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 27, 2022 12:13:19 GMT -5
I understand some people are clairvoyant and knew that the team that was 2 games out of a playoff spot and thought it was getting Sale and Eovaldi back, and that had gone 20-6 just a month before the trade deadline, had no chance to make the playoffs.
I really just wish those people would acknowledge that quitting on the season in that situation is something teams almost never do. Other middling teams at the time, like the Orioles and Giants and Guardians, all took middling paths themselves (though not nearly as creatively or productively as the Red Sox did).
So, okay, doing the sort of thing any other team would do in that situation was the wrong thing to do. If you believe that, fine. Just acknowledge that what you're saying Bloom should have done - a complete teardown - would have been a really extraordinary course of action. I made this comment acknowledging that some people felt they had no chance to make the playoffs and should have had a fire sale, and only wanted to persuade people that this would have been very unusual behavior by a front office given the context, and instead four different people [EDIT: make that five different people] responded with some version of "yeah but they had no chance to make the playoffs and should have had a fire sale." It seems to be impossible to move this conversation forward so I guess I'll drop it.
|
|
|
Post by pappyman99 on Dec 27, 2022 12:20:41 GMT -5
There are two different deadline complaints that I see: 1) The Red Sox picked the wrong course of action. I can understand the arguments to make other choices (especially sell harder) given their odds and all. I disagree, but the argument is reasonable. EDIT: On #1 above - Obviously in hindsight they should have sold for whatever they could get, but I'm saying from an in the moment POV. 2) The Red Sox were paralyzed and didn't make a decision. This one makes no sense, they actually laid out exactly what they were going to do before the deadline, and then they did it better than any other team who chose a similarly neutral path. The whole concept of “neutral” is dumb, and even dumber for a team out of the playoffs and on a losing streak. You commit to one way or the other. Neutral just leads to a slow death.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Dec 27, 2022 12:30:20 GMT -5
I understand some people are clairvoyant and knew that the team that was 2 games out of a playoff spot and thought it was getting Sale and Eovaldi back, and that had gone 20-6 just a month before the trade deadline, had no chance to make the playoffs.
I really just wish those people would acknowledge that quitting on the season in that situation is something teams almost never do. Other middling teams at the time, like the Orioles and Giants and Guardians, all took middling paths themselves (though not nearly as creatively or productively as the Red Sox did).
So, okay, doing the sort of thing any other team would do in that situation was the wrong thing to do. If you believe that, fine. Just acknowledge that what you're saying Bloom should have done - a complete teardown - would have been a really extraordinary course of action. Personally, I am not a tear-down voice… but I am a cr@p-or-get-off-the-pot guy. If they thought 30% was real, why not make it 50%? But trading your starting catcher away and getting Tommy Pham… it is neither. Hosmer doesn’t count because he was pretty much toast. And trading Diekman away might have gotten an ok return, but it didn’t *help* the bullpen, which was not good. In other words, they were *merely* 30% for identifiable reasons that could have been better fixed. To me, the big flaw in the “how can you give up” argument is that the FO itself did not believe in the team enough to do anything significant to give them a chance. After all, as people keep saying, they were 2 games from the WS the year before… why not at least a Schwarber-type trade? My guess is that they were not super optimistic it would help. Measuring current value against future value is something we do all the time in every aspect of our lives. When I get a paycheck, I try to spend some of it in the present and save some for the future. Sometimes I eat a rich meal and exercise in the same day because I want to balance present pleasures against future costs. Events in the present have some value to me and events in the future have some value to me and so I act accordingly. Why does this logic not apply to team-building?
|
|
|
Post by bloomstaxonomy on Dec 27, 2022 12:35:08 GMT -5
It strikes me that too much of this conversation - and too much of the conversation about the FO in general and CB in particular - is like our political divisions. I see the pro-Bloom people heading to their corner of the room to defend the trade deadline strategy and the Never Bloomers gleefully rushing to criticize. We have either a strong economy with full employment and a bit of inflation or a second Great Depression wrecking American civilization right now. Depends what channel you watch. This isn't a criticism of any one poster, so I don't want anyone to get offended. In fact, I think those participating in this discussion are among the best on the board. It's just an observation. Edit: I should add that I also see people in the Sensible Center who may like or dislike Bloom, but who who are rational about it, expressing honest, well-thought out opinions one way of the other about the trade deadline. Funny you say that. Bloom may be Chief Baseball Officer (with the way these titles evolve, soon O'Halloran will be CBO and Bloom will be First and Principal Baron of Fenway, Lord of Baseball, Extraordinary Commander of Operations), but he's essentially President of Baseball Operations just as Dombrowski was. The entrenched polarization towards our "president" that is occurring here is mimicking the political polarizations that are strengthening in response to actual U.S. presidents.
