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.
2023 Red Sox Win Projection
|
Post by manfred on Jan 2, 2023 16:32:23 GMT -5
MLB’s first power rating for 2023 has the Sox at… 23. Looking up at the Marlins. I guess they don’t read some of the posts on these boards.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jan 2, 2023 16:48:01 GMT -5
MLB’s first power rating for 2023 has the Sox at… 23. Looking up at the Marlins. I guess they don’t read some of the posts on these boards. Its crazy how messed up our cap and roster situation is. Good news is we don’t have any of these mammoth contracts and have a solid system now. I would really prefer we spend a season just getting that fixed (which should’ve been last year) than try to fight like hell for the right to get spanked by the Astros or Yanks on national TV.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Jan 2, 2023 19:40:44 GMT -5
MLB’s first power rating for 2023 has the Sox at… 23. Looking up at the Marlins. I guess they don’t read some of the posts on these boards. That feels low, but Vegas only has them in the 19th-21st position depending on the site. I don't think my glasses are rose-colored when I say that I don't see them worse than that Mid-Tier cohort. Which still is a disaster of an offseason, no doubt, but I think the media is relishing the opportunity to make them a punching bag and pushing them too low (and the bettors are buying into the narrative). Elite: Astros, Mets, Yanks, Dodgers (6-1 to 8-1) Contenders: Padres, Braves, Phillies, Mariners, Blue Jays (10-1 to 16-1) Next: White Sox, Guardians, Cardinals, Rays (20-1 to 30-1) Mid-Tier: Angels, Brewers, Orioles, Giants, Rangers (40-1 to 50-1) Meh: Twins, Red Sox, Cubs (60-1 to 80-1) Bad: Marlins, Diamondbacks, Tigers, Royals (100-1 to 150-1) Awful: Rockies, Pirates, Reds, Athletics, Nationals (200-1 to 500-1)
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 2, 2023 22:55:27 GMT -5
MLB’s first power rating for 2023 has the Sox at… 23. Looking up at the Marlins. I guess they don’t read some of the posts on these boards. That feels low, but Vegas only has them in the 19th-21st position depending on the site. I don't think my glasses are rose-colored when I say that I don't see them worse than that Mid-Tier cohort. Which still is a disaster of an offseason, no doubt, but I think the media is relishing the opportunity to make them a punching bag and pushing them too low (and the bettors are buying into the narrative). Elite: Astros, Mets, Yanks, Dodgers (6-1 to 8-1) Contenders: Padres, Braves, Phillies, Mariners, Blue Jays (10-1 to 16-1) Next: White Sox, Guardians, Cardinals, Rays (20-1 to 30-1) Mid-Tier: Angels, Brewers, Orioles, Giants, Rangers (40-1 to 50-1) Meh: Twins, Red Sox, Cubs (60-1 to 80-1) Bad: Marlins, Diamondbacks, Tigers, Royals (100-1 to 150-1) Awful: Rockies, Pirates, Reds, Athletics, Nationals (200-1 to 500-1) A huge number of people are incapable of recognizing that terrible injury luck played a role in the team's mediocre (not even awful, but mediocre) record in 2022. It's not like some wildly sophisticated analytical leap to reocgnize that, but still: beyond a lot of people. Are the Red Sox a middle of the pack team? Okay, you can make that case. Looking up at the Marlins? That's just stupid.
This goes for the Rays too, by the way, who were also riddled with injuries last year. They're going to be a beast of a team in 2023, but a lot of folks haven't realized it yet.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 2, 2023 23:04:00 GMT -5
That feels low, but Vegas only has them in the 19th-21st position depending on the site. I don't think my glasses are rose-colored when I say that I don't see them worse than that Mid-Tier cohort. Which still is a disaster of an offseason, no doubt, but I think the media is relishing the opportunity to make them a punching bag and pushing them too low (and the bettors are buying into the narrative). Elite: Astros, Mets, Yanks, Dodgers (6-1 to 8-1) Contenders: Padres, Braves, Phillies, Mariners, Blue Jays (10-1 to 16-1) Next: White Sox, Guardians, Cardinals, Rays (20-1 to 30-1) Mid-Tier: Angels, Brewers, Orioles, Giants, Rangers (40-1 to 50-1) Meh: Twins, Red Sox, Cubs (60-1 to 80-1) Bad: Marlins, Diamondbacks, Tigers, Royals (100-1 to 150-1) Awful: Rockies, Pirates, Reds, Athletics, Nationals (200-1 to 500-1) A huge number of people are incapable of recognizing that terrible injury luck played a role in the team's mediocre (not even awful, but mediocre) record in 2022. It's not like some wildly sophisticated analytical leap to reocgnize that, but still: beyond a lot of people. Are the Red Sox a middle of the pack team? Okay, you can make that case. Looking up at the Marlins? That's just stupid.
This goes for the Rays too, by the way, who were also riddled with injuries last year. They're going to be a beast of a team in 2023, but a lot of folks haven't realized it yet.
