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 patford on Jan 19, 2023 15:57:38 GMT -5
As a side note, feels like there's almost a reflexive criticism of signings like this one by folks who dislike the front office (and are particularly upset because the front office has not acquired enough star-level players). I think it's totally fair to dislike this move because you'd rather give the playing time to Duran/Refsnyder or because you think Duvall is toast or because you think they should spend the money on a bullpen arm instead. I also totally understand being upset at the front office for, say, not re-signing Bogaerts. But criticizing this move because Duvall's not a star feels like misplaced anger. Don't take that out on poor Adam Duvall. Agreed. My take is Bloom went from genius the the biggest idiot in the world overnight in the eyes of fans during a season which saw the Sox repeatedly snake bit by a whole series of bad circumstances and a national (L.A. and N.Y. based) media which sees Boston sports teams as the competition and pounded a narrative which was greatly assisted by certain Boston media personalities who ate up the exposure they attained by piling on.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Jan 19, 2023 17:13:19 GMT -5
As a side note, feels like there's almost a reflexive criticism of signings like this one by folks who dislike the front office (and are particularly upset because the front office has not acquired enough star-level players). I think it's totally fair to dislike this move because you'd rather give the playing time to Duran/Refsnyder or because you think Duvall is toast or because you think they should spend the money on a bullpen arm instead. I also totally understand being upset at the front office for, say, not re-signing Bogaerts. But criticizing this move because Duvall's not a star feels like misplaced anger. Don't take that out on poor Adam Duvall. Those are the main things that get me, along with a desire to see Hernandez stay in CF.
I was an In Chaim I Trust guy for most of his tenure. I understood and defended the Betts trade, loved the Renfroe trade, was astounded by the Benintendi trade (try to recall how deep a hole the Cincinnati Kid was in at the time) and liked most other moves he made, including the bullpen overhaul this winter. But he let the Bogaerts situation completely blow up in his face and going pennies over the cap last year was just plain sloppy. Everyone knew this was going to be a big off-season for him, going in, and I am very underwhelmed (again, except for the bullpen). I'll still root for the laundry, whether Duvall or anyone else is modeling it, but signing him makes a lot more sense for a team that is one plugged hole away from legit contention, which I don't think they are.
As with any move I don't like, I hope I'm wrong. Maybe Sale, Bello, Whitlock, and Jansen will make it all academic.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jan 19, 2023 17:29:59 GMT -5
As a side note, feels like there's almost a reflexive criticism of signings like this one by folks who dislike the front office (and are particularly upset because the front office has not acquired enough star-level players). I think it's totally fair to dislike this move because you'd rather give the playing time to Duran/Refsnyder or because you think Duvall is toast or because you think they should spend the money on a bullpen arm instead. I also totally understand being upset at the front office for, say, not re-signing Bogaerts. But criticizing this move because Duvall's not a star feels like misplaced anger. Don't take that out on poor Adam Duvall. sparing Adam Duvall any grief isn't a priority for most, he has an envious job description for most around here and he is making bank. LOL. Indeed, many ways to build a winning club. I will leave the nuance to people who like to overthink things. I will go with easy route, give me Stars and filler (hopefully of the good variety).
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Jan 19, 2023 17:33:51 GMT -5
I think there were also some unfair expectations based on the fact that we started the offseason with something like ~$70M (is that right?) to spend which may have felt like a lot to some. That said, once you consider how many holes we needed to fill (1 or 2 middle infielders, 1 OF, 1 DH, 2-3 SP, 3-4 RP) it really wasn't that much at all. $70M buys you two elite stars, or about three 60-grade players. If we had at least 8-9 roster spots to fill, then we're talking about an average of less than $10M per position. Frankly, I think Bloom actually did a pretty decent job of allocating that money to bring in Yoshida, Turner, Duvall, Paxton, Kluber, Jensen, Martin, Rodriguez, and Mills, while staying below the threshold (for now) and getting Devers extended. Thats quite a bit of talent for ~$70M in AAV. I'd give him no worse than a B+ personally.
