the right prospects to move when he does make a trade to bolster the roster? Will the farm actually start producing talent more regularly?
Anyhow, my current answer is I like his approach and I think he's been good at it, and he also came into a situation that made it relatively hard to execute on it quickly (poor farm, little cheap talent on the roster, some bad contracts attached). I think the org is going in the right direction, but they still aren't at the sustainable winner level he's going for, so it's also fair to say it's too early to be sure.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jul 31, 2022 12:44:46 GMT -5
Question: how close to the tax line would they be if they weren’t paying Paxton not to pitch?
I hated it at the time, but it is even worse now. Even if he pitches this year, it’s too late. Why not just leave that money unspent, acquire someone at the deadline if necessary, or, in this case, just… not?
And people can say, they’ll have him next year, but when he gets hurt *again*, they’ll say “oh, injuries have really cost us.”
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jul 31, 2022 12:49:00 GMT -5
The point about the big contracts he was saddled with is that those players were worth less than their contracts. So how was he going to trade them? Who was going to take Pedroia or Sale in 2020? No one, unless the Red Sox gave away value to get them to, like the Yankees did when they traded Ottavino to us.
And of course Bloom did do this with Price in the Betts deal. The result was to reduce the return in that trade, and yet the Red Sox are still saddled with $16 million/year of that contract to this day.
(I don't believe I said anything dishonest here and it would be nice to not be accused of doing so.)
Incandenza, not meant to accuse you of anything like that. He could have traded X, JDM, Barnes, Vasquez...hell Devers, at any point in the last 2.5 years. That is long time to change your roster. The Pedroia or Sale can't be moved for sure, but everyone is tradable. I mean if he could do the Price trade what is to prevent him from doing others ? He has total control over the roster. Well now I'm not sure what you're objecting to. When people talk about DD saddling the team with financial inflexibility they're not talking about the cost-controlled guys like Devers or Barnes, or the guys on reasonable contracts like Vazquez and Xander. Heck, I think just about everyone loves the Xander deal DD got for the team. We're mostly talking about Price and Sale, with Eovaldi being a debatable case. (Pedroia was a Cherington signing I think? And a good one too, at the time, that just didn't work out after he got Machado'd. Still, that was another big pile of dead money.)
Then there's another specific complaint, which I made at the top of my first comment in this thread: DD's commitments made the Betts trade all but inevitable.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jul 31, 2022 12:52:35 GMT -5
Question: how close to the tax line would they be if they weren’t paying Paxton not to pitch? I hated it at the time, but it is even worse now. Even if he pitches this year, it’s too late. Why not just leave that money unspent, acquire someone at the deadline if necessary, or, in this case, just… not? And people can say, they’ll have him next year, but when he gets hurt *again*, they’ll say “oh, injuries have really cost us.” According to fangraphs, Paxton's AAV is $5 million, and I believe they're $6 million over the cap.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jul 31, 2022 12:53:46 GMT -5
Question: how close to the tax line would they be if they weren’t paying Paxton not to pitch? I hated it at the time, but it is even worse now. Even if he pitches this year, it’s too late. Why not just leave that money unspent, acquire someone at the deadline if necessary, or, in this case, just… not? And people can say, they’ll have him next year, but when he gets hurt *again*, they’ll say “oh, injuries have really cost us.” According to fangraphs, Paxton's AAV is $5 million, and I believe they're $6 million over the cap.
So… basically a minimum wage dump away.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Jul 31, 2022 13:04:21 GMT -5
According to fangraphs, Paxton's AAV is $5 million, and I believe they're $6 million over the cap.
So… basically a minimum wage dump away. What's your specific complaint here? That if they didn't have Paxton they wouldn't have to dump JDM to get under the cap? That might be fair, they could at least get a better prospect if they ate his whole contract, but I don't think it's costing them a ton. I think it's fair to say the Paxton move hasn't panned out as his recovery is taking longer than originally expected it seems like. I still like the idea of it as a low risk high upside gamble.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Jul 31, 2022 13:14:54 GMT -5
His worst move to me is the Barnes extension. I understand the thought process behind literally every other move but not that one. We saw his spin rates fall after the sticky stuff ban, can’t be giving out a 2 year deal right after that without seeing a legitimate sample of results This take gets thrown out all the time, including on the most recent SP podcast, but I don't buy it. From the beginning of the year until 6/27, the last day before sticky stuff crackdown, here was Barnes' line:
April: 14 IP, 5 H, 4 ER, 1 HR, 3 BB, 25 K May: 10 IP, 6 H, 3 ER, 1 HR, 2 BB, 16 K June (through 6/27): 8 IP, 8 H, 3 ER, 1 HR, 4 BB, 13 K
Total: 32 IP, 21 H, 10 ER, 3 HR, 9 BB, 54 K. 2.81 ERA, 0.94 WHIP, 0.8 HR/9, 2.5 BB/9, 15.2 K/9.
