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 briam on Dec 19, 2022 8:53:50 GMT -5
Sheesh, there are some ticky-tack points in there I don’t agree with (like saying they should’ve kept Diekman if they wanted to compete) but if the overall takeaway is the Red Sox are being cheap for stars and Bloom has failed at threading the needle, I don’t see how you can have much optimism in this current FO structure.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 19, 2022 9:03:13 GMT -5
Folks can’t have it both ways: on the one hand, people say they are spending. Then there are arguments that ownership won’t let Bloom spend. Which is it? And… if excuses are necessary, the implication is he *would* do a good job given other conditions, which is pretty much admitting that under these conditions things aren’t going so well. This is exactly why I've been combining Bloom with Henry and Werner in many posts having to do with the off-season and team performance. Bloom's the CEO, but it seems clear that either Henry and Werner have set a bar that he can't go over, or, as Speier discussed in his podcast with Keith Law, Bloom can go to them and convince them to spend more on player X (as Dombrowski did with Sale and Eovaldi). Still, Bloom has either been unconvinced that such a contract was warranted or unwilling to ask for the big bucks. Dombrowski's end showed what happened when one did this and it blew up in his face. Ditto with Cherington (Hanley, Sandoval). Or perhaps Bloom has sold them on a "Tampa model" of short contracts, finding value in mid to low-level free agents and cast-offs and building the farm into "a player development machine." I question his prowess at doing the latter. The current strength of the farm seems more wide than deep, and his/the front office's ability to evaluate most of the players/prospects he's acquired in trades has been, in the mean, unimpressive. But then again, maybe this is part of the "Tampa Way" - throwing a ton of spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks. This may have worked in Tampa, where they have fewer fans than a WNBA team, but Boston is a different market and always has been. I would love to know how long Bloom's rope is. Or better yet, how long Henry and Werner can put up with losing "until the kids are ready." Remember, Cherington played this game to an extent. His outlier year yielded a World Series championship. But that was lightning in a bottle and the losing resumed immediately. Which is what Bloom (at the bequest of Henry and Werner) was supposedly here to end.
|
|
|
Post by crossedsabres8 on Dec 19, 2022 9:05:42 GMT -5
Folks can’t have it both ways: on the one hand, people say they are spending. Then there are arguments that ownership won’t let Bloom spend. Which is it? And… if excuses are necessary, the implication is he *would* do a good job given other conditions, which is pretty much admitting that under these conditions things aren’t going so well. I think it's been stated a few times here but they clearly are less interested in long term contracts than most similarly rich teams are and only sign when they feel like it's a valuable deal. They're okay with spending money in the short term as long as they keep their long term liability low.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Dec 19, 2022 9:07:32 GMT -5
"The Mets are spending heavily because owner Steve Cohen is pushing general manager Billy Eppler. The Padres keep adding stars because owner Peter Seidler empowers GM A.J. Preller. The Yankees’ Hal Steinbrenner extended himself to keep Aaron Judge. Even the Cubs’ Tom “Losses of Biblical Proportions” Ricketts awakened from a long slumber to authorize a $177 million agreement Saturday with shortstop Dansby Swanson. The Red Sox under owners John Henry, Tom Werner and Co.? They’ve failed to react to a changing marketplace, one in which stars are getting decade-long deals. Dating back to Mookie Betts, the Sox owners have been averse to such contracts. They will need to adjust their philosophy to compete for top talent, including their own third baseman, Rafael Devers. Otherwise, they will need to trust Bloom to thread the needle, which he has not been successful at doing."Someone send Rosenthal julyanmorley's spreadsheet...
Honestly whenever a national writer takes it upon themselves to survey the state of the Red Sox they put out something that's worse than about two-thirds of the commenters here could manage. This article is incoherent, ill-informed, and shallow. Just to highlight one of about half a dozen examples: If the Red Sox really wanted to compete, they should have kept Diekman? What? And the Vazquez for McGuire swap improved the team.
Here's one consistent habit of Bloom's that I genuinely admire: he is willing to make moves that trigger people's loss aversion fallacy. A team that "stands pat" at the deadline is seen as judiciously balancing current and future interests when they have a marginal chance of making the playoffs; but Bloom improved the team and added prospects, and his reward is for people to say he "tried to have it both ways" or "couldn't choose a path" at the deadline.
The other big example: if he had never traded Benintendi or signed Renfroe, no one would have anything to blame him for. But instead he made the lateral move and added prospects in the bargain, and again, his reward is for people to complain that the prospects haven't been good enough.
