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 incandenza on Dec 26, 2022 12:44:28 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., 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... On Schwarber, I hardly think that was an easy decision. The near deafening chorus was saying that they NEEDED Rizzo at that deadline. Then the Yankees gave up like 3x the value for Rizzo that Bloom did for Schwarber, and Dalbec was far better than Rizzo down the stretch anyway. Some of that may have been luck, especially with Dalbec, but still, Bloom did not make the obvious move and it worked out very well.
(I also do not think failing to re-sign Schwarber was a mistake, as he was barely worth his contract in 2022, would have even poorer numbers in Fenway, and Story looks like a much better addition at what has emerged as a position of even greater need for the team.)
Similarly, trading Benintendi, and later Renfroe, were not moves that followed the path of least resistance; he went out of his way to be "active" and "decisive" with those guys, which not a lot of GMs would. Now certainly you might want to criticize those moves! I'm just saying indecisiveness/passivity seems to me like the opposite of the problem here.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Dec 26, 2022 12:54:21 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 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. I literally criticized him in the very comment you're quoting. Anyways, congratulations on being the first commenter I've ever blocked here. If you think I never criticize Bloom then you're obviously not reading all my comments. And yet you feel the need to make sweeping judgments about them. I don't have time for that ****.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Dec 26, 2022 13:35:23 GMT -5
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.)
The Broadway trade (as it will eventually be known) was a good trade but one good trade does not a great or even a good trade deadline make. The 2022 deadline was ultimately a failure because they only got halfway to where they needed to be.
Once Chaim decided that he was going to trade Vazquez, he absolutely had to act quickly to trade either JDM or Eovaldi first to ensure that they would land under the CBT. By not doing so, i.e. by trading Vazquez first, he ensured that no other GM would offer him a decent return for either JDM or Eovaldi because they could easily do the math and knew that they had Chaim over a barrel.
By making the smaller salary move first (with the hare-brained explanation that they were simultaneously buying and selling), he closed the door on more significant trades and resetting the CBT.
Good trades, bad trade deadline.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Dec 26, 2022 13:37:53 GMT -5
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.)
The Broadway trade (as it will eventually be known) was a good trade but one good trade does not a great or even good trade deadline make. The 2022 deadline was ultimately a failure because they only got halfway to where they needed to be.
Once Chaim decided that he was going to trade Vazquez, he absolutely had to act quickly to trade either JDM or Eovaldi first to ensure that they would land under the CBT. By not doing so, i.e. by trading Vazquez first, he ensured that no other GM would offer him a decent return for either JDM or Eovaldi because they could easily do the math and knew that they had Chaim over a barrel.
By making the smaller salary move first (with the hare-brained explanation that they were simultaneously buying and selling), he closed the door on more significant trades and resetting the CBT.
Good trades, bad trade deadline.
There is only one Broadway trade, and it cursed the team for decades.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Dec 26, 2022 13:40:31 GMT -5
The Broadway trade (as it will eventually be known) was a good trade but one good trade does not a great or even good trade deadline make. The 2022 deadline was ultimately a failure because they only got halfway to where they needed to be.
Once Chaim decided that he was going to trade Vazquez, he absolutely had to act quickly to trade either JDM or Eovaldi first to ensure that they would land under the CBT. By not doing so, i.e. by trading Vazquez first, he ensured that no other GM would offer him a decent return for either JDM or Eovaldi because they could easily do the math and knew that they had Chaim over a barrel.
By making the smaller salary move first (with the hare-brained explanation that they were simultaneously buying and selling), he closed the door on more significant trades and resetting the CBT.
Good trades, bad trade deadline.
There is only one Broadway trade, and it cursed the team for decades. Well played, my friend.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 26, 2022 13:45:09 GMT -5
The Broadway trade (as it will eventually be known) was a good trade but one good trade does not a great or even good trade deadline make. The 2022 deadline was ultimately a failure because they only got halfway to where they needed to be.