From 6/28-8/4, the first 5-6 weeks after the sticky stuff crackdown, here was Barnes line:
June (after 6/27): 3 IP, 1 H, 0 ER, 0 HR, 0 BB, 5 K July: 8 IP, 4 H, 1 ER, 1 HR, 2 BB, 7 K
August (through 8/4): 1 IP, 0 H, 0 ER, 0 HR, 0 BB, 2 K
Total: 12 IP, 6 H, 1 ER, 1 HR, 2 BB, 14 K. 0.75 ERA, 0.67 WHIP, 0.8 HR/9, 1.5 BB/9, 10.5 K/9.
Barnes was still extremely effective after the sticky stuff crackdown. It's not a question of bad opponents after the sticky stuff ban giving him a better chance to succeed either. His line in five games against NYY and TOR immediately after the ASB was as follows: 5 G, 5 IP, 1 H, 0 ER, 0 BB, 3 K, 4/4 SV/SVO. He pitched well against everyone during that stretch.
Starting 8/7, though, Barnes was terrible, and by the end of the month he was on the shelf for three weeks due to COVID. He picked it up a little bit after coming back from COVID, but that was only in six outings and mostly against weak opponents.
Other data points: - Barnes' fastball spin rate only declined about 75 RPM from June to September, which is easily explained by his 4SFB velocity drop. It was not your classic overnight 200-300 RPM drop.
- Barnes has never been a high spin guy. His curve has never been higher than 29th percentile for spin. His 4SFB has mostly been around the 60th percentile in terms of spin, which is lower than you'd expect given that his 4SFB velocity has historically been 85th-95th percentile and spin and velocity have a positive correlation. His 4SFB spin was elevated in 2018 and 2019, but 2021 is the season we're talking about here and his spin rate was right on his career levels.
- Barnes' fastball fell off a cliff at the end of 2021. His 4SFB averaged 96.6 MPH in June and it was down to 94.3 MPH by September. It was down to 93.9 MPH in April 2022 and ticked up to 94.9 MPH in May before Barnes was IL'd. By the eye test his fastball is much higher effort now for much worse results. Small wonder that his walk rate has just about doubled in 2022; he has to throw every pitch 100% to have a chance now.
TL;DR There's no evidence I can find of the sticky stuff ban tanking Barnes. There's plenty of evidence that Barnes' arm is now a noodle.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jul 31, 2022 13:16:34 GMT -5
According to fangraphs, Paxton's AAV is $5 million, and I believe they're $6 million over the cap.
So… basically a minimum wage dump away. So you didn't like the Paxton, Wacha, and Hill signings. How would you have used that $17 million in AAV costs to build the rotation differently? (Or $11 million, if you wanted to stay under the CBT line.)
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jul 31, 2022 13:16:52 GMT -5
So… basically a minimum wage dump away. What's your specific complaint here? That if they didn't have Paxton they wouldn't have to dump JDM to get under the cap? That might be fair, they could at least get a better prospect if they ate his whole contract, but I don't think it's costing them a ton. I think it's fair to say the Paxton move hasn't panned out as his recovery is taking longer than originally expected it seems like. I still like the idea of it as a low risk high upside gamble. My complaint is that it was a waste of money. That it is the cutesy model of reclamation project that actually has not worked much these last two years. If his recovery is taking longer than they thought then it just makes it worse. A chronically hurt guy over 30 with TJ… and they are scheduling him optimistically?
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jul 31, 2022 13:20:20 GMT -5
So… basically a minimum wage dump away. So you didn't like the Paxton, Wacha, and Hill signings. How would you have used that $17 million in AAV costs to build the rotation differently? (Or $11 million, if you wanted to stay under the CBT line.)
