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 jimed14 on Dec 12, 2021 14:56:48 GMT -5
What notstarboard said. I'll just add two points. First, Renfroe's xwOBAs since 2017 have gone: .299, .322, .312, .296, .353. Maybe he suddenly figured something out in 2021 at age 29; or maybe it was a career high he's unlikely to match again. I'm sure the Red Sox have a better sense than we do as to which it is, and, well... they traded him. Second, re: prospects, Bloom does seem willing to trade a dime for two nickels, a la the Lee for Winckoski/Valdez trade. But what's the basis for considering that lesser value? Two nickels is worth the same as a dime. If he's calculated that you have better chances of developing major league talent by spreading your chips around the table rather than betting big on a few squares, you have to do more than say "but he passed on the higher-ranked prospect to add two lower-ranked ones." Right - that was his strategy! What's your evidence that it's not a good strategy? Would you trade a 70 prospect for 2 35s and a 20? It is profit. That is not how prospects work and that is not what incandenza was talking about. A 70 prospect is worth more than all of the 35 prospects in baseball.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Dec 12, 2021 15:05:02 GMT -5
Would you trade a 70 prospect for 2 35s and a 20? It is profit. That is not how prospects work and that is not what incandenza was talking about. A 70 prospect is worth more than all of the 35 prospects in baseball. Isn’t that the point? A dime for two nickels? A high ranking prospect for more lower guys? That’s the Lee trade, certainly. I think some of us view accumulating lower ranked guys as an overrated approach. Take Potts. They get him, and he’s a top-20 guy for us. Now? 50s? So his acquisition is approaching valueless: he will likely not make it here, nor have we turned him around.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 12, 2021 15:49:32 GMT -5
That is not how prospects work and that is not what incandenza was talking about. A 70 prospect is worth more than all of the 35 prospects in baseball. Isn’t that the point? A dime for two nickels? A high ranking prospect for more lower guys? That’s the Lee trade, certainly. I think some of us view accumulating lower ranked guys as an overrated approach. Take Potts. They get him, and he’s a top-20 guy for us. Now? 50s? So his acquisition is approaching valueless: he will likely not make it here, nor have we turned him around. No, that's not the point. It's more like 2 40s is worth a 45. And besides, there is so much dissent between different scouts and different sources that could be made at different times and/or may just be a consensus that the difference between a 40 and 45 can either be huge or it can be nothing or reversed. A report could be based on a single game, where a prospect may be in a slump or on fire or slightly injured, and could be ranked completely differently a week later. I'm not sure why people are just looking at what prospects are ranked and using that as an absolute to judge trades. If you asked 100 scouts to rank 100 players, you'd get 100 completely different rankings. So there really isn't much point in putting firm judgements on these trades. You can tell approximately what is given up, but you don't have a concrete answer and never will.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Dec 12, 2021 15:54:34 GMT -5
What notstarboard said. I'll just add two points. First, Renfroe's xwOBAs since 2017 have gone: .299, .322, .312, .296, .353. Maybe he suddenly figured something out in 2021 at age 29; or maybe it was a career high he's unlikely to match again. I'm sure the Red Sox have a better sense than we do as to which it is, and, well... they traded him. Second, re: prospects, Bloom does seem willing to trade a dime for two nickels, a la the Lee for Winckoski/Valdez trade. But what's the basis for considering that lesser value? Two nickels is worth the same as a dime. If he's calculated that you have better chances of developing major league talent by spreading your chips around the table rather than betting big on a few squares, you have to do more than say "but he passed on the higher-ranked prospect to add two lower-ranked ones." Right - that was his strategy! What's your evidence that it's not a good strategy? Would you trade a 70 prospect for 2 35s and a 20? It is profit. manfred, we're talking about Khalil Lee (a 45) for Winckowski and Valdez (a 40 and a lottery ticket). I have no idea what the heck you're talking about.
