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 Trade Hunter Renfroe to the Brewers
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 7, 2021 16:11:57 GMT -5
It's not that he's perfect, it's that he's not a f'ing idiot to run out of budget money when trading for JBJ. He knows his budget. If you can agree with that simple point, we can just end this nonsense. If you don't agree, then you think Bloom might not have realized that he could run out of money and didn't have an actual calculated offseason plan? Do you really think he just made the trade in a vacuum without thinking about his overall budget? Cordero was one of many options that Bloom acquired. He wasn't the only option. He throws many things against the wall to see what sticks. A lot of them do not work out by design. That's the only way you find diamonds in the rough. This may be a good strategy overall, but it is not without its cost. Franchy, Marwin, Santana, Chavis, and Duran were worth about -2.4 WAR before the team settled on alternatives. That's a really big pile of slippery spaghetti. Problems with the above: - Why just those five? Kiké and Renfroe were worth 5.9 fWAR. Nice al dente spaghetti there. - Christian Arroyo, 1.2 fWAR. - Those five guys combined for about one regular's amount of plate appearances and between them probably made like $6M, and when none of them worked out, they went and got Schwarber which basically fixed that hole. None of them were factors after Schwarber was activated. - If you're including Duran and Chavis, who he didn't bring in, why are you ignoring all of the other guys he inherited who worked out? Dalbec for example? If you say "spaghetti against the wall doesn't work - look at these guys who didn't play well!" and ignore the ones who do, yeah, it's going to look like it didn't work. Would it be better if it was just Pablo Sandoval providing the negative WAR? Eduardo Nunez, Steve Pearce, and Sam Travis (-2.8 combined fWAR in 2019)? You're not describing a failure of the strategy. Nunez, Pearce, and Travis were all allowed to accumulate at least -0.9 fWAR in 2019 because Dombrowski didn't build any depth. Cordero had the worst number on the 2021 Red Sox at -0.8, and that was only after he got that second shot because he was raking in AAA. Honestly, given the COVID situation they had, it's stunning that the five guys you listed were the only below-replacement contributors who got any significant playing time. In 2019 they had 7 hitters with negative fWAR. Same in 2017 (2018 they had just 3 and they were all quite low... and that's why that team literally might've been the best ever...). The point isn't that Bloom is a genius. The point is that there is more than one way to build a roster. This is one we're not used to.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 7, 2021 16:50:38 GMT -5
Who are you arguing against? Who said he didn't have a plan or would run out of budget money? My argument is there was better ways to spend it given the return they got. Like paying ERod versus Wacha, Paxton and Hill. I see Bradley as a guy that cost around 3 million, heck maybe even less if on the open market. We are paying him 9.5 million, 12 million luxury tax hit and 8 million buyout next year. For a guy people say will be a good 4th OF. That's more money than any of the Starters we got to replace ERod. I'm sure he has a plan and knows his budget, I think he could have spent that amount of money in a more efficient way. Rather simple no? Bradley's luxury tax hit is more than Renfroe and Hernandez from last year, heck the total is about equal to Renfroe last year and Hernandez for two years. Now you can certainly think he has enough money left to fill every other need and if he does I will say you're 100% right. I don't see it, I don't see him replacing ERod, getting a Renfroe upgrade, adding the bullpen pieces we need, filling out the bench and being able to sign a good deal if one arises at 2B and 1B for great depth. Why would he waste money if he needs more money to fill holes? How many roster spots do you think they have? He loved Alex Binelas and traded today's money for hopefully a good long-term return. Yet he didn't get enough value given all the money. If he got two prospects like Binelas, who I like I wouldn't have said a thing. We had plenty of roster spots before he signed 3 so so pitchers and took on Bradley.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 7, 2021 17:07:05 GMT -5
Why would he waste money if he needs more money to fill holes? How many roster spots do you think they have? He loved Alex Binelas and traded today's money for hopefully a good long-term return. Yet he didn't get enough value given all the money. If he got two prospects like Binelas, who I like I wouldn't have said a thing. We had plenty of roster spots before he signed 3 so so pitchers and took on Bradley. So if they'd gotten another top 25-ish type prospect in the deal, you'd have been ok with it?