Thus far it is *everybody.* So how do you know they aren’t taking those injuries into account? Maybe they simply figure a) it is rare you don’t suffer some injuries, so some of that will return; b) some of the hurt guys returning might not perform at previous levels; and c) questions at C, 1b, 2b at least can be read multiple ways? My point is not that they are certain to he doomed. But I think it is legitimate to think they will be bad even having considered the injuries.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Jan 2, 2023 23:31:23 GMT -5
MLB’s first power rating for 2023 has the Sox at… 23. Looking up at the Marlins. I guess they don’t read some of the posts on these boards. That feels low, but Vegas only has them in the 19th-21st position depending on the site. I don't think my glasses are rose-colored when I say that I don't see them worse than that Mid-Tier cohort. Which still is a disaster of an offseason, no doubt, but I think the media is relishing the opportunity to make them a punching bag and pushing them too low (and the bettors are buying into the narrative). Elite: Astros, Mets, Yanks, Dodgers (6-1 to 8-1) Contenders: Padres, Braves, Phillies, Mariners, Blue Jays (10-1 to 16-1) Next: White Sox, Guardians, Cardinals, Rays (20-1 to 30-1) Mid-Tier: Angels, Brewers, Orioles, Giants, Rangers (40-1 to 50-1) Meh: Twins, Red Sox, Cubs (60-1 to 80-1) Bad: Marlins, Diamondbacks, Tigers, Royals (100-1 to 150-1) Awful: Rockies, Pirates, Reds, Athletics, Nationals (200-1 to 500-1) "Disaster of an offseason, no doubt"...how, exactly? In that we didn't outbid the sea of albatross contracts to make 2023-2027 better at the expense of 2028-2032? I think most of the additions have made sense so far. The only deal I don't like is Jansen's. Agree with incandenza that this team is probably being underrated due to the injuries last year. With average injury luck, this team should be better than last year's in all facets. Just need a starting middle IF addition à la Andrus. The outcomes for this roster are probably high variance given uncertainty around the young guys and the guys bouncing back from injury, but it's likely to be competitive. I love the emphasis on contact and eye in our new batters and the emphasis on control + general ceiling of our pitching staff. I also think the team's going to be really fun to watch in large part because of the new guys and the wide range of possible outcomes. And because the bullpen won't make me want to claw my eyes out.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 2, 2023 23:45:49 GMT -5
A huge number of people are incapable of recognizing that terrible injury luck played a role in the team's mediocre (not even awful, but mediocre) record in 2022. It's not like some wildly sophisticated analytical leap to reocgnize that, but still: beyond a lot of people. Are the Red Sox a middle of the pack team? Okay, you can make that case. Looking up at the Marlins? That's just stupid.
This goes for the Rays too, by the way, who were also riddled with injuries last year. They're going to be a beast of a team in 2023, but a lot of folks haven't realized it yet.
Thus far it is *everybody.* So how do you know they aren’t taking those injuries into account? Maybe they simply figure a) it is rare you don’t suffer some injuries, so some of that will return; b) some of the hurt guys returning might not perform at previous levels; and c) questions at C, 1b, 2b at least can be read multiple ways? My point is not that they are certain to he doomed. But I think it is legitimate to think they will be bad even having considered the injuries. Oh well if everybody thinks it... then that is still not a reason. Groupthink is one of the most entrenched tropes in sports journalism. There are plently of reasons to think they'll be better than they were last season, and a number of people have given those reasons here, and I don't see any point in repeating them yet again. Maybe when the objective projections come out in the spring we can revisit the question. Or maybe we can just see how they play.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 2, 2023 23:50:51 GMT -5
Thus far it is *everybody.* So how do you know they aren’t taking those injuries into account? Maybe they simply figure a) it is rare you don’t suffer some injuries, so some of that will return; b) some of the hurt guys returning might not perform at previous levels; and c) questions at C, 1b, 2b at least can be read multiple ways? My point is not that they are certain to he doomed. But I think it is legitimate to think they will be bad even having considered the injuries. Oh well if everybody thinks it... then that is still not a reason. Groupthink is one of the most entrenched tropes in sports journalism. There are plently of reasons to think they'll be better than they were last season, and a number of people have given those reasons here, and I don't see any point in repeating them yet again. Maybe when the objective projections come out in the spring we can revisit the question. Or maybe we can just see how they play. My point was that you assume people are not accounting for the injuries, but that would require everyone to miss it. My guess is they know full well why they are saying what they are saying.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 2, 2023 23:55:58 GMT -5