Well, I would have gone hard for Verlander or Scherzer. Costs more than that $17, but you get a stud. I am not actually saying Wacha and Hill were *bad* moves. The Wacha move turned out really well, actually. I am saying in signing those guys, you should expect 1/2 seasons. So you should know you need guys in the wings. Thus, when we say “well, they got hurt,” my response is, of course they got hurt.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jul 31, 2022 13:26:19 GMT -5
So you didn't like the Paxton, Wacha, and Hill signings. How would you have used that $17 million in AAV costs to build the rotation differently? (Or $11 million, if you wanted to stay under the CBT line.)
Well, I would have gone hard for Verlander or Scherzer. Costs more than that $17, but you get a stud. I am not actually saying Wacha and Hill were *bad* moves. The Wacha move turned out really well, actually. I am saying in signing those guys, you should expect 1/2 seasons. So you should know you need guys in the wings. Thus, when we say “well, they got hurt,” my response is, of course they got hurt. Honestly, I think everyone went into this with open eyes. There was a lot of talk when he was signed that Hill was on a fair deal to give us about half a season. The idea was that they could be a bridge to when Sale got healthy, and maybe Paxton as well. But then Sale never actually came back and Paxton's recovery has been slow and Eovaldi got hurt.
Meanwhile, if you think they should have just gotten Verlander or Scherzer then you're not dealing in the world of realistic possibilities.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Jul 31, 2022 13:30:56 GMT -5
Doing a good job. Last year making it to the ALCS while knocking off rivals was special. Having a good farm system is terrific. I don't expect them to win next year either (though I didn't expect them to win as much as they did last year.). But overall doing well.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jul 31, 2022 13:34:31 GMT -5
Well, I would have gone hard for Verlander or Scherzer. Costs more than that $17, but you get a stud. I am not actually saying Wacha and Hill were *bad* moves. The Wacha move turned out really well, actually. I am saying in signing those guys, you should expect 1/2 seasons. So you should know you need guys in the wings. Thus, when we say “well, they got hurt,” my response is, of course they got hurt. Honestly, I think everyone went into this with open eyes. There was a lot of talk when he was signed that Hill was on a fair deal to give us about half a season. The idea was that they could be a bridge to when Sale got healthy, and maybe Paxton as well. But then Sale never actually came back and Paxton's recovery has been slow and Eovaldi got hurt.
Meanwhile, if you think they should have just gotten Verlander or Scherzer then you're not dealing in the world of realistic possibilities.
I’ve wanted Verlander forever, so… First, it is a bit unfair to say what would you have done this winter if one has disagreed with the direction for a few years. Left with a roster I would not have wanted, I’d not sign those guys, not sign Story, use that money in a different way. If I didn’t think I could build a winner, I wouldn’t halfass it. Maybe I just start the season with Eovaldi, Pivetta, Whitlock, Houck, and Seabold or something, take my lump, use the extra money to take on salary later in the season. If I keep Renfroe, I need Story less, have *even more money* can try other things. But seriously, when you have a plan that people say, ok, these two guys should stay healthy until our hurt guys (who are oft injured and over 30) carry us to the finish line, don’t you think you are less able to point to injuries as an excuse for the season?
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jul 31, 2022 13:41:31 GMT -5
Honestly, I think everyone went into this with open eyes. There was a lot of talk when he was signed that Hill was on a fair deal to give us about half a season. The idea was that they could be a bridge to when Sale got healthy, and maybe Paxton as well. But then Sale never actually came back and Paxton's recovery has been slow and Eovaldi got hurt.
Meanwhile, if you think they should have just gotten Verlander or Scherzer then you're not dealing in the world of realistic possibilities.
I’ve wanted Verlander forever, so… First, it is a bit unfair to say what would you have done this winter if one has disagreed with the direction for a few years. Left with a roster I would not have wanted, I’d not sign those guys, not sign Story, use that money in a different way. If I didn’t think I could build a winner, I wouldn’t halfass it. Maybe I just start the season with Eovaldi, Pivetta, Whitlock, Houck, and Seabold or something, take my lump, use the extra money to take on salary later in the season. If I keep Renfroe, I need Story less, have *even more money* can try other things. But seriously, when you have a plan that people say, ok, these two guys should stay healthy until our hurt guys (who are oft injured and over 30) carry us to the finish line, don’t you think you are less able to point to injuries as an excuse for the season? Might be interesting to flesh out that scenario in detail. Keeping Renfroe saves $4 million in AAV + $23 million for Story gives you some wiggle room to make a smaller upgrade at 2B with money left over for the rotation. It's not crazy by any means...
