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 scottysmalls on Dec 24, 2022 14:40:03 GMT -5
Is every year the team doesn’t make the World Series a bridge year? If so the vast majority of teams in baseball are in a longer drought/bridge era. If not 2021 wasn’t a bridge year. No, it was an outlier. So was 2013 who cares? So was the Braves championship year and the Phillies run last year and basically half of the time teams appear in the World Series it’s an outlier based on preseason expectations.
|
|
|
Post by maxwellsdemon on Dec 24, 2022 14:51:06 GMT -5
I think "bridge year" means a year or more when the team is basically non-competitive with turnover expected as a core evolves. Whether or not that core can compete at the top level is the criteria by which any plan should be measured. Winning a Series is the ultimate goal, but as has been stated many times before, that has become ever more a crapshoot with the gauntlet of multiple short series in a game where 60% win percentage puts a team in the upper echelon. So effectively creating a team like the Dodgers today or the Braves of a while back or the Sox of earlier this century maximizes the opportunity to win that Series which the Sox did better than the others. The Sox maintained much of that core for a number of years (with a few disasters interspersed), after 2018 they were no longer in position to do so and now we "bridge", or transition if you prefer, to what is hopefully the next core that provides a basis for extended top tier competitiveness.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Dec 24, 2022 15:06:38 GMT -5
I think "bridge year" means a year or more when the team is basically non-competitive with turnover expected as a core evolves. Whether or not that core can compete at the top level is the criteria by which any plan should be measured. Winning a Series is the ultimate goal, but as has been stated many times before, that has become ever more a crapshoot with the gauntlet of multiple short series in a game where 60% win percentage puts a team in the upper echelon. So effectively creating a team like the Dodgers today or the Braves of a while back or the Sox of earlier this century maximizes the opportunity to win that Series which the Sox did better than the others. The Sox maintained much of that core for a number of years (with a few disasters interspersed), after 2018 they were no longer in position to do so and now we "bridge", or transition if you prefer, to what is hopefully the next core that provides a basis for extended top tier competitiveness. But turnover has been expected (or unexpected as the case may be) for 3 years. Hence the silliness of bridge *year* — last year was the year we started a slugging young 1b who’d been our #5 prospect, our former #2 prospect got some reps at 2b, former #3 prospect played CF… wasn’t that what you describe?
|
|
|
Post by pappyman99 on Dec 25, 2022 0:10:29 GMT -5
Fangraphs makes the same positional adjustment for 2B and 3B, so this premise about Devers moving to 2B isn't even correct. That premise isn’t my argument specifically. My argument is no matter what position Devers plays the offensive output is all the same WAR is under the premise that a run saved is the same as a run scored. While taken at face value that is true, a defensive run saved is unbelievably subjective compared to what a run scored is. There is an awful lot of room for circular feed back within WARs calculation (again I’m someone who uses WAR an awful lot when looking at players) A hypothetical (and an honest question if anyone knows). In 2022 if Devers and all our 1B switched positions. Devers WAR would Surely drop and maybe all our 1B’s war would go up at 3B if we assume a neutral defense at both positions. Is that a zero sum game in WAR there? Again assuming the same defense is played at each position after the switch? Apologize here as it is hard to iterate my point across via a post here. To be as concise as possible. In the above situation if Dever’s WAR dropped by 2.0 after the switch would the Other parties that switched increase their WAR by 2? Or is there some sort of WAR arbitrage to be had (which would make me feel that it is flawed)?
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 25, 2022 9:58:40 GMT -5
Fangraphs makes the same positional adjustment for 2B and 3B, so this premise about Devers moving to 2B isn't even correct. That premise isn’t my argument specifically. My argument is no matter what position Devers plays the offensive output is all the same WAR is under the premise that a run saved is the same as a run scored. While taken at face value that is true, a defensive run saved is unbelievably subjective compared to what a run scored is. There is an awful lot of room for circular feed back within WARs calculation (again I’m someone who uses WAR an awful lot when looking at players) A hypothetical (and an honest question if anyone knows). In 2022 if Devers and all our 1B switched positions. Devers WAR would Surely drop and maybe all our 1B’s war would go up at 3B if we assume a neutral defense at both positions. Is that a zero sum game in WAR there? Again assuming the same defense is played at each position after the switch? Apologize here as it is hard to iterate my point across via a post here. To be as concise as possible. In the above situation if Dever’s WAR dropped by 2.0 after the switch would the Other parties that switched increase their WAR by 2? Or is there some sort of WAR arbitrage to be had (which would make me feel that it is flawed)? I think it’s pretty widely recognized that there is a bit of wiggle room in WAR, and it is flawed as a perfect/near perfect measurement system of performance. You can see the differences quite clearly between fWAR and bWAR, which give more weight to different components of their formulas. Also, measuring defense is not an exact science and is still pretty loose and its evaluative capacity. WAR is certainly better than the traditional averages of BA/RBI/SLG that were more arbitrary in their nature as a measurement and missed quite a bit of offensive performance (and offense-only measurements), but it is certainly not a be-all end-all.
|
|
|
Post by maxwellsdemon on Dec 25, 2022 10:14:23 GMT -5
I think that citing relatively high ranking prospecets from a weak system (one of whom was playing totally out of the position that earned him his ranking) isn't the same as high ranking prospects from a stronger system and who have achieved higher rankings across systems as well.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Dec 25, 2022 10:30:41 GMT -5
I think that citing relatively high ranking prospecets from a weak system (one of whom was playing totally out of the position that earned him his ranking) isn't the same as high ranking prospects from a stronger system and who have achieved higher rankings across systems as well. Downs and Duran were both former top-100 prospects. Don’t know about Dalbec. That is the ultimate cross-system ranking.