That feels low, but Vegas only has them in the 19th-21st position depending on the site. I don't think my glasses are rose-colored when I say that I don't see them worse than that Mid-Tier cohort. Which still is a disaster of an offseason, no doubt, but I think the media is relishing the opportunity to make them a punching bag and pushing them too low (and the bettors are buying into the narrative). Elite: Astros, Mets, Yanks, Dodgers (6-1 to 8-1) Contenders: Padres, Braves, Phillies, Mariners, Blue Jays (10-1 to 16-1) Next: White Sox, Guardians, Cardinals, Rays (20-1 to 30-1) Mid-Tier: Angels, Brewers, Orioles, Giants, Rangers (40-1 to 50-1) Meh: Twins, Red Sox, Cubs (60-1 to 80-1) Bad: Marlins, Diamondbacks, Tigers, Royals (100-1 to 150-1) Awful: Rockies, Pirates, Reds, Athletics, Nationals (200-1 to 500-1) "Disaster of an offseason, no doubt"...how, exactly? In that we didn't outbid the sea of albatross contracts to make 2023-2027 better at the expense of 2028-2032? I think most of the additions have made sense so far. The only deal I don't like is Jansen's. Agree with incandenza that this team is probably being underrated due to the injuries last year. With average injury luck, this team should be better than last year's in all facets. Just need a starting middle IF addition à la Andrus. The outcomes for this roster are probably high variance given uncertainty around the young guys and the guys bouncing back from injury, but it's likely to be competitive. I love the emphasis on contact and eye in our new batters and the emphasis on control + general ceiling of our pitching staff. I also think the team's going to be really fun to watch in large part because of the new guys and the wide range of possible outcomes. And because the bullpen won't make me want to claw my eyes out. I think another reason is that they lost one of their best players to free agency, which was a very high profile event and certainly does hurt them. A third reason is that their biggest addition of the offseason was a Japanese player unfamiliar to most everyone and unproven in MLB. A fourth reason is that a lot of their improvement projects to come from young players who are being underrated by both media people and fans. A fifth reason is that they legitimately botched the Bogaerts situation (last offseason rather than this one), which gives them a partially deserving air of incompetence.
But there's no way they project to be worse than the Marlins, or even a bottom-10 team.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 3, 2023 0:00:17 GMT -5
Oh well if everybody thinks it... then that is still not a reason. Groupthink is one of the most entrenched tropes in sports journalism. There are plently of reasons to think they'll be better than they were last season, and a number of people have given those reasons here, and I don't see any point in repeating them yet again. Maybe when the objective projections come out in the spring we can revisit the question. Or maybe we can just see how they play. My point was that you assume people are not accounting for the injuries, but that would require everyone to miss it. My guess is they know full well why they are saying what they are saying. I disagree. Lots of people on this hyper-attuned site are almost completely missing the significance of the injuries; lots of people here repeat the "last place team" shibboleth ad infinitum. And I certainly don't expect a greater degree of awareness by the national media.
Recency bias is just really powerful. It goes for the Rays too, like I said; they won 86 games last year despite their own terrible injury luck, yet most people seem to see them as a wild card caliber team again. I'm picking them to win the AL East.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Jan 3, 2023 0:07:48 GMT -5
"Disaster of an offseason, no doubt"...how, exactly? In that we didn't outbid the sea of albatross contracts to make 2023-2027 better at the expense of 2028-2032? I think most of the additions have made sense so far. The only deal I don't like is Jansen's. Agree with incandenza that this team is probably being underrated due to the injuries last year. With average injury luck, this team should be better than last year's in all facets. Just need a starting middle IF addition à la Andrus. The outcomes for this roster are probably high variance given uncertainty around the young guys and the guys bouncing back from injury, but it's likely to be competitive. I love the emphasis on contact and eye in our new batters and the emphasis on control + general ceiling of our pitching staff. I also think the team's going to be really fun to watch in large part because of the new guys and the wide range of possible outcomes. And because the bullpen won't make me want to claw my eyes out. I'd just ask folks to take a step back and answer this question. Are you happy that the best they've done is put out a team that is in that Mid-Tier category? They've had 3 years to put a decent product on the field, and this is what they've done. It's not good. Yes, at the transactional level we can rationalize their decisions this offseason, and measuring it on WAR gained per dollar spent they will likely come out towards the top. But that's not everything. And we can't just wave off the Padres contract, if the Sox showed any interest in him last spring this wouldn't have been an issue this offseason. We lost Xander, that's the reality of this offseason. My opinion is that success isn't having 0 of the largest contracts in baseball on our books. It's making sure you have the right 1-2 people getting those contracts. We will eventually have 1 (Devers?) but there's fewer and fewer options out there each year as folks keep signing these deals.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Jan 3, 2023 0:11:30 GMT -5
Thus far it is *everybody.* So how do you know they aren’t taking those injuries into account? Maybe they simply figure a) it is rare you don’t suffer some injuries, so some of that will return; b) some of the hurt guys returning might not perform at previous levels; and c) questions at C, 1b, 2b at least can be read multiple ways? My point is not that they are certain to he doomed. But I think it is legitimate to think they will be bad even having considered the injuries. Oh well if everybody thinks it... then that is still not a reason. Groupthink is one of the most entrenched tropes in sports journalism. There are plently of reasons to think they'll be better than they were last season, and a number of people have given those reasons here, and I don't see any point in repeating them yet again. Maybe when the objective projections come out in the spring we can revisit the question. Or maybe we can just see how they play. I think this is as great a year as any to bet the over on the wins total for 2023. Hopefully that over/under drops again into the high 70s like it did in 2021, that year was a no-brainer bet.
