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 redsox04071318champs on Dec 22, 2022 10:04:03 GMT -5
I think you have to compartmentalize his moves in sections. He said he wanted 7 to 9 new players. This is what I think his plan was: The team's biggest strength was their infield. His Plan A was to secure that strength and sign X. He failed miserably. Nobody blames him for not giving X 280 million. His failure came last spring and during the season when he failed to offer a Story like extension. Also during the exclusive 5 day window in Nov he failed to offer X 7 years 200 million. Maybe by then it wouldn't have mattered. We'll never know. We only know that X wanted to come back badly and Bloom never got past 160 million. Epic fail all the way. Now they're stuck hoping Story can handle SS and stuck signing or trading for a second division middle infielder. For the outfield I have to believe his Plan A there was Yoshida, given the way they pounced on him and had no issues showing him the money. He wasn't going to spend on Judge. Doesnt look like he was ever serious about Nimmo or even Haniger who would have been a nice fit offensively. I would say Bloom accomplished what he wanted to on the market. Ideally he would have gotten a guy who can handle RF and relegate Verdugo to LF but there was only Judge and he appeard to be lukewarm on Conforto. The bullpen was terrible last year. Houck was their best closer although his skill set of being able to pitch multiple innings he was miscast. I'd say Jansen was Bloom's top target. He has the resume and is still effective although I do worry about him approaching the crossroads and having to deal with the pitch clock. Chris Martin was one of his top relief targets although I dont know if Kahnle was Plan A and Martin Plan B or if he was hoping for both. I figure Jansen and Martin replace Houck and Whitlock in the pen freeing them to start. Bloom was quick to strike on Rodriguez considering him a cheaper alternative to Strahm who I think is better. I will be disappointed if Bloom doesnt pick up a quality late inning lefty like Chafin, Rodgers, or Will Smith. Their pen is better defined although I dont know if it's better. Get a quality lefty and a starter who can move Houck back to the own and I'll say he improved the pen decidedly. Bloom might or might not have promised to add two solid starters but at the moment he has subtracted the 2 best starters they had, in Eovaldi and Wacha. So that puts a lot of pressure on two of Bello, Whitlock, or Houck to provide quality and innings. Also puts pressure on Sale to provide top of the rotation innings and performance which he hasn't done in years and counting on Paxton is dubious. We know he targeted Elfin and Heaney and got neither but both are back end starter types. I really have no idea what his plan was. Right now its hope for the best. I would have hoped for certainty. I think he needs to bring back Eovaldi. Quality options are limited. He passed up a solid option in Vazquez to take a chance that the McGuire/Wong tandem is as good for a cheaper price. I'm not convinced that'll be the case. Bloom could have brought back JDM but calculated that for a little extra money and an option that wont be triggered if Turner plays well. I'll guess he did ok on that. Scary to think who'd he have gotten if Turner slipped away. They desperately needed a righty bat even though Turner doesn't really have the RH power bat they need, but he can hit. So I think they marginally improved the team and can further strengthen the pen and add a starter but I think the loss of Bogaerts basically negates their gains and they're still left with a team that lacks power and speed and has bad outfield defense, and has too many question marks in their rotation. Basically a .500 team or less that might improve enough to be a 3rd wild card type team if they add an averageish 2b/SS, Eovaldi and a quality bullpen lefty. Not sure if you were intending to recap the off-season to date, but If I recall, one of the very first FA's they were pursuing was Jose Abreu. He fits in there somewhere...probably ahead of Turner No, but if wound up that way because I'm such a damn windbag, lol Good call on Abreu. I forgot that he was the guy they had as plan A to provide a RH power bat and DH. Turner is apparently Plan B and signed for what the Sox were willing to spend. Their offer to Abreu was nowhere near what the market rate was, which looking back should have been the tip off that the Sox were not going to read the market correctly. A lineup with X, Abreu, and Yoshida added would have made for a great plan a, which was add Abreu to DH, resign X, sign Yoshida, sign Jansen and either Kahnle or Martin or both and apparently sign Elfin and Heaney to start.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Dec 22, 2022 10:05:41 GMT -5
Fine, whatever - Bloom inherited a burgeoning farm system thanks to Dombrowski's prudent stewardship. That doesn't change the basic situation the team is and has been in: scraping by for several years without good young talent arriving in the majors.
And of course no prospect is guaranteed to succeed in the majors. It wasn't guaranteed for Betts or Bogaerts or Devers either. But based on what I saw from Bello and Casas they both have a chance to be really good. Casas, in particular, is not on some totally other tier from Mayer - it's only a few months ago that Mayer passed him to become the #1 prospect here.