On Potts: I will grant you that that half of the mid-season return for a Mitch Moreland rental has not panned out. What that is supposed to prove I have no idea. Meanwhile, Winckowski - one of the players actually under discussion - might help the team in Boston as soon as next season.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 12, 2021 15:57:19 GMT -5
He turned Kahil Lee into two lesser prospects. I don't know that I wouldn't take Winckowski over Lee heads-up right now, never mind with Valdez. Lee had an insane OBP but through September 4, he was hitting .234/.418/.414 before absolutely bonkers to end the year. Winckowski actually has a higher grade now on BA (50 medium vs. 45 medium). We don't necessarily agree with that but the point is you're making last season's argument after a full season has proven Bloom to have probably been right. At the very least, I don't think you can say in any definitive way that he "turned Khalil Lee into two lesser prospects" when Winckowski is at least on a tier with Lee at this point. So yeah, that's where the trust comes from.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Dec 12, 2021 15:59:50 GMT -5
Isn’t that the point? A dime for two nickels? A high ranking prospect for more lower guys? That’s the Lee trade, certainly. I think some of us view accumulating lower ranked guys as an overrated approach. Take Potts. They get him, and he’s a top-20 guy for us. Now? 50s? So his acquisition is approaching valueless: he will likely not make it here, nor have we turned him around. No, that's not the point. It's more like 2 40s is worth a 45. And besides, there is so much dissent between different scouts and different sources that could be made at different times and/or may just be a consensus that the difference between a 40 and 45 can either be huge or it can be nothing or reversed. A report could be based on a single game, where a prospect may be in a slump or on fire or slightly injured, and could be ranked completely differently a week later. I'm not sure why people are just looking at what prospects are ranked and using that as an absolute to judge trades. If you asked 100 scouts to rank 100 players, you'd get 100 completely different rankings. So there really isn't much point in putting firm judgements on these trades. You can tell approximately what is given up, but you don't have a concrete answer and never will. That’s fine, but when does that happen? Who would trade 2 guys for one guy who is almost indiscernibly better? Obviously that is a good trade. But that is not the same as saying we’ll trade a major leaguer for 3 40s instead of looking to get 1 55. The bunch that came for Beni looks about likely to yield one depth arm out of a bunch of guys. Where is Hudson Potts? Wallace? We’ll see about the new guys. The point to me is accumulating long shots is a pretty good road to ending with little. I’ll sing a different song if we start packaging these guys for major league talent before their bubbles burst. Then they have value for sure.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Dec 12, 2021 16:03:51 GMT -5
No, that's not the point. It's more like 2 40s is worth a 45. And besides, there is so much dissent between different scouts and different sources that could be made at different times and/or may just be a consensus that the difference between a 40 and 45 can either be huge or it can be nothing or reversed. A report could be based on a single game, where a prospect may be in a slump or on fire or slightly injured, and could be ranked completely differently a week later. I'm not sure why people are just looking at what prospects are ranked and using that as an absolute to judge trades. If you asked 100 scouts to rank 100 players, you'd get 100 completely different rankings. So there really isn't much point in putting firm judgements on these trades. You can tell approximately what is given up, but you don't have a concrete answer and never will. That’s fine, but when does that happen? Who would trade 2 guys for one guy who is almost indiscernibly better? Obviously that is a good trade. But that is not the same as saying we’ll trade a major leaguer for 3 40s instead of looking to get 1 55. The bunch that came for Beni looks about likely to yield one depth arm out of a bunch of guys. Where is Hudson Potts? Wallace? We’ll see about the new guys. The point to me is accumulating long shots is a pretty good road to ending with little. I’ll sing a different song if we start packaging these guys for major league talent before their bubbles burst. Then they have value for sure. Who do you think is saying this? Who is the 55 prospect they were going to get for Renfroe? Or for, my lord, Mitch Moreland? I really don't get where you're coming from in these comments.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 12, 2021 16:04:51 GMT -5
Is it really inconceivable to think it's possible that the Red Sox either like Wickowski more and/or Lee less than whatever ranking one is looking at? It's not like these ratings are chiseled in stone and there is 100% consensus.
