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.
Evaluating the Front Office and Ownership
|
Post by notstarboard on Dec 22, 2022 13:25:11 GMT -5
Houston 2017 and Boston 2018 are an interesting case study in two roads diverging. Both championship teams have let core players go (Betts, Benintendi, Rodriguez, and now Bogaerts for Boston; Springer and Correa for Houston). But Houston extended some core guys on reasonable terms (Altuve and Bregman) and added a whole new generation of talent (Alravez, Tucker, and a bevy of pitchers). Boston extended nobody and has really only added Devers. This is to say: yes, Houston first got to a championship level by tanking for a few years. Since then, they've built... a sustainable contender. Boston could have tried to do that too ca. 2018-2019 but they went a different route. Now they're trying to get back on track, but that's a long run process, and now they've shot themselves in the foot by screwing things up with Bogaerts. Maybe. If we assume that he actually would have been amenable to a contract in the Story ballpark the previous offseason, which feels like a big if (wasn't this just said in a tweet, or has X lent credence to this?), then sure. If we're talking more like 7/210, yes it's a discount versus what SDP offered, but it's still not a great contract imo. If there was any failing with any of the guys in the last core it wasn't getting them locked up long term while they were young. This close to free agency they're hardly more efficient to sign than any free agent. The only real advantages are sentimentality, leadership (player-dependent), and perhaps proving that they won't implode in a big market. Collectively that feels like a small on-field benefit.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Dec 22, 2022 13:27:28 GMT -5
Price's wasn't great, but he was at least serviceable when he was with the Sox. Put up over 10 WAR, not a total albatross like the others. ...and only 0.8 fWAR over the last three years while earning $96 million, ergo "albatross". He was signed to a 7/210 deal before the 2016 season for a grand total of 11.4 fWAR. That is a pretty disastrous ROI.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Dec 22, 2022 13:30:30 GMT -5
The truly alarming thing here is Bloom seems very afraid to fail in a big FA move. I mean he has more or less sat on his hands most of all his free agency’s and now reports are coming out that other FO people pretty much think he does in fact do that. He is still apparently “galaxies” apart from what Devers wants. If we are in last place by the end of July bloom fired. Whether you like him or hate him that is the reality of it. His job is on the line this season 100% Does 5/90 for Yoshida look like a deal from a guy who is "very afraid to fail in a big FA move"? Could it be that they just don't value these players as highly as other teams? That would make sense, since teams that intend to boom and bust should be less affected by albatross years, provided the contract provides surplus value while their window of contention is open. They should therefore be willing to pay more overall.
|
|
|
Post by pappyman99 on Dec 22, 2022 13:32:36 GMT -5
The truly alarming thing here is Bloom seems very afraid to fail in a big FA move. I mean he has more or less sat on his hands most of all his free agency’s and now reports are coming out that other FO people pretty much think he does in fact do that. He is still apparently “galaxies” apart from what Devers wants. If we are in last place by the end of July bloom fired. Whether you like him or hate him that is the reality of it. His job is on the line this season 100% Does 5/90 for Yoshida look like a deal from a guy who is "very afraid to fail in a big FA move"? Could it be that they just don't value these players as highly as other teams? That would make sense, since teams that intend to boom and bust should be less affected by albatross years, provided the contract provides surplus value while their window of contention is open. They should therefore be willing to pay more overall. Looks like a panic move after missing out on others. Much rather have had Senga for cheaper
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Dec 22, 2022 13:37:30 GMT -5
The truly alarming thing here is Bloom seems very afraid to fail in a big FA move. I mean he has more or less sat on his hands most of all his free agency’s and now reports are coming out that other FO people pretty much think he does in fact do that. He is still apparently “galaxies” apart from what Devers wants. If we are in last place by the end of July bloom fired. Whether you like him or hate him that is the reality of it. His job is on the line this season 100% Does 5/90 for Yoshida look like a deal from a guy who is "very afraid to fail in a big FA move"? Could it be that they just don't value these players as highly as other teams? That would make sense, since teams that intend to boom and bust should be less affected by albatross years, provided the contract provides surplus value while their window of contention is open. They should therefore be willing to pay more overall. Is that a *big* free agent move? It is closer to Beni’s deal than any big star.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Dec 22, 2022 13:42:27 GMT -5
Does 5/90 for Yoshida look like a deal from a guy who is "very afraid to fail in a big FA move"? Could it be that they just don't value these players as highly as other teams? That would make sense, since teams that intend to boom and bust should be less affected by albatross years, provided the contract provides surplus value while their window of contention is open. They should therefore be willing to pay more overall. Is that a *big* free agent move? It is closer to Beni’s deal than any big star. Well, Sandoval was given a very similar contract and when that deal failed it was big enough to sting. If Bloom is worried about failing with a big acquisition, it seems strange that his biggest move of the offseason would be to pay a guy who has never played in the majors way more than he was expected to sign for.
