SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Chaim Bloom and the Red Sox Rebuild
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,837
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Oct 17, 2021 19:41:59 GMT -5
You missed something else, too, UMass. I pointed to the success I expect CB to have in developing players on the farm. That ability AND the ability to find value makes it less necessary to overpay for FAs or pay stupid money and years to keep your own guys to try and stay competitive in the short-term. It's the reason he was brought here. I actually think it'll be easier for him to find value signings once he gets the payroll under better control. He didn't have a lot of wiggle room against the LT threshold last off-season and still did well. If he has more room (which will be partly dependent on the new CBA) he'll be able to shop in a better place than the Marwin Gonzalez-Danny Santana-Matt Andriese aisle. I'm puzzled by the Cherington comparison. Ben's brand became his unwillingness to trade prospects, not his insistence on value contracts. I mean he signed a declining fat guy to five years and $95 million. The player put up -1.6 WAR and is best remembered for popping a belt buckle. That's not a value shopper. For Sandoval, Cheringtom focused on his relatively youthful age of 28, which is the equivalent of age 38 for all other ballplayers actually in shape. The problem was that his waistline was about a 48 and his IQ was about 58. Remember the time he got busted for "liking" chicks on Instagram during a game?
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Oct 17, 2021 19:48:28 GMT -5
You missed something else, too, UMass. I pointed to the success I expect CB to have in developing players on the farm. That ability AND the ability to find value makes it less necessary to overpay for FAs or pay stupid money and years to keep your own guys to try and stay competitive in the short-term. It's the reason he was brought here. I actually think it'll be easier for him to find value signings once he gets the payroll under better control. He didn't have a lot of wiggle room against the LT threshold last off-season and still did well. If he has more room (which will be partly dependent on the new CBA) he'll be able to shop in a better place than the Marwin Gonzalez-Danny Santana-Matt Andriese aisle. I'm puzzled by the Cherington comparison. Ben's brand became his unwillingness to trade prospects, not his insistence on value contracts. I mean he signed a declining fat guy to five years and $95 million. The player put up -1.6 WAR and is best remembered for popping a belt buckle. That's not a value shopper. For Sandoval, Cheringtom focused on his relatively youthful age of 28, which is the equivalent of age 38 for all other ballplayers actually in shape. In defense of cherington Sandoval and to a lesser extent Hanley seemed like they were deals that ownership pushed for after a lousy season when fan interest was dwindling. The Sox also badly needed a 3rd baseman in an offseason when the options were all pretty bad.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 17, 2021 20:02:46 GMT -5
For Sandoval, Cheringtom focused on his relatively youthful age of 28, which is the equivalent of age 38 for all other ballplayers actually in shape. The problem was that his waistline was about a 48 and his IQ was about 58. Remember the time he got busted for "liking" chicks on Instagram during a game? Yeah, he was in the can at the time. Wouldn't even want to speculate what else he was doing.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,942
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 18, 2021 1:20:11 GMT -5
You missed the "if" in the last line. Mookie wasn't enamored of playing in Boston, and it seems likely now to me that the team worried at least a bit that he would have a steeper-than-usual aging decline.
It seems to me that all three of the players named want to stay. A guy who loves his current situation, which is furthermore a team that looks like it will be a serious WS contender every year of their next contract, will sign a team-friendly deal. The notion that players would take, say, $25M a year to play in a new town, with new teammates and a new manager, for a team with maybe a 50% shot of reaching the playoffs each year, rather than stay here for, say, $20M, is bonkers. The extra $ is unlikely to alter their life at all. Winning a WS or two instead of missing out is universally regarded by these guys as life-enhancing. It's why they play. And it never gets old.
I'm talking about finding guys like Hernandez and Renfroe on the cheap, that produce that way. Only because they may not have enough roster spots to fill with upside projects.