|
|
|
Post by greenmonster on Dec 27, 2022 12:37:21 GMT -5
It strikes me that too much of this conversation - and too much of the conversation about the FO in general and CB in particular - is like our political divisions. I see the pro-Bloom people heading to their corner of the room to defend the trade deadline strategy and the Never Bloomers gleefully rushing to criticize. We have either a strong economy with full employment and a bit of inflation or a second Great Depression wrecking American civilization right now. Depends what channel you watch. This isn't a criticism of any one poster, so I don't want anyone to get offended. In fact, I think those participating in this discussion are among the best on the board. It's just an observation. Edit: I should add that I also see people in the Sensible Center who may like or dislike Bloom, but who who are rational about it, expressing honest, well-thought out opinions one way of the other about the trade deadline. And eventually, regardless of which channel you are watching, you have to come to terms with the fact that if you want to get across town you have to fill the gas tank with $4/gal gasoline even though you used to do it for $2/gal. Unless, you prefer to pedal the bike, just don't be surprised if everyone is there before you.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Dec 27, 2022 12:49:55 GMT -5
I understand some people are clairvoyant and knew that the team that was 2 games out of a playoff spot and thought it was getting Sale and Eovaldi back, and that had gone 20-6 just a month before the trade deadline, had no chance to make the playoffs.
I really just wish those people would acknowledge that quitting on the season in that situation is something teams almost never do. Other middling teams at the time, like the Orioles and Giants and Guardians, all took middling paths themselves (though not nearly as creatively or productively as the Red Sox did).
So, okay, doing the sort of thing any other team would do in that situation was the wrong thing to do. If you believe that, fine. Just acknowledge that what you're saying Bloom should have done - a complete teardown - would have been a really extraordinary course of action. You don't have to be clairvoyant to see that a .500 team that hadn't won a single intra-division series in the season's first four months -- not even against BAL -- needs a lot more than incremental changes, none of them to the bullpen, to get to a position where they could win even one playoff series.
Great, we won all those incremental trades. And we also found out how useful it is to pencil injured starting pitchers into next month's rotation.
Maybe I'm not clairvoyant enough to see that those trades wouldn't be enough but I would hope that someone in the FO would be.
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 15,659
|
Post by cdj on Dec 27, 2022 12:50:41 GMT -5
I understand some people are clairvoyant and knew that the team that was 2 games out of a playoff spot and thought it was getting Sale and Eovaldi back, and that had gone 20-6 just a month before the trade deadline, had no chance to make the playoffs.
I really just wish those people would acknowledge that quitting on the season in that situation is something teams almost never do. Other middling teams at the time, like the Orioles and Giants and Guardians, all took middling paths themselves (though not nearly as creatively or productively as the Red Sox did).