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Dec 22, 2022 13:43:07 GMT -5
Houston 2017 and Boston 2018 are an interesting case study in two roads diverging. Both championship teams have let core players go (Betts, Benintendi, Rodriguez, and now Bogaerts for Boston; Springer and Correa for Houston). But Houston extended some core guys on reasonable terms (Altuve and Bregman) and added a whole new generation of talent (Alravez, Tucker, and a bevy of pitchers). Boston extended nobody and has really only added Devers. This is to say: yes, Houston first got to a championship level by tanking for a few years. Since then, they've built... a sustainable contender. Boston could have tried to do that too ca. 2018-2019 but they went a different route. Now they're trying to get back on track, but that's a long run process, and now they've shot themselves in the foot by screwing things up with Bogaerts. Maybe. If we assume that he actually would have been amenable to a contract in the Story ballpark the previous offseason, which feels like a big if (wasn't this just said in a tweet, or has X lent credence to this?), then sure. If we're talking more like 7/210, yes it's a discount versus what SDP offered, but it's still not a great contract imo. If there was any failing with any of the guys in the last core it wasn't getting them locked up long term while they were young. This close to free agency they're hardly more efficient to sign than any free agent. The only real advantages are sentimentality, leadership (player-dependent), and perhaps proving that they won't implode in a big market. Collectively that feels like a small on-field benefit. No...its been cited by multiple people close to the team that if Xander got the offer he received a few weeks ago back in April, he would have signed. There's no maybes. He wanted to stay. Once you let a player get to market, all bets are off.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Dec 22, 2022 13:46:23 GMT -5
Maybe. If we assume that he actually would have been amenable to a contract in the Story ballpark the previous offseason, which feels like a big if (wasn't this just said in a tweet, or has X lent credence to this?), then sure. If we're talking more like 7/210, yes it's a discount versus what SDP offered, but it's still not a great contract imo. If there was any failing with any of the guys in the last core it wasn't getting them locked up long term while they were young. This close to free agency they're hardly more efficient to sign than any free agent. The only real advantages are sentimentality, leadership (player-dependent), and perhaps proving that they won't implode in a big market. Collectively that feels like a small on-field benefit. No...its been cited by multiple people close to the team that if Xander got the offer he received a few weeks ago back in April, he would have signed. There's no maybes. He wanted to stay. Once you let a player get to market, all bets are off. You mean the agent. Not the team.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Dec 22, 2022 13:49:43 GMT -5
Houston 2017 and Boston 2018 are an interesting case study in two roads diverging. Both championship teams have let core players go (Betts, Benintendi, Rodriguez, and now Bogaerts for Boston; Springer and Correa for Houston). But Houston extended some core guys on reasonable terms (Altuve and Bregman) and added a whole new generation of talent (Alravez, Tucker, and a bevy of pitchers). Boston extended nobody and has really only added Devers. This is to say: yes, Houston first got to a championship level by tanking for a few years. Since then, they've built... a sustainable contender. Boston could have tried to do that too ca. 2018-2019 but they went a different route. Now they're trying to get back on track, but that's a long run process, and now they've shot themselves in the foot by screwing things up with Bogaerts. Maybe. If we assume that he actually would have been amenable to a contract in the Story ballpark the previous offseason, which feels like a big if (wasn't this just said in a tweet, or has X lent credence to this?), then sure. If we're talking more like 7/210, yes it's a discount versus what SDP offered, but it's still not a great contract imo. If there was any failing with any of the guys in the last core it wasn't getting them locked up long term while they were young. This close to free agency they're hardly more efficient to sign than any free agent. The only real advantages are sentimentality, leadership (player-dependent), and perhaps proving that they won't implode in a big market. Collectively that feels like a small on-field benefit. To elaborate on the foot-shooting: I think they did it in a couple ways.