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Jan 19, 2023 17:50:05 GMT -5
I think there were also some unfair expectations based on the fact that we started the offseason with something like ~$70M (is that right?) to spend which may have felt like a lot to some. That said, once you consider how many holes we needed to fill (1 or 2 middle infielders, 1 OF, 1 DH, 2-3 SP, 3-4 RP) it really wasn't that much at all. $70M buys you two elite stars, or about three 60-grade players. If we had at least 8-9 roster spots to fill, then we're talking about an average of less than $10M per position. Frankly, I think Bloom actually did a pretty decent job of allocating that money to bring in Yoshida, Turner, Duvall, Paxton, Kluber, Jensen, Martin, Rodriguez, and Mills, while staying below the threshold (for now) and getting Devers extended. Thats quite a bit of talent for ~$70M in AAV. I'd give him no worse than a B+ personally. I've seen a lot of posts crapping on the offseason, but not sure I've seen a single person list out all the actually existing contracts they'd rather have that would have been so much better.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 19, 2023 17:58:35 GMT -5
I think there were also some unfair expectations based on the fact that we started the offseason with something like ~$70M (is that right?) to spend which may have felt like a lot to some. That said, once you consider how many holes we needed to fill (1 or 2 middle infielders, 1 OF, 1 DH, 2-3 SP, 3-4 RP) it really wasn't that much at all. $70M buys you two elite stars, or about three 60-grade players. If we had at least 8-9 roster spots to fill, then we're talking about an average of less than $10M per position. Frankly, I think Bloom actually did a pretty decent job of allocating that money to bring in Yoshida, Turner, Duvall, Paxton, Kluber, Jensen, Martin, Rodriguez, and Mills, while staying below the threshold (for now) and getting Devers extended. Thats quite a bit of talent for ~$70M in AAV. I'd give him no worse than a B+ personally. I've seen a lot of posts crapping on the offseason, but not sure I've seen a single person list out all the actually existing contracts they'd rather have that would have been so much better.
But that limits the scope. That is, my criticism is that they made a large push to clearing money for this off-season and then it went poorly. Yeah, the contracts got crazy. But that means the plan failed. They should have made a real offer to X. For just one. That could’ve been headed off. Maybe other guys. Anyway, water under the bridge now. On Duvall… I think he is worth a go. Of the current roster, he should start, I think… I’d rather him than Refsnyder or 🤢Duran.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Jan 19, 2023 18:09:21 GMT -5
I've seen a lot of posts crapping on the offseason, but not sure I've seen a single person list out all the actually existing contracts they'd rather have that would have been so much better.
But that limits the scope. That is, my criticism is that they made a large push to clearing money for this off-season and then it went poorly. Yeah, the contracts got crazy. But that means the plan failed. They should have made a real offer to X. For just one. That could’ve been headed off. Maybe other guys. Anyway, water under the bridge now. On Duvall… I think he is worth a go. Of the current roster, he should start, I think… I’d rather him than Refsnyder or 🤢Duran. Did spending the money go poorly? How could we possibly know that before we see the players it was spent on play? How about the fact that clearing the money for the long term made the Devers extension possible?
|
|
|
Post by oldfaithful2019 on Jan 19, 2023 18:19:03 GMT -5
I think there were also some unfair expectations based on the fact that we started the offseason with something like ~$70M (is that right?) to spend which may have felt like a lot to some. That said, once you consider how many holes we needed to fill (1 or 2 middle infielders, 1 OF, 1 DH, 2-3 SP, 3-4 RP) it really wasn't that much at all. $70M buys you two elite stars, or about three 60-grade players. If we had at least 8-9 roster spots to fill, then we're talking about an average of less than $10M per position. Frankly, I think Bloom actually did a pretty decent job of allocating that money to bring in Yoshida, Turner, Duvall, Paxton, Kluber, Jensen, Martin, Rodriguez, and Mills, while staying below the threshold (for now) and getting Devers extended. Thats quite a bit of talent for ~$70M in AAV. I'd give him no worse than a B+ personally. Also, a potential WC team has been put together for 2023 without giving up a single prospect. Better players via trade would have cost prospects we do not want to loose.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 19, 2023 19:25:46 GMT -5