On the rotation injuries: whatever you think was a reasonable expectation of injury risk for this group, they've had worse luck than that. I think that's pretty indisputable. The other point, which has already been made, is that if you wanted a more robust rotation then you'd have had to shell out more money for that.
(Personally I just wanted to keep Eduardo Rodriguez, so I'm not claiming to have had any special insight here.)
ADD: The bottom line, though, is that when you invest $60 million in starting pitchers who combine to give you less than 1 WAR, the rest is very likely to be shifting deck chairs around on the Titanic.)
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jul 31, 2022 13:44:21 GMT -5
I’ve wanted Verlander forever, so… First, it is a bit unfair to say what would you have done this winter if one has disagreed with the direction for a few years. Left with a roster I would not have wanted, I’d not sign those guys, not sign Story, use that money in a different way. If I didn’t think I could build a winner, I wouldn’t halfass it. Maybe I just start the season with Eovaldi, Pivetta, Whitlock, Houck, and Seabold or something, take my lump, use the extra money to take on salary later in the season. If I keep Renfroe, I need Story less, have *even more money* can try other things. But seriously, when you have a plan that people say, ok, these two guys should stay healthy until our hurt guys (who are oft injured and over 30) carry us to the finish line, don’t you think you are less able to point to injuries as an excuse for the season? Might be interesting to flesh out that scenario in detail. Keeping Renfroe saves $4 million in AAV + $23 million for Story gives you some wiggle room to make a smaller upgrade at 2B with money left over for the rotation. It's not crazy by any means...
On the rotation injuries: whatever you think was a reasonable expectation of injury risk for this group, they've had worse luck than that. I think that's pretty indisputable. The other point, which has already been made, is that if you wanted a more robust rotation then you'd have had to shell out more money for that.
(Personally I just wanted to keep Eduardo Rodriguez, so I'm not claiming to have had any special insight here.)
I’m with you. I would have tried to keep ERod. I don’t claim to be a genius!
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 31, 2022 13:50:09 GMT -5
So… basically a minimum wage dump away. So you didn't like the Paxton, Wacha, and Hill signings. How would you have used that $17 million in AAV costs to build the rotation differently? (Or $11 million, if you wanted to stay under the CBT line.)
It may be more effective to look at full off-season resource allocation as a starting point. According to Cots, the Sox ended 2021 with $207,640,471 in Luxury Tax salaries. Some of those were ended, and there were arb raises (you can do the math) but after Bloom built his team, the Sox currently have $241,842,000 counted against the tax. So, after 2021 the major weaknesses looked to be first base, a couple or three pen arms, second base, and parts of the rotation. The other variable to strongly consider what free agents were available that would fill positions of need not just next year, but the next 3-5 years, and is there long-term value in acquiring some of those, even if they put the team well over the luxury tax for a single year? Some people may add, "Well, what about the prospects who project to make MLB in the next 3-5 years?" This has to be contrasted with the 80% or greater failure rate of top 10 prospects in AA and AAA to make it to MLB and become MLB-average players, and weigh that against the projected WAR and decline rates of FA players you are considering signing. If you think it's worth going over the tax, Tier 1, 2 or 3, present your case to Executive Management and then proceed from there. So there's your off-season allocation challenges and opportunities. The real question is: how were those addressed within the current budget minus the arb raises for the players kept? Then, don't get suckered by sunk cost fallacy or believe your best-case projections for your prospects will actually occur. Act accordingly, document your process, get buy-in from executive management and know, even if you do, chief executives are notorious for outcoming. Either way, given the history of Henry and Fenway sports group, if you're still not making the playoffs in the next two-three years, you're going to get fired no matter what. IMHO: The latter is the exact reason to be smart, but also to be very bold.