My point is not — at all please god — another round on Dombrowski. But arriving and saying “let’s wait” is not a super inspiring plan. Indeed, passivity seems to be Bloom’s fatal flaw. Passive about signing X. Passive on FA market if reports are accurate about guys who went elsewhere. And now the *defense* of his approach is inactivity. Wait for guys to blossom. In the meantime, fans keep paying for a subpar product. I know… this is where we get “but Story!” “but Yoshida!” — the two exceptions, one of whom it turns out (as many suspected) is the cheaper replacement for Xander; the other the circuitous (and pricier!) replacement for Benentendi. Money spent, yes. Forward motion? Well, I guess if we count the addition of a comp pick, Franchy, and Winckowski as a huge profit. Wasn't I making almost the opposite case? Because of the dearth of young talent, he's had to be quite active - working the margins of the roster, making trades to both add major league talent and prospects. Seems to me the "passive" approach would be to just sit on what you have. You called flexibility a shibboleth, but the flexible approach entails a lot of moving parts and active engagement by the GM.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,461
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Dec 22, 2022 10:16:10 GMT -5
My point is not — at all please god — another round on Dombrowski. But arriving and saying “let’s wait” is not a super inspiring plan. Indeed, passivity seems to be Bloom’s fatal flaw. Passive about signing X. Passive on FA market if reports are accurate about guys who went elsewhere. And now the *defense* of his approach is inactivity. Wait for guys to blossom. In the meantime, fans keep paying for a subpar product. I know… this is where we get “but Story!” “but Yoshida!” — the two exceptions, one of whom it turns out (as many suspected) is the cheaper replacement for Xander; the other the circuitous (and pricier!) replacement for Benentendi. Money spent, yes. Forward motion? Well, I guess if we count the addition of a comp pick, Franchy, and Winckowski as a huge profit. Wasn't I making almost the opposite case? Because of the dearth of young talent, he's had to be quite active - working the margins of the roster, making trades to both add major league talent and prospects. Seems to me the "passive" approach would be to just sit on what you have. You called flexibility a shibboleth, but the flexible approach entails a lot of moving parts and active engagement by the GM. Fair. But I barely count the busy work that entails small trades then DFAs etc. I guess I mean passive in areas that matter and big picture. But yeah, there have been things like the Beni trade or the Renfroe stuff. Not necessarily improving the picture — maybe we should all be so lucky if he’s passive.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 22, 2022 10:27:51 GMT -5
I guess. But I’d say unless we get a surprise and it is used on Devers, losing X and possibly Devers is not going to be balanced by Justin Turner or, what , Segura and Rich Hill? Do you genuinely think it is too early to say this didn’t go how anyone would want? Who remains unsigned that would make you say “THAT is what we cleared contracts for?” I mean, is it my first choice of what could have happened this offseason? No. Do I think they have done alright given the unreasonably hot market, and am I happy with the players that have been acquired? Largely yes. Plug the middle IF hole at a minimum and it will have been a decent offseason. I am content with not signing a top SS given the contracts they eventually got. My biggest regret is Verdugo being likely to start the year in RF, but he'll at least hit enough to survive there. Yoshida's price tag does make more sense if he's playing the field most of the time and I like both his and Turner's bats, so that turned out (pun intended) well enough. I'm really happy they seem to be sticking with McGuire/Wong at catcher. I wouldn't have wanted Vazquez back on a deal half as rich as he got. The Jansen signing was probably my least favorite of the offseason, but having a decent pen should make watching the games this year less soul crushing. I'm excited to see what Whitlock can do in the rotation and I agree with that being the best role for him this year. I'm happy Paxton opted in and that Eovaldi declined the QO. I think this is a bit of a strawman since we don't know if this market adjustment aimed at stretching out AAVs are unreasonable or not. All we know is the Sox decided to ignore the market adjustment and stick with The Plan™®. However, they still don't have a legit RF, as you pointed out, need another starter if the idea truly is to be a contender in deed not just in pronouncement, also need a shortstop and probably a catcher, although Value Spreadsheets on Jersey Street© have two back-ups - one who is a borderline Major Leaguer - doing just fine.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 22, 2022 10:33:08 GMT -5
I mean, is it my first choice of what could have happened this offseason? No. Do I think they have done alright given the unreasonably hot market, and am I happy with the players that have been acquired? Largely yes. Plug the middle IF hole at a minimum and it will have been a decent offseason. I am content with not signing a top SS given the contracts they eventually got. My biggest regret is Verdugo being likely to start the year in RF, but he'll at least hit enough to survive there. Yoshida's price tag does make more sense if he's playing the field most of the time and I like both his and Turner's bats, so that turned out (pun intended) well enough. I'm really happy they seem to be sticking with McGuire/Wong at catcher. I wouldn't have wanted Vazquez back on a deal half as rich as he got. The Jansen signing was probably my least favorite of the offseason, but having a decent pen should make watching the games this year less soul crushing. I'm excited to see what Whitlock can do in the rotation and I agree with that being the best role for him this year. I'm happy Paxton opted in and that Eovaldi declined the QO. I think this is a bit of a strawman since we don't know if this market adjustment aimed at stretching out AAVs are unreasonable or not. All we know is the Sox decided to ignore the market adjustment and stick with The Plan™®. However, they still don't have a legit RF, as you pointed out, need another starter if the idea truly is to be a contender in deed not just in pronouncement, also need a shortstop and probably a catcher, although Value Spreadsheets on Jersey Street© have two back-ups - one who is a borderline Major Leaguer - doing just fine. Added: Now forming a band to cut my new album called "Exile on Jersey Street."