In both cases, he could have simply done nothing and avoided blame. Instead he gave something up to get something better in return, and people are apparently incapable of processing that rationally.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Dec 19, 2022 9:09:41 GMT -5
Here is a complete list of teams that signed one of the 10 biggest contracts in each of the last two seasons: Texas Rangers
New York Mets Philadelphia Phillies
Boston Red Sox This seems relevant to the endlessly repeated claim that Bloom "never signs top free agents" or they act like a small market team or whatever.
And here we go with arbitrary endpoints. Perhaps a bigger sample size? How about contract sizes overall in MLB compared to contracts during the Bloom regime and compare his outlays (and others') with actual results? Because results are how other CEOs are evaluated. Okay, go look at julyanmorley's spreadsheet then.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Dec 19, 2022 9:13:50 GMT -5
And here we go with arbitrary endpoints. Perhaps a bigger sample size? How about contract sizes overall in MLB compared to contracts during the Bloom regime and compare his outlays (and others') with actual results? Because results are how other CEOs are evaluated. Okay, go look at julyanmorley's spreadsheet then. So this puts you in the “owners can’t be blamed” camp. He’s got plenty of apending, and he should be responsible for the results?
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 19, 2022 9:16:31 GMT -5
And here we go with arbitrary endpoints. Perhaps a bigger sample size? How about contract sizes overall in MLB compared to contracts during the Bloom regime and compare his outlays (and others') with actual results? Because results are how other CEOs are evaluated. Okay, go look at julyanmorley's spreadsheet then. Results: Last place in AL East Wild Card and ALDS Championship Last place in AL East This is why they play the games. I defy you to find fans watching the team on the regular who say, "Sure, we're getting our butts kicked by the rest of our division, but look at the value out there! Heck, now that's a shrewd way to spend $230+ million!" Still, plenty of time to the off-season. And, as I said before, I am holding judgment until the end of the season. But I am done with excuses for the President of Baseball Ops, the Front Office, Sam Kennedy and his disingenuous business-speak and the Owners. Put up or admit you screwed-up.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Dec 19, 2022 9:21:22 GMT -5
Okay, go look at julyanmorley's spreadsheet then. So this puts you in the “owners can’t be blamed” camp. He’s got plenty of apending, and he should be responsible for the results? Blamed for what? For not spending enough? No, I don't blame them for that; they spend up to or over the CBT every year.
Blamed for not signing top free agents? Ehh, I'm not sure there are any I would've wanted to sign at the prices they went for this offseason, though I would not have complained if they had gotten Correa for what the Giants paid for him.
Blamed for losing Bogaerts? No, I blame Bloom for that.
What I would blame the owners for can only be phrased as a conditional statement, because I don't think we have enough information to be more definitive than that: if they've really decided that top-of-the-market free agents are inherently too risky and have become inflexible about that, then I think they should... be more flexible. One of the advantages a big market team has is that they can afford to have dead money on the books at the end of a long and expensive deal, and they should take advantage of that.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Dec 19, 2022 9:29:39 GMT -5
So this puts you in the “owners can’t be blamed” camp. He’s got plenty of apending, and he should be responsible for the results? Blamed for what? For not spending enough? No, I don't blame them for that; they spend up to or over the CBT every year.
Blamed for not signing top free agents? Ehh, I'm not sure there are any I would've wanted to sign at the prices they went for this offseason, though I would not have complained if they had gotten Correa for what the Giants paid for him.
Blamed for losing Bogaerts? No, I blame Bloom for that.
What I would blame the owners for can only be phrased as a conditional statement, because I don't think we have enough information to be more definitive than that: if they've really decided that top-of-the-market free agents are inherently too risky and have become inflexible about that, then I think they should... be more flexible. One of the advantages a big market team has is that they can afford to have dead money on the books at the end of a long and expensive deal, and they should take advantage of that.