|
|
|
Post by pappyman99 on Dec 25, 2022 10:39:50 GMT -5
That premise isn’t my argument specifically. My argument is no matter what position Devers plays the offensive output is all the same WAR is under the premise that a run saved is the same as a run scored. While taken at face value that is true, a defensive run saved is unbelievably subjective compared to what a run scored is. There is an awful lot of room for circular feed back within WARs calculation (again I’m someone who uses WAR an awful lot when looking at players) A hypothetical (and an honest question if anyone knows). In 2022 if Devers and all our 1B switched positions. Devers WAR would Surely drop and maybe all our 1B’s war would go up at 3B if we assume a neutral defense at both positions. Is that a zero sum game in WAR there? Again assuming the same defense is played at each position after the switch? Apologize here as it is hard to iterate my point across via a post here. To be as concise as possible. In the above situation if Dever’s WAR dropped by 2.0 after the switch would the Other parties that switched increase their WAR by 2? Or is there some sort of WAR arbitrage to be had (which would make me feel that it is flawed)? I think it’s pretty widely recognized that there is a bit of wiggle room in WAR, and it is flawed as a perfect/near perfect measurement system of performance. You can see the differences quite clearly between fWAR and bWAR, which give more weight to different components of their formulas. Also, measuring defense is not an exact science and is still pretty loose and its evaluative capacity. WAR is certainly better than the traditional averages of BA/RBI/SLG that were more arbitrary in their nature as a measurement and missed quite a bit of offensive performance (and offense-only measurements), but it is certainly not a be-all end-all. Again I use WAR but it handles specific impacts poorly. In fact it has had outrageous outcomes in some cases. Let’s take Manny Ramirez 2006. He had. 2.9 WAR he had a WRC+ of 163. Now if that same year we had switched David roberts with his wRC+ Of 104 and WAR of 3.1. We would not have been marginally better, we would have been very much worse And that’s despite the defensive differences there were. I like WAR but every time I dig into it it makes me think there is one more evolution of stats needed to really explain player impact / value
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 25, 2022 11:01:10 GMT -5
I think it’s pretty widely recognized that there is a bit of wiggle room in WAR, and it is flawed as a perfect/near perfect measurement system of performance. You can see the differences quite clearly between fWAR and bWAR, which give more weight to different components of their formulas. Also, measuring defense is not an exact science and is still pretty loose and its evaluative capacity. WAR is certainly better than the traditional averages of BA/RBI/SLG that were more arbitrary in their nature as a measurement and missed quite a bit of offensive performance (and offense-only measurements), but it is certainly not a be-all end-all. Again I use WAR but it handles specific impacts poorly. In fact it has had outrageous outcomes in some cases. Let’s take Manny Ramirez 2006. He had. 2.9 WAR he had a WRC+ of 163. Now if that same year we had switched David roberts with his wRC+ Of 104 and WAR of 3.1. We would not have been marginally better, we would have been very much worse And that’s despite the defensive differences there were. I like WAR but every time I dig into it it makes me think there is one more evolution of stats needed to really explain player impact / value I think the issue is comparing positions, talking about guys switching positions, yet you are saying keep the D equal. Manny Ramirez in CF might give you the worst defensive value in the history of Baseball. So if you aren't looking at D, yeah it makes no sense.
|
|
|
Post by pappyman99 on Dec 25, 2022 11:36:54 GMT -5
Again I use WAR but it handles specific impacts poorly. In fact it has had outrageous outcomes in some cases. Let’s take Manny Ramirez 2006. He had. 2.9 WAR he had a WRC+ of 163. Now if that same year we had switched David roberts with his wRC+ Of 104 and WAR of 3.1. We would not have been marginally better, we would have been very much worse And that’s despite the defensive differences there were. I like WAR but every time I dig into it it makes me think there is one more evolution of stats needed to really explain player impact / value I think the issue is comparing positions, talking about guys switching positions, yet you are saying keep the D equal. Manny Ramirez in CF might give you the worst defensive value in the history of Baseball. So if you aren't looking at D, yeah it makes no sense. Roberts was LF in 2006 at least according to Fangraphs. Yeah I understand manny switching to CF would be detrimental. But there are many not so obvious scenarios which would be silly to ignore. My point is you can put him all over the diamond his offensive production to the lineup does not change. Obviously his defense would play differently around the diamond and I completely understand positional value. What I’m saying is there is a huge imperfection in positional Adjustments when there are in fact many players than could probably play the same type of defense at a different position. I mean WAR doesn’t even know how to handle Ohtani. It just splits him into two different positions when in fact he was a a pitcher that does things at the plate that no other pitcher can do.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 25, 2022 12:30:14 GMT -5
I think the issue is comparing positions, talking about guys switching positions, yet you are saying keep the D equal. Manny Ramirez in CF might give you the worst defensive value in the history of Baseball. So if you aren't looking at D, yeah it makes no sense. Roberts was LF in 2006 at least according to Fangraphs. Yeah I understand manny switching to CF would be detrimental. But there are many not so obvious scenarios which would be silly to ignore. My point is you can put him all over the diamond his offensive production to the lineup does not change. Obviously his defense would play differently around the diamond and I completely understand positional value. What I’m saying is there is a huge imperfection in positional Adjustments when there are in fact many players than could probably play the same type of defense at a different position. I mean WAR doesn’t even know how to handle Ohtani. It just splits him into two different positions when in fact he was a a pitcher that does things at the plate that no other pitcher can do. Yeah mostly LF and some CF. Yet Roberts is plus 7 DRS, Manny is minus 15 DRS. Look at the next year when an Old Roberts D tanks and what happens to his value. I'm just not seeing the issues with those two, one was a good defender, one was a horrible defender. The difference in their bats is huge, yet the difference in their defense is just as big. That being said, war isn't perfect. Few things to remember, BR adjusts for park. You can have two players with same hitting stats and D, yet different war. Why? Because one played a bunch of games in hitter parks, the other in pitcher parks. I'm not going back to check, yet that likely is in play with Manny vs Robert's in 2006. Padres home park used to be an extreme pitchers park if I remember right. Manny Ramirez D was so bad he might have had better value being a DH, yet we had someone there that was kinda good.