So, okay, doing the sort of thing any other team would do in that situation was the wrong thing to do. If you believe that, fine. Just acknowledge that what you're saying Bloom should have done - a complete teardown - would have been a really extraordinary course of action. I made this comment acknowledging that some people felt they had no chance to make the playoffs and should have had a fire sale, and only wanted to persuade people that this would have been very unusual behavior by a front office given the context, and instead four different people responded with some version of "yeah but they had no chance to make the playoffs and should have had a fire sale." It seems to be impossible to move this conversation forward so I guess I'll drop it. Sometimes people get dug in to the point they are not willing to be realistic, not much you can do
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,951
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Dec 27, 2022 12:53:46 GMT -5
There are two different deadline complaints that I see: 1) The Red Sox picked the wrong course of action. I can understand the arguments to make other choices (especially sell harder) given their odds and all. I disagree, but the argument is reasonable. EDIT: On #1 above - Obviously in hindsight they should have sold for whatever they could get, but I'm saying from an in the moment POV. 2) The Red Sox were paralyzed and didn't make a decision. This one makes no sense, they actually laid out exactly what they were going to do before the deadline, and then they did it better than any other team who chose a similarly neutral path. I'm strongly in the first camp that you listed. But those who are sharing that camp with me are not expressing an in-the-moment POV. We were critical of the deadline moves as soon as the deadline passed. The result did not surprise us. Bolded: Well cuz, I'm not sure how they did it better than anyone else. They: 1.) Passed up the chance to make material improvements to the farm and instead acquired guys that are unlikely to ever make an impact in the ML; 2.) Stayed over the LTT and no, that's not irrelevant and 3.) Did not improve the ML team enough to get that prestigious third WC spot. They went 23-29 after the deadline. They accomplished none of the three possible objectives, so I can't see how it could have turned out worse. It went the way some of us thought it would. Also, if those who like the strategy want to dismiss the downside of going over the LTT as insignificant, they should be fair and also acknowledge that the gains the system made at the deadline were minor. Valdez and Abreu each have skills that make them interesting enough to watch, but Valdez has no position and is ranked 17th while Abreu is ranked 26th. This board gives each of them a 3-5 grade and says each has the ceiling of a utility player. And let's not get carried away with the "We'll, they did make upgrades." Tommy Pham is 1.6 WAR (B-Ref) in 330 games since 2020. Hosmer is 3.3 in 293 games over that time. He was also made redundant by the Casas callup and appeared in only 14 games for the Red Sox. Neither of those guys is any good.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Dec 27, 2022 12:53:54 GMT -5
Personally, I am not a tear-down voice… but I am a cr@p-or-get-off-the-pot guy. If they thought 30% was real, why not make it 50%? But trading your starting catcher away and getting Tommy Pham… it is neither. Hosmer doesn’t count because he was pretty much toast. And trading Diekman away might have gotten an ok return, but it didn’t *help* the bullpen, which was not good. In other words, they were *merely* 30% for identifiable reasons that could have been better fixed. To me, the big flaw in the “how can you give up” argument is that the FO itself did not believe in the team enough to do anything significant to give them a chance. After all, as people keep saying, they were 2 games from the WS the year before… why not at least a Schwarber-type trade? My guess is that they were not super optimistic it would help. Measuring current value against future value is something we do all the time in every aspect of our lives. When I get a paycheck, I try to spend some of it in the present and save some for the future. Sometimes I eat a rich meal and exercise in the same day because I want to balance present pleasures against future costs. Events in the present have some value to me and events in the future have some value to me and so I act accordingly. Why does this logic not apply to team-building? That is true, but there are other possible metaphors. For example: if I have a nice piece of fish, I can eat it now, or let it rot. Baseball players are more like that. Last year, you had X. Now… rotten fish. A few years ago, JDM was an above average player. Now? Rotten fish. Devers right now is an exquisite Alaskan salmon feast… but there is a faint wiff of decay, no? So one hopes that the team they had at the deadline last year minus X, Eovaldi, Hill, and Wacha, plus Yoshida and Jansen is still fresh enough to eat.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Dec 27, 2022 12:54:35 GMT -5