Blamed for… who knows? But there seems to be a three way divide. Group A says things are going fine. Group B says Bloom is not doing well. And Group C says the owners are holding Bloom back for one reason or another. Personally, I am group B. You seem to be either A or B, but not C. I agree it is only December, so let’s see. But I am tired of kicking cans. The last few years was about getting under and clearing salary. Done. The results have been poor — even by the standards of the FOs public statements (X is a priority, etc). Did anyone go into this offseason saying I hope they target Justin Turner? That seems like a grab-what’s-left move. It is an ok signing in isolation, but it also speaks to a flailing off season.
|
|
|
Post by briam on Dec 19, 2022 9:34:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by soxfansince67 on Dec 19, 2022 9:43:14 GMT -5
There is another divide (or perhaps a restatement of the categories above). I (as I am sure many of you have figured out) are firmly in the baseball fan for the love of the game on the field, no value, no WAR, no stats camp - I am the old fogie that turns on or listens to the games to see how they play out. I suspect that represents lots of baseball fans. We are not concerned with how our team is statistically built for WAR, or what the budgets are or aren't. We watch the team for years (in my case, decades) - we see who is coming up, or who we trade for - we fall in love with some of the players, develop an aversion to others. When players we learn to love leave the team - and the reasons are opaque or convoluted, it pisses us off. I realize that this is the type of sports fanatic site that for the most part delights in the stats and numbers and logic and reasoning. That's fine - I don't begrudge that.
But don't forget that there is a larger grouping of fans who are more like me. And the team, their current direction, some of the decisions, is making us shake our heads in wonder. Those like me tends to think with our hearts, not with our heads - so of course it is easy to disparage us, make us look stupid, uninformed, shallow.
I frankly don't give a damn - but someone has to stand up for those who take up most of the seats in the stadium or in front of the TV or on the radio. So when I read the article that was on Athletic this morning, by Rosenthal, it resonates with me in tone and spirit - and of course the stats geeks will find it easy to pick it apart and try to convince that it is all wrong, and that on paper everything is actually just fine.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Dec 19, 2022 9:50:53 GMT -5
Blamed for what? For not spending enough? No, I don't blame them for that; they spend up to or over the CBT every year.
Blamed for not signing top free agents? Ehh, I'm not sure there are any I would've wanted to sign at the prices they went for this offseason, though I would not have complained if they had gotten Correa for what the Giants paid for him.
Blamed for losing Bogaerts? No, I blame Bloom for that.
What I would blame the owners for can only be phrased as a conditional statement, because I don't think we have enough information to be more definitive than that: if they've really decided that top-of-the-market free agents are inherently too risky and have become inflexible about that, then I think they should... be more flexible. One of the advantages a big market team has is that they can afford to have dead money on the books at the end of a long and expensive deal, and they should take advantage of that.
Blamed for… who knows? But there seems to be a three way divide. Group A says things are going fine. Group B says Bloom is not doing well. And Group C says the owners are holding Bloom back for one reason or another. Personally, I am group B. You seem to be either A or B, but not C. I agree it is only December, so let’s see. But I am tired of kicking cans. The last few years was about getting under and clearing salary. Done. The results have been poor — even by the standards of the FOs public statements (X is a priority, etc). Did anyone go into this offseason saying I hope they target Justin Turner? That seems like a grab-what’s-left move. It is an ok signing in isolation, but it also speaks to a flailing off season. I’ll say this - I don’t think ownership is “holding Bloom back” (other than by not being Steve Cohen), but I do think they should share blame for the larger pattern of failing to keep homegrown guys. That’s something that has gone on with the Sox across all the FOs we look at, and to me it’s at least in part because the people at the top haven’t made it a priority. We know they’ve been involved in all the discussions, it’s their money, and at the end of the day I wish they would have pushed more on it. Not that it excuses Dombrowski signing Sale and Eovaldi instead of reserving money for Mookie, or Bloom for lowballing Bogaerts, or the FO for doing that to Lester, but ownership at least has the option of setting “retain our guys” as a priority and never has.
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Dec 19, 2022 9:53:03 GMT -5
To simplify a bit, there's three main things that determine how good the team you build is:
1) How much money is being spent? 2) How well is the money being spent? 3) How much cheap talent do you have?
#1 is on the owners, and they spend a good amount. They straddle the CBT line, going over some years and making sure not to hit the nasty 3 year offender penalties. It's fair to say that this strategy is less impressive than it used to be - we now have more teams in a similar boat as well as some teams now flying past the CBT limit like it doesn't even exist.
#2 is on Chaim and you can check the spreadsheet he has spent very efficiently
#3 is a huge factor and the Red Sox have been near the bottom of the league for years. Since Devers came up, the best player they've developed was Tanner Houck and the next best is Josh Taylor. Last year's Astros got *28* WAR from players that they called up in that time. The Blue Jays have called up 6 all stars since we developed our last everyday player. Whose fault is this? It takes a long time to develop talent, the current regime has nothing to do with the cupboard being bare the last 3 years.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 19, 2022 9:55:44 GMT -5
As the team builds the roster for 2023, some within the Red Sox front office have questioned Bloom's decision-making process, team sources told ESPN. One front-office official said Bloom's deliberate process toward making moves -- asking many people for their input before making a decision -- can put the Red Sox in a position to fall behind, reacting to other teams versus setting the market.