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Dec 22, 2022 10:39:54 GMT -5
You can if you draft properly and get players who are stars at multiple positions and if that happens then none of this angst is happening. The Boston Red Sox right now has one star player. The goal of this organization should be to acquire more star players with the goal of winning another title. 1) How long do you think it takes for good drafts to translate into stars on the major league roster, especially if those prospects are just leaving high school? 2) Is your answer to #1 longer or shorter than Bloom's tenure in Boston? Takes a while. But if you're not going to keep current stars, then you have no choice, and it becomes an organizational decision. That's the issue. The Rays have a solid philosophy that they don't really need stars to win, yet they've never won anything and have made the World Series twice. Let's look at the last few champions. Astros? Loaded. Red Sox in 2018? Loaded. Dodgers? Loaded with stars. Braves Nationals and Cubs? Loaded with talent. You honestly have to go back to the Royals to find a team that won and didn't have a true top 20 player in the league. So can you win with quantity over quality? I don't think you can. That's the flaw in spreading around your money instead of investing in a few cornerstone pieces. It's also not a good business decision. Why are people going to buy jerseys at the proshop when the player isn't going to come back? Why watch the product for your favorite player when they're just going to be somewhere else because ownership doesn't want to pay market rate?
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Dec 22, 2022 11:09:47 GMT -5
My point is not — at all please god — another round on Dombrowski. But arriving and saying “let’s wait” is not a super inspiring plan. Indeed, passivity seems to be Bloom’s fatal flaw. Passive about signing X. Passive on FA market if reports are accurate about guys who went elsewhere. And now the *defense* of his approach is inactivity. Wait for guys to blossom. In the meantime, fans keep paying for a subpar product. I know… this is where we get “but Story!” “but Yoshida!” — the two exceptions, one of whom it turns out (as many suspected) is the cheaper replacement for Xander; the other the circuitous (and pricier!) replacement for Benentendi. Money spent, yes. Forward motion? Well, I guess if we count the addition of a comp pick, Franchy, and Winckowski as a huge profit. Wasn't I making almost the opposite case? Because of the dearth of young talent, he's had to be quite active - working the margins of the roster, making trades to both add major league talent and prospects. Seems to me the "passive" approach would be to just sit on what you have. You called flexibility a shibboleth, but the flexible approach entails a lot of moving parts and active engagement by the GM. Bloom is great at working the margins. You have to give the man that much. Arroyo, Whitlock, Refsnyder etc...good margin players. The issue becomes when you let players leave, and you then replace them with those same players who were on the margins. As of right now, one of those marginal players, Arroyo is your 2nd baseman on opening day, and his bat is supposed to replace Xanders. While thats not really fair to a guy who is a solid bench player its just the way it is. Same thing with McGuire. Again here's a guy who hit well when he was acquired and is a major league caliber player. But again would anyone confuse him as a major league starter? No. The roster has a bunch of these guys on it who would make it on contenders but they would have a much lesser role than here. Look at the 2018 roster and the roster today. Not every single player is interchangeable. I don't know if ownership realizes this or not since this isn't entirely a Bloom issue at all. Ownership has a plan and Bloom is trying to execute it. The problem with Bloom is his lack of ability to identify impact prospects from other teams in trades. A lot of his tenure has been about two things, creating finanical flexibility and improving the farm. He's improved the depth in the organization but he still hasn't added much in top end talent overall. Can't call him a failure yet since there is still time.
|
|
|
Post by seamus on Dec 22, 2022 11:17:27 GMT -5
Wasn't I making almost the opposite case? Because of the dearth of young talent, he's had to be quite active - working the margins of the roster, making trades to both add major league talent and prospects. Seems to me the "passive" approach would be to just sit on what you have. You called flexibility a shibboleth, but the flexible approach entails a lot of moving parts and active engagement by the GM. Fair. But I barely count the busy work that entails small trades then DFAs etc. I guess I mean passive in areas that matter and big picture. But yeah, there have been things like the Beni trade or the Renfroe stuff. Not necessarily improving the picture — maybe we should all be so lucky if he’s passive. I think those areas matter. If you only engage with the "big picture," you end up with a bunch of albatross contracts and massive holes throughout the farm system. I also don't think you really mean that, because I don't think anyone would have called the initial Renfroe acquisition a "big" deal at the time, but lo and behold, it ended up mattering. The point is that all that tinkering and tweaking is necessary to create new opportunities for growth and forward progress. It won't always work, but stagnation is basically guaranteed to fail, and I think we can generally look at the organization and say it's in a better place than it was at the end of the Dombrowski era given the constraints ownership has clearly placed on certain areas to this point.