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Dec 7, 2021 17:08:33 GMT -5
This may be a good strategy overall, but it is not without its cost. Franchy, Marwin, Santana, Chavis, and Duran were worth about -2.4 WAR before the team settled on alternatives. That's a really big pile of slippery spaghetti. Problems with the above: - Why just those five? Kiké and Renfroe were worth 5.9 fWAR. Nice al dente spaghetti there. - Christian Arroyo, 1.2 fWAR. - Those five guys combined for about one regular's amount of plate appearances and between them probably made like $6M, and when none of them worked out, they went and got Schwarber which basically fixed that hole. None of them were factors after Schwarber was activated. - If you're including Duran and Chavis, who he didn't bring in, why are you ignoring all of the other guys he inherited who worked out? Dalbec for example? If you say "spaghetti against the wall doesn't work - look at these guys who didn't play well!" and ignore the ones who do, yeah, it's going to look like it didn't work. Would it be better if it was just Pablo Sandoval providing the negative WAR? Eduardo Nunez, Steve Pearce, and Sam Travis (-2.8 combined fWAR in 2019)? You're not describing a failure of the strategy. Nunez, Pearce, and Travis were all allowed to accumulate at least -0.9 fWAR in 2019 because Dombrowski didn't build any depth. Cordero had the worst number on the 2021 Red Sox at -0.8, and that was only after he got that second shot because he was raking in AAA. Honestly, given the COVID situation they had, it's stunning that the five guys you listed were the only below-replacement contributors who got any significant playing time. In 2019 they had 7 hitters with negative fWAR. Same in 2017 (2018 they had just 3 and they were all quite low... and that's why that team literally might've been the best ever...). The point isn't that Bloom is a genius. The point is that there is more than one way to build a roster. This is one we're not used to. Ahem: I meant what I wrote literally. In fact I do like Bloom's strategy overall! But... it is not without its cost. That's all I'm saying.
But to put a finer point on it: the Red Sox got -2.8 fWAR from positional players who contributed negative WAR. For the Blue Jays it was -2.0, for the Rays it was -1.3, for the Yankees it was -2.2, for the White Sox it was -0.9, for the Astros it was -1.0. Having these not-so-dandy WAR-holes on the roster was a relative weakness for the Red Sox.
Maybe this is just a random outcome; or maybe the Red Sox' approach systematically exposes them to the risk of significant playing time going to guys who are sub-replacement level; or maybe it has that result, but also it's still worth it because it's the same result that gets them Kiké and Renfroe and lets them bide their time until Dalbec figures it out.
I think it's an interesting question. Overall I like the approach. But there may be a cost to it.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 7, 2021 17:17:18 GMT -5
Right, but my point is you're not describing a cost that's any different than what a normal team faces.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Dec 7, 2021 17:22:13 GMT -5
Right, but my point is you're not describing a cost that's any different than what a normal team faces. Okay, in that case is Bloom's strategy not any different than any other team's? It's not crazy to say that - every team kinda throws some spaghetti at the wall around the fringes of the roster. But in that case what is it about Bloom's approach in particular that "we're not used to," and that needs defending?
ADD: Let me put this a little more concretely...
A different GM - probably the typical GM - doesn't make the Benintendi trade. And that GM would have fielded an outfield with Verdugo, Beni, and Kiké, and, say, Marwin as the fourth outfielder. They'd have the negative WAR from Marwin (not every move works out for the typical GM!), but they wouldn't have PAs going to Franchy or Santana. Bloom took a higher-risk strategy in a clever move to build up prospect depth - which may, indeed, pay off as soon as next season with Winckowski.
People - including myself! - sometimes say the team exchanged Beni for Renfroe, which was kind of a wash, or a slight upgrade, but really it's more like he exchanged Beni for Renfroe and Franchy, which was a net negative. Arguably he's done a similar thing again by trading Renfroe for JBJ (might bounce back, but also high WAR-hole potential!) plus prospects.
