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.
Red Sox $4.5m over CBT in 2022
|
|
Post by seamus on Sept 21, 2022 22:01:37 GMT -5
For those saying, "If you're already over, why not just go way over", I guess my question is who were they supposed to throw that money at and when were they supposed to do it? In terms of outfielders, arguably the best guys available were guys like Schwarber and Castellanos, both better as DHs and the latter of whom has turned in a disastrous season. Maybe Starling Marte? But he signed with the Mets very early on, before the Renfroe/JBJ trade even went down.
I'm not saying they couldn't have found something to do, but given the lockout and the guys on the market, I'm not sure what options were really available. The most questionable decision in terms of the payroll would be the Paxton deal, but I think even that you have to evaluate using the information available at the time. The team was basically agreeing to pay for a trade deadline acquisition upfront (normally a good thing for those who want to contend every year!), and it just didn't pan out.
You could also make the argument that the real consequences of being over the CBT threshold are fairly minor this year (the QO comp isn't that big a deal - extra pool money is nice, but pretty marginal in the grand scheme of things), so resetting in 2023 instead may end up being a long-term benefit because it pushes back the timeline for when they'll worry about ducking under again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coreno on Sept 21, 2022 23:56:30 GMT -5
$4.5M is not really a wee amount to cut, especially at the deadline. That's nearly 15M AAV.
|
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Sept 22, 2022 9:39:44 GMT -5
That interview Bloom did with Bradford reinforces my theory that he was targeting this off-season to deal with the major league roster. In effect his hands were tied. But he did do a bad job on the bullpen. If the pen was built better this team would have many more wins. At least he knew it too from the moves they made the last month.
Like I said this off-season the SOX are going to be in the news a lot.
|
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Sept 22, 2022 10:14:33 GMT -5
There's the argument that if you're going to go over, you might as well go over aggressively (e.g., Go after a Carlos Rodon as opposed to a Rich Hill). I keep coming back to the idea though that why would you put your team in the position to be barely over (rather than barely under) the threshold at the trade deadline? The poor planning and decision making didn't really occur so much at the trade deadline as it did in the offseason. They put themselves in a tough spot of firmly needing to be sellers in order to justify getting back under. Like why make the JBJ move, which was already suspect, if its going cost this much on top of the salary itself?
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,421 
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Sept 22, 2022 10:21:26 GMT -5
There's the argument that if you're going to go over, you might as well go over aggressively (e.g., Go after a Carlos Rodon as opposed to a Rich Hill). I keep coming back to the idea though that why would you put your team in the position to be barely over (rather than barely under) the threshold at the trade deadline? The poor planning and decision making didn't really occur so much at the trade deadline as it did in the offseason. They put themselves in a tough spot of firmly needing to be sellers in order to justify getting back under. Like why make the JBJ move, which was already suspect, if its going cost this much on top of the salary itself? The Paxton move is even worse. He was always at best that secret “deadline addition” from within. But obviously they were not in a position to need him. In the event that they did need an arm, they should have just planned to make a trade. The odds were better that they were not going to be buyers… but they basically pre-bought on Paxton. |
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Sept 22, 2022 11:14:13 GMT -5
As someone who has leaned mostly Bloom defender over the past couple years.......this is really hard to explain. At the very least, it's a really bad look being over the cap. Looking at the their payroll flexibility and a fresh season of resetting would have looked better.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Sept 22, 2022 11:50:26 GMT -5
There's the argument that if you're going to go over, you might as well go over aggressively (e.g., Go after a Carlos Rodon as opposed to a Rich Hill). I keep coming back to the idea though that why would you put your team in the position to be barely over (rather than barely under) the threshold at the trade deadline? The poor planning and decision making didn't really occur so much at the trade deadline as it did in the offseason. They put themselves in a tough spot of firmly needing to be sellers in order to justify getting back under. Like why make the JBJ move, which was already suspect, if its going cost this much on top of the salary itself? The Paxton move is even worse. He was always at best that secret “deadline addition” from within. But obviously they were not in a position to need him. In the event that they did need an arm, they should have just planned to make a trade. The odds were better that they were not going to be buyers… but they basically pre-bought on Paxton. The bolded is completely untrue. Even hampered by injuries and in the best division baseball has had in a long time they were still very close to being clear buyers at the trade deadline. All the projections before the season had them very much in it, and based on how the season played out the projections seem pretty much accurate. I also totally disagree with your take on Paxton, why plan to trade for a starter when you could sign one for just money? No starter moved at the deadline has as much upside as a healthy Paxton (obviously the risk was that he didn't get healthy). But this part is a difference of opinion in team building, the odds thing you mentioned is just inaccurate. |
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Sept 22, 2022 11:53:49 GMT -5
Having said the above, I was in the camp at the deadline and still feel now if they could have moved JDM for a bag of balls to get under I would have done it. Outside of clubhouse morale, he wasn't contributing to winning this season. Maybe they thought he could get hot again, or the morale thing was enough (certainly the club would have hated that), and the penalties aren't so terrible that it's unthinkable, but I disagree with the choice.