|
|
|
Post by SlugLife on Dec 22, 2022 11:18:33 GMT -5
Had a weird thought recently - if you think about the worst contracts the Red Sox have given out in the Henry era, I think there are 4 that stand out: - Crawford - Pablo - Hanley - Sale You can put those in any order you want, but I am pretty sure those 4 are pretty easily the worst contracts given out over the last 20 years. Is it a coincidence that the head executive of the team was gone within a year of giving these deals out? Theo wasn't fired, but he left right after the 2011 season. Dombrowski was brought on in late 2015 so Cherington was essentially fired then, and then DD was fired in September of 2019, about a month after Sale's elbow blew up. Are all of those coincidences, or did ownership blame that executive and want to move on? I would put Rusney Castillo on that list as well. Still unbelievable that the Red Sox passed on giving Jose Abreu 6 years/$68 million and then turned around and gave Rusney Castillo 7 years/$72.5 million.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,461
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Dec 22, 2022 11:27:24 GMT -5
Fair. But I barely count the busy work that entails small trades then DFAs etc. I guess I mean passive in areas that matter and big picture. But yeah, there have been things like the Beni trade or the Renfroe stuff. Not necessarily improving the picture — maybe we should all be so lucky if he’s passive. I think those areas matter. If you only engage with the "big picture," you end up with a bunch of albatross contracts and massive holes throughout the farm system. I also don't think you really mean that, because I don't think anyone would have called the initial Renfroe acquisition a "big" deal at the time, but lo and behold, it ended up mattering. The point is that all that tinkering and tweaking is necessary to create new opportunities for growth and forward progress. It won't always work, but stagnation is basically guaranteed to fail, and I think we can generally look at the organization and say it's in a better place than it was at the end of the Dombrowski era given the constraints ownership has clearly placed on certain areas to this point. I don’t see it as being in much better shape. Or any better. Then they had stars and huge financial constraints. Now they have some financial flexibility but a lot less talent.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Dec 22, 2022 11:30:30 GMT -5
I mean, is it my first choice of what could have happened this offseason? No. Do I think they have done alright given the unreasonably hot market, and am I happy with the players that have been acquired? Largely yes. Plug the middle IF hole at a minimum and it will have been a decent offseason. I am content with not signing a top SS given the contracts they eventually got. My biggest regret is Verdugo being likely to start the year in RF, but he'll at least hit enough to survive there. Yoshida's price tag does make more sense if he's playing the field most of the time and I like both his and Turner's bats, so that turned out (pun intended) well enough. I'm really happy they seem to be sticking with McGuire/Wong at catcher. I wouldn't have wanted Vazquez back on a deal half as rich as he got. The Jansen signing was probably my least favorite of the offseason, but having a decent pen should make watching the games this year less soul crushing. I'm excited to see what Whitlock can do in the rotation and I agree with that being the best role for him this year. I'm happy Paxton opted in and that Eovaldi declined the QO. I think this is a bit of a strawman since we don't know if this market adjustment aimed at stretching out AAVs are unreasonable or not. All we know is the Sox decided to ignore the market adjustment and stick with The Plan™®. However, they still don't have a legit RF, as you pointed out, need another starter if the idea truly is to be a contender in deed not just in pronouncement, also need a shortstop and probably a catcher, although Value Spreadsheets on Jersey Street© have two back-ups - one who is a borderline Major Leaguer - doing just fine. That's not a strawman, but look, I can only comment what I believe, which is that the vast majority of the big money deals from this past offseason are not going to pay for themselves. Lowering AAV is irrelevant when the player is expected to end their useful career with a team; that's just a function of whether they'd rather get more suplus value now in exchange for more of a hit later. The key is how much money they're getting. And, given the guaranteed nature of MLB contracts, those totals leave very little room for upside and plenty of albatross risk.
Some people will let teams off the hook for atrocious contracts if the team wins a world series during them. I could not disagree more, but there's room for honest disagreement about whether deals like these are worth it. When I call deals "unreasonable", I mean terms of the total production a team is likely to get for the money.
I disagree that the team needs a catcher. McGuire has played well in his career over a reasonable sample size; he has put up fWAR at a rate better than Vazquez over his career and he's in his prime (28 in March). Verdugo should hit enough to survive RF too, as much as I really do wish he was still in LF, and it's certainly an upgrade from last year. Middle IF has an obvious need for a signing and I agree another starter is a smart idea for improving depth, but we already do have five solid starters. There's only one actual hole on the roster and there's plenty of time and money left to address that.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Dec 22, 2022 11:54:20 GMT -5
1) How long do you think it takes for good drafts to translate into stars on the major league roster, especially if those prospects are just leaving high school? 2) Is your answer to #1 longer or shorter than Bloom's tenure in Boston? Takes a while. But if you're not going to keep current stars, then you have no choice, and it becomes an organizational decision. That's the issue. The Rays have a solid philosophy that they don't really need stars to win, yet they've never won anything and have made the World Series twice. Let's look at the last few champions. Astros? Loaded. Red Sox in 2018? Loaded. Dodgers? Loaded with stars. Braves Nationals and Cubs? Loaded with talent. You honestly have to go back to the Royals to find a team that won and didn't have a true top 20 player in the league. So can you win with quantity over quality? I don't think you can. That's the flaw in spreading around your money instead of investing in a few cornerstone pieces. It's also not a good business decision. Why are people going to buy jerseys at the proshop when the player isn't going to come back? Why watch the product for your favorite player when they're just going to be somewhere else because ownership doesn't want to pay market rate? It's not that you have no choice and you get "stuck" building from within - this has been the plan all along lol. It's a conscious choice and there's nothing wrong with it. Unless you're Steve Cohen, building via the farm is necessary to build a legitimate WS contender. The Astros have been so good for the past several years specifically because of contributions from their farm. Correa? homegrown. Bregman? Homegrown. Pena? Homegrown. Alvarez? Homegrown. Tucker? Homegrown. Altuve? On a long-term deal now, but homegrown. Javier, Valdez, Garcia? All homegrown. The Red Sox in 2018 were also so good in large part because of their incredible homegrown core. Same with the Nationals (Rendon, Soto, Turner, Strasburg). Same for those 2015 Royals. Etc.