Once Chaim decided that he was going to trade Vazquez, he absolutely had to act quickly to trade either JDM or Eovaldi first to ensure that they would land under the CBT. By not doing so, i.e. by trading Vazquez first, he ensured that no other GM would offer him a decent return for either JDM or Eovaldi because they could easily do the math and knew that they had Chaim over a barrel.
By making the smaller salary move first (with the hare-brained explanation that they were simultaneously buying and selling), he closed the door on more significant trades and resetting the CBT.
Good trades, bad trade deadline.
There is only one Broadway trade, and it cursed the team for decades. Actually it was a sale, not a trade, as they received no players in return, but yes, good one Rhaggy (in my best Scooby Doo voice).
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Dec 26, 2022 14:30:13 GMT -5
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.)
The Broadway trade (as it will eventually be known) was a good trade but one good trade does not a great or even a good trade deadline make. The 2022 deadline was ultimately a failure because they only got halfway to where they needed to be.
Once Chaim decided that he was going to trade Vazquez, he absolutely had to act quickly to trade either JDM or Eovaldi first to ensure that they would land under the CBT. By not doing so, i.e. by trading Vazquez first, he ensured that no other GM would offer him a decent return for either JDM or Eovaldi because they could easily do the math and knew that they had Chaim over a barrel.
By making the smaller salary move first (with the hare-brained explanation that they were simultaneously buying and selling), he closed the door on more significant trades and resetting the CBT.
Good trades, bad trade deadline.
I disagree as clearly if they wanted those players they didn't have Chaim over a barrel since he didn't trade them and the Red Sox were ready to try to compete. I also don't agree that they "got halfway." They did exactly what they wanted to do, get better and add prospects. Now in hindsight (and yes I know some of you were certain they had no chance at the time blah blah blah please don't respond saying that) things didn't go well and clearly they would have been better off selling fully. However, the team thought they had something like 30% playoff odds, with a roster that just made an ALCS run, reinforcements (which never came) hypothetically on the way from the IR and a ravenous fan base. That is exactly the team that should stand pat at the deadline and they did better than that. Their approach was totally reasonable at the time.
|
|
|
Post by tizzle on Dec 26, 2022 15:44:08 GMT -5
The Broadway trade (as it will eventually be known) was a good trade but one good trade does not a great or even a good trade deadline make. The 2022 deadline was ultimately a failure because they only got halfway to where they needed to be.
Once Chaim decided that he was going to trade Vazquez, he absolutely had to act quickly to trade either JDM or Eovaldi first to ensure that they would land under the CBT. By not doing so, i.e. by trading Vazquez first, he ensured that no other GM would offer him a decent return for either JDM or Eovaldi because they could easily do the math and knew that they had Chaim over a barrel.
By making the smaller salary move first (with the hare-brained explanation that they were simultaneously buying and selling), he closed the door on more significant trades and resetting the CBT.
Good trades, bad trade deadline.
I disagree as clearly if they wanted those players they didn't have Chaim over a barrel since he didn't trade them and the Red Sox were ready to try to compete. I also don't agree that they "got halfway." They did exactly what they wanted to do, get better and add prospects. Now in hindsight (and yes I know some of you were certain they had no chance at the time blah blah blah please don't respond saying that) things didn't go well and clearly they would have been better off selling fully. However, the team thought they had something like 30% playoff odds, with a roster that just made an ALCS run, reinforcements (which never came) hypothetically on the way from the IR and a ravenous fan base. That is exactly the team that should stand pat at the deadline and they did better than that. Their approach was totally reasonable at the time. LOL. I just love the concept that thinking that crap pile of a team was a legit contender is a defense of a Front Office's competence. And that all the fans who knew how dumb that was is completely irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Dec 26, 2022 15:54:35 GMT -5