There are two different deadline complaints that I see: 1) The Red Sox picked the wrong course of action. I can understand the arguments to make other choices (especially sell harder) given their odds and all. I disagree, but the argument is reasonable. EDIT: On #1 above - Obviously in hindsight they should have sold for whatever they could get, but I'm saying from an in the moment POV. 2) The Red Sox were paralyzed and didn't make a decision. This one makes no sense, they actually laid out exactly what they were going to do before the deadline, and then they did it better than any other team who chose a similarly neutral path. Re: #2 Am I the only one who remembers that after the Vazquez and Pham trades happened, Bloom was interviewed the eve before the deadline and explicitly stated that more moves would be coming and that the pieces would make sense once the dust settled? And then the deadline came and went and Hosmer was added. Then Bloom was interviewed again after the deadline and stated that it didn't play out like he had hoped it would and that the move(s) he intended to make didn't materialize. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that's what happened. I don't believe he was "paralyzed" or whatever you want to call it, but this is another data point that Bloom did not have an accurate read of the market. Whether that's more common among all GMs is another conversation entirely. And I say this as a cautiously optimistic fan of Bloom. Didn't both the Hosmer and McGuire trades come after the Vazquez and Pham ones? I don't remember the comments specifically so not sure when they came in the sequence, but I would think at least the McGuire trade should help make the Vazquez one more understandable to people. They thought they had a chance to keep equalish production from catcher while adding prospects and switching for a guy with more and cheaper control.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Dec 27, 2022 12:57:41 GMT -5
It's not nothing and shouldn't be dismissed as such. The player we would have drafted at 80 would have started higher in the vaunted SP.com rankings than whoever we draft at 140, so there's definitely a drop in the level of prospect we'll get, at least starting out. There's also the money issue that others have noted. The thing is, it's true that 80 won't have significantly more chance of impacting the ML team than 140 - the odds against both will be great. But these missteps add up. If you make enough of them, eventually one of them costs you. Run a stop sign once and you're probably Ok. Keep it up and eventually...CRASH! We actually did draft someone at 80 last year (actually 79): Roman Anthony, who is currently the #9 prospect on the SP60. Maybe could've still gotten him at 140 but would've probably been an either/or situation with Brannon, in terms of paying them.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Dec 27, 2022 12:58:10 GMT -5
the 2022 trade deadline has taken over a thread, again ! LOL.
Personally, I was completely behind the idea of trying to make the playoffs. I think for fans, players and coaches, a concentration on getting below the LT at that time would be a misguided strategy, even if it makes sense to do that for long run planning.
I also think there is too much discussion amongst fans about the LT and it's impact on future team performance. It is overblown. The Sox have never really blown passed it. If that occurred maybe it would have more relevance. The penalties they have or will paid, can be mitigated by other organizational strengths, like trades, drafting and development. Put another way, the teams that have blown through it...their ships aren't sinking. It is kind of another way fans want to put this franchise in small market contexts.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Dec 27, 2022 13:01:41 GMT -5
Re: #2 Am I the only one who remembers that after the Vazquez and Pham trades happened, Bloom was interviewed the eve before the deadline and explicitly stated that more moves would be coming and that the pieces would make sense once the dust settled? And then the deadline came and went and Hosmer was added. Then Bloom was interviewed again after the deadline and stated that it didn't play out like he had hoped it would and that the move(s) he intended to make didn't materialize. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that's what happened. I don't believe he was "paralyzed" or whatever you want to call it, but this is another data point that Bloom did not have an accurate read of the market. Whether that's more common among all GMs is another conversation entirely. And I say this as a cautiously optimistic fan of Bloom. Didn't both the Hosmer and McGuire trades come after the Vazquez and Pham ones? I don't remember the comments specifically so not sure when they came in the sequence, but I would think at least the McGuire trade should help make the Vazquez one more understandable to people. They thought they had a chance to keep equalish production from catcher while adding prospects and switching for a guy with more and cheaper control. I have a hard time believing they thought McGuire was equally productive. More importantly, when you add in “more and cheaper control,” you are, in essence, doing what some argue they did: trying to have it both ways. Control didn’t matter if the goal was the playoffs. If cutting costs and getting longer control was a primary goal, then the playoffs were not. And why bother cutting cost but not getting under the tax line? CVaz was a free agent, so the savings were about a month of salary. That can’t have been it.