But that limits the scope. That is, my criticism is that they made a large push to clearing money for this off-season and then it went poorly. Yeah, the contracts got crazy. But that means the plan failed. They should have made a real offer to X. For just one. That could’ve been headed off. Maybe other guys. Anyway, water under the bridge now. On Duvall… I think he is worth a go. Of the current roster, he should start, I think… I’d rather him than Refsnyder or 🤢Duran. Did spending the money go poorly? How could we possibly know that before we see the players it was spent on play? How about the fact that clearing the money for the long term made the Devers extension possible? Yes, the spending went poorly. A) didn’t sign X. B) are missing a starter (after $60+ million). C) I’m for Duvall at this point, but was he what you wanted? Jansen? Joely? There are many iffy signings or plan Ds. Bottom line is for a few years it has been wait-for-room, and that room has not been a big deal. Now it seems like it is wait-for-Mayer. Ok.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Jan 19, 2023 22:10:37 GMT -5
Did spending the money go poorly? How could we possibly know that before we see the players it was spent on play? How about the fact that clearing the money for the long term made the Devers extension possible? Yes, the spending went poorly. A) didn’t sign X. B) are missing a starter (after $60+ million). C) I’m for Duvall at this point, but was he what you wanted? Jansen? Joely? There are many iffy signings or plan Ds. Bottom line is for a few years it has been wait-for-room, and that room has not been a big deal. Now it seems like it is wait-for-Mayer. Ok. Not the thread for it so I'll leave it at agree to disagree with your general premise (though I do agree I'm anti the Jansen deal and wish they had kept Xander).
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 4,123
|
Post by jimoh on Jan 19, 2023 22:18:06 GMT -5
Did spending the money go poorly? How could we possibly know that before we see the players it was spent on play? How about the fact that clearing the money for the long term made the Devers extension possible? Yes, the spending went poorly. A) didn’t sign X. B) are missing a starter (after $60+ million). C) I’m for Duvall at this point, but was he what you wanted? Jansen? Joely? There are many iffy signings or plan Ds. Bottom line is for a few years it has been wait-for-room, and that room has not been a big deal. Now it seems like it is wait-for-Mayer. Ok. All your complaints sound to me like someone complaining he can’t rent or buy a house in Boston for 1993 prices.
|
|
|
Post by Soxfansince1971 on Jan 19, 2023 22:21:55 GMT -5
As a side note, feels like there's almost a reflexive criticism of signings like this one by folks who dislike the front office (and are particularly upset because the front office has not acquired enough star-level players). I think it's totally fair to dislike this move because you'd rather give the playing time to Duran/Refsnyder or because you think Duvall is toast or because you think they should spend the money on a bullpen arm instead. I also totally understand being upset at the front office for, say, not re-signing Bogaerts. But criticizing this move because Duvall's not a star feels like misplaced anger. Don't take that out on poor Adam Duvall. Jmei - at this point there are a set of commenters on this site that will complain about everything (as my mute list grows)! I swear they would not be happy even if the FO spent $500,000,000 and fielded a team of all-stars. I come to the site a lot less as a result…
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 19, 2023 23:09:19 GMT -5
Yes, the spending went poorly. A) didn’t sign X. B) are missing a starter (after $60+ million). C) I’m for Duvall at this point, but was he what you wanted? Jansen? Joely? There are many iffy signings or plan Ds. Bottom line is for a few years it has been wait-for-room, and that room has not been a big deal. Now it seems like it is wait-for-Mayer. Ok. All your complaints sound to me like someone complaining he can’t rent or buy a house in Boston for 1993 prices. That doesn’t make any sense. Doesn’t matter. To each his own. We’ll have a season soon, and all questions will be answered.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 19, 2023 23:37:32 GMT -5
I think there were also some unfair expectations based on the fact that we started the offseason with something like ~$70M (is that right?) to spend which may have felt like a lot to some. That said, once you consider how many holes we needed to fill (1 or 2 middle infielders, 1 OF, 1 DH, 2-3 SP, 3-4 RP) it really wasn't that much at all. $70M buys you two elite stars, or about three 60-grade players. If we had at least 8-9 roster spots to fill, then we're talking about an average of less than $10M per position. Frankly, I think Bloom actually did a pretty decent job of allocating that money to bring in Yoshida, Turner, Duvall, Paxton, Kluber, Jensen, Martin, Rodriguez, and Mills, while staying below the threshold (for now) and getting Devers extended. Thats quite a bit of talent for ~$70M in AAV. I'd give him no worse than a B+ personally. I've seen a lot of posts crapping on the offseason, but not sure I've seen a single person list out all the actually existing contracts they'd rather have that would have been so much better.