I disagree as clearly if they wanted those players they didn't have Chaim over a barrel since he didn't trade them and the Red Sox were ready to try to compete. I also don't agree that they "got halfway." They did exactly what they wanted to do, get better and add prospects. Now in hindsight (and yes I know some of you were certain they had no chance at the time blah blah blah please don't respond saying that) things didn't go well and clearly they would have been better off selling fully. However, the team thought they had something like 30% playoff odds, with a roster that just made an ALCS run, reinforcements (which never came) hypothetically on the way from the IR and a ravenous fan base. That is exactly the team that should stand pat at the deadline and they did better than that. Their approach was totally reasonable at the time. LOL. I just love the concept that thinking that crap pile of a team was a legit contender is a defense of a Front Office's competence. And that all the fans who knew how dumb that was is completely irrelevant. It's irrelevant because it's not the argument I'm making. We can agree to disagree on whether the odds were 30% as at least one public model suggested. I get it - you thought the team had no chance at the time so you disagreed with the approach, okay, but we can never have an interesting conversation about that. The question I'm asking is, if the team believed their odds were 30% (or in that ballpark), wouldn't the course of action they took be reasonable? To me it obviously is in that situation, so I don't think their actions are confusing. They believed their playoff odds were high enough to not get worse, but not high enough they should trade away from the farm to get better, that feels like a straightforward enough decision tree to me. If anything they actually did better at taking this path than other teams (Cubs, Giants) that behaved similarly. Again, I get it, you didn't believe in the team's odds so they should have sold, congrats to you for being smarter than the team's model and Fangraphs' model but that's not what I'm asking.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 26, 2022 16:25:05 GMT -5
LOL. I just love the concept that thinking that crap pile of a team was a legit contender is a defense of a Front Office's competence. And that all the fans who knew how dumb that was is completely irrelevant. It's irrelevant because it's not the argument I'm making. We can agree to disagree on whether the odds were 30% as at least one public model suggested. I get it - you thought the team had no chance at the time so you disagreed with the approach, okay, but we can never have an interesting conversation about that. The question I'm asking is, if the team believed their odds were 30% (or in that ballpark), wouldn't the course of action they took be reasonable? To me it obviously is in that situation, so I don't think their actions are confusing. They believed their playoff odds were high enough to not get worse, but not high enough they should trade away from the farm to get better, that feels like a straightforward enough decision tree to me. If anything they actually did better at taking this path than other teams (Cubs, Giants) that behaved similarly. Again, I get it, you didn't believe in the team's odds so they should have sold, congrats to you for being smarter than the team's model and Fangraphs' model but that's not what I'm asking. Two questions: Why should a model determine if the Red Sox should be going for it in their situation? I mean, wouldn't scouting eyes have had a good idea that this team was severely lacking? And two, whether a model is used or not (and boy I hope it's not the same damn model that said giving Xander a Story like extension offer was a bad idea and that 1 year and and extra $30 million or whatever short dollar figure was a good idea), then what's the threshold for going for it? I mean, I think 30%, if that's even really an accurate ballpark figure, is a bad idea to go for it, but I don't think that should be the only variable. Say they had nobody of note that was going to become a free agent, at 30% I'd be more inclined to go for it, but with X unextended and a free agency market ahead and a team unwilling to give out a 200 plus contract to retain him, and a bunch of other free agents with value and other seasons in which, if you build the team right, your odds at July 31st would be better than 30% to compete, why wouldn't you get under to reset the luxury tax? I mean, there should be more than, it's a 30% chance, we should go for it. I think at some point you have to know what your team is and balance that against the future. If the present is that damn good perhaps you sacrifice a bit of the future, but if the present is a nothing burger or damn close to it, you help your future. Was it a nothing burger? My scouting eyes thought so, but then again what do I know? It's not like they employ me, but then again they do employ scouting eyes. Did those scouting eyes tell them they were a worthwhile team to invest in or try to tread water with? I mean, now we have it where there's 12 teams in the playoffs so the threshold for getting in is a lot lower, so does that mean a team .500 or less has to say, "We're in it because there's a chance?!" Yes, ok teams make it to the Series, but how many upsets did a team like the Red Sox last year need to spring to make any real noise in the playoffs? How realistic was that? 30% chance to make the playoffs? 10% chance to win a couple of series? Probably less than that? It wasn't hard to see that the 2021 Sox were worth investing in, but that the 2022 Sox certainly weren't. But I guess that depends upon your threshold. So when there are 14 teams in the playoffs and you can go 78-84 and get a wild card spot, if you're playing .450 baseball come July 31st, are you supposed to not sell off assets that you can easily lose for virtually nothing in the offseason because you might get near .500 and snag the last wild card spot?
|
|
|
Post by chud on Dec 26, 2022 17:03:10 GMT -5
The Broadway trade (as it will eventually be known) was a good trade but one good trade does not a great or even a good trade deadline make. The 2022 deadline was ultimately a failure because they only got halfway to where they needed to be.