As a commenter on the website soxprospects dot com, I like Bloom's approach, because he cares about building up prospect depth, and in the long run I think that's good for the team. But I do think it's possible that it increases the likelihood of opening up these WAR-holes, even if he is able to change course mid-season as things shake out, by, e.g., adding a Schwarber. It's fine to do that, but the negative WAR still counts (indirectly) in the standings.
(PS. Please don't let manfred see this comment, lest he get any ideas...)
|
|
|
Post by borisman on Dec 7, 2021 17:45:16 GMT -5
I may have missed this earlier but is there an ETA on when Binelas/Hamilton will slot into the rankings? Will they just be included in the spring update, under the assumption there is spring training (large assumption, I know)? See Chris’ post above from yesterday. He said they’ll update rankings soon. Both prospects top 30 at least.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 7, 2021 18:00:41 GMT -5
I may have missed this earlier but is there an ETA on when Binelas/Hamilton will slot into the rankings? Will they just be included in the spring update, under the assumption there is spring training (large assumption, I know)? See Chris’ post above from yesterday. He said they’ll update rankings soon. Both prospects top 30 at least. We know where they're going, but it's a matter of doing the physical update.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Dec 7, 2021 19:30:41 GMT -5
Why would he waste money if he needs more money to fill holes? How many roster spots do you think they have? He loved Alex Binelas and traded today's money for hopefully a good long-term return. Yet he didn't get enough value given all the money. If he got two prospects like Binelas, who I like I wouldn't have said a thing. We had plenty of roster spots before he signed 3 so so pitchers and took on Bradley. Bradley didn't take an additional roster spot he filled Renfroe's. You keep saying he didn't get enough value given all the money like it's a fact, but have yet to show what players JBJ's salary is preventing them from adding if, as those you are arguing against assume, they are willing to go over the luxury tax for the next couple years. The answer is it's not keeping them from getting anyone, because the difference between he and Renfroe's pay is relatively small, if they have a much higher hard line this year. If they end up sticking to the CBT line, I would agree with you that it's more concerning and I'd like the move a lot less.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Dec 7, 2021 19:36:55 GMT -5
Right, but my point is you're not describing a cost that's any different than what a normal team faces. Okay, in that case is Bloom's strategy not any different than any other team's? It's not crazy to say that - every team kinda throws some spaghetti at the wall around the fringes of the roster. But in that case what is it about Bloom's approach in particular that "we're not used to," and that needs defending?
ADD: Let me put this a little more concretely...
A different GM - probably the typical GM - doesn't make the Benintendi trade. And that GM would have fielded an outfield with Verdugo, Beni, and Kiké, and, say, Marwin as the fourth outfielder. They'd have the negative WAR from Marwin (not every move works out for the typical GM!), but they wouldn't have PAs going to Franchy or Santana. Bloom took a higher-risk strategy in a clever move to build up prospect depth - which may, indeed, pay off as soon as next season with Winckowski.
People - including myself! - sometimes say the team exchanged Beni for Renfroe, which was kind of a wash, or a slight upgrade, but really it's more like he exchanged Beni for Renfroe and Franchy, which was a net negative. Arguably he's done a similar thing again by trading Renfroe for JBJ (might bounce back, but also high WAR-hole potential!) plus prospects.
As a commenter on the website soxprospects dot com, I like Bloom's approach, because he cares about building up prospect depth, and in the long run I think that's good for the team. But I do think it's possible that it increases the likelihood of opening up these WAR-holes, even if he is able to change course mid-season as things shake out, by, e.g., adding a Schwarber. It's fine to do that, but the negative WAR still counts (indirectly) in the standings.
(PS. Please don't let manfred see this comment, lest he get any ideas...)