Kiké, Pivetta, and Renfroe are all key contributors where they seemed to have had a specific idea as to how to turn an OK or worse ballplayer into a much better one. Arroyo, ditto, to a lesser extent. Richards seemed to be well on his way to being another success story before the sticky. They fixed Robles, who had been very good and then terrible this season. Franchy was the one guy they clearly failed to extract the hoped-for upside from this year, and there's an argument that Peraza frpm last year should be on that list as well. Perez may have had further upside in their minds that was never realized; that's unclear. I think they were intrigued by Yaksel Rios as a possible high-lev guy but didn't pursue it much.
Andriese was coming off of a great September, and had a great month for us before re-pumpkinizing. We may never know what happened there.
I suspect that the failures are guys who turn out to be relatively uncoachable. It's hard to tell that before a trade or signing.
I don't think that Marwin was a project, just a guy whose versatility they thought they needed, and then had a bad year at the plate. Santana was a guy they took a flyer on because they could.
It's such a substantial body of work with a high enough success rate that I see no argument against not finding more of these guys on a regular basis. You just might not have a lot of needs. But in most years you'll have one or even two bench spots to fill with an upside project. For next year, there's room for a LHH 1B who can play OF or 3B, which is to say, someone better than Shaw. And there's always room for a couple of pitchers.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 18, 2021 10:15:32 GMT -5
I bring up Ben Cherington because he's the last GM to do a rebuild and the parallels to Bloom are very similar. Talented team with a bloated payroll, GM makes some good moves that work out perfectly for the most part. Yet that also was his downfall. He tries the same thing the next year and it's bad. He's then forced to spend by ownership, which just creates even more problems. Yet doesn't want to give out mega deals
You won't find a Hernandez and Renfroe every year. It's Baseball, players have up and down years. It's not coaching, it's just Baseball.
The Ray's are crazy impressive, yet they have never won a championship. The Dodgers were crazy impressive for years, yet they didn't win till they went all in. I'm a big believer in our ownerships model of go all in and then rebuild. Just look at the results. It's like acting like the Yankees when they were the Yankees, yet in spurts so you don't have any long downturns. You clear the books and restock the system to once again go all in. You don't try to avoid the next David Price contract, you set yourself up to make that signing. You act like the Ray's in stretches, then act like the old Yankees. Then do it all over again.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Oct 18, 2021 10:43:39 GMT -5
I bring up Ben Cherington because he's the last GM to do a rebuild and the parallels to Bloom are very similar. Talented team with a bloated payroll, GM makes some good moves that work out perfectly for the most part. Yet that also was his downfall. He tries the same thing the next year and it's bad. He's then forced to spend by ownership, which just creates even more problems. Yet doesn't want to give out mega deals You won't find a Hernandez and Renfroe every year. It's Baseball, players have up and down years. It's not coaching, it's just Baseball. The Ray's are crazy impressive, yet they have never won a championship. The Dodgers were crazy impressive for years, yet they didn't win till they went all in. I'm a big believer in our ownerships model of go all in and then rebuild. Just look at the results. It's like acting like the Yankees when they were the Yankees, yet in spurts so you don't have any long downturns. You clear the books and restock the system to once again go all in. You don't try to avoid the next David Price contract, you set yourself up to make that signing. You act like the Ray's in stretches, then act like the old Yankees. Then do it all over again. I agree with a lot of this but how can you say coaching doesn't matter? Sure it is baseball and guys are up and down but to completely disregard coaching I don't agree with. I think Erics post hits on this, they thought they could fix some guys. It worked with some but not all, obviously. Another example, why do some teams have so much success in developing pitchers while others hardly ever do? Like TBay and the Red Sox.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Oct 18, 2021 10:45:40 GMT -5
I'm talking about finding guys like Hernandez and Renfroe on the cheap, that produce that way. Only because they may not have enough roster spots to fill with upside projects.
Kiké, Pivetta, and Renfroe are all key contributors where they seemed to have had a specific idea as to how to turn an OK or worse ballplayer into a much better one. Arroyo, ditto, to a lesser extent. Richards seemed to be well on his way to being another success story before the sticky. They fixed Robles, who had been very good and then terrible this season. Franchy was the one guy they clearly failed to extract the hoped-for upside from this year, and there's an argument that Peraza frpm last year should be on that list as well. Perez may have had further upside in their minds that was never realized; that's unclear. I think they were intrigued by Yaksel Rios as a possible high-lev guy but didn't pursue it much.