|
|
|
Post by crossedsabres8 on Jan 3, 2023 0:33:35 GMT -5
"Disaster of an offseason, no doubt"...how, exactly? In that we didn't outbid the sea of albatross contracts to make 2023-2027 better at the expense of 2028-2032? I think most of the additions have made sense so far. The only deal I don't like is Jansen's. Agree with incandenza that this team is probably being underrated due to the injuries last year. With average injury luck, this team should be better than last year's in all facets. Just need a starting middle IF addition à la Andrus. The outcomes for this roster are probably high variance given uncertainty around the young guys and the guys bouncing back from injury, but it's likely to be competitive. I love the emphasis on contact and eye in our new batters and the emphasis on control + general ceiling of our pitching staff. I also think the team's going to be really fun to watch in large part because of the new guys and the wide range of possible outcomes. And because the bullpen won't make me want to claw my eyes out. I'd just ask folks to take a step back and answer this question. Are you happy that the best they've done is put out a team that is in that Mid-Tier category? They've had 3 years to put a decent product on the field, and this is what they've done. It's not good. Yes, at the transactional level we can rationalize their decisions this offseason, and measuring it on WAR gained per dollar spent they will likely come out towards the top. But that's not everything. And we can't just wave off the Padres contract, if the Sox showed any interest in him last spring this wouldn't have been an issue this offseason. We lost Xander, that's the reality of this offseason. My opinion is that success isn't having 0 of the largest contracts in baseball on our books. It's making sure you have the right 1-2 people getting those contracts. We will eventually have 1 (Devers?) but there's fewer and fewer options out there each year as folks keep signing these deals. I find myself repeating the same refrain over and over again: The consensus seems to think they've designed a 75 win team, when really they've designed an 85 win team, which is still not good enough, and arguably worse if you believe in tanking.
|
|
|
Post by ancientsoxfogey on Jan 3, 2023 2:04:53 GMT -5
I'd just ask folks to take a step back and answer this question. Are you happy that the best they've done is put out a team that is in that Mid-Tier category? They've had 3 years to put a decent product on the field, and this is what they've done. It's not good. Yes, at the transactional level we can rationalize their decisions this offseason, and measuring it on WAR gained per dollar spent they will likely come out towards the top. But that's not everything. And we can't just wave off the Padres contract, if the Sox showed any interest in him last spring this wouldn't have been an issue this offseason. We lost Xander, that's the reality of this offseason. My opinion is that success isn't having 0 of the largest contracts in baseball on our books. It's making sure you have the right 1-2 people getting those contracts. We will eventually have 1 (Devers?) but there's fewer and fewer options out there each year as folks keep signing these deals. I find myself repeating the same refrain over and over again: The consensus seems to think they've designed a 75 win team, when really they've designed an 85 win team, which is still not good enough, and arguably worse if you believe in tanking. But a 75-win team isn't a tanking team either. What, 75 wins gets you maybe the 8th-10th pick in the draft; 85 wins gets you the 20th pick?
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Jan 3, 2023 2:35:55 GMT -5
"Disaster of an offseason, no doubt"...how, exactly? In that we didn't outbid the sea of albatross contracts to make 2023-2027 better at the expense of 2028-2032? I think most of the additions have made sense so far. The only deal I don't like is Jansen's. Agree with incandenza that this team is probably being underrated due to the injuries last year. With average injury luck, this team should be better than last year's in all facets. Just need a starting middle IF addition à la Andrus. The outcomes for this roster are probably high variance given uncertainty around the young guys and the guys bouncing back from injury, but it's likely to be competitive. I love the emphasis on contact and eye in our new batters and the emphasis on control + general ceiling of our pitching staff. I also think the team's going to be really fun to watch in large part because of the new guys and the wide range of possible outcomes. And because the bullpen won't make me want to claw my eyes out. I'd just ask folks to take a step back and answer this question. Are you happy that the best they've done is put out a team that is in that Mid-Tier category? They've had 3 years to put a decent product on the field, and this is what they've done. It's not good. Yes, at the transactional level we can rationalize their decisions this offseason, and measuring it on WAR gained per dollar spent they will likely come out towards the top. But that's not everything. And we can't just wave off the Padres contract, if the Sox showed any interest in him last spring this wouldn't have been an issue this offseason. We lost Xander, that's the reality of this offseason. My opinion is that success isn't having 0 of the largest contracts in baseball on our books. It's making sure you have the right 1-2 people getting those contracts. We will eventually have 1 (Devers?) but there's fewer and fewer options out there each year as folks keep signing these deals. Yes! You cannot build an offseason favorite through free agency unless you are willing to outspend everyone else, Cohen style. It needs to start with the farm, and our farm has done very little for the past 5-6 years. Until the farm starts graduating productive players and thereby generating value from something outside free agency, this is the best you're really going to get. Incidentally, if Casas, Bello, and Wong are impact players in 2023, the team will probably be quite good and have a rosy outlook going forward. So, by all means make a reasoned argument to criticize the development of the farm. Calling the offseason a failure because Bloom hasn't built a top team through free agency while staying under the luxury tax makes no sense, though, especially when you don't seem to have quibbles with specific moves. If we're doing it right, we probably won't have one of the biggest contracts in baseball on the books. Instead we should extend our young studs at a discount as early as possible. It has long since been too late for Devers. I do hope he is willing to sign this offseason, but why would he unless the Sox get close to his probable market rate, which is poised to be wildly inflated due to the weak FA class next winter? If he's holding out for the Rendon AAV over 10-12 years, or something, it would probably be smarter to trade him this offseason. Multiple people on here seem to be taking for granted that Bogaerts would still be here if the Story deal had been offered. That is just speculation, and regardless the time for that was last offseason at the absolute latest. It should not factor into evaluations of this offseason. No one is criticizing Bloom for not outbidding the Padres, and rightly so.