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Dec 25, 2022 22:42:02 GMT -5
Did any reporter ask why our blue chip prospects were never signed early to extensions. Regarding Xman the podcast was right that opt out. Killed them. Plus 20m was underpay. That year Dd signs Sale if I am correct he wasn’t healthy that season. Just some of these moves bite them in the ass.
|
|
|
Post by mwgray13 on Dec 26, 2022 9:13:03 GMT -5
you may know both than me, but I thought I had tread in a detailed comparison of Suzuki and Yoshida that’s Yoshida’s stats in the pacific League were more impressive than Suzuki’s in the Central. And I do not think Hosmer is an average hitter any more given how he hit after the first month. Some arguments that the Pacific League has been harder to hit in: ” A year ago[2017], Alex Ramirez said …that the PL pitchers–particularly the relievers–throw harder, and that makes it harder for the CL hitters to adjust. This appears to be the case at the moment.[2018] According to analysis site Delta Graphs PL fastballs are 0.6 KPH faster on average than the CL heaters…” “ The data does not prove PL pitching staffs and defenses are superior but suggests that may be the case, but it also indicates that PL teams are better at hitting, playing defense and have superior speed in the outfield.” jballallen.com/why-the-pacific-league-is-stronger/I take that with a grain of salt. 06. KPH = .37 MPH really, that could be the difference between facing a hitter in the 9 hole, and lobbing it in there against a pitcher. A DHed team batting line should be better than a non-DHed team. The DH intensifies the hitting environment, making it tougher for pitchers, and lessening the pressure on hitters through the lineup. The DH gives a batter the ability to stay in rhythm as a hitter while taking time off from the field. A non-DH teams top/middle of order has an increased amount of pressure to score, and then they still have to field the ball. I think Suzuki and Yoshida faced the same quality of pitching because they were top/middle of the order hitters. Were NL teams lineups/fielding much different then AL teams in 2022? Prior to the 2022 the comments about NL teams were said to be better defensively, and more speed orientated. Granted NPB only played 143 games per season thru 2019, and 120 per season since 2020, Yoshioda has only played over 100 games in the field in one season of his career, and only played 40 in the field last year. He is a liability in LF, with scouts thinking he is a well below/below average defender, and that he will not add value on the basepaths. How will he hold up over 162 game season in the field and how much will that affect his hitting, running, and the totality of his defense? Yoshida was signed to break up the news cycle, and provide intrigue following Xander's departure. Imagine they signed Benintendi instead of Yoshida, and trying to sell that to the fanbase as a big ticket item...
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 26, 2022 9:53:35 GMT -5
Brief article today in John Henry's Boston Globe on Red Sox drop in viewership last year: Viewership was tough enough to get last season. Red Sox games on NESN had a 2.65 rating in ‘22, down more than 35 percent from the ‘21 season. Only six teams’ regional-cable network ratings dropped more last season: the Reds, A’s, Giants, Rockies, Nationals, and Tigers. In ‘21, Red Sox games on NESN averaged a 4.23 household rating. During the pandemic-abbreviated ‘20 season in which the Red Sox went 24-36, the average was 2.14. In ‘19, it was 5.25.A 35% drop in viewership is not just significant, it translates into substantial dollar losses across a variety of segments including ads revenues. It will be interesting to see if a continued decline occurs whether it will affect the front office/ownership team-creation or free agent acquisition philosophy. Obviously, the philosophy remained untouched this year, but if the team continues to lose money, this is likely to change. Winning fixes everything.
|
|
|
Post by chud on Dec 26, 2022 10:27:23 GMT -5
It's been a while for me but had to Chaim (pun intended) in as I've lost all patience with the bloom regime...Even though I'm admittedly a Sox "rose colored" glasses type fan as in, you have my complete faith for a while until proven otherwise...we're at "otherwise" and here's why:
1) Bloom seems to be the textbook indecisive leader...Those folks use information as a weapon on why not to make a decision or take action...Usually, they look for the utopian piece of information to make some important decision, when good information is good enough...but when acting on only good information, you put yourself at risk because if you had waited that one extra day, one extra week etc...you may have uncovered the clue leading to finding the candlestick in Col. Mustard's hand right next to the dead body...However, what always happens in the search for utopia, others make decisions ahead of you that takes the decision that was in front of you off your plate...the result, no action/no decision...the explanation, someone else did something (player or team) that is out of our control...Those people look at decision making as a higher risk (due to possibly being wrong) than no action, as it appears to them as their process hadn't completed yet so other's are taking way more risk by being rash....At the start, those people are termed "exhaustively detail oriented" or "incredibly thorough" or "always looking for redundancy", by the end they're ultimately labeled as "paralysis by analysis"....Don't get me wrong, data driven decision making is right on point, but the leadership aspect comes in when needing to decide when you have enough data to make a good decision and mitigate (not eliminate) risk...Bloom can't do that...leading to
2) Lacking direction and a true org plan. While I'm sure there is or was a plan at the start of his regime, the sure kiss of death to any plan is the lack of making continued decisions as they arise...No plan ends up being linear so good leaders have several fallback options when "plan a" doesn't work out....Bloom's lack of decision making doesn't just kill "plan a" it kills "plan a - f" and the Sox are stuck with "plan g"...Plan G is never a good one
3) Bloom is particularly bad at making critical decisions with deadlines attached...An off-season has such a long deadline (approx. Nov-Feb) that must make him feel so comfortable as he can keep pushing things off for a while...While things like the trade deadline must drive him to drink. The last two years were examples of how his brain/risk tolerance are not wired in a way that makes him feel comfortable making faster/critical decisions...He got lucky in 2021 (when the Sox were universally grilled for not doing enough) that the team bailed him out by over performing and Schwarber/Kiké looking like Ruth/Gherig...Then made the mistake of thinking the team was really that good and did almost nothing leading into 2022 minus Story, who's pretty good but not a difference maker...Then 2022 trade deadline was the ultimate for lack of decisiveness...Hey played it off with this inane "we're in this unique position of possibly being in the race / possibly not, so let's not hide from that uniqueness and let's approach it with a unique strategy"....That's what indecisive leaders do, make something look thoughtful and innovative, when really it's just hiding being scared to take a stand on anything...It's even lead to some actual indefensible things like not getting under the salary cap by the end of the 2022 trade deadline, makes him look incompetent to say the least.