What irks me a bit is the same people who complain when the players moan about their friends being cut/traded also complain that they didn't fully sell at the deadline because in hindsight things didn't pan out. Can't have your cake and eat it.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,421
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Sept 22, 2022 12:00:48 GMT -5
The Paxton move is even worse. He was always at best that secret “deadline addition” from within. But obviously they were not in a position to need him. In the event that they did need an arm, they should have just planned to make a trade. The odds were better that they were not going to be buyers… but they basically pre-bought on Paxton. The bolded is completely untrue. Even hampered by injuries and in the best division baseball has had in a long time they were still very close to being clear buyers at the trade deadline. All the projections before the season had them very much in it, and based on how the season played out the projections seem pretty much accurate. I also totally disagree with your take on Paxton, why plan to trade for a starter when you could sign one for just money? No starter moved at the deadline has as much upside as a healthy Paxton (obviously the risk was that he didn't get healthy). But this part is a difference of opinion in team building, the odds thing you mentioned is just inaccurate. Because… he pitched 1/3 of an inning? And that was predictable? Why *waste* money? And the trade would be if necessary. If things had worked optimally, as you say people expected (though look back at the prediction board, and optimism was not high), that would likely he because Eovaldi, Pivetta, Wacha, Hill, and, say, Whitlock held down the fort until Sale’s triumphant return. This not to mention any other depth. Paxton was never a game-changer. |
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Sept 22, 2022 12:10:52 GMT -5
The bolded is completely untrue. Even hampered by injuries and in the best division baseball has had in a long time they were still very close to being clear buyers at the trade deadline. All the projections before the season had them very much in it, and based on how the season played out the projections seem pretty much accurate. I also totally disagree with your take on Paxton, why plan to trade for a starter when you could sign one for just money? No starter moved at the deadline has as much upside as a healthy Paxton (obviously the risk was that he didn't get healthy). But this part is a difference of opinion in team building, the odds thing you mentioned is just inaccurate. Because… he pitched 1/3 of an inning? And that was predictable? Why *waste* money? And the trade would be if necessary. If things had worked optimally, as you say people expected (though look back at the prediction board, and optimism was not high), that would likely he because Eovaldi, Pivetta, Wacha, Hill, and, say, Whitlock held down the fort until Sale’s triumphant return. This not to mention any other depth. Paxton was never a game-changer. Just disagree on Paxton. Yes he always always a flier, but the point is if things were going well he's a better addition than any team could have made around that time. Okay things didn't go well, so yes then in that case they may have wanted to acquire another starter. We disagree that signing Paxton was worth the risk, the upside was they avoid that acquisition and get a better guy, the downside was they lose $6M. I like the trade-off there, you don't, that's fine enough. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 22, 2022 12:16:43 GMT -5
The Paxton move is not one you make if you're worried about the CBT. I also don't agree that it was predictable that Paxton would hurt his oblique rehabbing an arm injury unless you've seen his medical file and there's something in there that would indicate such a problem. That's just post hoc rationalizion.
The problem was not getting the starting RF and going further over.
|
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Sept 22, 2022 12:29:34 GMT -5
Having said the above, I was in the camp at the deadline and still feel now if they could have moved JDM for a bag of balls to get under I would have done it. Outside of clubhouse morale, he wasn't contributing to winning this season. Maybe they thought he could get hot again, or the morale thing was enough (certainly the club would have hated that), and the penalties aren't so terrible that it's unthinkable, but I disagree with the choice. What irks me a bit is the same people who complain when the players moan about their friends being cut/traded also complain that they didn't fully sell at the deadline because in hindsight things didn't pan out. Can't have your cake and eat it. I think "JDM was neveer going to help them win this year" is in the same category of statement as "the odds said they had a 30% chance of making the playoffs at the trade deadline, but that was clearly never going to happen" - things that only seem inevitable in retrospect.