I mean if we're going to judge every trade based on consensus rankings, we don't even need a GM.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 12, 2021 16:06:11 GMT -5
Ultimately I don't think the Lee for Winckowski and Valdez amounts to much either way.
Lee has a great eye at the plate and good speed, but it's an open question if he'll hit enough.
My guess is as a corner OF he might speak at 2nd division regular?
Winckowski is probably a swingman/reliever. Maybe he's a backend starter? Maybe an ok middle inning reliever? Valdez is a lottery ticket, one with power and little else so I don't expect much from him.
I don't think the trade is make or break either way.
As far as Rosario and Potts go, it's not like the Sox lost much in that trade. I'm not bemoaning the loss of Moreland. I think he's a good bat if the bench. The Sox might be able to use him this year off the bench perhaps but he's not the kind of guy who fetches much in a trade. Rosario and Potts are two guys that would need a lot to break right to be major leaguers. They're probably not.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Dec 12, 2021 16:11:11 GMT -5
That’s fine, but when does that happen? Who would trade 2 guys for one guy who is almost indiscernibly better? Obviously that is a good trade. But that is not the same as saying we’ll trade a major leaguer for 3 40s instead of looking to get 1 55. The bunch that came for Beni looks about likely to yield one depth arm out of a bunch of guys. Where is Hudson Potts? Wallace? We’ll see about the new guys. The point to me is accumulating long shots is a pretty good road to ending with little. I’ll sing a different song if we start packaging these guys for major league talent before their bubbles burst. Then they have value for sure. Who do you think is saying this? Who is the 55 prospect they were going to get for Renfroe? Or for, my lord, Mitch Moreland? I really don't get where you're coming from in these comments.
I did not mean those two, necessarily, though in the 2-nickels is a dime scenario, I figure maybe taking on JBJ’s salary could get one better prospect instead of two ok ones. But the point is that when you acquire long shots — like the guys for Beni or in the Renfroe deal — far more often than not they slide out of sight, like a guy *like* Potts, who went from top-20 in our system to afterthought.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 12, 2021 16:12:06 GMT -5
No, that's not the point. It's more like 2 40s is worth a 45. And besides, there is so much dissent between different scouts and different sources that could be made at different times and/or may just be a consensus that the difference between a 40 and 45 can either be huge or it can be nothing or reversed. A report could be based on a single game, where a prospect may be in a slump or on fire or slightly injured, and could be ranked completely differently a week later. I'm not sure why people are just looking at what prospects are ranked and using that as an absolute to judge trades. If you asked 100 scouts to rank 100 players, you'd get 100 completely different rankings. So there really isn't much point in putting firm judgements on these trades. You can tell approximately what is given up, but you don't have a concrete answer and never will. That’s fine, but when does that happen? Who would trade 2 guys for one guy who is almost indiscernibly better? Obviously that is a good trade. But that is not the same as saying we’ll trade a major leaguer for 3 40s instead of looking to get 1 55. The bunch that came for Beni looks about likely to yield one depth arm out of a bunch of guys. Where is Hudson Potts? Wallace? We’ll see about the new guys. The point to me is accumulating long shots is a pretty good road to ending with little. I’ll sing a different song if we start packaging these guys for major league talent before their bubbles burst. Then they have value for sure. Garrett Whitlock was a 40. I could come up with a gigantic list of very good MLB players who were not highly regarded prospects.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Dec 12, 2021 16:14:23 GMT -5
That’s fine, but when does that happen? Who would trade 2 guys for one guy who is almost indiscernibly better? Obviously that is a good trade. But that is not the same as saying we’ll trade a major leaguer for 3 40s instead of looking to get 1 55. The bunch that came for Beni looks about likely to yield one depth arm out of a bunch of guys. Where is Hudson Potts? Wallace? We’ll see about the new guys. The point to me is accumulating long shots is a pretty good road to ending with little. I’ll sing a different song if we start packaging these guys for major league talent before their bubbles burst. Then they have value for sure. Garrett Whitlock was a 40. I could come up with a gigantic list of very good MLB players who were not highly regarded prospects. No doubt. And they would make up what % of the totality of 40 prospects?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 12, 2021 16:15:44 GMT -5
Garrett Whitlock was a 40. I could come up with a gigantic list of very good MLB players who were not highly regarded prospects. No doubt. And they would make up what % of the totality of 40 prospects? Who cares? No one is giving up a 55 for Benintendi or Renfroe. Devers was a 55. Would you trade a Devers for a Benintendi who stunk and had regressed for years with only 2 years of control left? Really, I'd have preferred that they got 2 70s and an 80 for each of them.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Dec 12, 2021 16:23:33 GMT -5
Who do you think is saying this? Who is the 55 prospect they were going to get for Renfroe? Or for, my lord, Mitch Moreland? I really don't get where you're coming from in these comments.