Once Chaim decided that he was going to trade Vazquez, he absolutely had to act quickly to trade either JDM or Eovaldi first to ensure that they would land under the CBT. By not doing so, i.e. by trading Vazquez first, he ensured that no other GM would offer him a decent return for either JDM or Eovaldi because they could easily do the math and knew that they had Chaim over a barrel.
By making the smaller salary move first (with the hare-brained explanation that they were simultaneously buying and selling), he closed the door on more significant trades and resetting the CBT.
Good trades, bad trade deadline.
I disagree as clearly if they wanted those players they didn't have Chaim over a barrel since he didn't trade them and the Red Sox were ready to try to compete. I also don't agree that they "got halfway." They did exactly what they wanted to do, get better and add prospects. Now in hindsight (and yes I know some of you were certain they had no chance at the time blah blah blah please don't respond saying that) things didn't go well and clearly they would have been better off selling fully. However, the team thought they had something like 30% playoff odds, with a roster that just made an ALCS run, reinforcements (which never came) hypothetically on the way from the IR and a ravenous fan base. That is exactly the team that should stand pat at the deadline and they did better than that. Their approach was totally reasonable at the time. These are great conversations! The only thing I'd add is, whatever the % was for them to make the playoffs and whichever way Bloom should have went (buy or sell), he didn't really do either...I think the correct term that was used at the time was that he more or less went "sideways"...Kind of goes to my point of being indecisive...Getting out of the "it was better to buy or better to sell" part of the equation, as we can also debate that one as I was way more of a "sell" guy but would have understood if they went "full buy" to make a playoff run...What I don't get and will never get was this lack of moving in either direction. Good leaders are decisive and can pick a path and more often than not be right, yet not be afraid to be wrong in moving the football down the field. It's mind-boggling...and I'd say with all of the media articles coming out lately from local and even nationally respected writers, about the lack of direction of the org, there's some fire here...almost like, they're beginning the distancing process for what they envision is not going to end well...Just so happens I totally fall into that category. At the end of Bloom's reign we can more accurately evaluate the job he did over his likely 4 year run, that will ultimately showcase the job he did...To this point, two last place finishes, one ALCS run and likely a 4th or 5h place finish will not likely get him his next GM job. Think about this from a quick laymen's perspective...Was the team he inherited better or worse than it is today? Finishes last, then ALCS run (seemingly getting better) then last again...then this current mess...From the ALCS run, is this team better or worse as it sits today? While I'd love, love, love him to prove me wrong, to think that's likely to happen is more of a wish than reality. He'll make a good #2 again somewhere, supporting a #1 who's a true shot caller
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 26, 2022 17:18:18 GMT -5
I disagree as clearly if they wanted those players they didn't have Chaim over a barrel since he didn't trade them and the Red Sox were ready to try to compete. I also don't agree that they "got halfway." They did exactly what they wanted to do, get better and add prospects. Now in hindsight (and yes I know some of you were certain they had no chance at the time blah blah blah please don't respond saying that) things didn't go well and clearly they would have been better off selling fully. However, the team thought they had something like 30% playoff odds, with a roster that just made an ALCS run, reinforcements (which