|
|
|
Post by joelfinch on Jul 31, 2022 14:58:50 GMT -5
To answer the question we need another 6 months or so—when we find out if he’s going to extend Raffi. Once upon a time the sox created an environment where free agents wanted to stay in Boston and signed team-friendly deals (tek, pedey, youk and yeah…Zander boegarts). I’m not convinced the game has changed that much since those signings. Chaim’s legacy in Boston is going to be all about how he combines JH’s cash with the Rays organizational development approach. Without a cornerstone player I don’t forsee the Sox seriously competing for another 2-3 years. And that’s only if Bloom significantly improves his batting average on “depth” deals like Beni, Renfroe. I
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 31, 2022 15:15:11 GMT -5
This is the Houston, Atlanta and to some degree, the Toronto, San Diego and Tampa formula. It's worked for Houston, and recently for Atlanta, but in every team but Houston (so far), it's created the exact "awful years followed by successful years" formula that many here say the Sox need to snap out of - even though in the 10-year span from the 2011 off-season when Theo was gone to 2021, the Sox produced 2 world series titles, 4 division titles, 5 playoff years and 6 years above .500. They had four losing seasons '12, '14, '15 and 20 (for whomever counts 2020 outside Los Angeles). If you look above at an earlier post, you'll find that the two teams that remained consistent winners and above .500 over that same period were not tanking teams but rather the two teams that spent well over the tax limit. Build a "Tampa with money" works if you're L.A. and go way over the tax, take on bad contracts to also get great talent in the deal, and develop better than any other team, or NYY, who does much of the same without the same player development track record. But if one looks at Tampa, they've been a sub .500 teams 4 times over the same period - just like Boston - they won the division 2 times, went to the playoffs 5 times - 2 times less and one time less than Boston, respectively - and have 1 World Series appearance (losing). In fact, in the "tank then win and sustain a winner" formula that seems inexplicable popular with members of this forum, Houston (so far) has been the only team to do that, going to the playoffs (in a decidedly much weaker division) 6 times, the World Series 2 times and winning 1 World Series. If the Sox played in the AL West, they might've had 1-2 more playoff appearances. But the evidence over the recent 10-year period for sustained wins, a great system and managed budget and using sell-offs and tanking to get there indicates that Houston is the outlier and this method (Tor, Tam, SD, ATL and whomever else) creates the same "roller coaster" over a 10 year period that everyone here wants to avoid. This is a perfect and well-put summary of my view. Chapeau. Thanks Manfred. You have a good way of getting your point across in a concise manner. I'm too long winded. I'm working on it but not succeeding. Lol
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jul 31, 2022 16:42:31 GMT -5
I see very few people mentioning that the outfield is completely messed up now. What exactly is the plan there?
I am fine with selling or even a full tear down if thats what it takes but this half-ass hybrid buy-sell thing sounds like a recipe to end up like the Minnesota Twins.
The team isnt good enough to compete and not bad enough to get top draft talent or prospects from a sell off.
|
|
|
Post by crossedsabres8 on Jul 31, 2022 17:35:45 GMT -5
So far, a few posters here making me dig much deeper into the evidence has started to convince me that Boom/Henry are doing this wrong. Given that the playoffs (at least, under the old system) are coin-flips, models for sustained success are The Los Angeles, The New York Yankees and the Houston Astros. Two of these teams have consistently spent above the Tax (LAD and NYY), with only one reset period for each. They obviously see that the tax is a market inefficiency that teams with superior resources can use to maximize their teams' success. LAD has done this while also intentionally and repeatedly taking on bad contracts to acquire targeted MLB and minor league talent to compensate for their reduced draft pool and lower drafts. LAD has also created a sustained "player-development machine" far superior to almost any other team. NYY has had less success with player development. Houston followed the intentional tank and sell-off then sustain success formula, but in doing so, has had the exact same amount of winning seasons as Boston over the same period and been to 1 World Series, which they won. But their sustained success has been an outlier. Other teams that have done this have a few years of winning seasons (although only one other such team won a World Series in this time) and several seasons of sub-.500 performance. So, if Henry and Company want sustained success, they have miscalculated significantly in picking a "Tampa with money" formula, with the "money" component being spending just up to or slightly over the Tax. Fenway Sports Group would do better to either follow the LAD or NNY organizational philosophy with better player development or see if Jeff Luhnow wants to move to Boston and try to reconstitute the Astros in a much tougher division, albeit without the in-game cheating and excessive use of spider-tack. That, or offer Andrew Friedman $10M a year and another $5M-10M to use as salary incentives to grab the key player development and scouting personnel from the LAD organization. The latter (Friedman and friends) is thinking like a billionaire with a tremendous revenue advantage over most of the league. Luhnow is more of a Bloom-style "let see if we can do this without spending as much as the other