If their playoff odds were 30%, that probably means a few mildly surprising things would have had to go in their favor for it to happen. JD Martinez having a hot month or two strikes me as something that would have been mildly surprising in just that way.
Add to that the fact that he might have had negative trade value when factoring in his contract and I'm pretty sanguine about the decision.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 22, 2022 12:36:27 GMT -5
Having said the above, I was in the camp at the deadline and still feel now if they could have moved JDM for a bag of balls to get under I would have done it. Outside of clubhouse morale, he wasn't contributing to winning this season. Maybe they thought he could get hot again, or the morale thing was enough (certainly the club would have hated that), and the penalties aren't so terrible that it's unthinkable, but I disagree with the choice. What irks me a bit is the same people who complain when the players moan about their friends being cut/traded also complain that they didn't fully sell at the deadline because in hindsight things didn't pan out. Can't have your cake and eat it. I think "JDM was neveer going to help them win this year" is in the same category of statement as "the odds said they had a 30% chance of making the playoffs at the trade deadline, but that was clearly never going to happen" - things that only seem inevitable in retrospect. If their playoff odds were 30%, that probably means a few mildly surprising things would have had to go in their favor for it to happen. JD Martinez having a hot month or two strikes me as something that would have been mildly surprising in just that way. Add to that the fact that he might have had negative trade value when factoring in his contract and I'm pretty sanguine about the decision.
The playoff odds wouldn't take into account all of the guys they thought they were getting back from the IL. Like I said, if they knew Sale was done and they were getting 2 more starts from Eovaldi before shutting him down, I bet they move JD. |
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Sept 22, 2022 12:39:00 GMT -5
The Paxton move is not one you make if you're worried about the CBT. I also don't agree that it was predictable that Paxton would hurt his oblique rehabbing an arm injury unless you've seen his medical file and there's something in there that would indicate such a problem. That's just post hoc rationalizion. The problem was not getting the starting RF and going further over. It's remarkable how many issues - the CBT, JBJ's underperformance, disastrously using Arroyo as an outfielder - just sort of vaporize if they had just signed Pham or a Pham equivalent at the beginning of the season. So many more things would have made sense if they had just made that one obvious move. And honestly I don't think there'd be anything at all to complain about with regards to roster construction (other than maybe the bullpen, if that's your kink).
The flip side to this, though, is that all those cascading effects make the season seem like a much bigger mess when getting that right fielder would most likely have added only a win or two in the standings.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Sept 22, 2022 12:56:46 GMT -5
The Paxton move is not one you make if you're worried about the CBT. I also don't agree that it was predictable that Paxton would hurt his oblique rehabbing an arm injury unless you've seen his medical file and there's something in there that would indicate such a problem. That's just post hoc rationalizion. The problem was not getting the starting RF and going further over. It's remarkable how many issues - the CBT, JBJ's underperformance, disastrously using Arroyo as an outfielder - just sort of vaporize if they had just signed Pham or a Pham equivalent at the beginning of the season. So many more things would have made sense if they had just made that one obvious move. And honestly I don't think there'd be anything at all to complain about with regards to roster construction (other than maybe the bullpen, if that's your kink).
The flip side to this, though, is that all those cascading effects make the season seem like a much bigger mess when getting that right fielder would most likely have added only a win or two in the standings.
How about first base? They either misevaluated/overvalued Dalbec (and Duran in retrospect), or they should've gotten a credible stop-gap first baseman. I don't buy the argument that "they planned on calling up Casas in June if that became the need." Calling up an unproven prospect with very limited experience facing AAA pitching (42 PAs as of last year) and a poor track record vs. lefties as the back-up plan after 6-8 weeks? Not if they were planning on being a playoff team - unless they were assuming they could absorb it if everything else went right. Because "everything else" almost never goes right over a 162 game season. |
|
|
|
Post by briam on Sept 22, 2022 13:30:21 GMT -5
Keeping JD at the deadline is the exact opposite type of move you expect from a bold and creative head of baseball ops. His bat was cooked, there was little evidence-based argument to expect him to suddenly rake. I’m just bracing for the next cost-cutting measure that’s going to be spun as a luxury tax casualty next off-season.
|
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Sept 22, 2022 13:32:14 GMT -5
It's remarkable how many issues - the CBT, JBJ's underperformance, disastrously using Arroyo as an outfielder - just sort of vaporize if they had just signed Pham or a Pham equivalent at the beginning of the season. So many more things would have made sense if they had just made that one obvious move. And honestly I don't think there'd be anything at all to complain about with regards to roster construction (other than maybe the bullpen, if that's your kink).