never came) hypothetically on the way from the IR and a ravenous fan base. That is exactly the team that should stand pat at the deadline and they did better than that. Their approach was totally reasonable at the time. These are great conversations! The only thing I'd add is, whatever the % was for them to make the playoffs and whichever way Bloom should have went (buy or sell), he didn't really do either...I think the correct term that was used at the time was that he more or less went "sideways"...Kind of goes to my point of being indecisive...Getting out of the "it was better to buy or better to sell" part of the equation, as we can also debate that one as I was way more of a "sell" guy but would have understood if they went "full buy" to make a playoff run...What I don't get and will never get was this lack of moving in either direction. Good leaders are decisive and can pick a path and more often than not be right, yet not be afraid to be wrong in moving the football down the field. It's mind-boggling...and I'd say with all of the media articles coming out lately from local and even nationally respected writers, about the lack of direction of the org, there's some fire here...almost like, they're beginning the distancing process for what they envision is not going to end well...Just so happens I totally fall into that category. At the end of Bloom's reign we can more accurately evaluate the job he did over his likely 4 year run, that will ultimately showcase the job he did...To this point, two last place finishes, one ALCS run and likely a 4th or 5h place finish will not likely get him his next GM job. Think about this from a quick laymen's perspective...Was the team he inherited better or worse than it is today? Finishes last, then ALCS run (seemingly getting better) then last again...then this current mess...From the ALCS run, is this team better or worse as it sits today? While I'd love, love, love him to prove me wrong, to think that's likely to happen is more of a wish than reality. He'll make a good #2 again somewhere, supporting a #1 who's a true shot caller In fairness to Bloom, I don't know that I hold 2020 against him. I don't know if ownership told him he needed to duck under the luxury tax line and that they weren't willing to give Betts a Trout like offer or if Bloom felt that giving Mookie the money would be a waste or a bit of both...I really don't know and of course I'm not looking to reopen that case. All I'm saying is I don't know to what point Bloom is culpable for not willing to offer Trout like money - and I say this as somebody who is uneducated about a lot of this but knew damn well he was shooting for Trout's contract. Once Betts and Price were dealt and Sale was injured there wasn't too much the Sox could do. There was still a strong core, the same core that was mainly responsible for the strong showing in 2021. I can grade the value of Bloom's return for the Betts deal, knowing that Price's presence did diminish the return even with the subsidy which seems kind of crazy to me as he was still an effective pitcher going into the 2020 season, just not one worth 30 million/year. Anyways I'm willing to mitigate 2020 somewhat out of fairness, but I haven't agreed much with what he's done since last offseason, although I will say I like the risk he took with Yoshida and once his contract offer was far short for Abreu, I think I'm fine with the Turner signing although I personally would have brought JDM back for one year roughly at the deal he got with the Dodgers. I'm not crazy about the Jansen signing but I won't give him grief over it even if it backfires which it could do. I was fine with the Martin signing. So I'm not a "everything Bloom touches is terrible" or anything like that. I call each move as I see it. In totality I'm not fine with a lot of the bigger decisions, but if I'm going to be critical, I do have to be fair and be complementary of what I like or see that he does that I'm cool with. I'm trying to be as balanced as I can be anyways.
