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.
Pre-2023 Offseason Retrospective: How'd They Do?
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 4, 2023 12:10:46 GMT -5
One other thing that falls in a “to taste” category: after years of clearing salary, short-term contracts for flexibility, and resetting the tax line, this felt like a winter we’d waiting for — the biggie. This was the reward for pain. So losing X, not getting any premier guy, still doing a lot of the short-term, role playing guys etc. just feels like a disappointment. I am excited to watch Yoshida play. But he is the only guy they added that makes me want to watch. Guys like Duvall? Jerseys. Add: it feels especially disappointing since there appear to be two obviously improvable positions in the OF and MI. Even DH with Turner feels like a near push. It just seems like more could have been done to address some of the weak spots. I’ll give C the benefit of the doubt. There are at least a lot of young guys in the mix (and I hate spending big on C). I think the answer to the long-standing question, "What will Bloom do when he actually has control over the finances to shape the team?" has turned out to be: plug every spot on the roster with league-average or better players (I don't think it's a coincidence that this is the first year in a while they've gone into the season without any obvious holes), and sign Devers to a mega-extension.
I mentioned myself that it feels like they're one impact player short of what they should have, so I get the criticism to an extent, but philosophically I'm fine with the approach. The trick to having guys who are more than "jerseys" is to develop homegrown talent and then extend them. Which they've done with Devers (and Whitlock, sort of). But they haven't developed that sort of player since Devers. Here's hoping Bello and Casas are the beginning of the next wave.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 4, 2023 12:17:24 GMT -5
Solid B+. I think that the Sox had already decided last year that Devers was the one they would spend heavily on and that Xander was welcome back but on the team's terms. I believe they were already looking at transitioning to a new core made of those who emerged from a farm headed by Casa, Bello, Mayer, Rafaela, Yorke, Mata etc knowing that some will fall as others rise. I mean where was X going to go as his time at SS was limited to a couple of seasons of at best average, and probably less than that, defense? 2B for a while but even that would have had a defensive cost under the new rules and there was no guarantee he could transition to LF. Given all that, they moved to bring in pieces that get the team to the emerging core and could complement it as they arrived. If they had been able to reel in Xander then they don't get Yoshida and/or Turner to give him a home as he leaves shortstop. Meanwhile the pen is better, flexible complementary pieces are in place and maybe they catch lightning in a bottle while part twp evolves. Overall, nice job. An under-discussed possibility - I'd give it maybe 30%? - is that in a couple years even 6/160 will seem like it would have been an overpay and the team's miserly offer pre-2022 will make a lot more sense. There are some significant yellow flags in regards to Bogaerts' offensive and defensive trends, after all. (To be clear, I still think they should have made him a serious extension offer a year ago.)
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Mar 4, 2023 12:32:29 GMT -5
One other thing that falls in a “to taste” category: after years of clearing salary, short-term contracts for flexibility, and resetting the tax line, this felt like a winter we’d waiting for — the biggie. This was the reward for pain. So losing X, not getting any premier guy, still doing a lot of the short-term, role playing guys etc. just feels like a disappointment. I am excited to watch Yoshida play. But he is the only guy they added that makes me want to watch. Guys like Duvall? Jerseys. Add: it feels especially disappointing since there appear to be two obviously improvable positions in the OF and MI. Even DH with Turner feels like a near push. It just seems like more could have been done to address some of the weak spots. I’ll give C the benefit of the doubt. There are at least a lot of young guys in the mix (and I hate spending big on C). I think the answer to the long-standing question, "What will Bloom do when he actually has control over the finances to shape the team?" has turned out to be: plug every spot on the roster with league-average or better players (I don't think it's a coincidence that this is the first year in a while they've gone into the season without any obvious holes), and sign Devers to a mega-extension.
I mentioned myself that it feels like they're one impact player short of what they should have, so I get the criticism to an extent, but philosophically I'm fine with the approach. The trick to having guys who are more than "jerseys" is to develop homegrown talent and then extend them. Which they've done with Devers (and Whitlock, sort of). But they haven't developed that sort of player since Devers. Here's hoping Bello and Casas are the beginning of the next wave.