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Dec 27, 2022 13:03:36 GMT -5
Xander had a no trade clause, very much did not want to change positions and the only team that was buying and could use a shortstop was the Yankees. Very doubtful that there wouldn't have been more teams looking for a SS. The Cardinals spring quickly to mind. And the no-trade? Doubt that would have been an issue. The handwriting was on the wall for Xander all year, which is why he wasn't his usual cheery self most of last season. I think he would have waived it. Teams that were a maybe to reach wild card weekend were not willing to pay at the trade deadline.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Dec 27, 2022 13:06:18 GMT -5
There are two different deadline complaints that I see: 1) The Red Sox picked the wrong course of action. I can understand the arguments to make other choices (especially sell harder) given their odds and all. I disagree, but the argument is reasonable. EDIT: On #1 above - Obviously in hindsight they should have sold for whatever they could get, but I'm saying from an in the moment POV. 2) The Red Sox were paralyzed and didn't make a decision. This one makes no sense, they actually laid out exactly what they were going to do before the deadline, and then they did it better than any other team who chose a similarly neutral path. I'm strongly in the first camp that you listed. But those who are sharing that camp with me are not expressing an in-the-moment POV. We were critical of the deadline moves as soon as the deadline passed. The result did not surprise us. Bolded: Well cuz, I'm not sure how they did it better than anyone else. They: 1.) Passed up the chance to make material improvements to the farm and instead acquired guys that are unlikely to ever make an impact in the ML; 2.) Stayed over the LTT and no, that's not irrelevant and 3.) Did not improve the ML team enough to get that prestigious third WC spot. They went 23-29 after the deadline. They accomplished none of the three possible objectives, so I can't see how it could have turned out worse. It went the way some of us thought it would. Also, if those who like the strategy want to dismiss the downside of going over the LTT as insignificant, they should be fair and also acknowledge that the gains the system made at the deadline were minor. Valdez and Abreu each have skills that make them interesting enough to watch, but Valdez has no position and is ranked 17th while Abreu is ranked 26th. This board gives each of them a 3-5 grade and says each has the ceiling of a utility player. And let's not get carried away with the "We'll, they did make upgrades." Tommy Pham is 1.6 WAR (B-Ref) in 330 games since 2020. Hosmer is 3.3 in 293 games over that time. He was also made redundant by the Casas callup and appeared in only 14 games for the Red Sox. Neither of those guys is any good. Think you're misunderstanding what I said. Everyone should be able to agree that with hindsight, knowing how the season played out and the offseason so far, we would be better off now had we traded Bogaerts (assuming he would have waived his NTC), that's pretty clear. The in-the-moment, at the time of the deadline, POV is where there's a debate to be had. I'm not going to debate again that we should have known they had no chance, whatever we disagree there. But even those of us who thought they had a chance thought it was about 1/3 and I think even with those odds it's fair enough to believe they should have sold given the rest of the circumstances. To the second point: What other team kept a neutral (in terms of playoff odds) course and did better than the Red Sox in terms of adding McGuire and getting the prospects they did? You can quibble about the moves but I said they did the best of any team in a similar position, which really means comparing them to teams like the Guardians and the Giants. Anyhow comparison isn't even necessary to make the point that they had a clear path they decided to take and executed it well. Getting under the LTT wasn't going to be possible while maintaining their odds.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,951
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Dec 27, 2022 13:09:34 GMT -5
It strikes me that too much of this conversation - and too much of the conversation about the FO in general and CB in particular - is like our political divisions. I see the pro-Bloom people heading to their corner of the room to defend the trade deadline strategy and the Never Bloomers gleefully rushing to criticize. We have either a strong economy with full employment and a bit of inflation or a second Great Depression wrecking American civilization right now. Depends what channel you watch. This isn't a criticism of any one poster, so I don't want anyone to get offended. In fact, I think those participating in this discussion are among the best on the board. It's just an observation. Edit: I should add that I also see people in the Sensible Center who may like or dislike Bloom, but who who are rational about it, expressing honest, well-thought out opinions one way of the other about the trade deadline. And eventually, regardless of which channel you are watching, you have to come to terms with the fact that if you want to get across town you have to fill the gas tank with $4/gal gasoline even though you used to do it for $2/gal. Unless, you prefer to pedal the bike, just don't be surprised if everyone is there before you. Not trying to get into a political discussion, my friend. But, at least where I live in Ct., we haven't seen $4 in a long time. Paid $2.69 on Christmas Day! My point is that we should all be willing to listen to those who have reasoned, thought-out opinions about the trade deadline. Or about the Renfore trade. Or the Nick Yorke pick. Or the Mookie trade. It's the predictable, repetitive and obviously agenda-driven stuff from a few posters that gets old.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Dec 27, 2022 13:10:34 GMT -5