The flip side to this, though, is that all those cascading effects make the season seem like a much bigger mess when getting that right fielder would most likely have added only a win or two in the standings.
How about first base? They either misevaluated/overvalued Dalbec (and Duran in retrospect), or they should've gotten a credible stop-gap first baseman. I don't buy the argument that "they planned on calling up Casas in June if that became the need." Calling up an unproven prospect with very limited experience facing AAA pitching (42 PAs as of last year) and a poor track record vs. lefties as the back-up plan after 6-8 weeks? Not if they were planning on being a playoff team - unless they were assuming they could absorb it if everything else went right. Because "everything else" almost never goes right over a 162 game season. Dalbec came into this season as an above average major league hitter and had been especially hot in the second half of last season. There were no upgrades available on the free agent market other than Rizzo and Freeman. And he's getting paid league minimum salary. Going with Dalbec at 1B was the obvious right move.
Shaw as the backup 1B was a bad move, but the only other good option there in retrospect would have been Vogelbach, and obviously no one saw the season he had coming.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Sept 22, 2022 13:43:10 GMT -5
How about first base? They either misevaluated/overvalued Dalbec (and Duran in retrospect), or they should've gotten a credible stop-gap first baseman. I don't buy the argument that "they planned on calling up Casas in June if that became the need." Calling up an unproven prospect with very limited experience facing AAA pitching (42 PAs as of last year) and a poor track record vs. lefties as the back-up plan after 6-8 weeks? Not if they were planning on being a playoff team - unless they were assuming they could absorb it if everything else went right. Because "everything else" almost never goes right over a 162 game season. Dalbec came into this season as an above average major league hitter and had been especially hot in the second half of last season. There were no upgrades available on the free agent market other than Rizzo and Freeman. And he's getting paid league minimum salary. Going with Dalbec at 1B was the obvious right move. Shaw as the backup 1B was a bad move, but the only other good option there in retrospect would have been Vogelbach, and obviously no one saw the season he had coming.
Hey, I was as high on Dalbec as anyone here. Ditto Duran. But I am not a professional player evaluator (nor do I play one on TV...). But the professionals appear to have gotten both of them wrong. I would ask again, was this a case of over-valuing two prospects? That's something that every team struggles with at times, but I keep having Cherington flashbacks on Duran and Dalbec because the org under him seemed to do this more than most. |
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Sept 22, 2022 13:47:49 GMT -5
Having said the above, I was in the camp at the deadline and still feel now if they could have moved JDM for a bag of balls to get under I would have done it. Outside of clubhouse morale, he wasn't contributing to winning this season. Maybe they thought he could get hot again, or the morale thing was enough (certainly the club would have hated that), and the penalties aren't so terrible that it's unthinkable, but I disagree with the choice. What irks me a bit is the same people who complain when the players moan about their friends being cut/traded also complain that they didn't fully sell at the deadline because in hindsight things didn't pan out. Can't have your cake and eat it. I think "JDM was neveer going to help them win this year" is in the same category of statement as "the odds said they had a 30% chance of making the playoffs at the trade deadline, but that was clearly never going to happen" - things that only seem inevitable in retrospect.
If their playoff odds were 30%, that probably means a few mildly surprising things would have had to go in their favor for it to happen. JD Martinez having a hot month or two strikes me as something that would have been mildly surprising in just that way.
Add to that the fact that he might have had negative trade value when factoring in his contract and I'm pretty sanguine about the decision.