|
|
|
Post by crossedsabres8 on Jan 3, 2023 6:59:13 GMT -5
I find myself repeating the same refrain over and over again: The consensus seems to think they've designed a 75 win team, when really they've designed an 85 win team, which is still not good enough, and arguably worse if you believe in tanking. But a 75-win team isn't a tanking team either. What, 75 wins gets you maybe the 8th-10th pick in the draft; 85 wins gets you the 20th pick? The point is that if you're not gonna make the playoffs, you might as well get the 10th best pick rather than the 20th. I don't agree with that philosophy but I also don't completely dismiss it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2023 10:01:29 GMT -5
I find myself repeating the same refrain over and over again: The consensus seems to think they've designed a 75 win team, when really they've designed an 85 win team, which is still not good enough, and arguably worse if you believe in tanking. It's a similar consensus as before the 2021 season when hacks like Jason Mastrodonato were predicting they'd win 74 games. In 2021, we had three likely all-stars to anchor the offense going into the year in Xander, JD, and Raffy - it was just a matter of the pitching holding up, which it largely did. (Garrett Whitlock coming out of nowhere and Cora back certainly helped.) In 2023 I'd argue you're hoping for a similar formula. But the way this team is built offensively you're banking on: Kiké - can be a 4 WAR player again like in '21 Story - is the dynamic all-star you envisioned before he was inconsistent/got hurt Yoshi - that impeccable bat translates to MLB Casas - is a stud right away Devers - is even on the team in April... If you got the majority of these to work out (especially Devers!) I would feel pretty good about 85 wins+ if the pitching health luck is fine. But it's an incredibly volatile team. I guess my question is there any move out there that gives the Sox a more stable floor? Like if they acquire Bryan Reynolds next week and a bunch of stuff goes wrong early in the year - is adding someone like him enough for the team as constituted to stay afloat?
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 3, 2023 10:15:24 GMT -5
I'd just ask folks to take a step back and answer this question. Are you happy that the best they've done is put out a team that is in that Mid-Tier category? They've had 3 years to put a decent product on the field, and this is what they've done. It's not good. Yes, at the transactional level we can rationalize their decisions this offseason, and measuring it on WAR gained per dollar spent they will likely come out towards the top. But that's not everything. And we can't just wave off the Padres contract, if the Sox showed any interest in him last spring this wouldn't have been an issue this offseason. We lost Xander, that's the reality of this offseason. My opinion is that success isn't having 0 of the largest contracts in baseball on our books. It's making sure you have the right 1-2 people getting those contracts. We will eventually have 1 (Devers?) but there's fewer and fewer options out there each year as folks keep signing these deals. Yes! You cannot build an offseason favorite through free agency unless you are willing to outspend everyone else, Cohen style. It needs to start with the farm, and our farm has done very little for the past 5-6 years. Until the farm starts graduating productive players and thereby generating value from something outside free agency, this is the best you're really going to get. Incidentally, if Casas, Bello, and Wong are impact players in 2023, the team will probably be quite good and have a rosy outlook going forward. So, by all means make a reasoned argument to criticize the development of the farm. Calling the offseason a failure because Bloom hasn't built a top team through free agency while staying under the luxury tax makes no sense, though, especially when you don't seem to have quibbles with specific moves. If we're doing it right, we probably won't have one of the biggest contracts in baseball on the books. Instead we should extend our young studs at a discount as early as possible. It has long since been too late for Devers. I do hope he is willing to sign this offseason, but why would he unless the Sox get close to his probable market rate, which is poised to be wildly inflated due to the weak FA class next winter? If he's holding out for the Rendon AAV over 10-12 years, or something, it would probably be smarter to trade him this offseason. Multiple people on here seem to be taking for granted that Bogaerts would still be here if the Story deal had been offered. That is just speculation, and regardless the time for that was last offseason at the absolute latest. It should not factor into evaluations of this offseason. No one is criticizing Bloom for not outbidding the Padres, and rightly so. But you keep moving goalposts. Basically you are saying the off season is not a failure because they had already failed in a way that made it impossible to succeed. They blew Xander. So saying hey we can’t match the Padres is an afterthought. And for three years they’ve been clearing salary to build up a wad of cash. The refrain at the end of the season and early this off season was don’t judge until they spend the money. This plan has been *predicated* on rebuilding this off season. Getting outspent doesn’t change that.