First, most obviously, they didn't even find out last year if he would have taken a Story deal. Or the 6/160 deal they were, in the event, willing to offer him. Even at 7/210, that might not be a great deal, but it's clearly better than the deals other star players signed. Like I'd easily take that over what Swanson or Turner got. And the crucial point for me is that the Red Sox are in a position where having a star player makes a ton of sense - they need that 4-5 WAR player to get them over the hump from fringe to solid playoff contender, so the marginal wins are hugely important; and they still need to bridge the gap til the young guys like Bello, Casas, and Rafaela establish themselves. It was just a great fit for the roster.
Second, whether or not you believe the above, the Red Sox themselves seem to have believed it. Hence their making Bogaerts the #1 priority of the offseason. Their other moves really make this a complete roster - if Bogaerts is still at SS. But now those moves in isolation seem like just enough to make the Red Sox... not quite good enough. This makes it all the more perplexing that they didn't push to sign him a year ago.
I think they thought that when push comes to shove, they would simply meet the projected market value for Bogaerts when he became a free agent; hence their keeping him through the trade deadline. And their projections for that market value were probably similar to fangraphs crowdsource or something - 7/175ish. But then the market turned out hotter than expected.
Even then, if Bogaerts' specific market had been merely as hot as the market in general (e.g., proportional to what Correa/Turner/Swanson got), he'd be looking at about a $220 million deal. In that scenario I bet the Red Sox would have gotten close enough, at least, for Bogaerts to stay in Boston. But they got Preller'd, with the single most out-of-whack contract offer of the whole offseason.
So there was a bit of bad luck involved. But the obvious mistake was not locking him up a year early. They opened the door to losing him. And that's what happened.
ADD: There's a world not very different from this one in which Judge accepts $420 million from the Padres or Turner accepts $350 million from them, or whatever those numbers were, and Bogaerts and Bloom just had a feel-good signing ceremony at Fenway Park.
But both those players did the thing that people so often say players never do - they took less money to go somewhere else. If the gap between San Diego's and Boston's offers weren't so vast, I bet Bogaerts would have too...
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Dec 22, 2022 13:52:34 GMT -5
No...its been cited by multiple people close to the team that if Xander got the offer he received a few weeks ago back in April, he would have signed. There's no maybes. He wanted to stay. Once you let a player get to market, all bets are off. You mean the agent. Not the team. Alex Speier, McAdams, and others don't cover the team? Speier doesn't really cover national, no reason to be another Boras mouthpiece. Unless you, of course, believe all those people are lying and they just want to pick on the poor ownership group that is just trying to be a couple of hardworking, honest people trying to make a living.
|
|
|
Post by pasadenasox on Dec 22, 2022 13:56:41 GMT -5
Does anyone NOT think that failing to extend Bogaerts in prior to the 2022 offseason, particularly in light of the emergent cost developments at the top end of the market, was an obvious mistake? That seems like table stakes at this point, no? Unless his demands were totally unreasonable in terms of the previous operative market dynamics? Although there still does seem to be a logic at least to letting him test the market and use it to establish the terms of the negotiation. Clearly, few if any anticipated the length of the deal he agreed to with The Padres. It was a gamble that the Red Sox lost. I take them at their word that they wanted to keep him at something close to the previously prevailing market prices.
In my view things would appear to rather clearly not be progressing according to plan - the team's or my personal preferences.
I think it's fair to say that the front office and ownership are on operating on the conservative side in their analysis of the risk/reward to long term high cost free agent investments. That doesn't mean that they won't make investments in the team, but they appear to prefer to make them on their own terms. I do not, and never have bought the Tampa Bay North narrative.
I'll be very keen to watch both as a "fan" interested in the product on the field and the FO/ownership approach to the adaptation/evolution of their team building philosophy in the new market environment over the next few seasons.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Dec 22, 2022 13:58:58 GMT -5
You mean the agent. Not the team. Alex Speier, McAdams, and others don't cover the team? Speier doesn't really cover national, no reason to be another Boras mouthpiece. Unless you, of course, believe all those people are lying and they just want to pick on the poor ownership group that is just trying to be a couple of hardworking, honest people trying to make a living. You said close to team. That means the source was the team. Reporters also speak to agents you know.