"I think we have a culture where people can and do express directly to me when they disagree with something," Bloom said. "We have a lot of people in the loop on transactions that we make and we have a lot of really good debate. We have a place where people can share their opinion and have it be heard."If this is accurate, it's a leadership problem - but one that is built on a sound idea. Specifically, Bloom wants all the resources/experts in the front office to weigh in from their own area of specialty on a move or change in direction. That's very good executive management. BUT the flaw in this is these scenarios should've been game-planned and hashed out weeks before they got to winter meetings. Then, with the data/opinions in hand, a smaller group, including Bloom (with ownership on speed-dial) and 2-3 others become the decision-makers. If a real outlier occurs or the market makes a radical shift (i.e. very long deals to game AAV), he, with the advice of this small team and ownership (if necessary) make the call. This doesn't seem to be the case, at least from that anecdote. If that's true, it's on Bloom and he needs to refine his process. He's paid the big bucks to make the tough decisions at crunch time. If you're going back with the clock ticking for a team-wide consult to build consensus, you'll lose any deal of consequence.
|
|
|
Post by soxfansince67 on Dec 19, 2022 9:57:54 GMT -5
To simplify a bit, there's three main things that determine how good the team you build is: 1) How much money is being spent? 2) How well is the money being spent? 3) How much cheap talent do you have? #1 is on the owners, and they spend a good amount. They straddle the CBT line, going over some years and making sure not to hit the nasty 3 year offender penalties. It's fair to say that this strategy is less impressive than it used to be - we now have more teams in a similar boat as well as some teams now flying past the CBT limit like it doesn't even exist. #2 is on Chaim and you can check the spreadsheet he has spent very efficiently #3 is a huge factor and the Red Sox have been near the bottom of the league for years. Since Devers came up, the best player they've developed was Tanner Houck and the next best is Josh Taylor. Last year's Astros got *28* WAR from players that they called up in that time. The Blue Jays have called up 6 all stars since we developed our last everyday player. Whose fault is this? It takes a long time to develop talent, the current regime has nothing to do with the cupboard being bare the last 3 years. Missing from this - who is assessing the talent in terms of 1, 2 or 3? Chaim may be spending money "efficiently" - but how does this translate to good fit, or good play on the field? There is also an intangible missing - what type of team is being assembled in terms of fit of the players? Is there effective leadership? Do they pull together or just count their money and head home after the games? And a big one - is home grown developed talent retained? And if it isn't what message does that send? I know, I know - I am a big intangibles type of person, and realize there are lots here that deny the importance of such - indeed, if it exists as a factor at all.
|
|
|
Post by maxwellsdemon on Dec 19, 2022 10:01:58 GMT -5
I want to return to carita 's point which I made earlier (and less eloquently)in another thread which is that the plan is to extend the upcoming talent that proves out and supplement that with Fa Stars as required. It's too late to fix last year's team without going to $400mm in payroll and then three years out being in albatross hell for who knows how long. As mentioned earlier Casas could/should be the first proof of this philosophy. If he demonstrates value this season they should immediately extend him while they wait for the arrival of some of Mayer, Yorke, BBello, Mata, Bleis, along with some of the next tier of Kavadis, Valdez and Jordan, Romero and Anthony (that's a lot of possibles many may fade, but some will hit). Then perhaps offering contract to guys in their early to mid 20s along the lines of 12 years struected as an example: $150mm for years 1-8 with mutual options for years 9-12 at $15mm per if the payer opts in and $25mm per if the Sox want to keep him. The kid is guaranteed $210mm over the life if he opts in and the Sox have a potential super stud at 12 for $250 which sill be a bargain long term versus nice sureity for the player early in his career.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Dec 19, 2022 10:25:13 GMT -5
also "galaxy's apart" is such vague clickbait nonsense... What if Devers was looking for a 300+ million deal? galaxy's apart would mean different in that case than if he was looking for a contract with a total value less than that
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Dec 19, 2022 10:36:49 GMT -5
There is another divide (or perhaps a restatement of the categories above). I (as I am sure many of you have figured out) are firmly in the baseball fan for the love of the game on the field, no value, no WAR, no stats camp - I am the old fogie that turns on or listens to the games to see how they play out. I suspect that represents lots of baseball fans. We are not concerned with how our team is statistically built for WAR, or what the budgets are or aren't. We watch the team for years (in my case, decades) - we see who is coming up, or who we trade for - we fall in love with some of the players, develop an aversion to others. When players we learn to love leave the team - and the reasons are opaque or convoluted, it pisses us off. I realize that this is the type of sports fanatic site that for the most part delights in the stats and numbers and logic and reasoning. That's fine - I don't begrudge that. But don't forget that there is a larger grouping of fans who are more like me. And the team, their current direction, some of the decisions, is making us shake our heads