|
|
|
Post by briam on Jan 3, 2023 10:25:19 GMT -5
I'd just ask folks to take a step back and answer this question. Are you happy that the best they've done is put out a team that is in that Mid-Tier category? They've had 3 years to put a decent product on the field, and this is what they've done. It's not good. Yes, at the transactional level we can rationalize their decisions this offseason, and measuring it on WAR gained per dollar spent they will likely come out towards the top. But that's not everything. And we can't just wave off the Padres contract, if the Sox showed any interest in him last spring this wouldn't have been an issue this offseason. We lost Xander, that's the reality of this offseason. My opinion is that success isn't having 0 of the largest contracts in baseball on our books. It's making sure you have the right 1-2 people getting those contracts. We will eventually have 1 (Devers?) but there's fewer and fewer options out there each year as folks keep signing these deals. Yes! You cannot build an offseason favorite through free agency unless you are willing to outspend everyone else, Cohen style. It needs to start with the farm, and our farm has done very little for the past 5-6 years. Until the farm starts graduating productive players and thereby generating value from something outside free agency, this is the best you're really going to get. Incidentally, if Casas, Bello, and Wong are impact players in 2023, the team will probably be quite good and have a rosy outlook going forward. So, by all means make a reasoned argument to criticize the development of the farm. Calling the offseason a failure because Bloom hasn't built a top team through free agency while staying under the luxury tax makes no sense, though, especially when you don't seem to have quibbles with specific moves. If we're doing it right, we probably won't have one of the biggest contracts in baseball on the books. Instead we should extend our young studs at a discount as early as possible. It has long since been too late for Devers. I do hope he is willing to sign this offseason, but why would he unless the Sox get close to his probable market rate, which is poised to be wildly inflated due to the weak FA class next winter? If he's holding out for the Rendon AAV over 10-12 years, or something, it would probably be smarter to trade him this offseason. Multiple people on here seem to be taking for granted that Bogaerts would still be here if the Story deal had been offered. That is just speculation, and regardless the time for that was last offseason at the absolute latest. It should not factor into evaluations of this offseason. No one is criticizing Bloom for not outbidding the Padres, and rightly so. I don’t know what you would categorize an off-season when your best player walks out the door and his production is expected to be replaced by a player who has never seen MLB pitching (and I like Yoshida)! JD for Turner is pretty much a wash at this stage but Turner provides more defensive versatility and a right handed platoon at 1B. Projections seem to like Eovaldi a little more than Kluber, but again that’s more of a wash if both guys stay healthy. The bullpen is much improved, but an improved bullpen and worse lineup doesn’t exactly make this team better when you’re looking at WAR projections across MLB. The goal this off-season was to get significantly better, I suppose they still can through the trade market, but there’s not a sound argument for the roster improving after all the free agency moves and considering the amount of money they had to spend; that’s a failure.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jan 3, 2023 11:12:49 GMT -5
That feels low, but Vegas only has them in the 19th-21st position depending on the site. I don't think my glasses are rose-colored when I say that I don't see them worse than that Mid-Tier cohort. Which still is a disaster of an offseason, no doubt, but I think the media is relishing the opportunity to make them a punching bag and pushing them too low (and the bettors are buying into the narrative). Elite: Astros, Mets, Yanks, Dodgers (6-1 to 8-1) Contenders: Padres, Braves, Phillies, Mariners, Blue Jays (10-1 to 16-1) Next: White Sox, Guardians, Cardinals, Rays (20-1 to 30-1) Mid-Tier: Angels, Brewers, Orioles, Giants, Rangers (40-1 to 50-1) Meh: Twins, Red Sox, Cubs (60-1 to 80-1) Bad: Marlins, Diamondbacks, Tigers, Royals (100-1 to 150-1) Awful: Rockies, Pirates, Reds, Athletics, Nationals (200-1 to 500-1) A huge number of people are incapable of recognizing that terrible injury luck played a role in the team's mediocre (not even awful, but mediocre) record in 2022. It's not like some wildly sophisticated analytical leap to reocgnize that, but still: beyond a lot of people. Are the Red Sox a middle of the pack team? Okay, you can make that case. Looking up at the Marlins? That's just stupid. This goes for the Rays too, by the way, who were also riddled with injuries last year. They're going to be a beast of a team in 2023, but a lot of folks haven't realized it yet.
Outside of Kiké and maybe Story, who was injured that was a surprise? Maybe Chris Sale missing basically the entire season, but he's going to miss a chunk of the season. Wacha getting hurt cost the team, but the fact he was a really good pitcher was also incredibly lucky. He's also not known for his health to begin with. Paxton you expected to get some innings last year, but it didn't work out that way. Rich Hill was 42 last year. Matt Barnes being hurt usually tends to not be a negative. I doubt Christian Arroyo will be Iron Man next season. I see this about the injuries and only two guys were a bit surprising. I'm not going to be shocked if Kluber, Turner, Sale, Paxton, Arroyo, Casas and Refsnyder all get hurt at some point this season. Story typically plays 140~ games. I expect more than the 94 he played last year, but I won't be too surprised if he lands around 140 or slightly less. So, probably better health for 2023, but how much better?