Andriese was coming off of a great September, and had a great month for us before re-pumpkinizing. We may never know what happened there.
I suspect that the failures are guys who turn out to be relatively uncoachable. It's hard to tell that before a trade or signing.
I don't think that Marwin was a project, just a guy whose versatility they thought they needed, and then had a bad year at the plate. Santana was a guy they took a flyer on because they could.
It's such a substantial body of work with a high enough success rate that I see no argument against not finding more of these guys on a regular basis. You just might not have a lot of needs. But in most years you'll have one or even two bench spots to fill with an upside project. For next year, there's room for a LHH 1B who can play OF or 3B, which is to say, someone better than Shaw. And there's always room for a couple of pitchers.
Sounds like Schwarber to me even if he isn't going to come cheap.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 18, 2021 12:00:24 GMT -5
I bring up Ben Cherington because he's the last GM to do a rebuild and the parallels to Bloom are very similar. Talented team with a bloated payroll, GM makes some good moves that work out perfectly for the most part. Yet that also was his downfall. He tries the same thing the next year and it's bad. He's then forced to spend by ownership, which just creates even more problems. Yet doesn't want to give out mega deals You won't find a Hernandez and Renfroe every year. It's Baseball, players have up and down years. It's not coaching, it's just Baseball. The Ray's are crazy impressive, yet they have never won a championship. The Dodgers were crazy impressive for years, yet they didn't win till they went all in. I'm a big believer in our ownerships model of go all in and then rebuild. Just look at the results. It's like acting like the Yankees when they were the Yankees, yet in spurts so you don't have any long downturns. You clear the books and restock the system to once again go all in. You don't try to avoid the next David Price contract, you set yourself up to make that signing. You act like the Ray's in stretches, then act like the old Yankees. Then do it all over again. I agree with a lot of this but how can you say coaching doesn't matter? Sure it is baseball and guys are up and down but to completely disregard coaching I don't agree with. I think Erics post hits on this, they thought they could fix some guys. It worked with some but not all, obviously. Another example, why do some teams have so much success in developing pitchers while others hardly ever do? Like TBay and the Red Sox. I never said coaching didn't matter. Looking at every move that didn't workout and saying it's just players that aren't coachable is a crazy take. It assumes the GM is perfect and it's just the players. Take Andrew Miller, you get ten players like him and you likely get one to become Miller. It's as much luck as it is coaching. Coaching can make a big difference, yet Baseball players are up and down. Some guys suck for years till the light just goes on and everything comes together. Good GMs can target the right players that could breakout, yet you will always get failures. You see this perfectly this year with about half of Blooms moves looking good to great and a bunch looking bad. I truly believe there's luck with pitching given the injuries. I mean look at Kopech, Espinoza, Groome, Mata and Ward having TJ surgery. Also the Ray's get extra picks, plus trade off veterans to get young pitchers. Look at there top three young starters, a late first rounder and Glasnow and Patino who they traded for. That's darn similar to Erod, Pivetta and Houck.