Just to nitpick one line here, but I actually don't think JBJ is high WAR-hole potential, not compared to the guys you mentioned. In a season with a 35 wRC+ where he got 428 PAs he was at -0.8 fWAR, Franchy was that negative in 1/4 the PAs. Assuming the plan isn't for Jackie to start all year, it'll be almost impossible for him to rack up negative WAR to the extent those guys did because of his superlative defense. I also find it incredibly unlikely his wRC+ will be that bad again, especially if they are picking his spots more strategically as we expect.
|
|
|
Post by baseball3 on Dec 7, 2021 21:24:53 GMT -5
He loved Alex Binelas and traded today's money for hopefully a good long-term return. Yet he didn't get enough value given all the money. If he got two prospects like Binelas, who I like I wouldn't have said a thing. We had plenty of roster spots before he signed 3 so so pitchers and took on Bradley. Bradley didn't take an additional roster spot he filled Renfroe's. You keep saying he didn't get enough value given all the money like it's a fact, but have yet to show what players JBJ's salary is preventing them from adding if, as those you are arguing against assume, they are willing to go over the luxury tax for the next couple years. The answer is it's not keeping them from getting anyone, because the difference between he and Renfroe's pay is relatively small, if they have a much higher hard line this year. If they end up sticking to the CBT line, I would agree with you that it's more concerning and I'd like the move a lot less. It doesn't affect the Sox so much next year, in 2023 it could be a problem. JBJ will be what? 33? He'll be making close to 10 million on the player option, unless some miracle happens and he opts out. The only kind of upside with the player option is that JBJ gives the Sox insurance when Kiké becomes a free agent. The 2023 player option salary is where Bloom overpaid in the deal.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 8, 2021 1:53:23 GMT -5
He loved Alex Binelas and traded today's money for hopefully a good long-term return. Yet he didn't get enough value given all the money. If he got two prospects like Binelas, who I like I wouldn't have said a thing. We had plenty of roster spots before he signed 3 so so pitchers and took on Bradley. So if they'd gotten another top 25-ish type prospect in the deal, you'd have been ok with it? No, not going by MLB.com. I'd want another grade 45 type guy, not grade 40.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 8, 2021 2:08:11 GMT -5
He loved Alex Binelas and traded today's money for hopefully a good long-term return. Yet he didn't get enough value given all the money. If he got two prospects like Binelas, who I like I wouldn't have said a thing. We had plenty of roster spots before he signed 3 so so pitchers and took on Bradley. Bradley didn't take an additional roster spot he filled Renfroe's. You keep saying he didn't get enough value given all the money like it's a fact, but have yet to show what players JBJ's salary is preventing them from adding if, as those you are arguing against assume, they are willing to go over the luxury tax for the next couple years. The answer is it's not keeping them from getting anyone, because the difference between he and Renfroe's pay is relatively small, if they have a much higher hard line this year. If they end up sticking to the CBT line, I would agree with you that it's more concerning and I'd like the move a lot less. So you have him starting? If not, he's not taking Renfroes spot. I've listed what I'd want to see them address.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Dec 8, 2021 9:41:08 GMT -5
Bradley didn't take an additional roster spot he filled Renfroe's. You keep saying he didn't get enough value given all the money like it's a fact, but have yet to show what players JBJ's salary is preventing them from adding if, as those you are arguing against assume, they are willing to go over the luxury tax for the next couple years. The answer is it's not keeping them from getting anyone, because the difference between he and Renfroe's pay is relatively small, if they have a much higher hard line this year. If they end up sticking to the CBT line, I would agree with you that it's more concerning and I'd like the move a lot less. So you have him starting? If not, he's not taking Renfroes spot. I've listed what I'd want to see them address. No, but he's taking one outfielder spot, if they had Renfroe and signed a fourth OF they'd still need to add one more OF. And JBJ vs. Renfroe is not preventing them from addressing any of those issues is the point you keep ignoring, unless they are sticking to the CBT line which everyone you are debating has already agreed on so I don't get what your point is.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Dec 8, 2021 9:45:28 GMT -5
Bradley didn't take an additional roster spot he filled Renfroe's. You keep saying he didn't get enough value given all the money like it's a fact, but have yet to show what players JBJ's salary is preventing them from adding if, as those you are arguing against assume, they are willing to go over the luxury tax for the next couple years. The answer is it's not keeping them from getting anyone, because the difference between he and Renfroe's pay is relatively small, if they have a much higher hard line this year. If they end up sticking to the CBT line, I would agree with you that it's more concerning and I'd like the move a lot less. It doesn't affect the Sox so much next year, in 2023 it could be a problem. JBJ will be what? 33? He'll be making close to 10 million on the player option, unless some miracle happens and he opts out. The only kind of upside with the player option is that JBJ gives the Sox insurance when Kiké becomes a free agent. The 2023 player option salary is where Bloom overpaid in the deal. I agree that it's unlikely that JBJ's salary in 2023 looks good, however (CBA changes notwithstanding) if they go over this year it won't be a big deal next year either, and it's likely that Renfroe's salary would have been higher than that number next year. It's also not the worst thing in the world, if his bat rebounds at all this year and he's back to a 1-2 win guy $10M is a slight overpay but it's not a killer, and it's one they could move if they needed. Obviously if he doesn't rebound it's a nuisance, but my argument is they are likely going over the CBA this year, which under current rules means they probably would go over next year, and the difference in that JBJ salary and any other 4th OF isn't enough that it'd stop them from building the team the way they want.