guys" approach. If we are talking about a proven sustained winning and playoff appearances model, the path seems clear, at least under the old 2 wild card teams per league playoff system. The new system will likely change that, but how much is to be determined. However, if you look at the past data and want to pick two teams that are 90% or better chances to be in the playoffs in each year of the next 10 years, the answer seems fairly straightforward. Everyone else - except maybe Houston and now with Cohen following the NYY/LAD formula, perhaps the Mets - looks to be on the roller coaster. The Dodgers stayed under the luxury tax from 2018 to 2020, as far as I can tell. They went over the last two years. I don't believe a team has gone over 3 straight years yet since the new penalties were added to the CBA, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Dodgers duck under next year. I don't know if the "Dodger way" is necessarily sustainable either. They've had a lot of things go their way. Maybe if they get under the tax again they wont have surprises like Justin Turner and Chris Taylor. The Yankees are similar, they designed some very flawed teams in order to save some money and they're going to be at a crossroads this off-season. I also would point out that I believe the Red Sox also are very good at scouting, drafting, IFA, and development. I don't think we need to go gwt the Dodgers farm system guys, because Boston is perfectly fine as is. That has nothing to do with Bloom really. That system as been in place.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 31, 2022 18:29:43 GMT -5
So far, a few posters here making me dig much deeper into the evidence has started to convince me that Boom/Henry are doing this wrong. Given that the playoffs (at least, under the old system) are coin-flips, models for sustained success are The Los Angeles, The New York Yankees and the Houston Astros. Two of these teams have consistently spent above the Tax (LAD and NYY), with only one reset period for each. They obviously see that the tax is a market inefficiency that teams with superior resources can use to maximize their teams' success. LAD has done this while also intentionally and repeatedly taking on bad contracts to acquire targeted MLB and minor league talent to compensate for their reduced draft pool and lower drafts. LAD has also created a sustained "player-development machine" far superior to almost any other team. NYY has had less success with player development. Houston followed the intentional tank and sell-off then sustain success formula, but in doing so, has had the exact same amount of winning seasons as Boston over the same period and been to 1 World Series, which they won. But their sustained success has been an outlier. Other teams that have done this have a few years of winning seasons (although only one other such team won a World Series in this time) and several seasons of sub-.500 performance. So, if Henry and Company want sustained success, they have miscalculated significantly in picking a "Tampa with money" formula, with the "money" component being spending just up to or slightly over the Tax. Fenway Sports Group would do better to either follow the LAD or NNY organizational philosophy with better player development or see if Jeff Luhnow wants to move to Boston and try to reconstitute the Astros in a much tougher division, albeit without the in-game cheating and excessive use of spider-tack. That, or offer Andrew Friedman $10M a year and another $5M-10M to use as salary incentives to grab the key player development and scouting personnel from the LAD organization. The latter (Friedman and friends) is thinking like a billionaire with a tremendous revenue advantage over most of the league. Luhnow is more of a Bloom-style "let see if we can do this without spending as much as the other guys" approach. If we are talking about a proven sustained winning and playoff appearances model, the path seems clear, at least under the old 2 wild card teams per league playoff system. The new system will likely change that, but how much is to be determined. However, if you look at the past data and want to pick two teams that are 90% or better chances to be in the playoffs in each year of the next 10 years, the answer seems fairly straightforward. Everyone else - except maybe Houston and now with Cohen following the NYY/LAD formula, perhaps the Mets - looks to be on the roller coaster. The Dodgers stayed under the luxury tax from 2018 to 2020, as far as I can tell. They went over the last two years. I don't believe a team has gone over 3 straight years yet since the new penalties were added to the CBA, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Dodgers duck under next year. I don't know if the "Dodger way" is necessarily sustainable either. They've had a lot of things go their way. Maybe if they get under the tax again they wont have surprises like Justin Turner and Chris Taylor. The Yankees are similar, they designed some very flawed teams in order to save some money and they're going to be at a crossroads this off-season. I also would point out that I believe the Red Sox also are very good at scouting, drafting, IFA, and development. I don't think we need to go gwt the Dodgers farm system guys, because Boston is perfectly fine as is. That has nothing to do with Bloom really. That system as been in place. Yes, 3 years under was their most recent reset. NYY’s most recent reset was 2018. As for your assertion that the Dodger way may not be sustainable, they’ve been doing business this way for more than 10 years and haven’t had a sub -.500 season in that time. They missed the playoffs exactly once in that span. As for ducking under after this year, their current CBT payroll is $303+ million. That will be a hell of a duck.