|
|
|
Post by tizzle on Dec 26, 2022 17:35:43 GMT -5
LOL. I just love the concept that thinking that crap pile of a team was a legit contender is a defense of a Front Office's competence. And that all the fans who knew how dumb that was is completely irrelevant. It's irrelevant because it's not the argument I'm making. We can agree to disagree on whether the odds were 30% as at least one public model suggested. I get it - you thought the team had no chance at the time so you disagreed with the approach, okay, but we can never have an interesting conversation about that. The question I'm asking is, if the team believed their odds were 30% (or in that ballpark), wouldn't the course of action they took be reasonable? To me it obviously is in that situation, so I don't think their actions are confusing. They believed their playoff odds were high enough to not get worse, but not high enough they should trade away from the farm to get better, that feels like a straightforward enough decision tree to me. If anything they actually did better at taking this path than other teams (Cubs, Giants) that behaved similarly. Again, I get it, you didn't believe in the team's odds so they should have sold, congrats to you for being smarter than the team's model and Fangraphs' model but that's not what I'm asking. Yeah, I'd say any FO that thought they had a 30% chance of making the postseason with that team, with the way they were playing, the health issues and the way other teams were acquiring talent, while moving their starting C and bringing in mediocre pieces like Pham and Hosmer, is not a FO I would have much use for. And what odds were there that that team would do anything in the playoffs if they made it? More than like 2%? The team made decisions based on a mentality that I frankly have zero respect for in any sport. It was about pretending to compete to sell tickets, rather than do what was the right thing to get the team closer to a championship. Just dealing JD for nothing and getting below the tax would have done more for this franchise than anything they did could, looking at the moves even remotely realistically.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Dec 26, 2022 17:37:36 GMT -5
Trying to collect responses to a few things here. First of all, I think the aim here should be to be better than the layman's point of view. There's a reason we come here rather than talk radio. On the deadline stuff:
- I think it's totally reasonable to believe that either 1) 30% is low enough to sell, or 2) Depending on the team's circumstances it can either make sense or not make sense. On this point though I disagree that this team was necessarily in the situation to sell with those odds. Xander was pointed out, but clearly the team did intend on resigning him, so in the moment it makes sense to keep him to help their odds with that. This didn't work out, so the overall Xander sequence is a failure, but it's a failure because of the pre-season, not the deadline decision to me. I also think the team's current luxury tax position made it so that staying over wasn't such a big deal (especially if you consider that they hoped to resign Xander and possibly Eovaldi).
- The point that they didn't really either buy or sell - that's right they didn't, I'm saying that was a reasonable course of action in my mind. A team with middling to low play off odds that still hopes to compete shouldn't go all out buying, but they shouldn't sell either. I think this is an okay choice to make. I actually think they executed their deadline plan pretty much just as they wanted to given the situation.
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Dec 26, 2022 19:10:14 GMT -5
Trying to collect responses to a few things here. First of all, I think the aim here should be to be better than the layman's point of view. There's a reason we come here rather than talk radio. On the deadline stuff: - I think it's totally reasonable to believe that either 1) 30% is low enough to sell, or 2) Depending on the team's circumstances it can either make sense or not make sense. On this point though I disagree that this team was necessarily in the situation to sell with those odds. Xander was pointed out, but clearly the team did intend on resigning him, so in the moment it makes sense to keep him to help their odds with that. This didn't work out, so the overall Xander sequence is a failure, but it's a failure because of the pre-season, not the deadline decision to me. I also think the team's current luxury tax position made it so that staying over wasn't such a big deal (especially if you consider that they hoped to resign Xander and possibly Eovaldi). - The point that they didn't really either buy or sell - that's right they didn't, I'm saying that was a reasonable course of action in my mind. A team with middling to low play off odds that still hopes to compete shouldn't go all out buying, but they shouldn't sell either. I think this is an okay choice to make. I actually think they executed their deadline plan pretty much just as they wanted to given the situation. What they did at the deadline was absolutely stupid. I'm sorry. They had no plan and, in turn, went over the tax and kept everyone other than Vazquez instead of getting under. Essentially costing themselves a much higher pick for Xander leaving. The buying thing was way too late.
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 15,659
Member is Online
|
Post by cdj on Dec 26, 2022 19:15:06 GMT -5
This “they had no plan at the deadline” stuff is nonsense. They had a plan- to try to make some low cost, easy upgrades and get some guys back from injury to push for the playoffs.
It ended up not working out. You can debate the merits of their decision and that is certainly valid. It does not mean they didn’t have a plan.
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Dec 26, 2022 19:16:47 GMT -5
This “they had no plan at the deadline” stuff is nonsense. They had a plan- to try to make some low cost, easy upgrades and get some guys back from injury to push for the playoffs. It ended up not working out. You can debate the merits of their decision and that is certainly valid. It does not mean they didn’t have a plan. And it pushed them over the threshold. How is that a plan?