I did not mean those two, necessarily, though in the 2-nickels is a dime scenario, I figure maybe taking on JBJ’s salary could get one better prospect instead of two ok ones. But the point is that when you acquire long shots — like the guys for Beni or in the Renfroe deal — far more often than not they slide out of sight, like a guy *like* Potts, who went from top-20 in our system to afterthought. Yes, most mid-tier prospects don't pan out. If your objection to acquiring mid-tier prospects is that most of them don't pan out, then I don't know what to tell you. But the goal in acquiring them is obviously to increase the odds that some pan out. In early 2013 Mookie Betts was ranked #58 in the system...
It seems like you're essentially making an argument against any trade in which a team acquires more than one prospect. After all, if they didn't spread the value across multiple prospects they could've just gotten one better one!
|
|
|
Post by willacky on Dec 12, 2021 16:34:49 GMT -5
No, that's not the point. It's more like 2 40s is worth a 45. And besides, there is so much dissent between different scouts and different sources that could be made at different times and/or may just be a consensus that the difference between a 40 and 45 can either be huge or it can be nothing or reversed. A report could be based on a single game, where a prospect may be in a slump or on fire or slightly injured, and could be ranked completely differently a week later. I'm not sure why people are just looking at what prospects are ranked and using that as an absolute to judge trades. If you asked 100 scouts to rank 100 players, you'd get 100 completely different rankings. So there really isn't much point in putting firm judgements on these trades. You can tell approximately what is given up, but you don't have a concrete answer and never will. That’s fine, but when does that happen? Who would trade 2 guys for one guy who is almost indiscernibly better? Obviously that is a good trade. But that is not the same as saying we’ll trade a major leaguer for 3 40s instead of looking to get 1 55. The bunch that came for Beni looks about likely to yield one depth arm out of a bunch of guys. Where is Hudson Potts? Wallace? We’ll see about the new guys. The point to me is accumulating long shots is a pretty good road to ending with little. I’ll sing a different song if we start packaging these guys for major league talent before their bubbles burst. Then they have value for sure. They drafted 2 40Fv prospects and now they are 50 and 45 (Yorke, Jordan).
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 12, 2021 17:03:27 GMT -5
The simple answers to "why would you trade a 45 for two 40s?" are:
1) When the team doesn't necessarily agree with your assessment, and/or 2) That the question oversimplifies the analysis way too much.
The former is pretty simple, but on the latter, the point is that not every 45 or 40 is made equal, etc. There's current value, future projection, risk, the player's actual profile (tools, skills), performance, injury history and risk, etc. There's a reason some prospect grading sites build some kind of risk or range value into their grades (e.g., BA's number and risk (high, medium, low, etc.), our number and then ceiling-floor range, etc.).