True, but they’ve gotten more-than-jerseys before on the market. Pedro. Damon. JDM. Sale. Guys you pay to see. I hope Yoshida is one of those guys. He has the makings. But I don’t see myself watching as many games this year, because there are too many guys I don’t feel personally invested in.
|
|
|
Post by pappyman99 on Mar 4, 2023 13:26:52 GMT -5
I gave a C+
I like the short term stuff, didn’t like giving Yoshida that 5 year deal since we don’t look like a WS contender and he is an unknown.
I like the Devers extension.
Personally I would have tried hard to Verlander on a 2 year deal, done the Kluber deal, signed eovaldi at 3 years max and done the Turner deal, and a trade for renfroe
I thought the short term stuff would align with Sale coming off the books
I mean we did the same risk reward in the rotation but with less potential.
Would have liked the potential, key word, of
Verlander Sale Eovaldi Kluber Bello
With Whitlock as the closer and Pivetta to the pen.
Lineup of
Verdugo Devers Turner Casas Renfroe Hernandez
As a top 6
I gave a c+ as they kind of went the approach I wanted, but to a lower degree in terms if potential, and I understand there was not an unlimited budget.
With that said. Financially we are in good shape. A large chunk of money falls off over the next 1-2 seasons. Another large singing is possible because of that. Yoshida and Story both fall off at the same time in 5 years.
The farm is getting there. In the end, I don’t think a huge offer for ohtani is out of the cards. Even if he is 37 and has degraded to a number 4 SP and a 6th hitter, he is probably still combining for 2-4 WAR
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,779
|
Post by gerry on Mar 4, 2023 13:42:54 GMT -5
Man Fred. I also follow players and am having a different reaction to this iteration ofThe Sox: so many interesting young talents on and nearly on the team; including more than a little of the star power you are seeking.
I will be avidly following (on media and at games) the “kids” including pitchers like Bello, Crawford, Houck, Kelly, Mata, Murphy, Schreiber, Walter, Whitlock, Wink off the top of my head.
Also will keep a close eye on other “kids” like Abreu, Casas, Dalbec, Devers, Duran, Hamilton, Kavadas, Meyer, McGuire, Rafaela, Valdez, Verdugo, Wong. So much interesting young talent.
You are correct in that they all could bust. That’s life. As is their potential for success.
But there is more to follow. I am intrigued by the potential of Arroyo, Duval, Jansen, Kluber, Martin, Mondesi, Paxton, Pivetta, Refsnyder, Sale, Turner, Yoshida in 2023. What will Alfaro, Allen, Goodrum, Mills, JoeRod, et al contribute. We get to watch more talent, and more interesting talent for at least the next 7 months. Nothing to be gloomy about. Lots to look forward to.
Bloom has brought together an unusually interesting blend of both historically good and potentially good vets and kids. It is not stars and scrubs; rather more about good to very good players across the board. With better leadership, mentorship and fun than we have seen in awhile. I hope to watch these non stars nor scrubs solid players coalesce into a more balanced, competitive Red Sox team.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Mar 4, 2023 13:48:30 GMT -5
One other thing that falls in a “to taste” category: after years of clearing salary, short-term contracts for flexibility, and resetting the tax line, this felt like a winter we’d waiting for — the biggie. This was the reward for pain. So losing X, not getting any premier guy, still doing a lot of the short-term, role playing guys etc. just feels like a disappointment. I am excited to watch Yoshida play. But he is the only guy they added that makes me want to watch. Guys like Duvall? Jerseys. Add: it feels especially disappointing since there appear to be two obviously improvable positions in the OF and MI. Even DH with Turner feels like a near push. It just seems like more could have been done to address some of the weak spots. I’ll give C the benefit of the doubt. There are at least a lot of young guys in the mix (and I hate spending big on C). I think the answer to the long-standing question, "What will Bloom do when he actually has control over the finances to shape the team?" has turned out to be: plug every spot on the roster with league-average or better players (I don't think it's a coincidence that this is the first year in a while they've gone into the season without any obvious holes), and sign Devers to a mega-extension. I mentioned myself that it feels like they're one impact player short of what they should have, so I get the criticism to an extent, but philosophically I'm fine with the approach. The trick to having guys who are more than "jerseys" is to develop homegrown talent and then extend them. Which they've done with Devers (and Whitlock, sort of). But they haven't developed that sort of player since Devers. Here's hoping Bello and Casas are the beginning of the next wave.