Didn't both the Hosmer and McGuire trades come after the Vazquez and Pham ones? I don't remember the comments specifically so not sure when they came in the sequence, but I would think at least the McGuire trade should help make the Vazquez one more understandable to people. They thought they had a chance to keep equalish production from catcher while adding prospects and switching for a guy with more and cheaper control. I have a hard time believing they thought McGuire was equally productive. More importantly, when you add in “more and cheaper control,” you are, in essence, doing what some argue they did: trying to have it both ways. Control didn’t matter if the goal was the playoffs. If cutting costs and getting longer control was a primary goal, then the playoffs were not. And why bother cutting cost but not getting under the tax line? CVaz was a free agent, so the savings were about a month of salary. That can’t have been it. Why do you have a hard time believing it? He immediately joined the team and was more productive, just offensively, for the rest of the season. He grades much better as a pitch framer and his rate stats are better than Vazquez'. They also just had the chance to re-sign Vazquez and stuck with McGuire instead. Since Bloom has joined the FO has seemed pretty disinterested in Vaz. And they did try to have it both ways, I don't get why this is such a bad thing though. Better, cheaper, younger, and with control. That's what they did in the catcher swap while actually gaining prospects. Overall at the deadline they got a little better in the short term and improved in the long term. That is what I want a team in their position to do. Please no one respond telling me their position was hopeless, I get that some of you feel that way, nothing to say on that point, we just disagree.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Dec 27, 2022 13:52:38 GMT -5
I have a hard time believing they thought McGuire was equally productive. More importantly, when you add in “more and cheaper control,” you are, in essence, doing what some argue they did: trying to have it both ways. Control didn’t matter if the goal was the playoffs. If cutting costs and getting longer control was a primary goal, then the playoffs were not. And why bother cutting cost but not getting under the tax line? CVaz was a free agent, so the savings were about a month of salary. That can’t have been it. Why do you have a hard time believing it? He immediately joined the team and was more productive, just offensively, for the rest of the season. He grades much better as a pitch framer and his rate stats are better than Vazquez'. They also just had the chance to re-sign Vazquez and stuck with McGuire instead. Since Bloom has joined the FO has seemed pretty disinterested in Vaz. And they did try to have it both ways, I don't get why this is such a bad thing though. Better, cheaper, younger, and with control. That's what they did in the catcher swap while actually gaining prospects. Overall at the deadline they got a little better in the short term and improved in the long term. That is what I want a team in their position to do. Please no one respond telling me their position was hopeless, I get that some of you feel that way, nothing to say on that point, we just disagree. Yeah, a major premise of the "indecisiveness" and "choose a lane" critiques about the '22 trade deadline is that they downgraded at catcher. But in actual fact McGuire was much better than Vazquez, and even if one thinks that performance was fluky there is reason to believe, as you laid out here, that the Red Sox did not see themselves as downgrading at catcher at all.
Basically they made a few minor upgrades to the roster (at C, 1B, and RF) and Bloom sort of pulled a rabbit out of his hat by adding a couple of legit prospects in the bargain. I suppose if he simply hadn't added the prospects he wouldn't have seemed "indecisive" and there would be fewer complaints...
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Dec 27, 2022 14:01:42 GMT -5
Why do you have a hard time believing it? He immediately joined the team and was more productive, just offensively, for the rest of the season. He grades much better as a pitch framer and his rate stats are better than Vazquez'. They also just had the chance to re-sign Vazquez and stuck with McGuire instead. Since Bloom has joined the FO has seemed pretty disinterested in Vaz. And they did try to have it both ways, I don't get why this is such a bad thing though. Better, cheaper, younger, and with control. That's what they did in the catcher swap while actually gaining prospects. Overall at the deadline they got a little better in the short term and improved in the long term. That is what I want a team in their position to do. Please no one respond telling me their position was hopeless, I get that some of you feel that way, nothing to say on that point, we just disagree. Yeah, a major premise of the "indecisiveness" and "choose a lane" critiques about the '22 trade deadline is that they downgraded at catcher. But in actual fact McGuire was much better than Vazquez, and even if one thinks that performance was fluky there is reason to believe, as you laid out here, that the Red Sox did not see themselves as downgrading at catcher at all.