4) Ownership...I love them, how can you not after 4WS rings...I mean seriously, 4...looking back to 2003, it would have been comical to think we'd be staring at 4WS over the last 19yrs...But, can't rest on your laurels, so Ownership's failure in this is likely thinking Bloom (coming from Tampa) was going to do what they thought Beane was going to do in 2003 and beyond but without Bloom having any track record of his own when being the shot caller...They thought he'd make them more efficient in spending to maximize the use of their budget. Well, because Bloom is awful, he can't execute that strategy, or any strategy, on his best day so that's one problem....But the other problem is that ownership seems to have been caught way off guard with where salaries were heading in 2023. If you're going to own the Boston Red Sox and not compete at the height of the market for star players, it's probably time to look into investing into sports with a salary cap (sound familiar).
5) Where Bloom/Owners hold hands directly in complicity is not keeping their homegrown, proven commodities that can produce at high levels in likely the toughness baseball market in the U.S. You work to develop players into exactly what Boggy, Betts and Devers became, only to let them go (Devers is likely gone I'm assuming) w/out any real designs to re-sign them??? It's not the "losing the player" that's of the real concern, it's the lack of desire to keep the player which then leads to the open door where the player is eventually lost that is the real problem...I'm not sure what the point is unless they're hoping to develop fairly good players, not bad ones, not good ones and certainly not great ones, so they can pay them what they view is a reasonable salary, good luck with that.
Sorry, been meaning to get this off my chest as it's confounding....At this point, Bloom will be gone by end of 2023 as the Sox will be terrible and owners won't be able to defend keeping him on board any longer. What will be super telling is who they hire next, that will show us what they've learned or if they're going to be stubborn and keep with the same schtick just with a new guy...either way it can't come soon enough and at this point I'd wish they take all decision making from Bloom as I don't trust him at the top of the pyramid at all...Or maybe the right thing to do is to just have him keep on keeping on, no risk in anything critical being decided with that philosophy
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Dec 26, 2022 10:54:50 GMT -5
...He got lucky in 2021 (when the Sox were universally grilled for not doing enough) that the team bailed him out by over performing and Schwarber/Kiké looking like Ruth/Gherig... I'll just focus on this line, because it sort of encapsulates the whole comment, in that Bloom performed better than if he had done what you apparently wanted/expected and you are criticizing him for it. He got Schwarber, Schwarber was great... and this is a bad thing? Or he just got "lucky"?
I think he's had three excellent trade deadlines in a row.
2022: I know a lot of people would have preferred the team to give up when they had a 25-30% chance of making the playoffs, but I'm not a big fan of that sort of quitter's attitude, and moreover it is very rarely if ever how teams in that situation operate. And Bloom managed to improve the roster and gain prospects at the same deadline.
2021: Schwarber for Aldo Ramirez. That was the best value exchange probably any team had at the deadline that year.
2020: Pivetta and Seabold for Workman and Hembree. Speaks for itself.
Bloom's made some mistakes, in my opinion, but the idea that his fatal flaw has been "indecisiveness" seems almost the opposite of the case. If anything he's stuck to his guns a little too much - e.g., by not handing out a serious extension offer to Bogaerts last spring when it might not have been optimal according to the team's own analysis.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Dec 26, 2022 11:07:15 GMT -5
...He got lucky in 2021 (when the Sox were universally grilled for not doing enough) that the team bailed him out by over performing and Schwarber/Kiké looking like Ruth/Gherig... I'll just focus on this line, because it sort of encapsulates the whole comment, in that Bloom performed better than if he had done what you apparently wanted/expected and you are criticizing him for it. He got Schwarber, Schwarber was great... and this is a bad thing? Or he just got "lucky"?
I think he's had three excellent trade deadlines in a row.
2022: I know a lot of people would have preferred the team to give up when they had a 25-30% chance of making the playoffs, but I'm not a big fan of that sort of quitter's attitude, and moreover it is very rarely if ever how teams in that situation operate. And Bloom managed to improve the roster and gain prospects at the same deadline.
2021: Schwarber for Aldo Ramirez. That was the best value exchange probably any team had at the deadline that year.
2020: Pivetta and Seabold for Workman and Hembree. Speaks for itself.
Bloom's made some mistakes, in my opinion, but the idea that his fatal flaw has been "indecisiveness" seems almost the opposite of the case. If anything he's stuck to his guns a little too much - e.g., but not handing out a serious extension offer to Bogaerts last spring when it might not have been optimal according to the team's own analysis.
Calling 2022 a good trade deadline is certainly idiosyncratic. I don’t think many hold that view. If they had a 30% chance, what did he do to improve it? Why let them flounder? And that floundering started wirh a bomb trade of Renfroe. These are three cross cuts that ignore context. In the case of Schwarber and 2022, the FO came out of spring with clear gaps that they waited to fill… or, as in 2022, not fill. Getting Pivetta was great. Seabold appears to be a bust, but Pivetta has been good. But not so good that after three years that trade should still be the best you’ve made. There are positives that people can enumerate for this regime… trade history is not one of them.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Dec 26, 2022 11:14:03 GMT -5
I'll just focus on this line, because it sort of encapsulates the whole comment, in that Bloom performed better than if he had done what you apparently wanted/expected and you are criticizing him for it. He got Schwarber, Schwarber was great... and this is a bad thing? Or he just got "lucky"?