|
|
|
Post by saltalamacchia4mvp on Oct 18, 2021 12:46:52 GMT -5
I'd hope in the offseason Bloom doesn't go for any crazy high priced FA and just continue to add depth - let the farm system develop and see what you have and what you don't because not everyone is going to pan out. Once we have a better idea I'd be more willing to sign a long-term FA to supplement a young core.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 18, 2021 13:05:11 GMT -5
I bring up Ben Cherington because he's the last GM to do a rebuild and the parallels to Bloom are very similar. Talented team with a bloated payroll, GM makes some good moves that work out perfectly for the most part. Yet that also was his downfall. He tries the same thing the next year and it's bad. He's then forced to spend by ownership, which just creates even more problems. Yet doesn't want to give out mega deals You won't find a Hernandez and Renfroe every year. It's Baseball, players have up and down years. It's not coaching, it's just Baseball. The Ray's are crazy impressive, yet they have never won a championship. The Dodgers were crazy impressive for years, yet they didn't win till they went all in. I'm a big believer in our ownerships model of go all in and then rebuild. Just look at the results. It's like acting like the Yankees when they were the Yankees, yet in spurts so you don't have any long downturns. You clear the books and restock the system to once again go all in. You don't try to avoid the next David Price contract, you set yourself up to make that signing. You act like the Ray's in stretches, then act like the old Yankees. Then do it all over again. Or you can act like the Dodgers and win the division for 12 straight years or however long it was without going all in and without rebuilding. Just look at this year's Red Sox team to see why going all in is stupid. It guarantees nothing because anything can happen in the playoffs. This is especially true when they expand the playoffs which is probably coming in the next few years against all of my wishes. Red Sox did not go all in this year, like the Yankees or Blue Jays or White Sox and look where they all are now.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Oct 18, 2021 13:36:49 GMT -5
I agree with a lot of this but how can you say coaching doesn't matter? Sure it is baseball and guys are up and down but to completely disregard coaching I don't agree with. I think Erics post hits on this, they thought they could fix some guys. It worked with some but not all, obviously. Another example, why do some teams have so much success in developing pitchers while others hardly ever do? Like TBay and the Red Sox. I never said coaching didn't matter. Looking at every move that didn't workout and saying it's just players that aren't coachable is a crazy take. It assumes the GM is perfect and it's just the players. Take Andrew Miller, you get ten players like him and you likely get one to become Miller. It's as much luck as it is coaching. Coaching can make a big difference, yet Baseball players are up and down. Some guys suck for years till the light just goes on and everything comes together. Good GMs can target the right players that could breakout, yet you will always get failures. You see this perfectly this year with about half of Blooms moves looking good to great and a bunch looking bad. I truly believe there's luck with pitching given the injuries. I mean look at Kopech, Espinoza, Groome, Mata and Ward having TJ surgery. Also the Ray's get extra picks, plus trade off veterans to get young pitchers. Look at there top three young starters, a late first rounder and Glasnow and Patino who they traded for. That's darn similar to Erod, Pivetta and Houck. I interpreted "It isn't coaching, it is baseball" as coaching didn't matter. I think you can see my point. But yes not every guy is going to be able to be coached up.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 18, 2021 13:59:42 GMT -5
I bring up Ben Cherington because he's the last GM to do a rebuild and the parallels to Bloom are very similar. Talented team with a bloated payroll, GM makes some good moves that work out perfectly for the most part. Yet that also was his downfall. He tries the same thing the next year and it's bad. He's then forced to spend by ownership, which just creates even more problems. Yet doesn't want to give out mega deals You won't find a Hernandez and Renfroe every year. It's Baseball, players have up and down years. It's not coaching, it's just Baseball. The Ray's are crazy impressive, yet they have never won a championship. The Dodgers were crazy impressive for years, yet they didn't win till they went all in. I'm a big believer in our ownerships model of go all in and then rebuild. Just look at the results. It's like acting like the Yankees when they were the Yankees, yet in spurts so you don't have any long downturns. You clear the books and restock the system to once again go all in. You don't try to avoid the next David Price contract, you set yourself up to make that signing. You act like the Ray's in stretches, then act like the old Yankees. Then do it all over again. Or you can act like the Dodgers and win the division for 12 straight years or however long it was without going all in and without rebuilding. Just look at this year's Red Sox team to see why going all in is stupid. It guarantees nothing because anything can happen in the playoffs. This is