Basically they made a few minor upgrades to the roster (at C, 1B, and RF) and Bloom sort of pulled a rabbit out of his hat by adding a couple of legit prospects in the bargain. I suppose if he simply hadn't added the prospects he wouldn't have seemed "indecisive" and there would be fewer complaints...
McGuire had a better month. His last 90 ABs were about what CVaz did in May. CVaz was pissed and then buried in Houston. We’ll see how McGuire does over a full season.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Dec 27, 2022 14:22:05 GMT -5
Yeah, a major premise of the "indecisiveness" and "choose a lane" critiques about the '22 trade deadline is that they downgraded at catcher. But in actual fact McGuire was much better than Vazquez, and even if one thinks that performance was fluky there is reason to believe, as you laid out here, that the Red Sox did not see themselves as downgrading at catcher at all.
Basically they made a few minor upgrades to the roster (at C, 1B, and RF) and Bloom sort of pulled a rabbit out of his hat by adding a couple of legit prospects in the bargain. I suppose if he simply hadn't added the prospects he wouldn't have seemed "indecisive" and there would be fewer complaints...
McGuire had a better month. His last 90 ABs were about what CVaz did in May. CVaz was pissed and then buried in Houston. We’ll see how McGuire does over a full season. McGuire career wRC+: 85 Vazquez career wRC+: 84
McGuire career fWAR/500 PAs: 2.9
Vazquez career fWAR/500 PAs: 2.3
McGuire 2021-22 fWAR: 3.0 in 491 PAs
Vazquez 2021-22 fWAR: 2.0 in 924 PAs
McGuire age: 27 Vazquez age: 32
It's really not that McGuire just had a better month. I've always liked Vazquez, but I think it's just objectively wrong to see the exchange of Vazquez for McGuire as a downgrade. At the very least that judgment requires some explanation.
|
|
|
Post by pappyman99 on Dec 27, 2022 14:34:38 GMT -5
You just aren’t being honest with yourself if you think we should have been buyers last deadline.
Cashman is overrated but 2016 he was honest about his situation and capitalized on assets.
Bloom did the exact opposite in 2022. This isn’t hindsight. If the majority of fans saw the writing in the wall for the 2022 season but the gm didn’t that’s a problem.
Being neutral is a nice way of saying indecisive. What’s the saying… never half a** anything?
We all want them to win, but you have to be honest as a fan. If it’s not your year you know it, and at that point it’s about capitalizing on assets for future years… which we did not do
|
|
|
Post by greenmonster on Dec 27, 2022 14:43:44 GMT -5
And eventually, regardless of which channel you are watching, you have to come to terms with the fact that if you want to get across town you have to fill the gas tank with $4/gal gasoline even though you used to do it for $2/gal. Unless, you prefer to pedal the bike, just don't be surprised if everyone is there before you. Not trying to get into a political discussion, my friend. But, at least where I live in Ct., we haven't seen $4 in a long time. Paid $2.69 on Christmas Day! My point is that we should all be willing to listen to those who have reasoned, thought-out opinions about the trade deadline. Or about the Renfore trade. Or the Nick Yorke pick. Or the Mookie trade. It's the predictable, repetitive and obviously agenda-driven stuff from a few posters that gets old. I certainly wasn't trying to get political. Sorry if that is how it was interpruted. I actually was trying to agree with your statement. Essentially, regardless of what side we are on there is a harsh reality somewhere in the middle. PS: I also live in CT and agree that gas is currently under $3 as a result of recent move by the state regarding state taxes. Also, aware that other areas of NE are higher.