|
|
|
Post by brendan98 on Dec 8, 2021 10:22:15 GMT -5
It is kind of amazing that there is so much controversy over trading a player (Renfroe) who most if not everyone who is commenting here probably didn't want to be our starting RF next year. The bottom line is, Bloom obviously values what JBJ brings to the team + the prospects he received in return more than what he thinks Renfroe would bring to the team - the additional money on JBJ's deal. In addition to this one of a few things is going to happen after the lockout: 1) Bloom will stand pat with what he has as position players, if he believes that some combination of Verdugo, JBJ, Kiki, Duran, Franchy and the possibility of getting Dalbec outfield reps at some point when/if Casas forces his way on the roster is good enough offensively. 2) Bloom will make some incremental additions (similar to what he did with Kiki, Renfroe, Marwin, Santana, Franchy last year) and hope he finds a solid or better solution to RF. 3) Bloom will add an impact player, whether it be in the outfield or infield who will instantly replace the perceived offense lost trading Renfroe for JBJ. (Schwarber, Suzuki, Story, Correa...) Pretty sure most people here will be unsatisfied with Option #1, I think that it could possibly work (especially if Casas mashes in spring training and AAA from the get go) but still a pretty big gamble all around, you have 2 outfielders you can be sure of (Kiki and Verdugo) but JBJ, Duran, Franchy, and Dalbec would be huge question marks as the 3rd or even 4th outfielders. Option #2 seems like the way Bloom will go based upon his limited track record, it is more difficult to guess who might be a possibility as the "spaghetti to stick to the wall" so there is obviously a wide range of outcomes, I think this option would be met with only a little more enthusiasm than option #1, but would at least add to the number of possible candidates to compete for the open OF spot. Strangely, even if option #3 is the way Bloom ultimately proceeds, I think a certain percentage of folks posting here will still be unsatisfied with this trade and probably would only change their mind somewhere down the line if Binelas and/or Hamilton prove to be significantly more valuable than Renfroe, and even then maybe not.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,419
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Dec 8, 2021 10:31:07 GMT -5
The more I think of it, the more I’m curious to see what comes next. Bloom has made tons of moves in his tenure, but he has only made one really major trade, the Betts trade. He’s only extended one player (Barnes, unless I’m forgetting someone), and he’s signed no big free agents. None of that is a criticism… he hasn’t been around *that* long. But until some of those things happen, it is hard to tell fully how he operates.