It's a funny situation because most of their moves this offseason have made sense in the context they were made. But this offseason has retroactively made last offseason look a LOT worse.
a) It would obviously have been insane to match the Padres' offer for Bogaerts. But the fact that they clearly wanted to keep Bogaerts makes their offer to him last season look even more ridiculous. b) Signing Duvall makes good sense as a way to compensate for the Story injury. But Story's injury makes his signing last offseason look like much less of a bargain. c) I didn't have much of a problem with their going over the CBT last season; my only complaint was that if they were going to go over they should have gone over by more to at least fill the remaining holes on the roster (i.e., they should have signed another outfielder last year). But going over has even more of a cost now that it's reduced their compensation for losing Bogaerts and Eovaldi - which means it seems like an even bigger mistake to not have added an outfielder last offseason.
The only thing I'd really complain about this offseason is the Jansen signing. But at the same time, events of this offseason have really made me feel a lot worse about last offseason than I felt at the time.
|
|
|
Post by pappyman99 on Jan 20, 2023 0:08:43 GMT -5
As a side note, feels like there's almost a reflexive criticism of signings like this one by folks who dislike the front office (and are particularly upset because the front office has not acquired enough star-level players). I think it's totally fair to dislike this move because you'd rather give the playing time to Duran/Refsnyder or because you think Duvall is toast or because you think they should spend the money on a bullpen arm instead. I also totally understand being upset at the front office for, say, not re-signing Bogaerts. But criticizing this move because Duvall's not a star feels like misplaced anger. Don't take that out on poor Adam Duvall. Agreed. My take is Bloom went from genius the the biggest idiot in the world overnight in the eyes of fans during a season which saw the Sox repeatedly snake bit by a whole series of bad circumstances and a national (L.A. and N.Y. based) media which sees Boston sports teams as the competition and pounded a narrative which was greatly assisted by certain Boston media personalities who ate up the exposure they attained by piling on. I’m not going to really get into the signing as I like it in of itself, But People look at the 2019 outfield, then the 2022 outfield and no narrative is needed for that especially when all there is left to show for it is Wong, Verdugo, and Winchowski
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 20, 2023 0:10:27 GMT -5
I've seen a lot of posts crapping on the offseason, but not sure I've seen a single person list out all the actually existing contracts they'd rather have that would have been so much better. It's a funny situation because most of their moves this offseason have made sense in the context they were made. But this offseason has retroactively made last offseason look a LOT worse. a) It would obviously have been insane to match the Padres' offer for Bogaerts. But the fact that they clearly wanted to keep Bogaerts makes their offer to him last season look even more ridiculous. b) Signing Duvall makes good sense as a way to compensate for the Story injury. But Story's injury makes his signing last offseason look like much less of a bargain. c) I didn't have much of a problem with their going over the CBT last season; my only complaint was that if they were going to go over they should have gone over by more to at least fill the remaining holes on the roster (i.e., they should have signed another outfielder last year). But going over has even more of a cost now that it's reduced their compensation for losing Bogaerts and Eovaldi - which means it seems like an even bigger mistake to not have added an outfielder last offseason. The only thing I'd really complain about this offseason is the Jansen signing. But at the same time, events of this offseason have really made me feel a lot worse about last offseason than I felt at the time.
Totally agree on points a and b and think for point c they should have punted and gotten what they could get for JDM, Wacha, and Eovaldi and got under the limit. Because if they did, they'd have more leeway to spend this year and next and they'd have improved their farm system somewhat as opposed to watching those 3 players walk, finish in last, and get nothing for them. And then you imagine a Bogaerts, signed last spring to a Trevor Story like extension, and suddenly the 2023 lineup, with all the moves made this offseason, would look a lot better, and the loss of Story would be shrugged off as Duvall gets signed to play CF and Kiké shifts to 2b to become Xander's DP partner, rather than pinong away for mediocre Elvis Andrus or building up Kim to be Ozzie Smith and pondering giving up a useful effective cost controlled pitcher like Houck up. Which is too bad, because the moves Bloom has made this winter, in a vacuum, for the most part, are decent to good moves, built to provide them a 2 year bridge until more of their kids, including Mayer, graduate to the majors.