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 15,659
Member is Online
|
Post by cdj on Dec 26, 2022 19:19:14 GMT -5
This “they had no plan at the deadline” stuff is nonsense. They had a plan- to try to make some low cost, easy upgrades and get some guys back from injury to push for the playoffs. It ended up not working out. You can debate the merits of their decision and that is certainly valid. It does not mean they didn’t have a plan. And it pushed them over the threshold. How is that a plan? It didn’t? Fairly certain they were already over heading into trade season. Hosmer was free, McGuire is cheaper than Vazquez, they dumped Diekman and added Pham It’s a silly little false narrative. You can disagree with their plan but to say they didn’t have one is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 26, 2022 19:25:44 GMT -5
And it pushed them over the threshold. How is that a plan? It didn’t? Fairly certain they were already over heading into trade season. Hosmer was free, McGuire is cheaper than Vazquez, they dumped Diekman and added Pham It’s a silly little false narrative. You can disagree with their plan but to say they didn’t have one is wrong. I won't say they didn't have a plan. They did. I think it was flawed and I disagreed with it from the getgo for the reasons that are pretty obvious now and seemed to me pretty obvious then as well.
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Dec 26, 2022 19:41:51 GMT -5
This “they had no plan at the deadline” stuff is nonsense. They had a plan- to try to make some low cost, easy upgrades and get some guys back from injury to push for the playoffs. Eh, I think they basically admitting to shopping everyone except Bogaerts. They willing to keep everyone and they were willing to strip mine the team. It all came down to the price other teams were willing to pay.
Speier quoted sources from other teams saying the Sox were just looking for another team to be do something stupid. Which they got the White Sox and Astros to do. If there were some more stupid teams they would have traded Eovaldi and Martinez.
|
|
|
Post by tizzle on Dec 26, 2022 19:55:20 GMT -5
This “they had no plan at the deadline” stuff is nonsense. They had a plan- to try to make some low cost, easy upgrades and get some guys back from injury to push for the playoffs. It ended up not working out. You can debate the merits of their decision and that is certainly valid. It does not mean they didn’t have a plan. I have a plan to woo and wed Margot Robbie. You can debate the merits of my eating of DoubleStuf Oreos and watching TV, but it would be dumb to say it's not a plan.
|
|
|
Post by chud on Dec 26, 2022 19:57:40 GMT -5
This “they had no plan at the deadline” stuff is nonsense. They had a plan- to try to make some low cost, easy upgrades and get some guys back from injury to push for the playoffs. Eh, I think they basically admitting to shopping everyone except Bogaerts. They willing to keep everyone and they were willing to strip mine the team. It all came down to the price other teams were willing to pay.
Speier quoted sources from other teams saying the Sox were just looking for another team to be do something stupid. Which they got the White Sox and Astros to do. If there were some more stupid teams they would have traded Eovaldi and Martinez.
I think this hits to the crux of the issue...If there's a clear cut "win" to a deal (i.e. low risk/low downside) Bloom can thrive in that environment...being that most deals are closer to balancing that risk/reward line, leads to why Bloom has made many lesser/non-postively-impactful deals...he either needs to see the clear, no doubter perspective "win" or needs to know that a loss won't be around for very long...Sorry to be a one trick pony here but I cannot for the life of me see how he can ever be the #1 in a baseball org...but can totally see how he would thrive as a #2...
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Dec 26, 2022 19:59:19 GMT -5
This “they had no plan at the deadline” stuff is nonsense. They had a plan- to try to make some low cost, easy upgrades and get some guys back from injury to push for the playoffs. It ended up not working out. You can debate the merits of their decision and that is certainly valid. It does not mean they didn’t have a plan. I have a plan to woo and wed Margo Robbie. You can debate the merits of my eating of DoubleStuf Oreos and watching TV, but it would be dumb to say it's not a plan. Better spell her name right! Then I think you have a real chance.