One would suspect he had that control last year, at least to get under, at the trade deadline and could've gotten under and performed the reset. He either over-evaluated his team as constructed, or he chickened out. The half-measures smacked of indecision or poor evaluation, take your pick. This affected the draft pool in a year that one evaluator (so far) called "the best draft class since 2011 (Cole, Springer, Bauer, Rendon, Baez, Lindor, Nimmo, Barnes, Gray, Wong et al) it probably hamstrung the front office in an off-season that had a particularly rich free agent class. So, instead, they reset this winter and got a bunch of high variance plug-ins for this year's team, lost the team leader and probably the most popular player with fans since Mookie and may have sent a message to free agents that Boston isn't really going for it this year. Maybe it'll all work out and they'll be in the mix this October, but it'll be a much tougher hill to climb.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Mar 4, 2023 14:07:11 GMT -5
I think the answer to the long-standing question, "What will Bloom do when he actually has control over the finances to shape the team?" has turned out to be: plug every spot on the roster with league-average or better players (I don't think it's a coincidence that this is the first year in a while they've gone into the season without any obvious holes), and sign Devers to a mega-extension. I mentioned myself that it feels like they're one impact player short of what they should have, so I get the criticism to an extent, but philosophically I'm fine with the approach. The trick to having guys who are more than "jerseys" is to develop homegrown talent and then extend them. Which they've done with Devers (and Whitlock, sort of). But they haven't developed that sort of player since Devers. Here's hoping Bello and Casas are the beginning of the next wave.
One would suspect he had that control last year, at least to get under, at the trade deadline and could've gotten under and performed the reset. He either over-evaluated his team as constructed, or he chickened out. The half-measures smacked of indecision or poor evaluation, take your pick. This affected the draft pool in a year that one evaluator (so far) called "the best draft class since 2011 (Cole, Springer, Bauer, Rendon, Baez, Lindor, Nimmo, Barnes, Gray, Wong et al) it probably hamstrung the front office in an off-season that had a particularly rich free agent class. So, instead, they reset this winter and got a bunch of high variance plug-ins for this year's team, lost the team leader and probably the most popular player with fans since Mookie and may have sent a message to free agents that Boston isn't really going for it this year. Maybe it'll all work out and they'll be in the mix this October, but it'll be a much tougher hill to climb. I disagree with the dichotomy you pained there. It doesn’t have to be indecision or poor evaluation. They could have properly evaluated their odds as unlikely and still justified not selling off everything based on the risk/reward on either side. I also totally disagree that not getting under at the deadline had literally any impact on their spending/competitiveness this off-season.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 4, 2023 14:09:51 GMT -5
I think the answer to the long-standing question, "What will Bloom do when he actually has control over the finances to shape the team?" has turned out to be: plug every spot on the roster with league-average or better players (I don't think it's a coincidence that this is the first year in a while they've gone into the season without any obvious holes), and sign Devers to a mega-extension. I mentioned myself that it feels like they're one impact player short of what they should have, so I get the criticism to an extent, but philosophically I'm fine with the approach. The trick to having guys who are more than "jerseys" is to develop homegrown talent and then extend them. Which they've done with Devers (and Whitlock, sort of). But they haven't developed that sort of player since Devers. Here's hoping Bello and Casas are the beginning of the next wave.