|
|
|
Post by benzinger on Jan 20, 2023 0:22:27 GMT -5
I think there were also some unfair expectations based on the fact that we started the offseason with something like ~$70M (is that right?) to spend which may have felt like a lot to some. That said, once you consider how many holes we needed to fill (1 or 2 middle infielders, 1 OF, 1 DH, 2-3 SP, 3-4 RP) it really wasn't that much at all. $70M buys you two elite stars, or about three 60-grade players. If we had at least 8-9 roster spots to fill, then we're talking about an average of less than $10M per position. Frankly, I think Bloom actually did a pretty decent job of allocating that money to bring in Yoshida, Turner, Duvall, Paxton, Kluber, Jensen, Martin, Rodriguez, and Mills, while staying below the threshold (for now) and getting Devers extended. Thats quite a bit of talent for ~$70M in AAV. I'd give him no worse than a B+ personally. I've seen a lot of posts crapping on the offseason, but not sure I've seen a single person list out all the actually existing contracts they'd rather have that would have been so much better.
A few deals I would have liked to see the Sox kick the tires on: -Cody Bellinger 1yr/$17.5m -Dansby Swanson 7yr/$177m-Would have been a good plan B for losing Xander…but, apparently, there was no plan B -Mitch Haniger 3yr/$43.5m -Michael Conforto 2yr/$36m -Jose Quintana 2yr/$26m -Sean Manaea 2yr/$25m -Mike Clevinger 1yr/$12m -Brandon Drury 2yr/$17m -Noah Syndergaard 1/$13m? There are some other assorted 1 year deals that looked interesting: Johnny Cueto, Matt Boyd, Wil Myers, AJ Pollock, Kyle Gibson & David Robertson among them. Bellinger. Swanson, Quintana and a couple bullpen arms would have been a decent offseason, no?
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Jan 20, 2023 0:28:08 GMT -5
I've seen a lot of posts crapping on the offseason, but not sure I've seen a single person list out all the actually existing contracts they'd rather have that would have been so much better.
A few deals I would have liked to see the Sox kick the tires on: -Cody Bellinger 1yr/$17.5m -Dansby Swanson 7yr/$177m-Would have been a good plan B for losing Xander…but, apparently, there was no plan B -Mitch Haniger 3yr/$43.5m -Michael Conforto 2yr/$36m -Jose Quintana 2yr/$26m -Sean Manaea 2yr/$25m -Mike Clevinger 1yr/$12m -Brandon Drury 2yr/$17m -Noah Syndergaard 1/$13m? There are some other assorted 1 year deals that looked interesting: Johnny Cueto, Matt Boyd, Wil Myers, AJ Pollock, Kyle Gibson & David Robertson among them. Bellinger. Swanson, Quintana and a couple bullpen arms would have been a decent offseason, no? Personally I much prefer what they actually did, assuming they add at least a Jose Iglesias level infielder, to your proposal there. But to each their own.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 20, 2023 1:01:22 GMT -5
I've seen a lot of posts crapping on the offseason, but not sure I've seen a single person list out all the actually existing contracts they'd rather have that would have been so much better.
A few deals I would have liked to see the Sox kick the tires on: -Cody Bellinger 1yr/$17.5m -Dansby Swanson 7yr/$177m-Would have been a good plan B for losing Xander…but, apparently, there was no plan B -Mitch Haniger 3yr/$43.5m -Michael Conforto 2yr/$36m -Jose Quintana 2yr/$26m -Sean Manaea 2yr/$25m -Mike Clevinger 1yr/$12m -Brandon Drury 2yr/$17m -Noah Syndergaard 1/$13m? There are some other assorted 1 year deals that looked interesting: Johnny Cueto, Matt Boyd, Wil Myers, AJ Pollock, Kyle Gibson & David Robertson among them. Bellinger. Swanson, Quintana and a couple bullpen arms would have been a decent offseason, no? This would have cost like $130 million in 2023 AAV. You have to pick and choose if you want to compare this to what they've actually done.
