SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Evaluating the Front Office and Ownership
|
Post by scottysmalls on Jan 23, 2023 12:52:42 GMT -5
If two of those guys generate 5 wins for the Red Sox the whole approach is justified. Wong might be a little bit of a separate case being part of the Mookie deal, but even still if he is a decent player, that deal - which is already a positive for the Red Sox in terms of total wins traded away/for - will look okay as well. How has it been a win in wins traded away/for? Do you mean by dollar? Because in absolute terms, it is not even close. Mookie has been nearly three times Verdugo in bWAR. Downs was -.6 bWAR. Connor Wong is at .2 (after a negative last year). Verdugo might not amass in his career what Mookie did in his first three years. Hell, even Price laps Wong/Downs. He has been 1.3 bWAR in 2 years as a reliever… vs. their combined -.4. Add: I’ll go a step further: I bet Verdugo never reaches tMookie’s three-year WAR total in a Sox uniform. He would need about 9 more WAR, and I don’t think it’ll happen. That’s 3-4 years, and I bet he’s gone in that time. They only traded away Mookie’s 2020 season.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 23, 2023 12:55:47 GMT -5
I said he saved money *on long-term payroll*. If he hadn't added McGuire they probably have to do something like bring back Vazquez at $8-10 million/year or something; instead they have C fully stocked with cost-controlled guys for the next three years.
I do have a complaint about 2022 payroll, which I stated: they should have gone over by more. It made a lot of sense for 2022 to be a year they go over the CBT (lots of dead money about to come off the books making it easy to re-set; lack of cheap young guys to fill the gaps on the roster). But then why go over by such a small amount with at least one significant hole still needing to be filled?
Meh. They could’ve let CVaz walk the way they let X walk. Little in return, no replacement in sight. And they could have signed a cheap catcher if necessary. I don’t see that as some masterstroke. I don't understand this comment. He could've let CVaz walk, that's true. And then they wouldn't have added two prospects. And also they would have had to pay more for a catcher in free agency. And if they were going to be cheap then they would've definitely been worse than McGuire and Vazquez. In which case I would have considered it a less successful trade deadline.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 23, 2023 13:02:18 GMT -5
Meh. They could’ve let CVaz walk the way they let X walk. Little in return, no replacement in sight. And they could have signed a cheap catcher if necessary. I don’t see that as some masterstroke. Did I say it was a masterstroke, or did I just say he handled the trade deadline well?
He could've let CVaz walk, that's true. And then they wouldn't have added two prospects. And also they would have had to pay more for a catcher in free agency. And if they were going to be cheap then they would've definitely been worse than McGuire and Vazquez. In which case I would have considered it a less successful trade deadline.
Well… if you are going to trade your popular catcher for prospects — and the victory is long term savings — then saying you are still in it and not getting under seems even odder, no? Was the trade deadline strategy savings or competition? I’d view this more favorably if there had been follow through. Trade Eovaldi, for example. But it seems a bit incoherent. It also served to mitigate what was a bad error… Diekman. He hurt them, and they were lucky someone took him. But if long term finances were a big deal, I’d have dumped more salary to get a good pick for X when he walked. And reset so this year could be year one of the tax if you mean to compete. I don’t see these two moves as making that a successful trade deadline. Instead, I think they show how the FO has been trying to have its cake and eat it… savings, flexibility, long game, but tell fans they are putting the best product on the field now.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 23, 2023 13:05:13 GMT -5
How has it been a win in wins traded away/for? Do you mean by dollar? Because in absolute terms, it is not even close. Mookie has been nearly three times Verdugo in bWAR. Downs was -.6 bWAR. Connor Wong is at .2 (after a negative last year). Verdugo might not amass in his career what Mookie did in his first three years. Hell, even Price laps Wong/Downs. He has been 1.3 bWAR in 2 years as a reliever… vs. their combined -.4. Add: I’ll go a step further: I bet Verdugo never reaches tMookie’s three-year WAR total in a Sox uniform. He would need about 9 more WAR, and I don’t think it’ll happen. That’s 3-4 years, and I bet he’s gone in that time. They only traded away Mookie’s 2020 season. Ah. So in three years, they’ve got about 1.5 more WAR out of three players compared to what Betts did in 55 games in 2020. That seems Pyrrhic.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Jan 23, 2023 13:10:00 GMT -5
They only traded away Mookie’s 2020 season. Ah. So in three years, they’ve got about 1.5 more WAR out of three players compared to what Betts did in 55 games in 2020. That seems Pyrrhic. Per fWAR, which is just superior for hitters IMO, it’s 5.1 and counting vs. 2.8. Include Price and the Dodgers total goes up to 3.6 but they got a lot of negative value on that extra 0.8 given the salary. I didn’t even say the Mookie trade was great by the way, just that they got more wins than they sent away which is objectively true.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 23, 2023 13:17:08 GMT -5
Did I say it was a masterstroke, or did I just say he handled the trade deadline well?