I guess I should rephrase. I believe that trading JDM would have made a negligible difference in those odds and it was worth the slight decrease to get under. Maybe the team had a different calculation. Like I said it's hardly unthinkable and it's not that big a deal, I just disagree with the choice. I don't know how the simulations went though, as in if they relied on his performance upticking in the scenarios where they made the playoffs, the team would know that, so maybe you're right, I guess I'm just skeptical of that. |
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Sept 22, 2022 13:57:07 GMT -5
Keeping JD at the deadline is the exact opposite type of move you expect from a bold and creative head of baseball ops. His bat was cooked, there was little evidence-based argument to expect him to suddenly rake. I’m just bracing for the next cost-cutting measure that’s going to be spun as a luxury tax casualty next off-season. Okay, so you're saying his bat was cooked at the deadline which has looked the case since then. With that being the case if you can see that his bat is cooked along with most of this board, why in the world would anyone trade for him? None the less trade for him and take enough money to get under the luxury tax? They can't just call someone and say you know what you're taking JDM for a bucket of balls and paying his full amount left so we can get under the tax. |
|
|
|
Post by briam on Sept 22, 2022 14:04:46 GMT -5
Keeping JD at the deadline is the exact opposite type of move you expect from a bold and creative head of baseball ops. His bat was cooked, there was little evidence-based argument to expect him to suddenly rake. I’m just bracing for the next cost-cutting measure that’s going to be spun as a luxury tax casualty next off-season. Okay, so you're saying his bat was cooked at the deadline which has looked the case since then. With that being the case if you can see that his bat is cooked along with most of this board, why in the world would anyone trade for him? None the less trade for him and take enough money to get under the luxury tax? They can't just call someone and say you know what you're taking JDM for a bucket of balls and paying his full amount left so we can get under the tax. Speier reported there was “industry interest” in him. I’d be surprised if Speier wrote an article about not trading JD to get under the luxury tax without the information that it was a real possibility. |
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Sept 22, 2022 14:09:26 GMT -5
Dalbec came into this season as an above average major league hitter and had been especially hot in the second half of last season. There were no upgrades available on the free agent market other than Rizzo and Freeman. And he's getting paid league minimum salary. Going with Dalbec at 1B was the obvious right move. Shaw as the backup 1B was a bad move, but the only other good option there in retrospect would have been Vogelbach, and obviously no one saw the season he had coming.
Hey, I was as high on Dalbec as anyone here. Ditto Duran. But I am not a professional player evaluator (nor do I play one on TV...). But the professionals appear to have gotten both of them wrong. I would ask again, was this a case of over-valuing two prospects? That's something that every team struggles with at times, but I keep having Cherington flashbacks on Duran and Dalbec because the org under him seemed to do this more than most. You seem to really have an issue separating "not trading" and "overvaluing". You're inferring what you THINK the case is based on the outcome you want, which is Bloom being at fault. But that's not really how this works. They didn't have Jarren Duran on the Opening Day roster for a reason. No one expected him to be the savior of the franchise, but he'd clearly been performing well in AAA and earned a spot on the roster when his time came. You can say "oh well they should have capitalized on his value" all you want but YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT HIS VALUE ACTUALLY WAS. We knew his warts and teams have 10 times more information than us, it could very well have been a case of other teams not willing to pony up enough to take the risk on him overcoming them to the point where the Sox determined the upside to be worth more than whatever return they could've gotten. I'm not saying I know that to be the case but this just goes back to the point I made in the Bloom thread that you're just beating a dead horse on something you don't have any relevant information on. The Dalbec thing is much, much more cut and dry. Even if you saw right through his hot streak at the end of the year and didn't believe it was repeatable (as I didn't), do you realize that agents exist? If Dalbec would have done that only to have been replaced, that would be a horrible look for how the Red Sox treat their developmental guys and yes, that stuff matters. Whether you want to accept reality or not, the way Dalbec ended his season last year absolutely locked him into at least a majority of the early season reps this year, and the Casas injury is what made this whole situation look worse because he was supposed to be ready earlier had Dalbec faltered. It is not mutually exclusive for the Red Sox to have had a generally proper feel for these two players and still not be in the wrong for retaining them. As always, I feel the need to tell you that these things are not black and white. |
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Sept 22, 2022 14:25:49 GMT -5