For example, the specific answer to "why trade Lee for Winckowski and Valdez" is simple - Bloom and the Red Sox wanted Winckowski and Valdez more. We don't know the specific reason necessarily but they were clearly lower on Lee than Scott was (and the knew so - this has been documented). They clearly liked Winckowski to take him without needing to see him first as a PTBNL (and perhaps without giving NYM a chance to see him in their system first...). With a pitcher, maybe the scout sees one thing he needs to tweak, or a pitch he could add or throw more. With a hitter, maybe there's a swing mechanic or an approach learning step that they see and think can be coached. For whatever reason, the value proposition on one end appealed to the team more.
But I'm sure the answer is never that the team is in every instance going to trade a 45 for two 40s. It depends who the players are and the holistic evaluations of all players involved. Hell, it could even be how another team values the player - the whole reason, for example, that they asked for Lee in the first place from Kansas City.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 13, 2021 8:41:45 GMT -5
And Back to the actual thread topic.
Binelas as a 3rd rd pick and what he has done when healthy is actually pretty impressive. He might end up being a 2nd division 3 outcome player but that is still a decent outcome. In fact it could be considered what Renfroe actually is. Hamilton "could" also end up being a good 2nd division utility player who makes an impact on the bases. And they could both end up being more who knows.
I just don't agree with the narrative many here push that they are not good prospects, as far as prospects go.
And plz if your going to continue to talk about JBJ's salary being eaten then subtract out Hunters salary. It is misleading to ignore that just to make your argument look better.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 13, 2021 9:52:46 GMT -5
So Bloom would never turn down a higher prospect? He turned Kahil Lee into two lesser prospects. A top ten guy, former top 100 guy on one list in 2019. Where does this trust come from? This isn't just directed at you, yet theirs a Bloom is a genius so we shouldn't question anything he does vibe on this board and I don't understand it. The parallels to Ben are rather big. No one thinks money matters because we're building a strong farm system and won't spend big. People can certainly have their opinions and I'll respect them, yet I just don't agree. The fact no one thinks money matters because we won't spend that much scares the hell out of me. Get the right free agents when you can, every free agent class isn't the same. Maybe the right deals aren't there, yet it should always be an option. The talk about Story and Suzuki actually gives me faith in Bloom, he'd be an idiot to not be in on guys like that. Renfroe's projections are rather crazy, it's a computer and it doesn't know what 2020 was. If you took that out, they would look much better. I think he’s a rather safe bet to be around 2 bwar, so that certainly has value at 7.6 million in my book. With another year of control also. No one has made the assertion that Bloom is never turning down higher prospects. Obviously Bloom will always take the most value he possibly can, and if that means taking one or more guys ranked lower on x or y ranking list, then so be it. Freddy Valdez just turned 20 last week and Josh Winckowski is major league depth for 2022 and is currently our #13 prospect. Khalil Lee played well at AAA last year but only has 18 MLB PA; he's Fangraphs' #7 prospect in NYM's system, which is weaker than ours. You can be sure that the Mets were included in the trade because the Sox were higher on Valdez and Winckowski than they were on Lee, or any other combination of players the Royals were offering up instead of Lee. If the Sox lose out on more deals like this than they win over a significant sample size, then you'd have good reason to question Bloom's talent evaluation. Prospects are so high variance that you can't just point to one trade and be like "he didn't pick up the better prospect, so he messed up", though.
I also don't know what you mean by "The fact no one thinks money matters because we won't spend that much scares the hell out of me." The Red Sox have consistently run a high payroll in recent years, even through the rebuild. It doesn't make sense to go over the luxury tax all of the time, especially in seasons where you're not expecting to be competitive. Bloom not signing any big money FAs to this point is mostly a reflection of how much money the Sox already had committed and how barren the farm was when he took over. Correct me if I'm reading your argument wrong, but Bloom not going out and overpaying for guys like Scherzer or Semien is not evidence that the Sox are now Tampa North and won't spend.