He could've let CVaz walk, that's true. And then they wouldn't have added two prospects. And also they would have had to pay more for a catcher in free agency. And if they were going to be cheap then they would've definitely been worse than McGuire and Vazquez. In which case I would have considered it a less successful trade deadline.
Well… if you are going to trade your popular catcher for prospects — and the victory is long term savings — then saying you are still in it and not getting under seems even odder, no? Was the trade deadline strategy savings or competition? I’d view this more favorably if there had been follow through. Trade Eovaldi, for example. But it seems a bit incoherent. It also served to mitigate what was a bad error… Diekman. He hurt them, and they were lucky someone took him. But if long term finances were a big deal, I’d have dumped more salary to get a good pick for X when he walked. And reset so this year could be year one of the tax if you mean to compete. I don’t see these two moves as making that a successful trade deadline. Instead, I think they show how the FO has been trying to have its cake and eat it… savings, flexibility, long game, but tell fans they are putting the best product on the field now. It's true that they could have avoided this charge of being "incoherent" or "trying to have their cake and eat it too" by simply doing what most teams with ~25-30% playoff odds at the trade deadline do - standing pat. Instead they improved the roster both in the present and in the future while also adding prospects, and this criticism is the thanks they get.
I am also aware that a lot of people think they should have quit on the season at the trade deadline. What I've pointed out many times is that a full sell-off is something you simply never see teams do when they're only 2 games out of a playoff spot. Maybe they would if they'd just lost a couple star players for the season, but the Red Sox' situation was the opposite - they expected to get important cotributors back. (I also invite those people to hear the boos at the Fan Weekend thing over on Earth2, where the Red Sox quit on the season while only 2 games out of a playoff spot in order to get under the CBT; I'm sure that would've gone over real great...)
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Jan 23, 2023 17:02:38 GMT -5
Well… if you are going to trade your popular catcher for prospects — and the victory is long term savings — then saying you are still in it and not getting under seems even odder, no? Was the trade deadline strategy savings or competition? I’d view this more favorably if there had been follow through. Trade Eovaldi, for example. But it seems a bit incoherent. It also served to mitigate what was a bad error… Diekman. He hurt them, and they were lucky someone took him. But if long term finances were a big deal, I’d have dumped more salary to get a good pick for X when he walked. And reset so this year could be year one of the tax if you mean to compete. I don’t see these two moves as making that a successful trade deadline. Instead, I think they show how the FO has been trying to have its cake and eat it… savings, flexibility, long game, but tell fans they are putting the best product on the field now. It's true that they could have avoided this charge of being "incoherent" or "trying to have their cake and eat it too" by simply doing what most teams with ~25-30% playoff odds at the trade deadline do - standing pat. Instead they improved the roster both in the present and in the future while also adding prospects, and this criticism is the thanks they get.
I am also aware that a lot of people think they should have quit on the season at the trade deadline. What I've pointed out many times is that a full sell-off is something you simply never see teams do when they're only 2 games out of a playoff spot. Maybe they would if they'd just lost a couple star players for the season, but the Red Sox' situation was the opposite - they expected to get important cotributors back. (I also invite those people to hear the boos at the Fan Weekend thing over on Earth2, where the Red Sox quit on the season while only 2 games out of a playoff spot in order to get under the CBT; I'm sure that would've gone over real great...)