Hey, I was as high on Dalbec as anyone here. Ditto Duran. But I am not a professional player evaluator (nor do I play one on TV...). But the professionals appear to have gotten both of them wrong. I would ask again, was this a case of over-valuing two prospects? That's something that every team struggles with at times, but I keep having Cherington flashbacks on Duran and Dalbec because the org under him seemed to do this more than most. They didn't have Jarren Duran on the Opening Day roster for a reason. No one expected him to be the savior of the franchise, but he'd clearly been performing well in AAA and earned a spot on the roster when his time came. You can say "oh well they should have capitalized on his value" all you want but YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT HIS VALUE ACTUALLY WAS. We knew his warts and teams have 10 times more information than us, it could very well have been a case of other teams not willing to pony up enough to take the risk on him overcoming them to the point where the Sox determined the upside to be worth more than whatever return they could've gotten. I'm not saying I know that to be the case but this just goes back to the point I made in the Bloom thread that you're just beating a dead horse on something you don't have any relevant information on. The Dalbec thing is much, much more cut and dry. Even if you saw right through his hot streak at the end of the year and didn't believe it was repeatable (as I didn't), do you realize that agents exist? If Dalbec would have done that only to have been replaced, that would be a horrible look for how the Red Sox treat their developmental guys and yes, that stuff matters. Whether you want to accept reality or not, the way Dalbec ended his season last year absolutely locked him into at least a majority of the early season reps this year, and the Casas injury is what made this whole situation look worse because he was supposed to be ready earlier had Dalbec faltered. It is not mutually exclusive for the Red Sox to have had a generally proper feel for these two players and still not be in the wrong for retaining them. As always, I feel the need to tell you that these things are not black and white. No, I am asking a legit question on player evaluation. As I said, I know very little about the area except what I've gleaned from a few scouts, GMs and college coaches over the years. I was hoping one or more people here who know about this could chime in. I know everything is not a binary decision, and I know these things can be a bit tricky. Duran aside, Dalbec was nearly 27 at the beginning of the season and he's been in the org since he was 21. If there was one player I would think they should have a very good read on - whether to keep him after 2021 or sell high especially - I would think he'd be in that basket. |
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Sept 22, 2022 14:26:59 GMT -5
You seem to really have an issue separating "not trading" and "overvaluing". You're inferring what you THINK the case is based on the outcome you want, which is Bloom being at fault. But that's not really how this works.They didn't have Jarren Duran on the Opening Day roster for a reason. No one expected him to be the savior of the franchise, but he'd clearly been performing well in AAA and earned a spot on the roster when his time came. You can say "oh well they should have capitalized on his value" all you want but YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT HIS VALUE ACTUALLY WAS. We knew his warts and teams have 10 times more information than us, it could very well have been a case of other teams not willing to pony up enough to take the risk on him overcoming them to the point where the Sox determined the upside to be worth more than whatever return they could've gotten. I'm not saying I know that to be the case but this just goes back to the point I made in the Bloom thread that you're just beating a dead horse on something you don't have any relevant information on. The Dalbec thing is much, much more cut and dry. Even if you saw right through his hot streak at the end of the year and didn't believe it was repeatable (as I didn't), do you realize that agents exist? If Dalbec would have done that only to have been replaced, that would be a horrible look for how the Red Sox treat their developmental guys and yes, that stuff matters. Whether you want to accept reality or not, the way Dalbec ended his season last year absolutely locked him into at least a majority of the early season reps this year, and the Casas injury is what made this whole situation look worse because he was supposed to be ready earlier had Dalbec faltered. It is not mutually exclusive for the Red Sox to have had a generally proper feel for these two players and still not be in the wrong for retaining them. As always, I feel the need to tell you that these things are not black and white. No, I am asking a legit question on player evaluation. As I said, I know very little about the area except what I've gleaned from a few scouts, GMs and college coaches over the years. I was hoping one or more people here who know about this could chime in. I know everything is not a binary decision, and I know these things can be a bit tricky. Duran aside, Dalbec was nearly 27 at the beginning of the season and he's been in the org since he was 21. If there was one player I would think they should have a very good read on - whether to keep him after 2021 or sell high especially - I would think he'd be in that basket. Yes, you technically posed it in the form of a question, but it's also a topic you've brought up dozens of times. At some point you're not genuinely seeking any answer and just making sure your opinion is heard. |
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Sept 22, 2022 14:45:50 GMT -5
No, I am asking a legit question on player evaluation. As I said, I know very little about the area except what I've gleaned from a few scouts, GMs and college coaches over the years. I was hoping one or more people here who know about this could chime in. I know everything is not a binary decision, and I know these things can be a bit tricky. Duran aside, Dalbec was nearly 27 at the beginning of the season and he's been in the org since he was 21. If there was one player I would think they should have a very good read on - whether to keep him after 2021 or sell high especially - I would think he'd be in that basket. Yes, you technically posed it in the form of a question, but it's also a topic you've brought up dozens of times. At some point you're not genuinely seeking any answer and just making sure your opinion is heard. And I've yet to receive an answer. People come and go here, so I don't know if anyone has this skillset in their toolbox, who may be a retired scout/etc. I will assume going forward, we don't have any legit player evaluators here. |
|
|