ADD: Oh, I missed the last line. Yeah, I don't know what to say to that other than I think their actual moves are better than this suggestion. I like Duvall about as much as Bellinger and he's way cheaper. Quintana at that price seems fine, but Kluber at his price seems fine too. I HATE Swanson on that contract plus he'd cost them the QO penalty. And without Turner and Yoshida that would seem like a really anemic offense.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Jan 20, 2023 8:06:00 GMT -5
I've seen a lot of posts crapping on the offseason, but not sure I've seen a single person list out all the actually existing contracts they'd rather have that would have been so much better. A few deals I would have liked to see the Sox kick the tires on: -Cody Bellinger 1yr/$17.5m -Dansby Swanson 7yr/$177m-Would have been a good plan B for losing Xander…but, apparently, there was no plan B -Mitch Haniger 3yr/$43.5m -Michael Conforto 2yr/$36m -Jose Quintana 2yr/$26m -Sean Manaea 2yr/$25m -Mike Clevinger 1yr/$12m -Brandon Drury 2yr/$17m -Noah Syndergaard 1/$13m? There are some other assorted 1 year deals that looked interesting: Johnny Cueto, Matt Boyd, Wil Myers, AJ Pollock, Kyle Gibson & David Robertson among them. Bellinger. Swanson, Quintana and a couple bullpen arms would have been a decent offseason, no? $17.5 million is crazy high for a Bellinger prove-it deal They wanted no part of 7 years for Swanson. Fully support that. They made a better offer to Hanniger, but he preferred to stay on the west coast. 2/$36mill guaranteed for Conforto is way too risky, although maybe if the medicals checked out? Still that's a lot for an injury and performance risk, even at 2 years. Pass on Drury No opinion on the pitchers
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Jan 20, 2023 8:46:14 GMT -5
I've seen a lot of posts crapping on the offseason, but not sure I've seen a single person list out all the actually existing contracts they'd rather have that would have been so much better.
A few deals I would have liked to see the Sox kick the tires on: -Cody Bellinger 1yr/$17.5m -Dansby Swanson 7yr/$177m-Would have been a good plan B for losing Xander…but, apparently, there was no plan B -Mitch Haniger 3yr/$43.5m -Michael Conforto 2yr/$36m -Jose Quintana 2yr/$26m -Sean Manaea 2yr/$25m -Mike Clevinger 1yr/$12m -Brandon Drury 2yr/$17m -Noah Syndergaard 1/$13m? There are some other assorted 1 year deals that looked interesting: Johnny Cueto, Matt Boyd, Wil Myers, AJ Pollock, Kyle Gibson & David Robertson among them. Bellinger. Swanson, Quintana and a couple bullpen arms would have been a decent offseason, no? As Iakovos said, that's way too much for my taste on Bellinger. He's basically been JBJ levels of bad with the bat the last couple years. Also as Iakovos said, 7 years for Swanson doesn't seem a great deal to me. I'd like to have him slotted in at SS for the next 2-3 seasons but past that think they're better off not having him for years 4-7. No issue with passing on that. Iakovos also covered Haniger. Conforto through the pitchers are where I can possibly see some deals I'd have been alright with the Sox going after. The thing with Conforto is, once they signed Yoshida he was probably all but crossed off the possibilities list. If you want to make an argument that Conforto at his contract would have been a better or at least safer contract than Yoshida, I can see that argument. The jury is still out on Yoshida so who knows. In terms of the pitchers, they are all pretty much in the same tier as Kluber to me so once again if you want to make the argument one of them would have been a better option than Kluber I won't necessarily disagree. The thing is they probably don't need two pitchers in that type of tier, so it's really Kluber vs that list at this point. Similar scenario to Yoshida/Conforto, we'll see after the season who the best values were on Kluber and the list of starters in your list.
|
|
|
Post by runner on Jan 20, 2023 9:12:25 GMT -5
The Sox had a better offer for Mitch Haniger this off-season?