This is extremely rose-colored. They didn't improve the team in the present. They were a game over .500 after play on Aug.2 and ended up six games under. And we don't know if they improved it in the future (meaning starting this season). McGuire has a chance to be a low-cost, passable C for a few years, but I sense some favorable bias with him because of his line (.337/.377/.500) with the RS the last two months of 2022. But that line was built on a .411 BABIP. I see flashing caution lights whenever someone says their team will be better after the deadline because they have guys coming back from injury. Guys coming back from injury need to shake off rust and stay healthy. They often fail to return to form and sometimes end up back on the IL. It also assumes that the rest of the team will be healthy until the end of the season. That rarely happens. Let's be honest about the prospects Bloom got at the deadline. One guy, Valdez, doesn't have a position and is ranked 17th. The other, Abreu, is 26th. I totally understand that the more of these guys you have, the more chance you have of getting a hit (hence the lottery tickets analogy that we all use). But we could have added two guys better than Valdez and Abreu by getting under the LTT and netting a couple of R2C picks. Roman Anthony is a good guide because he was a R2C pick in the last draft and he's ranked ninth. I was at the Winter Weekend (fan fest) and, as I posted, the Xander fiasco was the top driver of the vitriol. I didn't hear any yelling about the trade deadline one way or the other. I think it's baked into the overall conviction that the team has been mismanaged since the end of the '21 ALCS. Selling Eo and/or JDM to get under the LTT and bringing in a top 100 prospect (maybe even two) would not have changed the fan reaction at the Winter Weekend. The potential return for Eo and/or JDM (both subsidized, if need be, to improve the return) + 2 R2C picks + more $$$ to spend on the '23 draft + resetting the tax > the assets they got. It didn't work. They flunked at getting under the LTT, at pushing the team into the PS and at adding significant future assets. I don't know how that's a smashing success.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 23, 2023 19:45:36 GMT -5
It's true that they could have avoided this charge of being "incoherent" or "trying to have their cake and eat it too" by simply doing what most teams with ~25-30% playoff odds at the trade deadline do - standing pat. Instead they improved the roster both in the present and in the future while also adding prospects, and this criticism is the thanks they get.
I am also aware that a lot of people think they should have quit on the season at the trade deadline. What I've pointed out many times is that a full sell-off is something you simply never see teams do when they're only 2 games out of a playoff spot. Maybe they would if they'd just lost a couple star players for the season, but the Red Sox' situation was the opposite - they expected to get important cotributors back. (I also invite those people to hear the boos at the Fan Weekend thing over on Earth2, where the Red Sox quit on the season while only 2 games out of a playoff spot in order to get under the CBT; I'm sure that would've gone over real great...)
And we don't know if they improved it in the future (meaning starting this season). McGuire has a chance to be a low-cost, passable C for a few years, but I sense some favorable bias with him because of his line (.337/.377/.500) with the RS the last two months of 2022. But that line was built on a .411 BABIP. I am 100% mentally regressing him all the way back to his career wRC+ of 85. Compare that to Vazquez' career wRC+ of 84. And McGuire seems to be a better defensive catcher than Vazquez. And McGuire clears the low bar of being a better baserunner than Vazquez. Which are the reasons why he has 2.9 fWAR/500 PA vs. Vazquez' 2.3 WAR/500 PA. And McGuire is 5 years younger than Vazquez. And McGuire costs $9 million less than Vazquez this year.
You can be slightly generous to Vazquez and say these two are comparable, but the difference in cost makes this an obvious gain for the team. (Which I feel a little guilty saying, because I always liked Vazquez and if I was the GM I would have kept him around for purely sentimental reasons. But I'm tryinig to look at it objectively.)
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 23, 2023 20:17:40 GMT -5
Things Bloom has done that I am impressed by:
- Excellent track record with his free agent signings; see julyanmorley's scorecard. - He's had three excellent trade deadlines in a row. 2020: Seabold got derailed by injuries but Pivetta alone was a great get. 2021: Aldo Ramirez for Schwarber was THE steal of that deadline. 2022: Managed to upgrade at catcher while simultaneously adding prospects and saving money on long-term payroll, a pretty remarkable trick. - Good job of finding value in the scrap heaps (Whitlock above all, but also Arroyo and Schreiber) - He extended Devers!!!
Things Bloom has done poorly in my view:
- Failure to made a legit extension offer to Bogaerts prior to the 2022 season. This is the big one: a major mistake that really makes the team worse for at least the next couple of years. - Failure to add an outfielder pre-2022 when there seemed to be an obvious need and they were going over the CBT anyway. - Not a fan of the Jansen signing, but obviously we'll see how that turns out.