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Jan 3, 2023 11:14:02 GMT -5
There was never any realistic version of this off season where the Red Sox would have been picked as better than middle of the pack going into this season.
That doesn’t mean it was successful, they didn’t get Bogaerts which was the team’s top priority and to me, the off-season can’t be a huge success without that. But it can still be, for the purposes of team success … fine. I mean, even if they had gotten Bogaerts instead of like Turner/Kluber/Andrus (or whoever they get for middle infield) the team would project like what, 1 win better? It’s just the sentiment that would be really substantially better.
Projecting them as the 7th worst team in baseball is pretty ridiculous IMO.
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Jan 3, 2023 11:14:52 GMT -5
Yes! You cannot build an offseason favorite through free agency unless you are willing to outspend everyone else, Cohen style. It needs to start with the farm, and our farm has done very little for the past 5-6 years. Until the farm starts graduating productive players and thereby generating value from something outside free agency, this is the best you're really going to get. Incidentally, if Casas, Bello, and Wong are impact players in 2023, the team will probably be quite good and have a rosy outlook going forward. So, by all means make a reasoned argument to criticize the development of the farm. Calling the offseason a failure because Bloom hasn't built a top team through free agency while staying under the luxury tax makes no sense, though, especially when you don't seem to have quibbles with specific moves. If we're doing it right, we probably won't have one of the biggest contracts in baseball on the books. Instead we should extend our young studs at a discount as early as possible. It has long since been too late for Devers. I do hope he is willing to sign this offseason, but why would he unless the Sox get close to his probable market rate, which is poised to be wildly inflated due to the weak FA class next winter? If he's holding out for the Rendon AAV over 10-12 years, or something, it would probably be smarter to trade him this offseason. Multiple people on here seem to be taking for granted that Bogaerts would still be here if the Story deal had been offered. That is just speculation, and regardless the time for that was last offseason at the absolute latest. It should not factor into evaluations of this offseason. No one is criticizing Bloom for not outbidding the Padres, and rightly so. But you keep moving goalposts. Basically you are saying the off season is not a failure because they had already failed in a way that made it impossible to succeed. They blew Xander. So saying hey we can’t match the Padres is an afterthought. And for three years they’ve been clearing salary to build up a wad of cash. The refrain at the end of the season and early this off season was don’t judge until they spend the money. This plan has been *predicated* on rebuilding this off season. Getting outspent doesn’t change that. It's okay to admit this offseason has been a failure, but still, like what Bloom has done with the minor league system. One doesn't necessarily have to do with the other. The Sox will still have the highest ticket prices in the league and a payroll of 200 million despite not having any long-term deals on the books other than Yoshi and Story. So technically they could keep rolling this strategy back until the youth is ready. Essentially looking at Devers as just a faceless 30 homer talent. So if you're doing that it doesn't matter if hes 27 or 37. Just as long as you get the same numbers out of someone else. Is it a smart strategy? Probably not. Does it stop Boston from getting top value for players that they don't want to keep? Yes. Do they care? Probably not. If you supplement your minor league system with lottery tickets all the time then eventually one will hit and you'll look like a genius. Taking all this into consideration the Sox will probably finish between 75-85 wins. Its impossible to get a clear number on this team because ALOT has to go right and break right to get 85 wins. Health being the key factor. On the surface teams like Texas and Seattle have now leapfrogged you. Baltimore might regress slightly and Boston could slightly improve so I would bet on a dog fight for 4th place.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Jan 3, 2023 11:18:42 GMT -5
Yes! You cannot build an offseason favorite through free agency unless you are willing to outspend everyone else, Cohen style. It needs to start with the farm, and our farm has done very little for the past 5-6 years. Until the farm starts graduating productive players and thereby generating value from something outside free agency, this is the best you're really going to get. Incidentally, if Casas, Bello, and Wong are impact players in 2023, the team will probably be quite good and have a rosy outlook going forward. So, by all means make a reasoned argument to criticize the development of the farm. Calling the offseason a failure because Bloom hasn't built a top team through free agency while staying under the luxury tax makes no sense, though, especially when you don't seem to have quibbles with specific moves. If we're doing it right, we probably won't have one of the biggest contracts in baseball on the books. Instead we should extend our young studs at a discount as early as possible. It has long since been too late for Devers. I do hope he is willing to sign this offseason, but why would he unless the Sox get close to his probable market rate, which is poised to be wildly inflated due to the weak FA class next winter? If he's holding out for the Rendon AAV over 10-12 years, or something, it would probably be smarter to trade him this offseason. Multiple people on here seem to be taking for granted that Bogaerts would still be here if the Story deal had been offered. That is just speculation, and regardless the time for that was last offseason at the absolute latest. It should not factor into evaluations of this offseason. No one is criticizing Bloom for not outbidding the Padres, and rightly so. But you keep moving goalposts. Basically you are saying the off season is not a failure because they had already failed in a way that made it impossible to succeed. They blew Xander. So saying hey we can’t match the Padres is an afterthought. And for three years they’ve been clearing salary to build up a wad of cash. The refrain at the end of the season and early this off season was don’t judge until they spend the money. This plan has been *predicated* on rebuilding this off season. Getting outspent doesn’t change that. On the contrary, calling this offseason a "disaster" based on an error from last offseason would be moving goalposts. I'm specifically responding to a comment about this offseason, so it only makes sense to focus on this offseason. From what I can gather, people are mostly upset about Bogaerts leaving and don't seem to have big problems with the other moves. However, it was always likely that Xander wouldn't come back: not a foregone conclusion, certainly, but a very real possibility. If Bogaerts leaving is enough to constitute a disaster, this offseason was likely to be a failure from the beginning. I don't think that's a fair bar to set.