I think he's had three excellent trade deadlines in a row.
2022: I know a lot of people would have preferred the team to give up when they had a 25-30% chance of making the playoffs, but I'm not a big fan of that sort of quitter's attitude, and moreover it is very rarely if ever how teams in that situation operate. And Bloom managed to improve the roster and gain prospects at the same deadline.
2021: Schwarber for Aldo Ramirez. That was the best value exchange probably any team had at the deadline that year.
2020: Pivetta and Seabold for Workman and Hembree. Speaks for itself.
Bloom's made some mistakes, in my opinion, but the idea that his fatal flaw has been "indecisiveness" seems almost the opposite of the case. If anything he's stuck to his guns a little too much - e.g., but not handing out a serious extension offer to Bogaerts last spring when it might not have been optimal according to the team's own analysis.
Calling 2022 a good trade deadline is certainly idiosyncratic. I don’t think many hold that view. If they had a 30% chance, what did he do to improve it? Why let them flounder? And that floundering started wirh a bomb trade of Renfroe. These are three cross cuts that ignore context. In the case of Schwarber and 2022, the FO came out of spring with clear gaps that they waited to fill… or, as in 2022, not fill. Getting Pivetta was great. Seabold appears to be a bust, but Pivetta has been good. But not so good that after three years that trade should still be the best you’ve made. There are positives that people can enumerate for this regime… trade history is not one of them. Was I talking about their trade history in general, or was I talking about what they did at the three trade deadlines?
What he did to improve the team at the 2022 trade deadline was address the team's two biggest holes (Hosmer and Pham) while arguably upgrading at catcher. (Diekman for McGuire and Broadway, by the way, is the best trade he's made; Ramirez for Schwarber was also better than the Pivetta/Seabold trade. All three of those were great.)
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 26, 2022 11:22:50 GMT -5
It's been a while for me but had to Chaim (pun intended) in as I've lost all patience with the bloom regime...Even though I'm admittedly a Sox "rose colored" glasses type fan as in, you have my complete faith for a while until proven otherwise...we're at "otherwise" and here's why: 1) Bloom seems to be the textbook indecisive leader...Those folks use information as a weapon on why not to make a decision or take action...Usually, they look for the utopian piece of information to make some important decision, when good information is good enough...but when acting on only good information, you put yourself at risk because if you had waited that one extra day, one extra week etc...you may have uncovered the clue leading to finding the candlestick in Col. Mustard's hand right next to the dead body...However, what always happens in the search for utopia, others make decisions ahead of you that takes the decision that was in front of you off your plate...the result, no action/no decision...the explanation, someone else did something (player or team) that is out of our control...Those people look at decision making as a higher risk (due to possibly being wrong) than no action, as it appears to them as their process hadn't completed yet so other's are taking way more risk by being rash....At the start, those people are termed "exhaustively detail oriented" or "incredibly thorough" or "always looking for redundancy", by the end they're ultimately labeled as "paralysis by analysis"....Don't get me wrong, data driven decision making is right on point, but the leadership aspect comes in when needing to decide when you have enough data to make a good decision and mitigate (not eliminate) risk...Bloom can't do that...leading to 2) Lacking direction and a true org plan. While I'm sure there is or was a plan at the start of his regime, the sure kiss of death to any plan is the lack of making continued decisions as they arise...No plan ends up being linear so good leaders have several fallback options when "plan a" doesn't work out....Bloom's lack of decision making doesn't just kill "plan a" it kills "plan a - f" and the Sox are stuck with "plan g"...Plan G is never a good one 3) Bloom is particularly bad at making critical decisions with deadlines attached...An off-season has such a long deadline (approx. Nov-Feb) that must make him feel so comfortable as he can keep pushing things off for a while...While things like the trade deadline must drive him to drink. The last two years were examples of how his brain/risk tolerance are not wired in a way that makes him feel comfortable making faster/critical decisions...He got lucky in 2021 (when the Sox were universally grilled for not doing enough) that the team bailed him out by over performing and Schwarber/Kiké looking like Ruth/Gherig...Then made the mistake of thinking the team was really that good and did almost nothing leading into 2022 minus Story, who's pretty good but not a difference maker...Then 2022 trade deadline was the ultimate for lack of decisiveness...Hey played it off with this inane "we're in this unique position of possibly being in the race / possibly not, so let's not hide from that uniqueness and let's approach it with a unique strategy"....That's what indecisive leaders do, make something look thoughtful and innovative, when really it's just hiding being scared to take a stand on anything...It's even lead to some actual indefensible things like not getting under the salary cap by the end of the 2022 trade deadline, makes him look incompetent to say the least. 4) Ownership...I love them, how can you not after 4WS rings...I mean seriously, 4...looking back to 2003, it would have been comical to think we'd be staring at 4WS over the last 19yrs...But, can't rest on your laurels, so Ownership's failure in this is likely thinking Bloom (coming from Tampa) was going to do what they thought Beane was going to do in 2003 and beyond but without Bloom having any track record of his own when being the shot caller...They thought he'd make them more efficient in spending to maximize the use of their budget. Well, because Bloom is awful, he can't execute that strategy, or any strategy, on his best day so that's one problem....But the other problem is that ownership seems to have been caught way off guard with where salaries were heading in 2023. If you're going to own the Boston Red Sox and not compete at the height of the market for star players, it's probably time to look into investing into sports with a salary cap (sound familiar). 