On the question of the prospects he's acquired in trade returns, here's where I'm at on that: these are all probabilistic moves; if you get a bunch of guys with a 10-20% chance of making it, most of those guys won't work out - but you only need the occasional guy to work out to make the strategy worthwhile. So far I'd say they haven't succeeded as much as one could probabilistically expect. Is that Bloom's fault? Or have they just rolled snake eyes a couple times? On Downs, it's hard to blame him when it was a univeral view that he was, as patford said, a high-floor cinch to make it as a starter. Ultimately, prospects' futures are not 100% knowable; such failures just come with the territory.
Having said that, it becomes concerning if they start to look like they're systematically missing on these bets. I don't think we're there yet. But I give it one more year. If a year from now it looks like all of Wong, Winckowski, Hamilton, Binelas, Valdez, or Abreu are on track to wash out then I'll be more than a little concerned.
If you were to take julyanmorley's excel as gospel (I do not but will play along for a minute) and combine trade and FA signings by year you get: 2020: 105.41 surplus value 2021: -4.75 surplus value 2022: -16.45 surplus value Again, by the numbers, the year the team tanked Bloom was great. The other two years he was bad. There's good and bad in all three years, but the data to date suggests that he can tear a team down but can't build one up. The performance of the field tells a similar story. I referenced the scorecard in regards to free agent signings specifically, and those have been positive in each season so far.
The scorecard is interesting for keeping tabs on trades, but you can't really just add up WAR totals on trades to date because obviously a lot of trades aren't meant to return immediate value. E.g., they got an easy +6.8 for the Schwarber deal, but if Aldo Ramirez turns into a Cy Young some day (admittedly unlikely) that number would go negative. And then we'll see how much value they will have gotten for trading Jake Diekman once three years' of McGuire's contributions have been tallied up.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 24, 2023 5:06:21 GMT -5
I can't understand bashing DD for trading an extra guy in single A in a few trades, then supporting Blooms 2022 trade deadline. The amount of talent you left on the table for guys you didn't resign for a 15% chance at the playoffs while not getting under the tax is maybe the single worst move by any GM in two decades value wise. How you can make the Benintendi and Renfroe trades in the name of upgrading the system, then punt on the 2022 deadline is just mind boggling.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jan 24, 2023 8:24:44 GMT -5
I can't understand bashing DD for trading an extra guy in single A in a few trades, then supporting Blooms 2022 trade deadline. The amount of talent you left on the table for guys you didn't resign for a 15% chance at the playoffs while not getting under the tax is maybe the single worst move by any GM in two decades value wise. How you can make the Benintendi and Renfroe trades in the name of upgrading the system, then punt on the 2022 deadline is just mind boggling. Especially when teams like the Astros and Yankees were very clearly much better than the Red Sox last year. Bloom also sold low on Benintendi and had 5 offers for Eovaldi. One of them had to be pretty decent.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Jan 24, 2023 8:51:02 GMT -5
Checks date, yupp, January 24th is a great time to ramp up the 2022 trade deadline crap again
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 24, 2023 9:23:30 GMT -5
Checks date, yupp, January 24th is a great time to ramp up the 2022 trade deadline crap again Hey, man… start a thread of a topic you find acceptable. It seems like your main contribution is to complain about what other people are discussing. This discussion actually makes sense, given the great booing controversy.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 24, 2023 9:54:32 GMT -5
Checks date, yupp, January 24th is a great time to ramp up the 2022 trade deadline crap again Well, that is part of evaluating the Front Office and Ownership. And it seems like the trade deadline was a major tactical and strategic miss for them with ramifications that were clearly felt in the off-season, so, yeah.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Jan 24, 2023 10:06:55 GMT -5