There was no plan predicated on the mini rebuild being complete by this offseason and the team suddenly being a legit contender. As I called out in my last comment, that is not going to happen until the farm starts being productive. The concept of a deadline this offseason was mostly relevant in regards to evaluating Bloom. The tired argument from 2020-2022 was "Bloom only signs bargain bin players" and the tired response from 2020-2022 was "Most of the payroll was already allocated by DD. After 2022 is when a lot of money will come off the books and Bloom will get to put more of a stamp on the team. Judge him then." Sure enough, I think it is fair to say the roster is mostly his now and we know a lot more about his philosophy in free agency. So, I think going off in the Evaluating the FO thread about roster construction and philosophy now makes sense.
Early in Bloom's tenure I think there was room to hope the team would be better by now, but that was largely dependent on getting real production farm the farm (e.g. Duran and Downs sticking as ML regulars). Given the state of the farm and roster entering this offseason, I don't think it's reasonable to expect we'd look like a top team by April regardless of what Bloom was able to pull off.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 3, 2023 11:31:53 GMT -5
But you keep moving goalposts. Basically you are saying the off season is not a failure because they had already failed in a way that made it impossible to succeed. They blew Xander. So saying hey we can’t match the Padres is an afterthought. And for three years they’ve been clearing salary to build up a wad of cash. The refrain at the end of the season and early this off season was don’t judge until they spend the money. This plan has been *predicated* on rebuilding this off season. Getting outspent doesn’t change that. On the contrary, calling this offseason a "disaster" based on an error from last offseason would be moving goalposts. I'm specifically responding to a comment about this offseason, so it only makes sense to focus on this offseason. From what I can gather, people are mostly upset about Bogaerts leaving and don't seem to have big problems with the other moves. However, it was always likely that Xander wouldn't come back: not a foregone conclusion, certainly, but a very real possibility. If Bogaerts leaving is enough to constitute a disaster, this offseason was likely to be a failure from the beginning. I don't think that's a fair bar to set.
There was no plan predicated on the mini rebuild being complete by this offseason and the team suddenly being a legit contender. As I called out in my last comment, that is not going to happen until the farm starts being productive. The concept of a deadline this offseason was mostly relevant in regards to evaluating Bloom. The tired argument from 2020-2022 was "Bloom only signs bargain bin players" and the tired response from 2020-2022 was "Most of the payroll was already allocated by DD. After 2022 is when a lot of money will come off the books and Bloom will get to put more of a stamp on the team. Judge him then." Sure enough, I think it is fair to say the roster is mostly his now and we know a lot more about his philosophy in free agency. So, I think going off in the Evaluating the FO thread about roster construction and philosophy now makes sense.
Early in Bloom's tenure I think there was room to hope the team would be better by now, but that was largely dependent on getting real production farm the farm (e.g. Duran and Downs sticking as ML regulars). Given the state of the farm and roster entering this offseason, I don't think it's reasonable to expect we'd look like a top team by April regardless of what Bloom was able to pull off.
Well, then let’s count DFA’ing Downs as part of the bad off season. Look, you can count money, but losing your de facto captain is very bad. Downgrading SS is bad. Not even having a 2b is bad (cf. Downs failure). Losing three of your most reliable starting pitchers and subbing in three guys in their mid-30s, two of whom have been medical textbooks the last few years… not *good*, certainly? Or… consider their own words: add 7-9 guys? Maybe they did, though you’d have to count some small fry. Add 2 starters? Nope. Add a (or two) #2 types? Nope. Missed on Abreu. No 2b, and they’ll surely sign someone, but that person will get signed as much with an eye to keeping commitments down as winning. How many guys were they reported as making offers to that they didn’t get? Doesn’t that suggest even they must feel they fell short? If the idea is that 2023 is a season of waiting for Mayer et al to be ready, you can call *anything* fine in the off season. Releasing Devers would be fine… doesn’t hurt Mayer’s development! But if a team and a FO has any responsibility to make an effort to be substantially better, it is indefensible. Excuses? Sure. Defenses? No.
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on Jan 3, 2023 11:34:47 GMT -5
They're good enough to play meaningful baseball in September
|
|
|