You seem to be equating not spending on elite free agents with not having stars. They Red Sox do have stars and will continue to going forward. Many of them will be homegrown, though. This is nothing new, even in Boston.
The Red Sox print money regardless of who is on the field. I am confident that having a bad team does more harm to FSG financially than they gain back by retaining fan favorites who don't give you the best chance to win. Every single WS team this century had key contributions from new faces and many of those guys became beloved in Boston. How do you feel about Shane Victorino, Mike Napoli, or Jonny Gomes from the 2013 team? How about Bill Mueller, Kevin Millar, or Johnny Damon from the 2004 team? How many Pokey Reese jerseys got sold back in the day? He was never even good and was out of the league after the 2004 season. He only had 268 PA in Boston. People still loved the guy.
It is really easy to bond with players when the team is winning. So, as far as I'm concerned the FO should be trying to win as many games as possible, hard stop. If a popular player is also a great fit, all the better. If not, happy trails.
|
|
|
Post by seamus on Dec 22, 2022 11:58:42 GMT -5
I think those areas matter. If you only engage with the "big picture," you end up with a bunch of albatross contracts and massive holes throughout the farm system. I also don't think you really mean that, because I don't think anyone would have called the initial Renfroe acquisition a "big" deal at the time, but lo and behold, it ended up mattering. The point is that all that tinkering and tweaking is necessary to create new opportunities for growth and forward progress. It won't always work, but stagnation is basically guaranteed to fail, and I think we can generally look at the organization and say it's in a better place than it was at the end of the Dombrowski era given the constraints ownership has clearly placed on certain areas to this point. I don’t see it as being in much better shape. Or any better. Then they had stars and huge financial constraints. Now they have some financial flexibility but a lot less talent. I won't re-litigate the end of Mookie's time - I just don't think him re-signing was a realistic possibility going into 2020. (Ironically, if the pandemic had happened just a little earlier, he may have accepted the Sox's offer just given the financial uncertainty.) As such, I guess I'm comparing to a different baseline than you probably are. In any case, I don't really know how you can look at the farm system and not say, "It's better." I also don't really know how you can look just at the big-league club and not say it's better than it was going into 2020 with the most upside (in both the short- and long-term) it's had in years. Maybe I'm being too "glass half-full," but I think that being pessimistic about the organization is a conscious choice at this point rather than an inevitable conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Dec 22, 2022 12:10:18 GMT -5
Regardless of what one thinks about Dave Dombrowski’s player development skills, it is hard to overlook the evidence that he was dramatically outperformed by at least 3 of his division rivals building for the future.
Players acquired by the Red Sox between 2016 and 2019 had an aggregate bWAR of 5 in 2022. Including David Price, they had an AAV over $80 million.
Players acquired by Toronto and Baltimore during the same period had an aggregate bWAR of 20. Players acquired by Tampa had an aggregate bWAR of 15, but they were able to acquire another 5 bWAR trading players acquired during this period (Meadows, Liberatore) for Isaac Paredes and Randy Arozarena. None of these teams paid more than $20 million for players acquired during this time period.
Maybe, I’m getting this wrong, but it sure looks to me that the Red Sox began last year with a 15-25 win gap vis-a-vis three of teams they had to catch (closer to 15 relative to Baltimore and Tampa, who didn’t have the resources to exploit the salary gap, and 25 relative to Toronto, who did).
The good news is that last year was probably the nadir. More than half of the salary will be gone, and as other posters have noted, Dombrowski didn’t leave the farm empty, just young. The bad news is a pronounced gap will remain. If offered the opportunity to trade all the players drafted and signed by the Red Sox between 2016 and 2019 for all the players acquired by Toronto, Tampa or Baltimore, I’m pretty sure we’d all leap at the chance. I’m fairly bullish on Casas, Rafaela and Bello, but I’d rather be building around Manoah/Kirk/Bichette/Romero or Franco/McClanahan/Baz/Bradley/Lowe or Rutschman/Henderson/Rodriguez/Hays.