|
|
|
Post by crossedsabres8 on Jul 31, 2022 19:31:39 GMT -5
The Dodgers stayed under the luxury tax from 2018 to 2020, as far as I can tell. They went over the last two years. I don't believe a team has gone over 3 straight years yet since the new penalties were added to the CBA, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Dodgers duck under next year. I don't know if the "Dodger way" is necessarily sustainable either. They've had a lot of things go their way. Maybe if they get under the tax again they wont have surprises like Justin Turner and Chris Taylor. The Yankees are similar, they designed some very flawed teams in order to save some money and they're going to be at a crossroads this off-season. I also would point out that I believe the Red Sox also are very good at scouting, drafting, IFA, and development. I don't think we need to go gwt the Dodgers farm system guys, because Boston is perfectly fine as is. That has nothing to do with Bloom really. That system as been in place. Yes, 3 years under was their most recent reset. NYY’s most recent reset was 2018. As for your assertion that the Dodger way may not be sustainable, they’ve been doing business this way for more than 10 years and haven’t had a sub -.500 season in that time. They missed the playoffs exactly once in that span. As for ducking under after this year, their current CBT payroll is $303+ million. That will be a hell of a duck. It looks like the Yankees reset in 2021? I am not seeing that $303 million, but regardless the Dodgers have a lot of money coming off the books next year so they could get under if they wanted. I'm just challenging the idea that there are teams that are sustaining their success by constantly spending a ton of money, at least in comparison to the Red Sox. I think the Dodgers have been better at being consistent over the last decade, although I'm sure they would have preferred the Red Sox playoff success. It seems like what FSG wants is just a little more consistency.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 31, 2022 19:43:18 GMT -5
Yes, 3 years under was their most recent reset. NYY’s most recent reset was 2018. As for your assertion that the Dodger way may not be sustainable, they’ve been doing business this way for more than 10 years and haven’t had a sub -.500 season in that time. They missed the playoffs exactly once in that span. As for ducking under after this year, their current CBT payroll is $303+ million. That will be a hell of a duck. It looks like the Yankees reset in 2021? I am not seeing that $303 million, but regardless the Dodgers have a lot of money coming off the books next year so they could get under if they wanted. I'm just challenging the idea that there are teams that are sustaining their success by constantly spending a ton of money, at least in comparison to the Red Sox. I think the Dodgers have been better at being consistent over the last decade, although I'm sure they would have preferred the Red Sox playoff success. It seems like what FSG wants is just a little more consistency. Cashman has been with the Yankees since the mid to late 1990s and they've never had a losing season or even come close to one - if that's not consistency (.570 cumulative winning pct) I don't know what is...and they've spent. The Dodgers have been a .600 caliber club over the past decade. I'd say spending is helping them sustain. There are now several layers of playoffs and a dozen teams making the playoffs making it harder for a team to win the championship, even those that consistently win 60% of their games, but still, you'd rather go into the playoffs with a strong team than a team hoping to catch lightning in a bottle. Otherwise, you'd build your team to win about 85 games and make the 3rd playoff spot and hope to get very lucky.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 31, 2022 19:43:24 GMT -5
Yes, 3 years under was their most recent reset. NYY’s most recent reset was 2018. As for your assertion that the Dodger way may not be sustainable, they’ve been doing business this way for more than 10 years and haven’t had a sub -.500 season in that time. They missed the playoffs exactly once in that span. As for ducking under after this year, their current CBT payroll is $303+ million. That will be a hell of a duck. It looks like the Yankees reset in 2021? I am not seeing that $303 million, but regardless the Dodgers have a lot of money coming off the books next year so they could get under if they wanted. I'm just challenging the idea that there are teams that are sustaining their success by constantly spending a ton of money, at least in comparison to the Red Sox. I think the Dodgers have been better at being consistent over the last decade, although I'm sure they would have preferred the Red Sox playoff success. It seems like what FSG wants is just a little more consistency. $302+ Mil, my bad (look at the third column actual CBT Tax 40-man
|
|
|