in wonder. Those like me tends to think with our hearts, not with our heads - so of course it is easy to disparage us, make us look stupid, uninformed, shallow. I frankly don't give a damn - but someone has to stand up for those who take up most of the seats in the stadium or in front of the TV or on the radio. So when I read the article that was on Athletic this morning, by Rosenthal, it resonates with me in tone and spirit - and of course the stats geeks will find it easy to pick it apart and try to convince that it is all wrong, and that on paper everything is actually just fine. Fabulous post. That's a completely valid point of view, and it speaks to me because that's how I was for a lot of my life. I've always thought the stats were fun, but I didn't care at all about why GMs make the decisions they do. I remember having a good time at a Cape Cod League baseball game and then being devastated when it was announced over the PA that Nomar Garciaparra had been traded to the Chicago Cubs. I was 10 and he was my favorite player. As it turned out, of course, we ended up winning the World Series three months later, and the guy who caught the toss from Foulke was one of the players we traded Nomar for. And I wasn't thinking about the trade at all. I was over the moon. I remember making my Halloween costume in front of the TV while the duck boat parade was going on (a bag of Funyuns made out of a yellow pillow case; it was great). I'm sure I would have loved to see Nomar be a part of all that too, but at the time I was just so happy we had won. And yet, if you had told me in the Summer of 2004 that we would win the World Series if we just traded Nomar, I'm sure I would have wanted us to keep Nomar and take our chances.
With Bloom, too, I'm sure that fans will one day be able to forgive him for parting with beloved stars, but that won't happen if the team is bad. I'm sure the median Sox fan just sees that we had an incredible team full of fun, beloved players. They would dance in the outfield after they won, and they won a lot. We had two of the best hitters in baseball, a bonafide ace, a rockstar of a closer with his own theme music and hype video. And now almost all of those players we bonded with and that delivered so much for us are gone, and we've done a lot more losing since. Of course people are going to be frustrated and of course they're going to blame ownership and management for destroying what we had.
At the end of the day, everyone wants the same thing. We want a consistently good team full of players we know and love. The friction comes in when we have to choose between these things, and especially when the FO doesn't make the same choices we might have. If Bloom is successful, though, we won't have to choose often. So, I'm really hoping that this ends up being a good year. There's a lot of despair in the fandom right now, and I especially feel for the kids who were big fans of Mookie, Xander, and the other departed favorites. Hopefully we all have something to cheer about soon.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Dec 19, 2022 10:42:33 GMT -5
There is another divide (or perhaps a restatement of the categories above). I (as I am sure many of you have figured out) are firmly in the baseball fan for the love of the game on the field, no value, no WAR, no stats camp - I am the old fogie that turns on or listens to the games to see how they play out. I suspect that represents lots of baseball fans. We are not concerned with how our team is statistically built for WAR, or what the budgets are or aren't. We watch the team for years (in my case, decades) - we see who is coming up, or who we trade for - we fall in love with some of the players, develop an aversion to others. When players we learn to love leave the team - and the reasons are opaque or convoluted, it pisses us off. I realize that this is the type of sports fanatic site that for the most part delights in the stats and numbers and logic and reasoning. That's fine - I don't begrudge that. But don't forget that there is a larger grouping of fans who are more like me. And the team, their current direction, some of the decisions, is making us shake our heads in wonder. Those like me tends to think with our hearts, not with our heads - so of course it is easy to disparage us, make us look stupid, uninformed, shallow. I frankly don't give a damn - but someone has to stand up for those who take up most of the seats in the stadium or in front of the TV or on the radio. So when I read the article that was on Athletic this morning, by Rosenthal, it resonates with me in tone and spirit - and of course the stats geeks will find it easy to pick it apart and try to convince that it is all wrong, and that on paper everything is actually just fine. Fabulous post. That's a completely valid point of view, and it speaks to me because that's how I was for a lot of my life. I've always thought the stats were fun, but I didn't care at all about why GMs make the decisions they do. I remember having a good time at a Cape Cod League baseball game and then being devastated when it was announced over the PA that Nomar Garciaparra had been traded to the Chicago Cubs. I was 10 and he was my favorite player. As it turned out, of course, we ended up winning the World Series three months later, and the guy who caught the toss from Foulke was one of the players we traded Nomar for. And I wasn't thinking about the trade at all. I was over the moon. I remember making my Halloween costume in front of the TV while the duck boat parade was going on (a bag of Funyuns made out of a yellow pillow case; it was great). I'm sure I would have loved to see Nomar be a part of all that too, but at the time I was just so happy we had won. And yet, if you had told me in the Summer of 2004 that we would win the World Series if we just traded Nomar, I'm sure I would have wanted us to keep Nomar and take our chances.