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Jan 20, 2023 9:26:42 GMT -5
A few deals I would have liked to see the Sox kick the tires on: -Cody Bellinger 1yr/$17.5m -Dansby Swanson 7yr/$177m-Would have been a good plan B for losing Xander…but, apparently, there was no plan B -Mitch Haniger 3yr/$43.5m -Michael Conforto 2yr/$36m -Jose Quintana 2yr/$26m -Sean Manaea 2yr/$25m -Mike Clevinger 1yr/$12m -Brandon Drury 2yr/$17m -Noah Syndergaard 1/$13m? There are some other assorted 1 year deals that looked interesting: Johnny Cueto, Matt Boyd, Wil Myers, AJ Pollock, Kyle Gibson & David Robertson among them. Bellinger. Swanson, Quintana and a couple bullpen arms would have been a decent offseason, no? $17.5 million is crazy high for a Bellinger prove-it deal They wanted no part of 7 years for Swanson. Fully support that. They made a better offer to Hanniger, but he preferred to stay on the west coast. 2/$36mill guaranteed for Conforto is way too risky, although maybe if the medicals checked out? Still that's a lot for an injury and performance risk, even at 2 years. Pass on Drury No opinion on the pitchers Also he's making the assumption that the Sox didn't kick the tires on any of those deals, despite zero evidence to that notion.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 20, 2023 9:32:41 GMT -5
Let's say that the Red Sox re-sign Xander Bogaerts (let's say on a $28M AAV deal; the Padres deal just added some years on the back end to manipulate the AAV so I think $28M is closer to reality) this offseason rather than, say, Yoshida ($18M) and Turner ($10.5M). Is that a meaningfully better team? They'd be going into the season with big question marks in one corner outfield spot (Duvall/Duran/Refsnyder) and at DH (Hosmer/Dalbec) and I don't know that you'd project them to be more than a couple wins better at most. For the skeptics out there, is that really enough to turn this from a bad offseason to a good one?
The lesson I take away is that it's really difficult to build your team solely through free agency. Unless your ownership is willing to spend way past the luxury tax threshold a la the Mets, even big market teams need young, cost-controlled players in order to be able to spend big on free agents. The real failure isn't not signing Bogaerts (though that does hurt, both from a wins perspective but especially from a fan perspective). It's guys like Duran and Dalbec and Jeter Downs (all top 6 prospects as recently as November 2020) not being the kinds of building blocks you need to have on your roster to be able to spend on guys like Bogaerts (or whichever other big money SS you like) rather than needing to fill gaping holes by spreading that money around on guys like Yoshida, Turner and whoever they acquire for the middle infield between now and opening day.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Jan 20, 2023 10:04:47 GMT -5
Let's say that the Red Sox re-sign Xander Bogaerts (let's say on a $28M AAV deal; the Padres deal just added some years on the back end to manipulate the AAV so I think $28M is closer to reality) this offseason rather than, say, Yoshida ($18M) and Turner ($10.5M). Is that a meaningfully better team? They'd be going into the season with big question marks in one corner outfield spot (Duvall/Duran/Refsnyder) and at DH (Hosmer/Dalbec) and I don't know that you'd project them to be more than a couple wins better at most. For the skeptics out there, is that really enough to turn this from a bad offseason to a good one? The lesson I take away is that it's really difficult to build your team solely through free agency. Unless your ownership is willing to spend way past the luxury tax threshold a la the Mets, even big market teams need young, cost-controlled players in order to be able to spend big on free agents. The real failure isn't not signing Bogaerts (though that does hurt, both from a wins perspective but especially from a fan perspective). It's guys like Duran and Dalbec and Jeter Downs (all top 6 prospects as recently as November 2020) not being the kinds of building blocks you need to have on your roster to be able to spend on guys like Bogaerts (or whichever other big money SS you like) rather than needing to fill gaping holes by spreading that money around on guys like Yoshida, Turner and whoever they acquire for the middle infield between now and opening day. Exactly. Someone like *poster not to be named* can complain about how they didn't sign Xander and two starters (which is insane to me to think that we need another starter, if anything we have a logjam there - if you think the rotation quality isn't great, that's different), but if they do that then that exhausts pretty much the entirety of their remaining money and you're left with holes in LF, 2B or CF depending on which way you go, DH, and an atrocious bullpen. And then, of course, *poster not to be named* would find ways to complain about that and say "Why did we commit so much money on X when the whole roster needs work?". Pretty much no matter what happens, the people who are going out of their way to look for something to complain about will find something, no matter how unreasonable it may be.
|
|
|