My point is, there is nothing to measure how he’ll fill RF/the lineup hole. Sign Correa? Trade? Thus far unprecedented. Doesn’t mean he won’t, but I feel like the rest of the off-season (if it gets back to normal) will tell us a good deal more about the strategy for the next few years. And in the background are X and Devers… to extend or not.
|
|
|
Post by greenmonster on Dec 8, 2021 12:10:50 GMT -5
If anyone is interested......Binelas (18th) and Hamilton (26th) have been added to the Sox Prospect rankings.
|
|
ematz1423
Veteran
Posts: 5,385
Member is Online
|
Post by ematz1423 on Dec 8, 2021 12:18:11 GMT -5
If anyone is interested......Binelas (18th) and Hamilton (26th) have been added to the Sox Prospect rankings. I'll be very interested to follow binelas this season. He has a solid pedigree and as some have stated at one point in the 2021 draft rankings was listed in the top 10 of some sites. He struggled with an injury his college season and fell but then mashed in his short time in the minors this year. If he shows that was no fluke he will likely be a very fast riser.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Dec 8, 2021 12:21:11 GMT -5
This may be a good strategy overall, but it is not without its cost. Franchy, Marwin, Santana, Chavis, and Duran were worth about -2.4 WAR before the team settled on alternatives. That's a really big pile of slippery spaghetti. If you say "spaghetti against the wall doesn't work - look at these guys who didn't play well!" and ignore the ones who do, yeah, it's going to look like it didn't work. Would it be better if it was just Pablo Sandoval providing the negative WAR? Eduardo Nunez, Steve Pearce, and Sam Travis (-2.8 combined fWAR in 2019)? I think this part of the strategy is what a lot of people here struggle with most. The "spaghetti on the wall" strategy implies that many of the options will fail but as long as there are one or two hits it makes the collective output palatable because the cost is so low. Bloom did the same thing with the dozen or so bullpen arm lottery tickets he signed and I'd say that worked out okay in the aggregate as well. The problem is that some people can't separate the Franchys or Marwins of the world from the bigger picture strategy taking place, so you get the complaints about the swings and misses even though the net outcome is positive.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Dec 8, 2021 12:24:17 GMT -5
If you say "spaghetti against the wall doesn't work - look at these guys who didn't play well!" and ignore the ones who do, yeah, it's going to look like it didn't work. Would it be better if it was just Pablo Sandoval providing the negative WAR? Eduardo Nunez, Steve Pearce, and Sam Travis (-2.8 combined fWAR in 2019)? I think this part of the strategy is what a lot of people here struggle with most. The "spaghetti on the wall" strategy implies that many of the options will fail but as long as there are one or two hits it makes the collective output palatable because the cost is so low. Bloom did the same thing with the dozen or so bullpen arm lottery tickets he signed and I'd say that worked out okay in the aggregate as well. The problem is that some people can't separate the Franchys or Marwins of the world from the bigger picture strategy taking place, so you get the complaints about the swings and misses even though the net outcome is positive. Indeed, this may be a good strategy overall!
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 8, 2021 12:27:41 GMT -5
I think this part of the strategy is what a lot of people here struggle with most. The "spaghetti on the wall" strategy implies that many of the options will fail but as long as there are one or two hits it makes the collective output palatable because the cost is so low. Bloom did the same thing with the dozen or so bullpen arm lottery tickets he signed and I'd say that worked out okay in the aggregate as well. The problem is that some people can't separate the Franchys or Marwins of the world from the bigger picture strategy taking place, so you get the complaints about the swings and misses even though the net outcome is positive. Indeed, this may be a good strategy overall! Just think about how they could have taken $183 million that they spent on Hanley and Pablo and spread that out to 18 players. I bet they could have gotten better production, even if 16 of them didn't work out. Obviously, there are opportunity costs in playing time and roster spots, but the point remains.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 8, 2021 13:56:14 GMT -5