|
|
|
Post by seamus on Dec 27, 2022 15:05:32 GMT -5
You just aren’t being honest with yourself if you think we should have been buyers last deadline. Cashman is overrated but 2016 he was honest about his situation and capitalized on assets. Bloom did the exact opposite in 2022. This isn’t hindsight. If the majority of fans saw the writing in the wall for the 2022 season but the gm didn’t that’s a problem. Being neutral is a nice way of saying indecisive. What’s the saying… never half a** anything? We all want them to win, but you have to be honest as a fan. If it’s not your year you know it, and at that point it’s about capitalizing on assets for future years… which we did not do Could you stop accusing folks of being dishonest or dumb for assessing and valuing the Sox's playoff chances differently than you did? It makes it hard to have an actual discussion. I don't necessarily agree that the majority of fans thought the season was doomed at the deadline, nor do I think that the opinion of the fanbase should necessarily have much influence on the front office. They didn't have the assets for a full-blown sell-off to actually net sufficient value to justify tossing away a potential playoff run. It's one thing to trade Vazquez for prospects when you can replace his production with McGuire, but you're probably not replacing Bogaerts at the deadline. Even if a World Series title is unlikely, playoff appearances have significant value - financially, developmentally, and culturally. An exciting Wild Card game could make fans for life, in addition to millions in immediate revenue, and help young players take the next step on the big stage.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Dec 27, 2022 15:29:38 GMT -5
McGuire had a better month. His last 90 ABs were about what CVaz did in May. CVaz was pissed and then buried in Houston. We’ll see how McGuire does over a full season. McGuire career wRC+: 85 Vazquez career wRC+: 84
McGuire career fWAR/500 PAs: 2.9
Vazquez career fWAR/500 PAs: 2.3
McGuire 2021-22 fWAR: 3.0 in 491 PAs
Vazquez 2021-22 fWAR: 2.0 in 924 PAs
McGuire age: 27 Vazquez age: 32
It's really not that McGuire just had a better month. I've always liked Vazquez, but I think it's just objectively wrong to see the exchange of Vazquez for McGuire as a downgrade. At the very least that judgment requires some explanation.
We’ll see. This is his, what, fourth team? Always an afterthought in trades? As you may know, I am inherently suspicious of guys who are multi-time trade pieces at relatively low value. It assumes multiple FOs missed the obvious. Now, that happens! But I take a prove it stance. I’ll be interested to see how he does in a full season. I always acknowledge I could be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by pappyman99 on Dec 27, 2022 16:57:00 GMT -5
You just aren’t being honest with yourself if you think we should have been buyers last deadline. Cashman is overrated but 2016 he was honest about his situation and capitalized on assets. Bloom did the exact opposite in 2022. This isn’t hindsight. If the majority of fans saw the writing in the wall for the 2022 season but the gm didn’t that’s a problem. Being neutral is a nice way of saying indecisive. What’s the saying… never half a** anything? We all want them to win, but you have to be honest as a fan. If it’s not your year you know it, and at that point it’s about capitalizing on assets for future years… which we did not do Could you stop accusing folks of being dishonest or dumb for assessing and valuing the Sox's playoff chances differently than you did? It makes it hard to have an actual discussion. I don't necessarily agree that the majority of fans thought the season was doomed at the deadline, nor do I think that the opinion of the fanbase should necessarily have much influence on the front office. They didn't have the assets for a full-blown sell-off to actually net sufficient value to justify tossing away a potential playoff run. It's one thing to trade Vazquez for prospects when you can replace his production with McGuire, but you're probably not replacing Bogaerts at the deadline. Even if a World Series title is unlikely, playoff appearances have significant value - financially, developmentally, and culturally. An exciting Wild Card game could make fans for life, in addition to millions in immediate revenue, and help young players take the next step on the big stage. I’m accusing people of letting their fan bias (we all have it) get in the way of an objective assessment. Facts are at the deadline, we knew Sale was out basically for the season. We knew that we had been getting slaughtered by the AL East. We knew Trevor Story was injured, and we knew we had gone like 2-8 going into the trade deadline. Finally we knew we were 3 games back of an ADDED wild card spot, and probably what like 5-6 games back of what a usual WC spot had been the last decade or so? All facts so far right? Now before opening day started. We already knew our bullpen sucked, we knew our outfield was in bad shape offensively, and we knew 1B was a huge question mark. Again all facts so far. So pretty much at the deadline the only counter argument I see to not selling is based on hope. I actually think the most frustrating part for people is not that people believe we shouldn’t have sold at the deadline, but then also defending the moves bloom made instead of selling…. There is a huge disconnect there. If you think we should not have sold at the deadline AND you think bloom did well at the deadline then yeah I’m pretty much going to think you (not you specifically) are a Bloom fanboy.
|
|
|