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Dec 22, 2022 14:02:14 GMT -5
Alex Speier, McAdams, and others don't cover the team? Speier doesn't really cover national, no reason to be another Boras mouthpiece. Unless you, of course, believe all those people are lying and they just want to pick on the poor ownership group that is just trying to be a couple of hardworking, honest people trying to make a living. You said close to team. That means the source was the team. Reporters also speak to agents you know. We can run semantics all day. If the source is Boegarts, then yeah, it's the team. I loathe talk radio, but you had Gasper last week talking about how Devers and Xander were at the all-star game and they were laughing about the offers. I still don't see why they would go out of their way to make the local team that they cover look bad in favor of a super agent that goes to Jon Heyman for all of his national stuff anyways. But okay... I mean this isn't the first time they've been accused of low balling a star player. Sooner or later you start to see a trend. Also...no one has come out and denied any of this. The 4/90 thing was real.
|
|
|
Post by curtisw on Dec 22, 2022 14:02:23 GMT -5
Does 5/90 for Yoshida look like a deal from a guy who is "very afraid to fail in a big FA move"? Could it be that they just don't value these players as highly as other teams? That would make sense, since teams that intend to boom and bust should be less affected by albatross years, provided the contract provides surplus value while their window of contention is open. They should therefore be willing to pay more overall. Looks like a panic move after missing out on others. Much rather have had Senga for cheaper Look I’m not a fan of lots of things the club has been doing least of all how they handled the attempted resigning of one of my personal favorite Red Sox of my three decades on earth. But I just want to correct this. I don’t think Yoshida was a panic move. It’s very clear the club is serious when they say they are in love with him and have been for years. Yoshida was always going to be a major target. What the case really is, is that Yoshida was meant to be paired with a Xander resigning. As the boys said on the pod, if that happens then this narrative of the offseason is probably very, very different. But Yoshida was probably always coming to Boston. Just with Xander instead of Yoshida being the marquee signing for the club for the offseason. That’s what people are reacting to. Otherwise, people would be much more positive about that gamble.
|
|
|
Post by pasadenasox on Dec 22, 2022 14:02:45 GMT -5
Does 5/90 for Yoshida look like a deal from a guy who is "very afraid to fail in a big FA move"? Could it be that they just don't value these players as highly as other teams? That would make sense, since teams that intend to boom and bust should be less affected by albatross years, provided the contract provides surplus value while their window of contention is open. They should therefore be willing to pay more overall. Looks like a panic move after missing out on others. Much rather have had Senga for cheaper Just my opinion, but I believe that the Yoshida signing was meant to be a complementary addition the bullpen retooling and bringing back Bogaerts. If it was a reactionary move it was a particularly swift one as it was reported in the media prior to reports of Bogaerts signing with San Diego.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 22, 2022 14:08:51 GMT -5
Does anyone NOT think that failing to extend Bogaerts in prior to the 2022 offseason, particularly in light of the emergent cost developments at the top end of the market, was an obvious mistake? That seems like table stakes at this point, no? Unless his demands were totally unreasonable in terms of the previous operative market dynamics? Although there still does seem to be a logic at least to letting him test the market and use it to establish the terms of the negotiation. Clearly, few if any anticipated the length of the deal he agreed to with The Padres. It was a gamble that the Red Sox lost. I take them at their word that they wanted to keep him at something close to the previously prevailing market prices. In my view things would appear to rather clearly not be progressing according to plan - the team's or my personal preferences. I think it's fair to say that the front office and ownership are on operating on the conservative side in their analysis of the risk/reward to long term high cost free agent investments. That doesn't mean that they won't make investments in the team, but they appear to prefer to make them on their own terms. I do not, and never have bought the Tampa Bay North narrative. I'll be very keen to watch both as a "fan" interested in the product on the field and the FO/ownership approach to the adaptation/evolution of their team building philosophy in the new market environment over the next few seasons. Apparently patford who basically says good riddance to X and perhaps grand salami who I would confuse for Sam Kennedy if I didnt know any better. Otherwise I think there's mostly a consensus that the Sox botched the extension offer badly and that matching Preller would have been insane.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Dec 22, 2022 14:10:35 GMT -5
You said close to team. That means the source was the team. Reporters also speak to agents you know. We can run semantics all day. If the source is Boegarts, then yeah, it's the team. I loathe talk radio, but you had Gasper last week talking about how Devers and Xander were at the all-star game and they were laughing about the offers. I still don't see why they would go out of their way to make the local team that they cover look bad in favor of a super agent that goes to Jon Heyman for all of his national stuff anyways. But okay... I mean this isn't the first time they've been accused of low balling a star player. Sooner or later you start to see a trend. Also...no one has come out and denied any of this. The 4/90 thing was real. If you think the point I am making In regards to the SOURCE for the reporting (agent being the source vs a FO member) is semantics then we will just have to agree to disagree...