1. It's fine to discuss the 2022 trade deadline in this thread with the context of evaluating the front office.
2. It is not okay to continue to argue the same points over and over again. Certain posters continue to bring up the same issues and the discussion spins in circles. If we see that continues to be the case then we'll go ahead and lock the thread.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Jan 24, 2023 10:10:04 GMT -5
I can't understand bashing DD for trading an extra guy in single A in a few trades, then supporting Blooms 2022 trade deadline. The amount of talent you left on the table for guys you didn't resign for a 15% chance at the playoffs while not getting under the tax is maybe the single worst move by any GM in two decades value wise. How you can make the Benintendi and Renfroe trades in the name of upgrading the system, then punt on the 2022 deadline is just mind boggling. Don’t want to debate the deadline again, but this is absurd hyperbole. The worst move in two decades by any GM? If you mean across MLB there are of course dozens of examples, just to name one Fernando Tatis for James Shields. If you mean just the Red Sox well any of the Crawford, Sandoval, Price, H. Ramirez or Sale signings would be worse just to name five.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 24, 2023 10:27:57 GMT -5
It is absolutely true that if you assigned zero value at the time of the trade deadline to the possibility that they might make the playoffs, then they handled the deadline poorly.
I just wish even one person would acknowledge the thing I keep bringing up about this: no team ever acts this way. No team ever goes into full sell-off mode when they're two games out of a playoff spot.
On August 2nd they were 53-52. They were two games behind the Rays, who were in the last wild card position. They were one game behind the Guardians, who would end up making it to the ALCS. Fangraphs game them 33% playoff odds. Let me know if you are aware of any teams in a similar situation who went into full sell-off mode. In 2022, at least, it didn't happen: the Orioles, half a game ahead of the Red Sox, only sold a minor piece; the Giants, with much worse odds than the Red Sox, largely kept their team in place (imagine what they could have gotten for Rodon...). The Guardians basically stood pat.
It's fine to acknowledge things worked out poorly: they didn't make the playoffs, but they also weren't bad enough to do the full sell-off that would have been helpful in the long run.
And if you have the idiosyncratic view that a team 2 games out of a playoff spot should go for a full tear-down, that's fine too. But I've seen literally no one acknowledge that this is an idiosyncratic view. Whereas the idea that it's normal and appropriate for a fringe contender to take a moderate approach at the deadline is regarded as somehow strange - as if it isn't what almost every fringe contender does every single year.
ADD: Point noted about repetitive arguments. This'll be the last thing I say about it.
|
|
|
Post by oldfaithful2019 on Jan 24, 2023 11:11:16 GMT -5
It is absolutely true that if you assigned zero value at the time of the trade deadline to the possibility that they might make the playoffs, then they handled the deadline poorly.
I just wish even one person would acknowledge the thing I keep bringing up about this: no team ever acts this way. No team ever goes into full sell-off mode when they're two games out of a playoff spot.
On August 2nd they were 53-52. They were two games behind the Rays, who were in the last wild card position. They were one game behind the Guardians, who would end up making it to the ALCS. Fangraphs game them 33% playoff odds. Let me know if you are aware of any teams in a similar situation who went into full sell-off mode. In 2022, at least, it didn't happen: the Orioles, half a game ahead of the Red Sox, only sold a minor piece; the Giants, with much worse odds than the Red Sox, largely kept their team in place (imagine what they could have gotten for Rodon...). The Guardians basically stood pat.
It's fine to acknowledge things worked out poorly: they didn't make the playoffs, but they also weren't bad enough to do the full sell-off that would have been helpful in the long run.
And if you have the idiosyncratic view that a team 2 games out of a playoff spot should go for a full tear-down, that's fine too. But I've seen literally no one acknowledge that this is an idiosyncratic view. Whereas the idea that it's normal and appropriate for a fringe contender to take a moderate approach at the deadline is regarded as somehow strange - as if it isn't what almost every fringe contender does every single year.
ADD: Point noted about repetitive arguments. This'll be the last thing I say about it.
I think a sell off at the 2022 trade deadline, with the team still being a playoff contender, would have been the most irresponsible move of this ownerships tenure. Period. This is the Red Sox of the 21st century, Always try to get to the post season when it is possible. At all cost. I appreciate Blooms willingness to cut bait on his moves that did not pan out, shown by Downs and Cordero DFAs. I do think it is time to stop trading for other teams prospects though. Trust that what is in the pipeline will produce a few productive major league players and start making deals for established players, even if it means including some of our current prospects. If re setting to get under the LT tax is important this season, then just do it, but if the Sox are 2 games out, or better yet at least 2 games up at that point, I do not want to hear staying under the tax as a reason for not adding pieces for the stretch run. I'm rambling now.
|
|
|
Post by pappyman99 on Jan 24, 2023 11:22:51 GMT -5
It is absolutely true that if you assigned zero value at the time of the trade deadline to the possibility that they might make the playoffs, then they handled the deadline poorly.