So far, the only FA contract I've seen this fall that I'm sad we didn't match is the Erod deal, and I'm not going to flame them for one non-deal because I obviously have way less information than they do. If this sort of thing happens systematically and we never pay FAs ever again, then sure, get out the pitchforks. We'll know by the end of next offseason, when an insane amount of money comes off the books, if the doubters are right. The Sox are currently 5th in the majors for luxury tax payroll, though, with ~$6-7 million of space before the 2021 LT threshold (per Spotrac). The JBJ deal also gives every indication that we will acquire more FAs and spend up over the 2021 LT threshold. No matter how you slice it, this team very much is spending. I don't think it's fair to imply that FA deals haven't been an option. I'm sure they are. If the players are signing for a lot more than you think they're worth, though, there's no reason to panic and force a signing.
---
That extra year of control on Renfroe doesn't have much value if he's a 2 WAR player at his peak. If he reprises his 2021 season in 2022 he'll probably be making what, $12-13 million in 2023 via arbitration in his age 31 season? There's not much value there, and it'd be even worse if he has a bad 2022. At that point he'd be a clear non-tender candidate. ~$7.6 million this year does have a bit of value but nothing spectacular. Provided Bloom spends over the 2021 LT threshold to fill the holes in the roster, namely RF and the bullpen, I think this trade makes a lot of sense for both sides.
You're doing what I just said, Bloom wouldn't turn down a better deal, then give excuses when according to MLB.com he did just that. Now maybe he's right and those guys turn out better. Yet don't act like you know the other offers and Bloom hasn't recently turned down a higher rated prospect. We have no clue if Bloom turned down higher rated guys or he just likes these guys more. He's like the anti DD when it comes to acquiring talent, DD goes after the best prospects he can get, Bloom seems to target guys he likes more and prefers multiples over one better player. That's not a strategy that will workout well unless Bloom is smarter than most GMs and we've yet to see that proof. The biggest free agent deal Bloom has given out is 2 years 14 million. It's not just about how much, it's how you spend it. He's actually acting just like Tampa, yet with a larger payroll mostly filled with guys he didn't sign. You talk about Renfroe being non tendered, which is certainly possible next year. Yet to get 12-13 million he'd have to have a very good year. Yet that also shows you how negative in value Bradley is at one year 17.5 million no? I'll trust Bloom when he's earned it, I don't give out blind trust.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 13, 2021 9:58:25 GMT -5
How do you guys rate the prospects we got? Assign a grade, risk level and ceiling.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Dec 13, 2021 10:09:12 GMT -5
I'll trust Bloom when he's earned it, I don't give out blind trust.[/quote]
Literally built a team that made it to within 2 games of the world series
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Dec 13, 2021 10:12:50 GMT -5
No one has made the assertion that Bloom is never turning down higher prospects. Obviously Bloom will always take the most value he possibly can, and if that means taking one or more guys ranked lower on x or y ranking list, then so be it. Freddy Valdez just turned 20 last week and Josh Winckowski is major league depth for 2022 and is currently our #13 prospect. Khalil Lee played well at AAA last year but only has 18 MLB PA; he's Fangraphs' #7 prospect in NYM's system, which is weaker than ours. You can be sure that the Mets were included in the trade because the Sox were higher on Valdez and Winckowski than they were on Lee, or any other combination of players the Royals were offering up instead of Lee. If the Sox lose out on more deals like this than they win over a significant sample size, then you'd have good reason to question Bloom's talent evaluation. Prospects are so high variance that you can't just point to one trade and be like "he didn't pick up the better prospect, so he messed up", though.
I also don't know what you mean by "The fact no one thinks money matters because we won't spend that much scares the hell out of me." The Red Sox have consistently run a high payroll in recent years, even through the rebuild. It doesn't make sense to go over the luxury tax all of the time, especially in seasons where you're not expecting to be competitive. Bloom not signing any big money FAs to this point is mostly a reflection of how much money the Sox already had committed and how barren the farm was when he took over. Correct me if I'm reading your argument wrong, but Bloom not going out and overpaying for guys like Scherzer or Semien is not evidence that the Sox are now Tampa North and won't spend.