especially true when they expand the playoffs which is probably coming in the next few years against all of my wishes. Red Sox did not go all in this year, like the Yankees or Blue Jays or White Sox and look where they all are now. Sure just like with Ben, you had enough big pieces left from the last time you did. You can't do this year after year and expect to win Championships. The Dodgers didn't win until the big all in Betts move and smartly they doubled down yet again this year. I'd much rather our approach versus the Dodgers before the Betts trade. Just look at the Ray's, Yankees and Dodgers recently, years and years of chances, the one time one of those team won was with crazy all in moves. Sure that's not the only way, yet it increases your chances. I know you'll argue against that, yet here we are again. Now we have people saying Bloom doesn't need to spend big, let ERod go, don't pay a DH 20 million, don't sign any big deals that could clug up our payroll down the line. You know because Bloom can easily find Hernandez, Renfroe and Whitlocks every year. Act like the Ray's, yet also act like the old school Yankees. I'm not upset about David Price given how he helped pitch us to a championship. I would avoid the Betts type deals, they are too long and carry way too much risk.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 18, 2021 15:14:32 GMT -5
This idea that you have to go "all in" to win the World Series is bunk. That isn't the way this sport works. This isn't basketball or football where one or two players have an outsized effect on winning percentage. The best teams in the league typically win 60ish% of the time, which is just north of a coin flip, and the way to win the World Series is to make the playoffs as often as you can (ideally by winning the division) and hope the cards fall your way in the playoffs. Bloom's stated goal is to build a sustainable contender that is in the playoff race year after year without the boom or bust cycles that have plagued recent Red Sox teams. That is presumably also ownership's goal, because they otherwise wouldn't have hired someone like Bloom. He's not going to unduly chase short-term wins over the long-term health of the franchise, and his moves at the trade deadline this year illustrate that dynamic. What does that mean in terms of actual moves? Here's my take: - Less likely to sign long-term, big-money contracts that limit future payroll flexibility
- Less likely to trade prospects for short-term upgrades that have negative net present value from a $/WAR perspective (e.g., trading big prospect packages for rentals)
- More likely to build/replenish the farm system, even if the current MLB team is competitive (e.g., you might see him trade away MLB players for prospects even while the MLB team is competitive)
- More likely to focus on value rather than need (e.g., would rather acquire cheaper, more under-the-radar players rather than just going out and signing/trading for the best available player at a position of need)
- More likely to focus on positional versatility for both position players and pitchers (e.g., wouldn't be surprised to see more swingman-type pitchers who can both add SP depth but also switch over to the bullpen as needed)
- More likely to focus on adding value on the margins through clever roster management (e.g., their use of the COVID list this year to have Houck essentially be a 27th player on the roster for a while)
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 18, 2021 15:22:40 GMT -5
That was the stated goal of Theo and Ben also, we know exactly how that turned out! I've been hearing that for 20 years now, yet we get go for it, with mini rebuilds. Our owner is the reason.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Oct 18, 2021 15:32:12 GMT -5
That was the stated goal of Theo and Ben also, we know exactly how that turned out! I've been hearing that for 20 years now, yet we get go for it, with mini rebuilds. Our owner is the reason. Was it not succeeding with Theo? Not sure your point on that. From 2003-2011 they were consistently competitive and they got a couple titles out of that approach.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 18, 2021 15:33:18 GMT -5
Red Sox wins per year during the Theo Epstein era: - 2003: 95 (lost ALCS)
- 2004: 98 (won World Series)
- 2005: 95 (lost ALDS)
- 2006: 86
- 2007: 96 (won World Series)
- 2008: 96 (lost ALCS)
- 2009: 95 (lost ALDS)
- 2010: 89
- 2011: 90
Nearly a decade averaging 93+ wins, making the playoffs six of nine years (it'd be more under the current two Wild Card system), seems like exactly what Bloom and the ownership group are aiming for.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Oct 18, 2021 15:41:37 GMT -5
Red Sox wins per year during the Theo Epstein era: - 2003: 95 (lost ALCS)
- 2004: 98 (won World Series)
- 2005: 95 (lost ALDS)
- 2006: 86
- 2007: 96 (won World Series)
- 2008: 96 (lost ALCS)
- 2009: 95 (lost ALDS)
- 2010: 89
- 2011: 90
Nearly a decade averaging 93+ wins, making the playoffs six of nine years (it'd be more under the current two Wild Card system), seems like exactly what Bloom and the ownership group are aiming for.
2016 — 93 wins, 1st in the East. 2017 — 93 wins, 1st in the East. 2018 — 108 wins, WS. 2019 — 84 wins 2020 — * 2021 — 92 wins, TBD Seems like Bloom finds himself in the middle of a similar stretch. Of course, he wasn’t fired the first time his team didn’t win the AL East!