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Dec 22, 2022 14:13:54 GMT -5
We can run semantics all day. If the source is Boegarts, then yeah, it's the team. I loathe talk radio, but you had Gasper last week talking about how Devers and Xander were at the all-star game and they were laughing about the offers. I still don't see why they would go out of their way to make the local team that they cover look bad in favor of a super agent that goes to Jon Heyman for all of his national stuff anyways. But okay... I mean this isn't the first time they've been accused of low balling a star player. Sooner or later you start to see a trend. Also...no one has come out and denied any of this. The 4/90 thing was real. If you think the point I am making In regards to the SOURCE for the reporting (agent being the source vs a FO member) is semantics then we will just have to agree to disagree... Do reporters talk to players or just to agents? Its more believable that reporters talked to the players than all the Boston reporters are in this strange cabal dedicated to making ownership look like inept cheap clowns. We know 4/90 was the offer. Just like we know, Lester was offered 70 million. Just like we know, Devers was offered a bad deal. But this could all be some strange coincidence, though. People just have axes to grind with John Henry apparently.
|
|
|
Post by pasadenasox on Dec 22, 2022 14:19:08 GMT -5
I'm not saying that you're wrong, but isn't reactionary sensationalism kinda part and parcel of the Boston sports media's whole deal?
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Dec 22, 2022 14:21:14 GMT -5
I'm not saying that you're wrong, but isn't reactionary sensationalism kinda part and parcel of the Boston sports media's whole deal? True. But the fact that you have had no one refute any of this stuff tells you it's accurate. Has anyone (local or national) come out and actually said that Xander was 100% committed to going to FA and that 4/90 did not happen? You even had the player himself say that he wanted to talk about an extension.
|
|
|
Post by awalkinthepark on Dec 22, 2022 14:24:36 GMT -5
Price's wasn't great, but he was at least serviceable when he was with the Sox. Put up over 10 WAR, not a total albatross like the others. ...and only 0.8 fWAR over the last three years while earning $96 million, ergo "albatross". He was signed to a 7/210 deal before the 2016 season for a grand total of 11.4 fWAR. That is a pretty disastrous ROI. Crawford, Hanley and Pablo combined for -.6 fWAR between the 3 of them, and were collectively paid nearly $250 million. Sale has put up 1 fWAR in the last 3 seasons since signing his extension and has been paid $47 million. That is nearly $300 million paid for a grand total of .4 fWAR. Price was certainly not a good contract, but if Price is considered an albatross, we need to invent a new word for what those other 4 are.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Dec 22, 2022 14:37:37 GMT -5
Maybe. If we assume that he actually would have been amenable to a contract in the Story ballpark the previous offseason, which feels like a big if (wasn't this just said in a tweet, or has X lent credence to this?), then sure. If we're talking more like 7/210, yes it's a discount versus what SDP offered, but it's still not a great contract imo. If there was any failing with any of the guys in the last core it wasn't getting them locked up long term while they were young. This close to free agency they're hardly more efficient to sign than any free agent. The only real advantages are sentimentality, leadership (player-dependent), and perhaps proving that they won't implode in a big market. Collectively that feels like a small on-field benefit. To elaborate on the foot-shooting: I think they did it in a couple ways.
First, most obviously, they didn't even find out last year if he would have taken a Story deal. Or the 6/160 deal they were, in the event, willing to offer him. Even at 7/210, that might not be a great deal, but it's clearly better than the deals other star players signed. Like I'd easily take that over what Swanson or Turner got. And the crucial point for me is that the Red Sox are in a position where having a star player makes a ton of sense - they need that 4-5 WAR player to get them over the hump from fringe to solid playoff contender, so the marginal wins are hugely important; and they still need to bridge the gap til the young guys like Bello, Casas, and Rafaela establish themselves. It was just a great fit for the roster.
Second, whether or not you believe the above, the Red Sox themselves seem to have believed it. Hence their making Bogaerts the #1 priority of the offseason. Their other moves really make this a complete roster - if Bogaerts is still at SS. But now those moves in isolation seem like just enough to make the Red Sox... not quite good enough. This makes it all the more perplexing that they didn't push to sign him a year ago.