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Dec 26, 2022 20:04:50 GMT -5
And it pushed them over the threshold. How is that a plan? It didn’t? Fairly certain they were already over heading into trade season. Hosmer was free, McGuire is cheaper than Vazquez, they dumped Diekman and added Pham It’s a silly little false narrative. You can disagree with their plan but to say they didn’t have one is wrong. All they had to do was dump JD for literally anything, and they get under. They stopped selling when the team got pissed about Vazquez and pivoted to buying. They were longshots at the deadline and buying made no sense. If it was a "plan," there was no thought at all, and it was shotgunned. Much like the offseason.
|
|
|
Post by chud on Dec 26, 2022 20:06:29 GMT -5
These are great conversations! The only thing I'd add is, whatever the % was for them to make the playoffs and whichever way Bloom should have went (buy or sell), he didn't really do either...I think the correct term that was used at the time was that he more or less went "sideways"...Kind of goes to my point of being indecisive...Getting out of the "it was better to buy or better to sell" part of the equation, as we can also debate that one as I was way more of a "sell" guy but would have understood if they went "full buy" to make a playoff run...What I don't get and will never get was this lack of moving in either direction. Good leaders are decisive and can pick a path and more often than not be right, yet not be afraid to be wrong in moving the football down the field. It's mind-boggling...and I'd say with all of the media articles coming out lately from local and even nationally respected writers, about the lack of direction of the org, there's some fire here...almost like, they're beginning the distancing process for what they envision is not going to end well...Just so happens I totally fall into that category. At the end of Bloom's reign we can more accurately evaluate the job he did over his likely 4 year run, that will ultimately showcase the job he did...To this point, two last place finishes, one ALCS run and likely a 4th or 5h place finish will not likely get him his next GM job. Think about this from a quick laymen's perspective...Was the team he inherited better or worse than it is today? Finishes last, then ALCS run (seemingly getting better) then last again...then this current mess...From the ALCS run, is this team better or worse as it sits today? While I'd love, love, love him to prove me wrong, to think that's likely to happen is more of a wish than reality. He'll make a good #2 again somewhere, supporting a #1 who's a true shot caller In fairness to Bloom, I don't know that I hold 2020 against him. I don't know if ownership told him he needed to duck under the luxury tax line and that they weren't willing to give Betts a Trout like offer or if Bloom felt that giving Mookie the money would be a waste or a bit of both...I really don't know and of course I'm not looking to reopen that case. All I'm saying is I don't know to what point Bloom is culpable for not willing to offer Trout like money - and I say this as somebody who is uneducated about a lot of this but knew damn well he was shooting for Trout's contract. Once Betts and Price were dealt and Sale was injured there wasn't too much the Sox could do. There was still a strong core, the same core that was mainly responsible for the strong showing in 2021. I can grade the value of Bloom's return for the Betts deal, knowing that Price's presence did diminish the return even with the subsidy which seems kind of crazy to me as he was still an effective pitcher going into the 2020 season, just not one worth 30 million/year. Anyways I'm willing to mitigate 2020 somewhat out of fairness, but I haven't agreed much with what he's done since last offseason, although I will say I like the risk he took with Yoshida and once his contract offer was far short for Abreu, I think I'm fine with the Turner signing although I personally would have brought JDM back for one year roughly at the deal he got with the Dodgers. I'm not crazy about the Jansen signing but I won't give him grief over it even if it backfires which it could do. I was fine with the Martin signing. So I'm not a "everything Bloom touches is terrible" or anything like that. I call each move as I see it. In totality I'm not fine with a lot of the bigger decisions, but if I'm going to be critical, I do have to be fair and be complementary of what I like or see that he does that I'm cool with. I'm trying to be as balanced as I can be anyways. That makes totally sense and is a very, very logical take! From the cheap seats, we'll never know the inner dynamics of any specific deal to know who mandated doing something or who killed something...but my take, which me be totally unreasonable, is that the CBO is 100% responsible for the baseball product, for better or worse. I'm not naive enough to think owners don't play a huge part in all high level/financially impactful decisions, but I do think that prior to Bloom getting the job for a multi-billion dollar global org like the Sox, philosophy on how to handle these types of decisions was discussed and Bloom's philosophy had to have matched the philosophy of ownership. Never more so than with the essential firing of Dombrowski and the hiring of his Bizzaro world counterpart in Bloom...And to this point, I can't say the Bloom philosophy doesn't work but I can say that the Bloom execution of whatever his philosophy is, is just completely terrible.
|
|
|