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Oct 18, 2021 16:02:18 GMT -5
This idea that you have to go "all in" to win the World Series is bunk. That isn't the way this sport works. This isn't basketball or football where one or two players have an outsized effect on winning percentage. The best teams in the league typically win 60ish% of the time, which is just north of a coin flip, and the way to win the World Series is to make the playoffs as often as you can (ideally by winning the division) and hope the cards fall your way in the playoffs. Bloom's stated goal is to build a sustainable contender that is in the playoff race year after year without the boom or bust cycles that have plagued recent Red Sox teams. That is presumably also ownership's goal, because they otherwise wouldn't have hired someone like Bloom. He's not going to unduly chase short-term wins over the long-term health of the franchise, and his moves at the trade deadline this year illustrate that dynamic. What does that mean in terms of actual moves? Here's my take: - Less likely to sign long-term, big-money contracts that limit future payroll flexibility
- Less likely to trade prospects for short-term upgrades that have negative net present value from a $/WAR perspective (e.g., trading big prospect packages for rentals)
- More likely to build/replenish the farm system, even if the current MLB team is competitive (e.g., you might see him trade away MLB players for prospects even while the MLB team is competitive)
- More likely to focus on value rather than need (e.g., would rather acquire cheaper, more under-the-radar players rather than just going out and signing/trading for the best available player at a position of need)
- More likely to focus on positional versatility for both position players and pitchers (e.g., wouldn't be surprised to see more swingman-type pitchers who can both add SP depth but also switch over to the bullpen as needed)
- More likely to focus on adding value on the margins through clever roster management (e.g., their use of the COVID list this year to have Houck essentially be a 27th player on the roster for a while)
I'm not disagreeing with you for the most part as you are really just pointing out a lot of really smart moves that you hope work out and lead to sustained success. For me when I say go for it I am talking about going over the tax cap and building an even better team when you think the time is right and things align. That doesn't really mean breaking those rules you stated above. Take a look at the Braves of the 90's and early 2000s. The Rays of the last 13 years and the Dodgers of the last 10. One WS win for the Dodgers out of all that success and that was after going and getting Betts. Take next season for example with JD and Eovaldi scheduled to come off the books and Xander looking for a raise or opting out. It could be a year where they go out and expand the budget on guys like Schwarber who could fit in well LT and build a better overall staff. They can do that for a year or 2 and still maintain flexibility for the future. IMO it will be a combination of what you said above along with doing traditional big market team type things. And that doesn't mean going outside of the franchise and signing the best FA available but it does mean having some top of the line and highest paid players in MLB. Myself I like having someone like Sale and those guys will always be expensive and will always come with some risk. Maybe the way to do that will be trading for more high end pitching prospects rather than signing a David Price.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Oct 18, 2021 16:07:47 GMT -5
I bring up Ben Cherington because he's the last GM to do a rebuild and the parallels to Bloom are very similar. Talented team with a bloated payroll, GM makes some good moves that work out perfectly for the most part. Yet that also was his downfall. He tries the same thing the next year and it's bad. He's then forced to spend by ownership, which just creates even more problems. Yet doesn't want to give out mega deals You won't find a Hernandez and Renfroe every year. It's Baseball, players have up and down years. It's not coaching, it's just Baseball. The Ray's are crazy impressive, yet they have never won a championship. The Dodgers were crazy impressive for years, yet they didn't win till they went all in. I'm a big believer in our ownerships model of go all in and then rebuild. Just look at the results. It's like acting like the Yankees when they were the Yankees, yet in spurts so you don't have any long downturns. You clear the books and restock the system to once again go all in. You don't try to avoid the next David Price contract, you set yourself up to make that signing. You act like the Ray's in stretches, then act like the old Yankees. Then do it all over again. This is a strategy that has worked in the past (although mostly for Dombrowski led teams). The issue is when you screw up on the big contracts so badly that you're still paying David Price during the next championship push. Think about how much better the Red Sox could be if they had another $16mil invested in this team.