I just wish even one person would acknowledge the thing I keep bringing up about this: no team ever acts this way. No team ever goes into full sell-off mode when they're two games out of a playoff spot.
On August 2nd they were 53-52. They were two games behind the Rays, who were in the last wild card position. They were one game behind the Guardians, who would end up making it to the ALCS. Fangraphs game them 33% playoff odds. Let me know if you are aware of any teams in a similar situation who went into full sell-off mode. In 2022, at least, it didn't happen: the Orioles, half a game ahead of the Red Sox, only sold a minor piece; the Giants, with much worse odds than the Red Sox, largely kept their team in place (imagine what they could have gotten for Rodon...). The Guardians basically stood pat.
It's fine to acknowledge things worked out poorly: they didn't make the playoffs, but they also weren't bad enough to do the full sell-off that would have been helpful in the long run.
And if you have the idiosyncratic view that a team 2 games out of a playoff spot should go for a full tear-down, that's fine too. But I've seen literally no one acknowledge that this is an idiosyncratic view. Whereas the idea that it's normal and appropriate for a fringe contender to take a moderate approach at the deadline is regarded as somehow strange - as if it isn't what almost every fringe contender does every single year.
ADD: Point noted about repetitive arguments. This'll be the last thing I say about it.
Here is my issue with that 33% playoff chance as an argument, and something to keep in mind for 2023. It is ignoring a lot of context. To put that number into context, on June 30th FG had us at 81%. So in the span of 33 days the Sox were in free fall and fell to that 33%. We were in a huge downtrend knowing at that point that Sale would not be back as a starter. It’s never wise and very short sighted to essentially gamble at what was a 3rd wild card spot and when we clearly did not have a team that could advance anywhere in the playoffs if we did make it. Even at the time would have said not worth the risk, risk was the comp picks being downgraded, especially when their whole selling point is supposedly a long - term view
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 24, 2023 11:40:35 GMT -5
It is absolutely true that if you assigned zero value at the time of the trade deadline to the possibility that they might make the playoffs, then they handled the deadline poorly.
I just wish even one person would acknowledge the thing I keep bringing up about this: no team ever acts this way. No team ever goes into full sell-off mode when they're two games out of a playoff spot.
On August 2nd they were 53-52. They were two games behind the Rays, who were in the last wild card position. They were one game behind the Guardians, who would end up making it to the ALCS. Fangraphs game them 33% playoff odds. Let me know if you are aware of any teams in a similar situation who went into full sell-off mode. In 2022, at least, it didn't happen: the Orioles, half a game ahead of the Red Sox, only sold a minor piece; the Giants, with much worse odds than the Red Sox, largely kept their team in place (imagine what they could have gotten for Rodon...). The Guardians basically stood pat.
It's fine to acknowledge things worked out poorly: they didn't make the playoffs, but they also weren't bad enough to do the full sell-off that would have been helpful in the long run.
And if you have the idiosyncratic view that a team 2 games out of a playoff spot should go for a full tear-down, that's fine too. But I've seen literally no one acknowledge that this is an idiosyncratic view. Whereas the idea that it's normal and appropriate for a fringe contender to take a moderate approach at the deadline is regarded as somehow strange - as if it isn't what almost every fringe contender does every single year.
ADD: Point noted about repetitive arguments. This'll be the last thing I say about it.
I’ll quit too, except to say: you say the CVaz trade saved money AND made them better. If that is the case, then saying they were still in it is not a justification for not getting under the tax line. They could have made one or two more moves — even laterally — and done both in that scenario. They could sell JDM off and fill in the DH (frankly with almost anyone at that point). Trading Eovaldi would not have hurt much even in a drive for a WC. etc.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 24, 2023 11:52:33 GMT -5
It is absolutely true that if you assigned zero value at the time of the trade deadline to the possibility that they might make the playoffs, then they handled the deadline poorly.
I just wish even one person would acknowledge the thing I keep bringing up about this: no team ever acts this way. No team ever goes into full sell-off mode when they're two games out of a playoff spot.