5) Where Bloom/Owners hold hands directly in complicity is not keeping their homegrown, proven commodities that can produce at high levels in likely the toughness baseball market in the U.S. You work to develop players into exactly what Boggy, Betts and Devers became, only to let them go (Devers is likely gone I'm assuming) w/out any real designs to re-sign them??? It's not the "losing the player" that's of the real concern, it's the lack of desire to keep the player which then leads to the open door where the player is eventually lost that is the real problem...I'm not sure what the point is unless they're hoping to develop fairly good players, not bad ones, not good ones and certainly not great ones, so they can pay them what they view is a reasonable salary, good luck with that. Sorry, been meaning to get this off my chest as it's confounding....At this point, Bloom will be gone by end of 2023 as the Sox will be terrible and owners won't be able to defend keeping him on board any longer. What will be super telling is who they hire next, that will show us what they've learned or if they're going to be stubborn and keep with the same schtick just with a new guy...either way it can't come soon enough and at this point I'd wish they take all decision making from Bloom as I don't trust him at the top of the pyramid at all...Or maybe the right thing to do is to just have him keep on keeping on, no risk in anything critical being decided with that philosophy Fantastic post. I'd add that ownership seems to be detached from the franchise more than ever. When the Sox were purchased the owners for those first several years were front and center and you could tell they were truly on a quest to make Red Sox champions and they made it clear that their desire was for multiple championships and they delivered. Now they're absent. You get a quote from their mouthpiece Sam Kennedy, but John Henry and Tom Werner are nowhere to be found. I find the lack of accountability worrisome. It's almost like after they won in 2018, their primary concern shifted to profit making, not that profit making was ever far from their minds, but I had felt that winning was a primary driver. Now I no longer feel that way. The Red Sox aren't special of unique to them. At first I didn't mind the soccer stuff as much. It's overseas and has zero to do with baseball. But now it's basketball, football, and hockey franchises, partnering up with others to become this huge conglomerate. At first I wasn't as concerned, because I figured all this extra revenue generated would be poured into the Red Sox and allow them to continue to be the financial giants they've been when it comes to securing the services of the elite players in baseball. Instead they're trying to win while paying the lowest payroll possible that allows them a chance to win if everything breaks right. I won't say they're trying to be Tampa, but they sure haven't been doing what LA was doing, at least until this year when LA is ducking under, probably to try and save up for Ohtani next year. I think like a lot of others here, they loved the idea of Chaim Bloom which has been a lot more enticing than the reality of Chaim Bloom which has been that of an indecisive leader whose passivity has been costly at times. I still can't figure out the thinking behind the "Plan A" effort to keep Bogaerts. Like the brilliant post I'm responding to, what is the point of developing star prospects in the minors if you have no intention of every paying them market value and you signal to the other guys coming up through the system that they either a) better not be a star or b) be a star but be you will only be retained if you take a hometown discount? What kind of culture does that breed within the organization? It also seems to me that this win/$ is utopian. It assumes that it's fine to pass up a higher player because you can spread your money around to various assets. Intuitively that makes sense. But it doesn't always work like that. I mean, if you pass up that excellent talent because you don't want to pay a premium to secure it, then you must find the right player(s) who'll make up the difference, which assumes they're available, will do what you need them to do, and also assumes that you will land them, which can be dubious where there are 29 other teams, more of which will have financial access to the lesser players, as opposed to a premium one, in which a lot of teams with lesser financial ability than the Red Sox, will be able to bid on. Frankly I don't root of billionaires to increase their profits and while the penalties can hurt a bit, like moving a draft pick back, or having less international money, I still think a superior scouting department can help combat those "disadvantages", so I prefer ownership invest in their product. Tying in what Guidas was saying, the Sox spent two decades battling for headlines with the ultimate dynasty of football, the Tom Brady New England Patriots. The Sox won enough championships and had enough compelling players that they were able to keep up with the Pats or at least stay in their enormous shadow. The irony is that Belichick's arrogance (in my opinion) allowed them to lose the greatest football player they ever had - there's no way in hell Tom Brady should ever have had to put on another uniform, especially at the time he was a free agent and it was obvious that he still had more gas left in the tank. So now the Patriots are a mess, yesterday's news, and instead of being able to seize the city's spotlight from the Patriots finally, the Red Sox, in the quest for efficiency, became dull and bad, and project the downward trajectory from the wonderful perch they had been on for the previous fifteen years. Team turn over all the time, but Betts, X, and Devers should have been the 3 mainstays to bridge the Red Sox to their next era of youngsters coming up. Instead they've had this huge talent drain that hasn't been adequately replaced and it's clear the Sox don't have the appetite to commit to the new market value. I can deal with them not going after the Carlos Correas of the world for now, but I don't understand how they could not make a reasonable offer to a player like X who made it clear as day that he wanted to stay, but that he didn't want to be ripped off (in baseball economics - if we're talking real life economics for us regular working people, I'd never say anything like that - lol) Eventually if/when the farm system gets to a spot where they're churning out potential regulars (and guys who you'd want to extend for big bucks), that's when the Sox probably should go headlong into free agency to complete the team and in the meanwhile they need to extend Devers, and as Andrew Friedman stated and I'm paraphrasing, if you let complete logic dictate signing a free agent, then you'll finish 3rd in every attempt. Bottom line is that a deep pocketed organization like the Sox will always have to set aside some bad money because if you're looking for "value" with every free agent, you'll rarely ever sign one.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 26, 2022 12:10:43 GMT -5
...He got lucky in 2021 (when the Sox were universally grilled for not doing enough) that the team bailed him out by over performing and Schwarber/Kiké looking like Ruth/Gherig... I'll just focus on this line, because it sort of encapsulates the whole comment, in that Bloom performed better than if he had done what you apparently wanted/expected and you are criticizing him for it. He got Schwarber, Schwarber was great... and this is a bad thing? Or he just got "lucky"?
I think he's had three excellent trade deadlines in a row.