This isn’t to deny that many of Chaim Bloom’s moves haven’t been more than a bit bewildering, but to note that the task before him was a lot larger than his detractors want to admit.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,461
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Dec 22, 2022 12:18:03 GMT -5
I don’t see it as being in much better shape. Or any better. Then they had stars and huge financial constraints. Now they have some financial flexibility but a lot less talent. I won't re-litigate the end of Mookie's time - I just don't think him re-signing was a realistic possibility going into 2020. (Ironically, if the pandemic had happened just a little earlier, he may have accepted the Sox's offer just given the financial uncertainty.) As such, I guess I'm comparing to a different baseline than you probably are. In any case, I don't really know how you can look at the farm system and not say, "It's better." I also don't really know how you can look just at the big-league club and not say it's better than it was going into 2020 with the most upside (in both the short- and long-term) it's had in years. Maybe I'm being too "glass half-full," but I think that being pessimistic about the organization is a conscious choice at this point rather than an inevitable conclusion. I think being optimistic is the choice. It is obviously a minority position when we look at national coverage of the off season. People on here can complain about negativity, but viewing this off season as disappointing is the consensus. I don’t quite get why you choose 2020 except that it is the nadir. They won’t be starting Weber this year, no. Is the team more talented than last year? No. They lost 3 starting pitchers and return a staff they had last year. Will those guys be healthier/better? Probably. But that is different. The point is nothing has been done to add talent to the rotation. Is the lineup better? I doubt it. Lost X add Yoshida, sub Turner for JDM, McWong for CVaz. That doesn’t sound better. Again, will they he healthier? Probably. But that didn’t *add* value. The pen is demonstrably better, but if Whitlock AND Houck start, it is better almost exclusively because of Jansen. Basically, the gamble is that this was a contending team that was held back only by injuries… and that won’t happen again. I think it is an interesting gamble.
|
|
|
Post by benzinger on Dec 22, 2022 12:20:57 GMT -5
Had a weird thought recently - if you think about the worst contracts the Red Sox have given out in the Henry era, I think there are 4 that stand out: - Crawford - Pablo - Hanley - Sale You can put those in any order you want, but I am pretty sure those 4 are pretty easily the worst contracts given out over the last 20 years. Is it a coincidence that the head executive of the team was gone within a year of giving these deals out? Theo wasn't fired, but he left right after the 2011 season. Dombrowski was brought on in late 2015 so Cherington was essentially fired then, and then DD was fired in September of 2019, about a month after Sale's elbow blew up. Are all of those coincidences, or did ownership blame that executive and want to move on? David Price
|
|
|
Post by terriblehondo on Dec 22, 2022 12:21:52 GMT -5
Regardless of what one thinks about Dave Dombrowski’s player development skills, it is hard to overlook the evidence that he was dramatically outperformed by at least 3 of his division rivals building for the future. Players acquired by the Red Sox between 2016 and 2019 had an aggregate bWAR of 5 in 2022. Including David Price, they had an AAV over $80 million. Players acquired by Toronto and Baltimore during the same period had an aggregate bWAR of 20. Players acquired by Tampa had an aggregate bWAR of 15, but they were able to acquire another 5 bWAR trading players acquired during this period (Meadows, Liberatore) for Isaac Paredes and Randy Arozarena. None of these teams paid more than $20 million for players acquired during this time period. Maybe, I’m getting this wrong, but it sure looks to me that the Red Sox began last year with a 15-25 win gap vis-a-vis three of teams they had to catch (closer to 15 relative to Baltimore and Tampa, who didn’t have the resources to exploit the salary gap, and 25 relative to Toronto, who did). The good news is that last year was probably the nadir. More than half of the salary will be gone, and as other posters have noted, Dombrowski didn’t leave the farm empty, just young. The bad news is a pronounced gap will remain. If offered the opportunity to trade all the players drafted and signed by the Red Sox between 2016 and 2019 for all the players acquired by Toronto, Tampa or Baltimore, I’m pretty sure we’d all leap at the chance. I’m fairly bullish on Casas, Rafaela and Bello, but I’d rather be building around Manoah/Kirk/Bichette/Romero or Franco/McClanahan/Baz/Bradley/Lowe or Rutschman/Henderson/Rodriguez/Hays. This isn’t to deny that many of Chaim Bloom’s moves haven’t been more than a bit bewildering, but to note that the task before him was a lot larger than his detractors want to admit. One also has to take into consideration when each team is drafting. You cannot get guys if they are already gone. If you do the Houston plan and lose 100 games a year it helps with the talent you get.
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Dec 22, 2022 12:26:54 GMT -5
Bring back Theo, Make the call J. Henry. Give him any title he wants. Let the buck stop with Theo Lucchino is long gone.
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Dec 22, 2022 12:30:40 GMT -5
Takes a while. But if you're not going to keep current stars, then you have no choice, and it becomes an organizational decision. That's the issue. The Rays have a solid philosophy that they don't really need stars to win, yet they've never won anything and have made the World Series twice. Let's look at the last few champions. Astros? Loaded. Red Sox in 2018? Loaded. Dodgers? Loaded with stars. Braves Nationals and Cubs? Loaded with talent. You honestly have to go back to the Royals to find a team that won and didn't have a true top 20 player in the league. So can you win with quantity over quality? I don't think you can. That's the flaw in spreading around your money instead of investing in a few cornerstone pieces. It's also not a good business decision. Why are people going to buy jerseys at the proshop when the player isn't going to come back? Why watch the product for your favorite player when they're just going to be somewhere else because ownership doesn't want to pay market rate? It's not that you have no choice and you get "stuck" building from within - this has been the plan all along lol. It's a conscious choice and there's nothing wrong with it. Unless you're Steve Cohen, building via the farm is necessary to build a legitimate WS contender. The Astros have been so good for the past several years specifically because of contributions from their farm. Correa? homegrown. Bregman? Homegrown. Pena? Homegrown. Alvarez? Homegrown. Tucker? Homegrown. Altuve? On a long-term deal now, but homegrown. Javier, Valdez, Garcia? All homegrown. The Red Sox in 2018 were also so good in large part because of their incredible homegrown core. Same with the Nationals (Rendon, Soto, Turner, Strasburg). Same for those 2015 Royals. Etc.