With Bloom, too, I'm sure that fans will one day be able to forgive him for parting with beloved stars, but that won't happen if the team is bad. I'm sure the median Sox fan just sees that we had an incredible team full of fun, beloved players. They would dance in the outfield after they won, and they won a lot. We had two of the best hitters in baseball, a bonafide ace, a rockstar of a closer with his own theme music and hype video. And now almost all of those players we bonded with and that delivered so much for us are gone, and we've done a lot more losing since. Of course people are going to be frustrated and of course they're going to blame ownership and management for destroying what we had.
At the end of the day, everyone wants the same thing. We want a consistently good team full of players we know and love. The friction comes in when we have to choose between these things, and especially when the FO doesn't make the same choices we might have. If Bloom is successful, though, we won't have to choose often. So, I'm really hoping that this ends up being a good year. There's a lot of despair in the fandom right now, and I especially feel for the kids who were big fans of Mookie, Xander, and the other departed favorites. Hopefully we all have something to cheer about soon.
Good post, and I mostly agree. I’m not sure Bloom will necessarily be forgiven no matter what, though. Just look at the long memories: Fisk, Lynn, Lester… others. Some things just become part of the lore. He might be begrudgingly accepted if he wins a WS, but he will likely never be beloved. Cherington won, and he hardly gets any love.
|
|
|
Post by benzinger on Dec 19, 2022 11:17:17 GMT -5
Blamed for what? For not spending enough? No, I don't blame them for that; they spend up to or over the CBT every year.
Blamed for not signing top free agents? Ehh, I'm not sure there are any I would've wanted to sign at the prices they went for this offseason, though I would not have complained if they had gotten Correa for what the Giants paid for him.
Blamed for losing Bogaerts? No, I blame Bloom for that.
What I would blame the owners for can only be phrased as a conditional statement, because I don't think we have enough information to be more definitive than that: if they've really decided that top-of-the-market free agents are inherently too risky and have become inflexible about that, then I think they should... be more flexible. One of the advantages a big market team has is that they can afford to have dead money on the books at the end of a long and expensive deal, and they should take advantage of that.
Blamed for… who knows? But there seems to be a three way divide. Group A says things are going fine. Group B says Bloom is not doing well. And Group C says the owners are holding Bloom back for one reason or another. Personally, I am group B. You seem to be either A or B, but not C. I agree it is only December, so let’s see. But I am tired of kicking cans. The last few years was about getting under and clearing salary. Done. The results have been poor — even by the standards of the FOs public statements (X is a priority, etc). Did anyone go into this offseason saying I hope they target Justin Turner? That seems like a grab-what’s-left move. It is an ok signing in isolation, but it also speaks to a flailing off season. The Turner signing made me aware of a general trend we are seeing with Bloom: targeting players who are past their prime and hoping they can catch lightning in a bottle. Turner, Jansen, Garrett Richards, Andriese, Rich Hill, Wacha etc…. There might be varying levels of success in these moves, but as a general practice, avoiding guys in their prime seems like a bad idea. It reminds me of the old/dark days when they were targeting guys like Andre Dawson, Frank Viola, Canseco, Danny Darwin, Saberhagen, Steve Avery, Ramon Martinez and many more. It didn’t work then and it’s not going to work now. You need to build a team around stars to adequately compete. They don’t seem to be willing to do that anymore.