2022: I know a lot of people would have preferred the team to give up when they had a 25-30% chance of making the playoffs, but I'm not a big fan of that sort of quitter's attitude, and moreover it is very rarely if ever how teams in that situation operate. And Bloom managed to improve the roster and gain prospects at the same deadline.
2021: Schwarber for Aldo Ramirez. That was the best value exchange probably any team had at the deadline that year.
2020: Pivetta and Seabold for Workman and Hembree. Speaks for itself.
Bloom's made some mistakes, in my opinion, but the idea that his fatal flaw has been "indecisiveness" seems almost the opposite of the case. If anything he's stuck to his guns a little too much - e.g., by not handing out a serious extension offer to Bogaerts last spring when it might not have been optimal according to the team's own analysis.
In 2022 the historical playoff index had you at about 15%. So yeah you sell sell sell. Could have moved Martinez, Bogaerts, Eovaldi, Wacha, Schreiber, Strahm, etc. Gotten under Luxury tax giving you 3 years not having to worry about going over. It was horrible, one of Blooms biggest mistakes. Imagine the prospects and how much easier it would be able to make win now trades? Calling that an excellent trade deadline just shows no matter what Bloom does you agree and think he's doing a good job. I said it last deadline almost no chance you make playoffs and he's not likely to resign Bogaerts.
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 15,659
|
Post by cdj on Dec 26, 2022 12:16:03 GMT -5
...He got lucky in 2021 (when the Sox were universally grilled for not doing enough) that the team bailed him out by over performing and Schwarber/Kiké looking like Ruth/Gherig... I'll just focus on this line, because it sort of encapsulates the whole comment, in that Bloom performed better than if he had done what you apparently wanted/expected and you are criticizing him for it. He got Schwarber, Schwarber was great... and this is a bad thing? Or he just got "lucky"?
I remember the discourse online from his detractors at the deadline- they complained that he did nothing. Then they complained when they didn’t re-sign that nothing in the off-season. It’s almost a boy who cried wolf situation- there’s legitimate criticisms of Bloom/FO to be made but when they’re levied by some of the same people who did the above then it makes me not want to take them seriously
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Dec 26, 2022 12:23:21 GMT -5
I'll just focus on this line, because it sort of encapsulates the whole comment, in that Bloom performed better than if he had done what you apparently wanted/expected and you are criticizing him for it. He got Schwarber, Schwarber was great... and this is a bad thing? Or he just got "lucky"?
I remember the discourse online from his detractors at the deadline- they complained that he did nothing. Then they complained when they didn’t re-sign that nothing in the off-season. It’s almost a boy who cried wolf situation- there’s legitimate criticisms of Bloom/FO to be made but when they’re levied by some of the same people who did the above then it makes me not want to take them seriously That hardly seems mutually exclusive. First, there is a difference between nothing and enough. But Schwarber could be too little AND be PART of a solution if resigned. Or… flip that… you can also make a trade that seems more pointless when you don’t even keep the guy you got. It is hard to think of Schwarber, Pham, or Hosmer as big trades when they got about three months combined out of them. Letting Schwarber go (and trading Renfroe) left a huge hole that, say, Pham could have helped fill… if he’d been signed before the season. By the deadline it was pointless. As I said earlier, none of these moves can be removed from larger context. They all represent late efforts to make up for earlier mistakes that had been predicted by most on this board (and not just critics of the FO).
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 15,659
|
Post by cdj on Dec 26, 2022 12:25:30 GMT -5
I remember the discourse online from his detractors at the deadline- they complained that he did nothing. Then they complained when they didn’t re-sign that nothing in the off-season. It’s almost a boy who cried wolf situation- there’s legitimate criticisms of Bloom/FO to be made but when they’re levied by some of the same people who did the above then it makes me not want to take them seriously That hardly seems mutually exclusive. First, there is a difference between nothing and enough. But Schwarber could be too little AND be PART of a solution if resigned. Or… flip that… you can also make a trade that seems more pointless when you don’t even keep the guy you got. It is hard to think of Schwarber, Pham, or Hosmer as big trades when they got about three months combined out of them. Letting Schwarber go (and trading Renfroe) left a huge hole that, say, Pham could have helped fill… if he’d been signed before the season. By the deadline it was pointless. As I said earlier, none of these moves can be removed from larger context. They all represent late efforts to make up for earlier mistakes that had been predicted by most on this board (and not just critics of the FO). He acquired the best hitter available at the deadline that year and people were piss babies about it. That’s just the fact of the matter. You even see it in that argument that was being responded to. He’s getting criticized for being lucky due to having two players he acquired getting hot. He got zero credit for that deal from some. And that’s how you know it’s hard to take their critiques seriously- because to them Bloom is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. There’s zero objectivity. Now I’m not saying that’s all Bloom detractors or even people on this site. But that type of one-sided, irrational discourse was and is still definitely out there
|
|
|
Post by chud on Dec 26, 2022 12:27:30 GMT -5
...He got lucky in 2021 (when the Sox were universally grilled for not doing enough) that the team bailed him out by over performing and Schwarber/Kiké looking like Ruth/Gherig... I'll just focus on this line, because it sort of encapsulates the whole comment, in that Bloom performed better than if he had done what you apparently wanted/expected and you are criticizing him for it. He got Schwarber, Schwarber was great... and this is a bad thing? Or he just got "lucky"? I think he's had three excellent trade deadlines in a row.
2022: I know a lot of people would have preferred the team to give up when they had a 25-30% chance of making the playoffs, but I'm not a big fan of that sort of quitter's attitude, and moreover it is very rarely if ever how teams in that situation operate. And Bloom managed to improve the roster and gain prospects at the same deadline. 2021: Schwarber for Aldo Ramirez. That was the best value exchange probably any team had at the deadline that year. 2020: Pivetta and Seabold for Workman and Hembree. Speaks for itself. Bloom's made some mistakes, in my opinion, but the idea that his fatal flaw has been "indecisiveness" seems almost the opposite of the case. If anything he's stuck to his guns a little too much - e.g., by not handing out a serious extension offer to Bogaerts last spring when it might not have been optimal according to the team's own analysis.