So far, the only FA contract I've seen this fall that I'm sad we didn't match is the Erod deal, and I'm not going to flame them for one non-deal because I obviously have way less information than they do. If this sort of thing happens systematically and we never pay FAs ever again, then sure, get out the pitchforks. We'll know by the end of next offseason, when an insane amount of money comes off the books, if the doubters are right. The Sox are currently 5th in the majors for luxury tax payroll, though, with ~$6-7 million of space before the 2021 LT threshold (per Spotrac). The JBJ deal also gives every indication that we will acquire more FAs and spend up over the 2021 LT threshold. No matter how you slice it, this team very much is spending. I don't think it's fair to imply that FA deals haven't been an option. I'm sure they are. If the players are signing for a lot more than you think they're worth, though, there's no reason to panic and force a signing.
---
That extra year of control on Renfroe doesn't have much value if he's a 2 WAR player at his peak. If he reprises his 2021 season in 2022 he'll probably be making what, $12-13 million in 2023 via arbitration in his age 31 season? There's not much value there, and it'd be even worse if he has a bad 2022. At that point he'd be a clear non-tender candidate. ~$7.6 million this year does have a bit of value but nothing spectacular. Provided Bloom spends over the 2021 LT threshold to fill the holes in the roster, namely RF and the bullpen, I think this trade makes a lot of sense for both sides.
You're doing what I just said, Bloom wouldn't turn down a better deal, then give excuses when according to MLB.com he did just that. Now maybe he's right and those guys turn out better. Yet don't act like you know the other offers and Bloom hasn't recently turned down a higher rated prospect. We have no clue if Bloom turned down higher rated guys or he just likes these guys more. He's like the anti DD when it comes to acquiring talent, DD goes after the best prospects he can get, Bloom seems to target guys he likes more and prefers multiples over one better player. That's not a strategy that will workout well unless Bloom is smarter than most GMs and we've yet to see that proof. The biggest free agent deal Bloom has given out is 2 years 14 million. It's not just about how much, it's how you spend it. He's actually acting just like Tampa, yet with a larger payroll mostly filled with guys he didn't sign. You talk about Renfroe being non tendered, which is certainly possible next year. Yet to get 12-13 million he'd have to have a very good year. Yet that also shows you how negative in value Bradley is at one year 17.5 million no? I'll trust Bloom when he's earned it, I don't give out blind trust. By this do you mean DD goes with the external consensus rankings and Bloom goes with his team's internal assessment? Because if that's the case then yeah sign me up for the second approach. Also on the point that he's acting just like Tampa, I actually think this trade is a decent example of him using the increased financial might he has, it's the second time in the last two years he's bought prospects for salary (Ottavino being the other).
|
|
ematz1423
Veteran
Posts: 5,346
Member is Online
|
Post by ematz1423 on Dec 13, 2021 10:13:14 GMT -5
I'll trust Bloom when he's earned it, I don't give out blind trust. Literally built a team that made it to within 2 games of the world series [/quote] I would say in fairness did he really build the team? Most of the impact players he inherited. Obviously he brought in Hernandez, Whitlock and renfroe. I'm not knocking him but I'm also still hesitant to say he "built" a whole lot yet. Personally I've got to see what he does when he has to start putting his stamp fully on the team and it's mostly if not all players he brings in or decides to resign.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 13, 2021 10:22:23 GMT -5
I'll trust Bloom when he's earned it, I don't give out blind trust. Literally built a team that made it to within 2 games of the world series I would say in fairness did he really build the team? Most of the impact players he inherited. Obviously he brought in Hernandez, Whitlock and renfroe. I'm not knocking him but I'm also still hesitant to say he "built" a whole lot yet. Personally I've got to see what he does when he has to start putting his stamp fully on the team and it's mostly if not all players he brings in or decides to resign.