|
|
|
Post by curtisw on Dec 19, 2022 11:19:47 GMT -5
Fabulous post. That's a completely valid point of view, and it speaks to me because that's how I was for a lot of my life. I've always thought the stats were fun, but I didn't care at all about why GMs make the decisions they do. I remember having a good time at a Cape Cod League baseball game and then being devastated when it was announced over the PA that Nomar Garciaparra had been traded to the Chicago Cubs. I was 10 and he was my favorite player. As it turned out, of course, we ended up winning the World Series three months later, and the guy who caught the toss from Foulke was one of the players we traded Nomar for. And I wasn't thinking about the trade at all. I was over the moon. I remember making my Halloween costume in front of the TV while the duck boat parade was going on (a bag of Funyuns made out of a yellow pillow case; it was great). I'm sure I would have loved to see Nomar be a part of all that too, but at the time I was just so happy we had won. And yet, if you had told me in the Summer of 2004 that we would win the World Series if we just traded Nomar, I'm sure I would have wanted us to keep Nomar and take our chances.
With Bloom, too, I'm sure that fans will one day be able to forgive him for parting with beloved stars, but that won't happen if the team is bad. I'm sure the median Sox fan just sees that we had an incredible team full of fun, beloved players. They would dance in the outfield after they won, and they won a lot. We had two of the best hitters in baseball, a bonafide ace, a rockstar of a closer with his own theme music and hype video. And now almost all of those players we bonded with and that delivered so much for us are gone, and we've done a lot more losing since. Of course people are going to be frustrated and of course they're going to blame ownership and management for destroying what we had.
At the end of the day, everyone wants the same thing. We want a consistently good team full of players we know and love. The friction comes in when we have to choose between these things, and especially when the FO doesn't make the same choices we might have. If Bloom is successful, though, we won't have to choose often. So, I'm really hoping that this ends up being a good year. There's a lot of despair in the fandom right now, and I especially feel for the kids who were big fans of Mookie, Xander, and the other departed favorites. Hopefully we all have something to cheer about soon.
Good post, and I mostly agree. I’m not sure Bloom will necessarily be forgiven no matter what, though. Just look at the long memories: Fisk, Lynn, Lester… others. Some things just become part of the lore. He might be begrudgingly accepted if he wins a WS, but he will likely never be beloved. Cherington won, and he hardly gets any love. Not ready to share my overall thoughts about the club and the direction this FO regime is taking us. I have my hunches and opinions and feelings but I am still wrestling with it all. I like some things and don’t like others. That being said, I do want to say that I think manfred is likely right about Bloom’s legacy. Not all of us here care about that kind of stuff that’s fine. But I do think for those of us who do find it interesting to think about, that Bloom’s path to being a fondly remembered figure in Boston or some long term fixture here, is getting more difficult and unlikely. There probably is a path still. Hitting on a lot of prospects in the next few years, locking some of them up, winning a whole lot in the next decade. Even then, I agree with manfred. Some people will never forgive Xander (and maybe Devers, probably Devers really) leaving. They won’t forget the lowball offer in spring of ‘22. Others in the above scenario will move on, consider the pain worth it, and embrace him. But that also has to happen. Definitely going to have to be some threading the needle from Bloom.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Dec 19, 2022 11:39:13 GMT -5
F for F*CK YOU.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 19, 2022 11:39:45 GMT -5
To simplify a bit, there's three main things that determine how good the team you build is: 1) How much money is being spent? 2) How well is the money being spent? 3) How much cheap talent do you have? #1 is on the owners, and they spend a good amount. They straddle the CBT line, going over some years and making sure not to hit the nasty 3 year offender penalties. It's fair to say that this strategy is less impressive than it used to be - we now have more teams in a similar boat as well as some teams now flying past the CBT limit like it doesn't even exist. #2 is on Chaim and you can check the spreadsheet he has spent very efficiently #3 is a huge factor and the Red Sox have been near the bottom of the league for years. Since Devers came up, the best player they've developed was Tanner Houck and the next best is Josh Taylor. Last year's Astros got *28* WAR from players that they called up in that time. The Blue Jays have called up 6 all stars since we developed our last everyday player. Whose fault is this? It takes a long time to develop talent, the current regime has nothing to do with the cupboard being bare the last 3 years.Agree. But the drafts/intl signings under Dombrowski were very good. Again the talent on farm was very young when Bloom got here. If anything, the cupboard being bare falls on Cherington, who had some truly awful drafts, especially with his high-end picks. Other than Benintendi, Kopech and Beeks, he didn't draft any players who've generated a career (to date) 1.0 fWAR or better. That's pretty poor return on 2012-2015 drafts, and especially egregious when he had the #7 and #43 overall picks in the same draft (2013). His international signings - usually tougher to project - yielded Devers, Moncada, and Darwinzon Hernandez, while Anderson Espinosa and Luis Basabe were used as trade bait to get players of need. He also wasted a ton of money on Luis Castillo, who did play a position of need, but they completely blew the evaluation of him. They also blew the evaluation/overvalued some internal talent (Weber, Owens et al) who were highly ranked and could've been leveraged in deals while their stock was at its zenith. Dombrowski came in, kept the right guys, had generally productive drafts and moved some of the surplus (most of whom would never make MLB or generate more than 1.0 fWAR) for (mostly) good return. Every GM has a stinker deal, and his was probably Thornton, but even then, it didn't wreck the system.