Thanks for responding. I knew when I used the term "lucky" someone would focus on it so I'll just add a few points to clarify: 1) He wasn't lucky at all with Schwarber, that was a hell of a trade...I think where he got lucky was how the team, which now included Schwarber, performed after the deadline...At the time, Bloom was universally grilled by most (me included) for not doing more to support the team other than adding Schwarber...but it all worked out 2) Don't confuse good decisions with hard decisions...you can make a good decision w/out it being hard to decide. If I gave someone a $5 bill for a $50 bill, that would be a great decision, just not a hard one...I would agree that the Schwarber trade was a great one but let's not confuse it with being a difficult one...Guys like Bloom love those low risk/high upside decision points...no long term tail to them if they don't work out 3) The problem is, most leadership decisions don't come to that...most involve a high level of risk mitigation to be involved...So the goal of my post was not to say he only makes good or bad decisions...the goal of my post was to say that he has a hard time making difficult/risk based decisions...If every decision in front of him was the Schwarber trade, he would be in great shape...I think the question is, when confronted with making those difficult decisions, his performance has shown him to be an indecisive leader, unable to pull the trigger on players/money where there's a bigger risk involved. 4) Schwarber is actually a perfect microcosm of the cycle embodied in one player....The trade (low risk) was a good decision and an easy one for him due to what he gave up and what he was on the hook for down the road....Not re-signing Schwarber was a bad decision (I'll call it medium risk) as it would have entailed $60m-ish and a number of years commitment - result, inaction - signed by another team in FA....Replacement for OF/1B bat (medium risk) - Dalbec - let's do nothing and hope for the best - can cut bait with Dalbec if it doesn't work out....and so on.... Bottom line, no leader only ever makes good or bad decisions but truly good leaders are the ones who interject into the process at the right time to make a critical and correct decision...I'm not sure Bloom has ever done that, where his decision turned out to be both timely, difficult and correct all at the same time. But what the hell do I know, not like anyone's paying me to run a baseball team etc...
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 26, 2022 12:36:16 GMT -5
...He got lucky in 2021 (when the Sox were universally grilled for not doing enough) that the team bailed him out by over performing and Schwarber/Kiké looking like Ruth/Gherig... I'll just focus on this line, because it sort of encapsulates the whole comment, in that Bloom performed better than if he had done what you apparently wanted/expected and you are criticizing him for it. He got Schwarber, Schwarber was great... and this is a bad thing? Or he just got "lucky"? I think he's had three excellent trade deadlines in a row.
2022: I know a lot of people would have preferred the team to give up when they had a 25-30% chance of making the playoffs, but I'm not a big fan of that sort of quitter's attitude, and moreover it is very rarely if ever how teams in that situation operate. And Bloom managed to improve the roster and gain prospects at the same deadline. 2021: Schwarber for Aldo Ramirez. That was the best value exchange probably any team had at the deadline that year. 2020: Pivetta and Seabold for Workman and Hembree. Speaks for itself. Bloom's made some mistakes, in my opinion, but the idea that his fatal flaw has been "indecisiveness" seems almost the opposite of the case. If anything he's stuck to his guns a little too much - e.g., by not handing out a serious extension offer to Bogaerts last spring when it might not have been optimal according to the team's own analysis.
The Red Sox got the tar beat out of them by AL East teams prior to the deadline, were on a downward trajectory and had a ton of AL East games left on their schedule in which, by the way, they got the tar beat out of them yet again. They got two prospects. They should have gotten a helluva lot more. They should have gotten about a half dozen, and with Xander, at least one or two of strong quality. Eovaldi, JD Martinez, Wacha, and especially Xander, should have gotten them a helluva lot more prospects that they should have got. As it turned out, Christian Vazquez is the only guy they got any value for. They got nothing but a draft pick after the fourth round for Xander and they're headed down the same road for Eovaldi. They got less than that for Martinez and probably Wacha if he signs elsewhere. And Xander? How clueless is Bloom if he didn't offer Xander a helluva lot more than he did when it was time to offer an extension. As it was he was still only at 160 million before Xander signed his Padres Godfather offer. Did Bloom really not know it was going to take around 200 million or more to sign Xander? He really thought his extension offer was reasonable? He must be out to lunch if he really thought that. If he didn't, then he was gambling on Xander signing for Story like money when everybody else could put a bid on him? Surprise, there's sticker shock in free agency. Stunning....except it happens quite often in free agency where guys get a helluva lot more than you'd think. As it was, I didn't see X going for less than 200 million, although 280 million wasn't something I would have predicted. So unless you have a real shot at signing X, you trade him and get value rather than taking a chance on a sinking season where you have to spring a bunch of upsets to have a real shot to go anywhere in October. Instead they kept the team largely intact by infusing mediocre low impact players like Pham and Hosmer, while failing to get under the luxury tax limit, still finishing dead last, while still getting the crap kicked out of them by superior AL East teams, so now the best they can get are draft picks after the 4th round and a need to now have to reset their luxury tax limit clock. All because he couldn't pick a decisive direction. The Red Sox' situation called for a path to be picked and instead the Sox managed to turn the value of their assets into something lower than they had, a theme that has been all too common in Bloom's tenure and has gotten the Sox to the point where the product on the field has suffered. But while you applaud his deadline stance you revert to the "we have 85 million so we'll spend and all is well". Well, he's got 30 million left and the team is still full of holes. I'm sorry but I'm not impressed. I'm damn disappointed. I thought that he'd do better than this.
|
|
|