|
|
|
Post by saltalamacchia4mvp on Oct 18, 2021 18:03:19 GMT -5
I'd like them to approach young talent with long-term offers similar to what the Braves do (Acuna, Albies). Imagine if you offered Devers a contract for 12-16 million a year when he was 21 and had him all the way through his age 30 season? Imagine the savings the Braves have the next few years buying out those two players, it's ridiculous. Sometimes when you put these contracts on the table for inexperienced talent they accept given the security it brings.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Oct 18, 2021 20:20:15 GMT -5
I'd like them to approach young talent with long-term offers similar to what the Braves do (Acuna, Albies). Imagine if you offered Devers a contract for 12-16 million a year when he was 21 and had him all the way through his age 30 season? Imagine the savings the Braves have the next few years buying out those two players, it's ridiculous. Sometimes when you put these contracts on the table for inexperienced talent they accept given the security it brings. That would be nice and I hope/wish they can get some guys coming up signed to deals like that but the agents for those two guys should be questioned very much as they both signed what I consider ridiculous deals for their talent level and productivity. Those two were putting up great numbers already and signed long term for a percentage of what they're worth.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Oct 19, 2021 10:30:23 GMT -5
Those contracts don't exist in a vacuum. Albies and Acuña will be peaking years from now and likely watching lesser talents making 2 to 3 times more. That can lead to the sort of bitterness that doesn't exactly help team building.
Acuña for example is already worth over twice as much as he's being paid. That disparity will only be greater five years from now with the paycheck worth even less. The narrative only works for the Braves if you assume players stay uninformed about their situation. They don't.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 19, 2021 12:15:19 GMT -5
I bring up Ben Cherington because he's the last GM to do a rebuild and the parallels to Bloom are very similar. Talented team with a bloated payroll, GM makes some good moves that work out perfectly for the most part. Yet that also was his downfall. He tries the same thing the next year and it's bad. He's then forced to spend by ownership, which just creates even more problems. Yet doesn't want to give out mega deals You won't find a Hernandez and Renfroe every year. It's Baseball, players have up and down years. It's not coaching, it's just Baseball. The Ray's are crazy impressive, yet they have never won a championship. The Dodgers were crazy impressive for years, yet they didn't win till they went all in. I'm a big believer in our ownerships model of go all in and then rebuild. Just look at the results. It's like acting like the Yankees when they were the Yankees, yet in spurts so you don't have any long downturns. You clear the books and restock the system to once again go all in. You don't try to avoid the next David Price contract, you set yourself up to make that signing. You act like the Ray's in stretches, then act like the old Yankees. Then do it all over again. This is a strategy that has worked in the past (although mostly for Dombrowski led teams). The issue is when you screw up on the big contracts so badly that you're still paying David Price during the next championship push. Think about how much better the Red Sox could be if they had another $16mil invested in this team. Our GM is on record saying ownership would have allowed him to go over the luxury tax line. There is no issue with money and the Red Sox, just go look at payroll versus revenue, it's been trending down for years. That's why you shouldn't be scared, we aren't the Ray's were a bad contract kills us. Yet I would stay away from stupid Betts type deals. Go look at our history, we don't win all these Championships without big signings and big trades. Which so many people seem to be against now. Signing Manny, trading for Pedro and signing him, trading for Schilling, trading for Beckett and Lowell, signing Dice K, signing Lackey, signing Eovaldi, Bogaerts and Martinez. So many things have changed over the years. There is no two picks for QOs that Theo took advantage of for years, there is no just spending more in the draft or international market. You can't just go buy a Moncada anymore. So spending on free agents is our big advantage that's left. If your goal is not never sign a contract that might age poorly, you aren't using the Red Sox resources correctly. I'll sign the next Price tomorrow and be darn happy even if the contract goes bad as long as he plays a big part in a championship. The flip side being what no dead money, yet no Championship?
|
|
|
Post by nuttyredsox on Oct 19, 2021 12:38:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Oct 19, 2021 12:56:04 GMT -5
Those defensive metrics in center-field are outstanding, punching the ticket for the eye-test which he's been acing for a while.
|
|
|