I think they thought that when push comes to shove, they would simply meet the projected market value for Bogaerts when he became a free agent; hence their keeping him through the trade deadline. And their projections for that market value were probably similar to fangraphs crowdsource or something - 7/175ish. But then the market turned out hotter than expected.
Even then, if Bogaerts' specific market had been merely as hot as the market in general (e.g., proportional to what Correa/Turner/Swanson got), he'd be looking at about a $220 million deal. In that scenario I bet the Red Sox would have gotten close enough, at least, for Bogaerts to stay in Boston. But they got Preller'd, with the single most out-of-whack contract offer of the whole offseason.
So there was a bit of bad luck involved. But the obvious mistake was not locking him up a year early. They opened the door to losing him. And that's what happened.
ADD: There's a world not very different from this one in which Judge accepts $420 million from the Padres or Turner accepts $350 million from them, or whatever those numbers were, and Bogaerts and Bloom just had a feel-good signing ceremony at Fenway Park.
But both those players did the thing that people so often say players never do - they took less money to go somewhere else. If the gap between San Diego's and Boston's offers weren't so vast, I bet Bogaerts would have too...
All fair points. With that said, I don't think having Xander on a Semien-esque deal would be as valuable to the team as it would be to the fans. I do think that's a fair price for him and he would have a shot at providing good value on that deal, but I don't think getting similar value via other moves is out of reach either. Hence why I don't feel there was much foot shooting involved; it's just a different path. If he would have actually signed the Story deal, though, that's a chance for a really favorable contract. If that had been on the table, I'd completely agree.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Dec 22, 2022 14:39:35 GMT -5
...and only 0.8 fWAR over the last three years while earning $96 million, ergo "albatross". He was signed to a 7/210 deal before the 2016 season for a grand total of 11.4 fWAR. That is a pretty disastrous ROI. Crawford, Hanley and Pablo combined for -.6 fWAR between the 3 of them, and were collectively paid nearly $250 million. Sale has put up 1 fWAR in the last 3 seasons since signing his extension and has been paid $47 million. That is nearly $300 million paid for a grand total of .4 fWAR. Price was certainly not a good contract, but if Price is considered an albatross, we need to invent a new word for what those other 4 are. They're all albatrosses imo, but you're right, it could have been worse! Just shows how bad some of the deals have been. I am bullish on Sale this year, but he's got a lot of work to do to even halffway dig out of the hole.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 22, 2022 14:45:31 GMT -5
You can if you draft properly and get players who are stars at multiple positions and if that happens then none of this angst is happening. The Boston Red Sox right now has one star player. The goal of this organization should be to acquire more star players with the goal of winning another title. 1) How long do you think it takes for good drafts to translate into stars on the major league roster, especially if those prospects are just leaving high school? 2) Is your answer to #1 longer or shorter than Bloom's tenure in Boston? So, wait - the guys who were drafted or acquired before Bloom's tenure can't mature into stars? Casas, Bello, Rafaela, etc.? The farm wasn't gutted and if your premise is that it takes more than 3 years for guys to become stars, yes, that's probably true for high school players, but less true in a small percentage of guys for college players. If, however, your premise is that the only guys in the system who will become stars were drafted by Bloom, then this team won't have any - if they have any at all from Bloom's drafts, which is still much, much more likely given data on how many drafted high school players even make MLB, and then how many of them become All Stars - until 2026 or later. But all of this begs the question: do you really think this ownership group will sit around and wait for Bloom's drafts to blossom into "stars"?
|
|
|
Post by crossedsabres8 on Dec 22, 2022 15:19:52 GMT -5
...and only 0.8 fWAR over the last three years while earning $96 million, ergo "albatross". He was signed to a 7/210 deal before the 2016 season for a grand total of 11.4 fWAR. That is a pretty disastrous ROI. Crawford, Hanley and Pablo combined for -.6 fWAR between the 3 of them, and were collectively paid nearly $250 million. Sale has put up 1 fWAR in the last 3 seasons since signing his extension and has been paid $47 million. That is nearly $300 million paid for a grand total of .4 fWAR. Price was certainly not a good contract, but if Price is considered an albatross, we need to invent a new word for what those other 4 are. White elephants
|
|
|