|
|
|
Post by pappyman99 on Dec 19, 2022 11:47:54 GMT -5
I find Cheringtons tenure to be the most fascinating. I feel like valentine was a Kennedy/Luchhino hire as his approache matched nothing how Theo, Jed, and BC approached the game. www.masslive.com/redsox/2015/08/ben_cheringtons_trade_history.htmlBobby V basically ruined melancon for us. That link basically has all of his trades. For instance Henry admits they low balled Lester (but honestly for the best he didn’t produce much longer after he left). BC Turner a half of season of Lester into cespedes, which he turned into Porcello. Porcello gave us 13 WAR, Lester produced about 17 WAR the rest of his career after us. He signed Devers, drafted Benny, traded for Erod, and really held Onto to prospects, sometimes to a fault (Swihart) He won in 2013 and his prints are very much on 2018. He had awful signings, but it was basically reported that one of Sandoval/Hanley was lucchino/Kennedy doing. But still he takes the fault for at least one of them and Castillo. He turned Webster and de la Rosa into Miley His worst trade was Bailey and just not getting enough for Lackey. His 2012 off-season signings were brilliant, host 2014 signings quite the opposite Just a very interesting tenure, he is definitely better suited for the pirates as maybe we won’t feel the pressure of Boston and panic and make a bad move
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Dec 19, 2022 11:49:54 GMT -5
To simplify a bit, there's three main things that determine how good the team you build is: 1) How much money is being spent? 2) How well is the money being spent? 3) How much cheap talent do you have? #1 is on the owners, and they spend a good amount. They straddle the CBT line, going over some years and making sure not to hit the nasty 3 year offender penalties. It's fair to say that this strategy is less impressive than it used to be - we now have more teams in a similar boat as well as some teams now flying past the CBT limit like it doesn't even exist. #2 is on Chaim and you can check the spreadsheet he has spent very efficiently #3 is a huge factor and the Red Sox have been near the bottom of the league for years. Since Devers came up, the best player they've developed was Tanner Houck and the next best is Josh Taylor. Last year's Astros got *28* WAR from players that they called up in that time. The Blue Jays have called up 6 all stars since we developed our last everyday player. Whose fault is this? It takes a long time to develop talent, the current regime has nothing to do with the cupboard being bare the last 3 years. Agree. But the drafts/intl signings under Dombrowski were very good. Again the talent on farm was very young when Bloom got here. If anything, the cupboard being bare falls on Cherington, who had some truly awful drafts, especially with his high-end picks. Other than Benintendi, Kopech and Beeks, he didn't draft any players who've generated a career (to date) 1.0 fWAR or better. That's pretty poor return on 2012-2015 drafts, and especially egregious when he had the #7 and #43 overall picks in the same draft (2013). His international signings - usually tougher to project - yielded Devers, Moncada, and Darwinzon Hernandez, while Anderson Espinosa and Luis Basabe were used as trade bait to get players of need. He also wasted a ton of money on Luis Castillo, who did play a position of need, but they completely blew the evaluation of him. They also blew the evaluation/overvalued some internal talent (Weber, Owens et al) who were highly ranked and could've been leveraged in deals while their stock was at its zenith. Dombrowski came in, kept the right guys, had generally productive drafts and moved some of the surplus (most of whom would never make MLB or generate more than 1.0 fWAR) for (mostly) good return. Every GM has a stinker deal, and his was probably Thornton, but even then, it didn't wreck the system. Re; The bolded, they were? Dombrowski's era did not sign Devers, the team signed him in 2013. So you're giving him credit for Moncada who was kind of a unicorn that the Red Sox just paid the most money for and... Darwinzon Hernandez? I'm not sure his drafts were poor but I'm also not sure they're particularly impressive. I do agree Cherington's drafts weren't too hot.
|
|
|