You seem to be equating not spending on elite free agents with not having stars. They Red Sox do have stars and will continue to going forward. Many of them will be homegrown, though. This is nothing new, even in Boston.
The Red Sox print money regardless of who is on the field. I am confident that having a bad team does more harm to FSG financially than they gain back by retaining fan favorites who don't give you the best chance to win. Every single WS team this century had key contributions from new faces and many of those guys became beloved in Boston. How do you feel about Shane Victorino, Mike Napoli, or Jonny Gomes from the 2013 team? How about Bill Mueller, Kevin Millar, or Johnny Damon from the 2004 team? How many Pokey Reese jerseys got sold back in the day? He was never even good and was out of the league after the 2004 season. He only had 268 PA in Boston. People still loved the guy.
It is really easy to bond with players when the team is winning. So, as far as I'm concerned the FO should be trying to win as many games as possible, hard stop. If a popular player is also a great fit, all the better. If not, happy trails.
The Sox have stars? Give me one other than Devers and maybe Story. The 2013 team also had guys like Papi and then Pedroia and Lester, who were homegrown. They added to that core. 2018 more of the same. 2004 had a ton of star power. So I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. It's not new faces that people are against its replacing star players with lesser ones that are more amicable to agree to favorable terms. The Redsox HAD a homegrown winner in 2018 and blew it up in the name of fiscal responsibility and flexibility. We were told that Mookie had to go in order to afford guys like Xander and Devers. How did that work out? Now you have one core member from that team left on the roster. Devers. We ask this question again next year, and it's going to be none. I'm not sure that ownership really has a set plan.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Dec 22, 2022 12:32:41 GMT -5
Houston 2017 and Boston 2018 are an interesting case study in two roads diverging. Both championship teams have let core players go (Betts, Benintendi, Rodriguez, and now Bogaerts for Boston; Springer and Correa for Houston). But Houston extended some core guys on reasonable terms (Altuve and Bregman) and added a whole new generation of talent (Alravez, Tucker, and a bevy of pitchers). Boston extended nobody and has really only added Devers.
This is to say: yes, Houston first got to a championship level by tanking for a few years. Since then, they've built... a sustainable contender. Boston could have tried to do that too ca. 2018-2019 but they went a different route. Now they're trying to get back on track, but that's a long run process, and now they've shot themselves in the foot by screwing things up with Bogaerts.
|
|
|
Post by awalkinthepark on Dec 22, 2022 12:34:27 GMT -5
Had a weird thought recently - if you think about the worst contracts the Red Sox have given out in the Henry era, I think there are 4 that stand out: - Crawford - Pablo - Hanley - Sale You can put those in any order you want, but I am pretty sure those 4 are pretty easily the worst contracts given out over the last 20 years. Is it a coincidence that the head executive of the team was gone within a year of giving these deals out? Theo wasn't fired, but he left right after the 2011 season. Dombrowski was brought on in late 2015 so Cherington was essentially fired then, and then DD was fired in September of 2019, about a month after Sale's elbow blew up. Are all of those coincidences, or did ownership blame that executive and want to move on? David Price Price's wasn't great, but he was at least serviceable when he was with the Sox. Put up over 10 WAR, not a total albatross like the others.