[/quote] I agree. Can't say he "built" the team. Not a knock on him, but it's been like that with a lot of the good Sox teams of the past two decades because of the frequent turnover in the head of the baseball OPS dept. The argument was there in 04 when Theo did a masterful job supplementing Duquette's core. Same thing with Cherington in 13 when the core was Theo's core and Cherington struck gold on his signings for one season (Cherington was at least part of making that core as he had been in the organization for awhile). Dombrowski inherited a great farm system, did a good job sorting out the talent and putting it well over the top before saddling it with a high payroll and troubled farm system. Now Bloom inherited a core that was built by Cherington and Dombrowski. The big bats were JDM, Devers, and X most of the year. Eovaldi, Sale, and E-Rod were inherited. Even his all-star closer whom he extended. Bloom did a good job supplementing it under budgetary restrictions, all while quietly rebuilt the minor league infrastructure. I think that's more accurate of his impact on the 2021 team and the organization. Hopefully he'll be here for the long haul and it will truly be his creation in every way. I would think that John Henry is probably tired of feeling like he has to change direction at the top. I think he wanted Theo to stay forever because Theo was all about farm system as he had 95 win teams every year and Bloom is kind of in that innovative mode, not a farm guy like Ben or a team finisher like Dombrowski.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Dec 13, 2021 10:34:11 GMT -5
Literally built a team that made it to within 2 games of the world series I would say in fairness did he really build the team? Most of the impact players he inherited. Obviously he brought in Hernandez, Whitlock and renfroe. I'm not knocking him but I'm also still hesitant to say he "built" a whole lot yet. Personally I've got to see what he does when he has to start putting his stamp fully on the team and it's mostly if not all players he brings in or decides to resign. I agree. Can't say he "built" the team. Not a knock on him, but it's been like that with a lot of the good Sox teams of the past two decades because of the frequent turnover in the head of the baseball OPS dept. The argument was there in 04 when Theo did a masterful job supplementing Duquette's core. Same thing with Cherington in 13 when the core was Theo's core and Cherington struck gold on his signings for one season (Cherington was at least part of making that core as he had been in the organization for awhile). Dombrowski inherited a great farm system, did a good job sorting out the talent and putting it well over the top before saddling it with a high payroll and troubled farm system. Now Bloom inherited a core that was built by Cherington and Dombrowski. The big bats were JDM, Devers, and X most of the year. Eovaldi, Sale, and E-Rod were inherited. Even his all-star closer whom he extended. Bloom did a good job supplementing it under budgetary restrictions, all while quietly rebuilt the minor league infrastructure. I think that's more accurate of his impact on the 2021 team and the organization. Hopefully he'll be here for the long haul and it will truly be his creation in every way. I would think that John Henry is probably tired of feeling like he has to change direction at the top. I think he wanted Theo to stay forever because Theo was all about farm system as he had 95 win teams every year and Bloom is kind of in that innovative mode, not a farm guy like Ben or a team finisher like Dombrowski. [/quote] Take it a step further: he got Renfroe (2.3 bWAR) because he traded Beni (2.4 bWAR). He got Kiké because he let JBJ go. If those moves aren’t made, is the team any worse? Not certain. Those were nice additions, but they were made because hr had made subtractions. And you can’t say “but the prospects” if you are arguing he built *last season’s* team, which played none of those prospects (unless you count Franchy).
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Dec 13, 2021 10:38:20 GMT -5
And Back to the actual thread topic. Binelas as a 3rd rd pick and what he has done when healthy is actually pretty impressive. He might end up being a 2nd division 3 outcome player but that is still a decent outcome. In fact it could be considered what Renfroe actually is. Hamilton "could" also end up being a good 2nd division utility player who makes an impact on the bases. And they could both end up being more who knows. I just don't agree with the narrative many here push that they are not good prospects, as far as prospects go. And plz if your going to continue to talk about JBJ's salary being eaten then subtract out Hunters salary. It is misleading to ignore that just to make your argument look better. Honest question: if the Sox have no aspiration to be a 2nd division team, how do these two then factor into their future? It seems like the answer would be eventually to package them — but I am not sure that is the plan. When Bloom begins turning some of these chips around before they lose value, I’ll be a much happier camper.
|
|
|