So you have him starting? If not, he's not taking Renfroes spot. I've listed what I'd want to see them address. No, but he's taking one outfielder spot, if they had Renfroe and signed a fourth OF they'd still need to add one more OF. And JBJ vs. Renfroe is not preventing them from addressing any of those issues is the point you keep ignoring, unless they are sticking to the CBT line which everyone you are debating has already agreed on so I don't get what your point is. What is Blooms budget? You keep saying because they are likely willing to go past a certain point that money isn't an issue. There's a massive difference in that Bloom can spend to 220 million, 240 million or whatever he wants. There is a zero chance he has an unlimited budget. Look at our history, we've never pulled a Dodgers and gone a 100 million over. If he has an unlimited budget I'd agree with you, at that point it would just be opportunity cost with Bradley. So you have to put a number out there or you just keep ignoring my point. I don't see them going past 240 million for example, the floated new luxury tax line by the players. Now look at where they are, leave money for deadline deals and that's where I'm coming from. Say they can afford guys they are linked to like Story and Suzuki, that's looking tough yet might be able to be done. Yet it's not leaving any money to actually replace ERod or add a big time reliever, nevermind the two relievers I'd like to add.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Dec 8, 2021 14:11:51 GMT -5
No, but he's taking one outfielder spot, if they had Renfroe and signed a fourth OF they'd still need to add one more OF. And JBJ vs. Renfroe is not preventing them from addressing any of those issues is the point you keep ignoring, unless they are sticking to the CBT line which everyone you are debating has already agreed on so I don't get what your point is. What is Blooms budget? You keep saying because they are likely willing to go past a certain point that money isn't an issue. There's a massive difference in that Bloom can spend to 220 million, 240 million or whatever he wants. There is a zero chance he has an unlimited budget. Look at our history, we've never pulled a Dodgers and gone a 100 million over. If he has an unlimited budget I'd agree with you, at that point it would just be opportunity cost with Bradley. So you have to put a number out there or you just keep ignoring my point. I don't see them going past 240 million for example, the floated new luxury tax line by the players. Now look at where they are, leave money for deadline deals and that's where I'm coming from. Say they can afford guys they are linked to like Story and Suzuki, that's looking tough yet might be able to be done. Yet it's not leaving any money to actually replace ERod or add a big time reliever, nevermind the two relievers I'd like to add. The point is that this year's budget is not a limiting factor. They didn't sign Eduardo to a 5-year deal because of the length of the contract, not the dollar amount that it would cost them this season (as evidenced by the fact that they offered him a QO). (I mean, I suppose a 1/50 deal or something would've gotten it done with Eduardo, but I'm speaking within the bounds of reason.) Likewise, the limiting factor for whoever they might still sign - Schwarber, say - is going to be the cost over some number of years, not just this year. That's why paying for JBJ for just this year (and possibly next*) is literally not going to stop them from signing anyone else.
(*still haven't wrapped my head around the option clauses, but whatever, the point stands either way; it's a short-term commitment)
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,689
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 8, 2021 14:15:01 GMT -5
What is Blooms budget? You keep saying because they are likely willing to go past a certain point that money isn't an issue. There's a massive difference in that Bloom can spend to 220 million, 240 million or whatever he wants. There is a zero chance he has an unlimited budget. Look at our history, we've never pulled a Dodgers and gone a 100 million over. If he has an unlimited budget I'd agree with you, at that point it would just be opportunity cost with Bradley. So you have to put a number out there or you just keep ignoring my point. I don't see them going past 240 million for example, the floated new luxury tax line by the players. Now look at where they are, leave money for deadline deals and that's where I'm coming from. Say they can afford guys they are linked to like Story and Suzuki, that's looking tough yet might be able to be done. Yet it's not leaving any money to actually replace ERod or add a big time reliever, nevermind the two relievers I'd like to add. The point is that this year's budget is not a limiting factor. They didn't sign Eduardo to a 5-year deal because of the length of the contract, not the dollar amount that it would cost them this season (as evidenced by the fact that they offered him a QO). (I mean, I suppose a 1/50 deal or something would've gotten it done with Eduardo, but I'm speaking within the bounds of reason.) Likewise, the limiting factor for whoever they might still sign - Schwarber, say - is going to be the cost over some number of years, not just this year. That's why paying for JBJ for just this year (and possibly next*) is literally not going to stop them from signing anyone else. (*still haven't wrapped my head around the option clauses, but whatever, the point stands either way; it's a short-term commitment)
I think it's that if the Red Sox don't want JBJ around for 2023 they have to pay $8 million to cut ties with him but if they want to keep him around for 2023 then it'll cost them $12 million. I think that's what it is?
|
|
|