|
|
|
Post by pasadenasox on Dec 22, 2022 12:34:36 GMT -5
None of that spending has particularly helped Texas. Padres are still TBD. Cubs meh. I'm not anti-spending per se, but outside of extensions you can only buy what's on the FA market and high-priced free agent retail therapy isn't how to build a sustainable team. This three year average spending comparative feels deceiving, as well. So, 70% of those teams made the playoffs and one other was in the hunt until the last two weeks, giving that spending an 80% effectiveness when held up to the Bloom /Kennedy Doctrine of “fielding a contending team”, but you pick the two outliers? OK… My apologies, I had imagined that it wouldn't be necessary to spend the time adjudicating the entire list and that my words could speak for themselves, when many of the other entries were adjacent to the point I was attempting to make, but I clearly forgot that others could just decide what I was saying and force it into some predetermined narrative. So, for the record: 1. NYM - It seems pretty obvious that they're attempting to jump the development line and buy rather than build a championship. It'll be an interesting experiment to watch play out. Everybody knows when/where the money was spent and I didn't think I needed to spend time on them. I hope it works for them in the hopes that it induces the Yankees to spend reactionarily and hamstring themselves with bad contracts. 2. NYY - Not interested in putting any effort into them other than to point out that half that investment in in one dude. 3. TEX - Spent money to spend it - those guys might not even be good by the time the reinforcements arrive, but whatever. 4. SDP - Similar to the Mets and very high profile moves, needs to work or will be an all-time cautionary tale. Thought it spoke for itself, frankly. 5. PHI - The model many on the board seem to desire. Almost all of the spending on two guys, similar to TEX in that regard but with good one year returns - probably the biggest challenge to the point I was making 6. TOR - Spending in support of a well-developed roster, similar to what I'd advocate for if the Sox were in a comparable situation talent-wise as a system. 7. LAD - Similar to above but with fewer needs so, without the Betts investment they likely wouldn't even feature on this list. Not at all comparable to The Sox since they aren't even close to one or two guys away from the top. 8. Cubs 9. HOU - Already good, similar to TOR. The type of spending that I'd endorse. 10. MIN - Meh. The point I was making is that not all spending is created equal and some teams appear to be spending in support and supplement to a system to build a winning team and others are appear to be trying to jump the line and buy a winning team in free agency. Sometimes fortune does favor the bold. I prefer the build a team model to the buy a team model - your mileage may vary. I certainly don't regard it as a moral question. I prefer to take the longer view. Do I wish the Red Sox were in the position to spend to supplement and support a solid roster framework? Yes, I do. But I don't judge them to be. Even still they might be wild card contenders if they play their cards right and get lucky with injuries. But that's not a hand that I'd put more money on the table to gamble on, myself. Would I prefer that the Red Sox have better players and perform better on the field and in the standings? Yes. It'd make the 150-ish games I watch or listen to more enjoyable. Anyway, forgive me for thinking I could dash off a quick reply.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 22, 2022 12:47:54 GMT -5
Wasn't I making almost the opposite case? Because of the dearth of young talent, he's had to be quite active - working the margins of the roster, making trades to both add major league talent and prospects. Seems to me the "passive" approach would be to just sit on what you have. You called flexibility a shibboleth, but the flexible approach entails a lot of moving parts and active engagement by the GM. Bloom is great at working the margins. You have to give the man that much. Arroyo, Whitlock, Refsnyder etc...good margin players. The issue becomes when you let players leave, and you then replace them with those same players who were on the margins. As of right now, one of those marginal players, Arroyo is your 2nd baseman on opening day, and his bat is supposed to replace Xanders. While thats not really fair to a guy who is a solid bench player its just the way it is. Same thing with McGuire. Again here's a guy who hit well when he was acquired and is a major league caliber player. But again would anyone confuse him as a major league starter? No. The roster has a bunch of these guys on it who would make it on contenders but they would have a much lesser role than here. Look at the 2018 roster and the roster today. Not every single player is interchangeable. I don't know if ownership realizes this or not since this isn't entirely a Bloom issue at all. Ownership has a plan and Bloom is trying to execute it. The problem with Bloom is his lack of ability to identify impact prospects from other teams in trades. A lot of his tenure has been about two things, creating finanical flexibility and improving the farm. He's improved the depth in the organization but he still hasn't added much in top end talent overall. Can't call him a failure yet since there is still time. This is what, in my mind, differentiates Bloom and his philosophy and Theo. Theo was also great on the margins - Belhon, Cabrera (who he probably should've kept), Millar (who the Marlins were going to unload to a team in Japan)Mientkiewicz etc. But Theo also recognized the need and for stars and above average MLB talent. Bloom seems to have less of a feel for the latter, and his acquisitions, which often characterized as shrewd or smart at the time of the trades or pick-ups, are usually addition margin guys who the Front Office's models project into above average or better. Also, an observation: fans - and remember, this isn't Tampa so this team and its revenues are driven by fan interest and support - want stars, and they want winning. Until he wins it all with a no name team of cast-offs and short-timers, this will be the rule. And even then, as much as ownership wants all fans to "root for the laundry," except for the hardcore, that does not really fly with this fan-base. I've heard more negatives about this team being broken up and destroyed from family members than I heard in the losing seasons of 2015 or last year. Letting the core guys of Mookie, Xander and even Benintendi go has really stirred up a hornets' nest. If Devers departs, it will become a torrent. And even if they keep Devers, I don't see any other stars to support him. Saying "stars will be here from the youth in 2-4 years" is...a very bad strategic plan so wait until then. Someone said the other day, people here who wanted a few of these big signings should go root for the Mets. I say the converse is true. Maybe all these "wait 3-4-5-6 years" or "rip it down and start all over again" perhaps should consider switch to cheer for Tampa or Kansas City. Those are your Huckleberries.
|
|
|
Post by pappyman99 on Dec 22, 2022 13:01:54 GMT -5
The truly alarming thing here is Bloom seems very afraid to fail in a big FA move.
I mean he has more or less sat on his hands most of all his free agency’s and now reports are coming out that other FO people pretty much think he does in fact do that.
He is still apparently “galaxies” apart from what Devers wants.
If we are in last place by the end of July bloom fired. Whether you like him or hate him that is the reality of it. His job is on the line this season 100%
|
|
|
Post by greenmonster on Dec 22, 2022 13:22:13 GMT -5
Bring back Theo, Make the call J. Henry. Give him any title he wants. Let the buck stop with Theo Lucchino is long gone. For the introductory press conference he could walk out on stage wearing the Gorilla suit and then dramatically take it off.....symbolically picking up right were he left off
|
|
|