On August 2nd they were 53-52. They were two games behind the Rays, who were in the last wild card position. They were one game behind the Guardians, who would end up making it to the ALCS. Fangraphs game them 33% playoff odds. Let me know if you are aware of any teams in a similar situation who went into full sell-off mode. In 2022, at least, it didn't happen: the Orioles, half a game ahead of the Red Sox, only sold a minor piece; the Giants, with much worse odds than the Red Sox, largely kept their team in place (imagine what they could have gotten for Rodon...). The Guardians basically stood pat.
It's fine to acknowledge things worked out poorly: they didn't make the playoffs, but they also weren't bad enough to do the full sell-off that would have been helpful in the long run.
And if you have the idiosyncratic view that a team 2 games out of a playoff spot should go for a full tear-down, that's fine too. But I've seen literally no one acknowledge that this is an idiosyncratic view. Whereas the idea that it's normal and appropriate for a fringe contender to take a moderate approach at the deadline is regarded as somehow strange - as if it isn't what almost every fringe contender does every single year.
ADD: Point noted about repetitive arguments. This'll be the last thing I say about it.
I’ll quit too, except to say: you say the CVaz trade saved money AND made them better. If that is the case, then saying they were still in it is not a justification for not getting under the tax line. They could have made one or two more moves — even laterally — and done both in that scenario. They could sell JDM off and fill in the DH (frankly with almost anyone at that point). Trading Eovaldi would not have hurt much even in a drive for a WC. etc. I'll address this, since I think it's a separate point from what's already been discussed... My impression is that they took an opportunistic approach to the deadline. I think they would have done exactly the things you described if they could have - i.e., if they could have simultaneously held steady in current value terms at the roster positions occupied by JDM and Eovaldi while adding future value they would have. But that opportunity (which involves some real needle-threading and is not easy to pull off!) only presented itself at the catcher position.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 24, 2023 16:04:08 GMT -5
I can't understand bashing DD for trading an extra guy in single A in a few trades, then supporting Blooms 2022 trade deadline. The amount of talent you left on the table for guys you didn't resign for a 15% chance at the playoffs while not getting under the tax is maybe the single worst move by any GM in two decades value wise. How you can make the Benintendi and Renfroe trades in the name of upgrading the system, then punt on the 2022 deadline is just mind boggling. Don’t want to debate the deadline again, but this is absurd hyperbole. The worst move in two decades by any GM? If you mean across MLB there are of course dozens of examples, just to name one Fernando Tatis for James Shields. If you mean just the Red Sox well any of the Crawford, Sandoval, Price, H. Ramirez or Sale signings would be worse just to name five. I'm talking Red Sox and I'm not using hindsight. The amount of prospects he could have gotten is crazy, he had the exact type of pieces that net you very good to great returns. The Red Sox have tons of money, nothing is more valuable in Baseball than cheap young players. Either to help your team or trade.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Jan 24, 2023 16:31:01 GMT -5
Don’t want to debate the deadline again, but this is absurd hyperbole. The worst move in two decades by any GM? If you mean across MLB there are of course dozens of examples, just to name one Fernando Tatis for James Shields. If you mean just the Red Sox well any of the Crawford, Sandoval, Price, H. Ramirez or Sale signings would be worse just to name five. I'm talking Red Sox and I'm not using hindsight. The amount of prospects he could have gotten is crazy, he had the exact type of pieces that net you very good to great returns. The Red Sox have tons of money, nothing is more valuable in Baseball than cheap young players. Either to help your team or trade. What precedent are you using in your assumption that they could have gotten a "crazy" prospect return? The price of rentals, even rental stars, has fallen pretty drastically.
|
|
|
Post by Coreno on Jan 24, 2023 20:50:41 GMT -5
The world that lives in his head. He's been harping on the supposed treasure trove of prospects they missed out on for half a year, despite all indicators that there really wasn't much value being offered for anybody they had available.
|
|
|
Post by lonborgski on Jan 24, 2023 21:04:36 GMT -5
The reason the 2022 trade deadline is still a topic is that the logic of Bloom/ownership’s approach was not clear and still isn’t clear. If the goal was to make the playoffs, then shouldn’t they have added a pitcher and probably a better outfielder than Tommy Pham? If they wanted to trade expiring contracts for prospects, shouldn’t they have traded JD and Wacha or Eovaldi? Or, they could have done both, traded their veterans for other team’s prospects and their prospects for other teams’ veterans. They just did too little, either way, so there’s no apparent strategy.
|
|
|