One would suspect he had that control last year, at least to get under, at the trade deadline and could've gotten under and performed the reset. He either over-evaluated his team as constructed, or he chickened out. The half-measures smacked of indecision or poor evaluation, take your pick. This affected the draft pool in a year that one evaluator (so far) called "the best draft class since 2011 (Cole, Springer, Bauer, Rendon, Baez, Lindor, Nimmo, Barnes, Gray, Wong et al) it probably hamstrung the front office in an off-season that had a particularly rich free agent class. So, instead, they reset this winter and got a bunch of high variance plug-ins for this year's team, lost the team leader and probably the most popular player with fans since Mookie and may have sent a message to free agents that Boston isn't really going for it this year. Maybe it'll all work out and they'll be in the mix this October, but it'll be a much tougher hill to climb. I could not possibly be less interested in having the trade deadline conversation yet again, but I am sort of curious about the hypothetical in which they do re-sign Bogaerts... Suppose they allocate $27 million in AAV to him, as per their 6/160 offer. What signings do they forgo to make that happen? Surely Duvall ($7 million). They wouldn't need Mondesi ($3 million). Where else do they trim? Pass on the Jansen signing? (Not sure about the timing, but I think they might've gotten him after they realized Bogaerts wasn't coming back?) Pass on Turner and just rotate guys through DH?
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Mar 4, 2023 14:23:31 GMT -5
One would suspect he had that control last year, at least to get under, at the trade deadline and could've gotten under and performed the reset. He either over-evaluated his team as constructed, or he chickened out. The half-measures smacked of indecision or poor evaluation, take your pick. This affected the draft pool in a year that one evaluator (so far) called "the best draft class since 2011 (Cole, Springer, Bauer, Rendon, Baez, Lindor, Nimmo, Barnes, Gray, Wong et al) it probably hamstrung the front office in an off-season that had a particularly rich free agent class. So, instead, they reset this winter and got a bunch of high variance plug-ins for this year's team, lost the team leader and probably the most popular player with fans since Mookie and may have sent a message to free agents that Boston isn't really going for it this year. Maybe it'll all work out and they'll be in the mix this October, but it'll be a much tougher hill to climb. I could not possibly be less interested in having the trade deadline conversation yet again, but I am sort of curious about the hypothetical in which they do re-sign Bogaerts... Suppose they allocate $27 million in AAV to him, as per their 6/160 offer. What signings do they forgo to make that happen? Surely Duvall ($7 million). They wouldn't need Mondesi ($3 million). Where else do they trim? Pass on the Jansen signing? (Not sure about the timing, but I think they might've gotten him after they realized Bogaerts wasn't coming back?) Pass on Turner and just rotate guys through DH? You could pass on Mondesi, yes. But my question is… why are you assuming they couldn’t just have a higher payroll? How about they make that deal AND sign these guys? As an aside… I’m always in favor of not signing the glass Canadian.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 4, 2023 14:40:51 GMT -5
I could not possibly be less interested in having the trade deadline conversation yet again, but I am sort of curious about the hypothetical in which they do re-sign Bogaerts... Suppose they allocate $27 million in AAV to him, as per their 6/160 offer. What signings do they forgo to make that happen? Surely Duvall ($7 million). They wouldn't need Mondesi ($3 million). Where else do they trim? Pass on the Jansen signing? (Not sure about the timing, but I think they might've gotten him after they realized Bogaerts wasn't coming back?) Pass on Turner and just rotate guys through DH? You could pass on Mondesi, yes. But my question is… why are you assuming they couldn’t just have a higher payroll? How about they make that deal AND sign these guys? As an aside… I’m always in favor of not signing the glass Canadian. So they go over the CBT this year? Okay, but then they have to re-set next year so you'd have to plan for that. I suspect the plan was always to re-set this year, though, and for various reasons I think that makes the most long-term sense.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Mar 4, 2023 14:45:24 GMT -5
One would suspect he had that control last year, at least to get under, at the trade deadline and could've gotten under and performed the reset. He either over-evaluated his team as constructed, or he chickened out. The half-measures smacked of indecision or poor evaluation, take your pick. This affected the draft pool in a year that one evaluator (so far) called "the best draft class since 2011 (Cole, Springer, Bauer, Rendon, Baez, Lindor, Nimmo, Barnes, Gray, Wong et al) it probably hamstrung the front office in an off-season that had a particularly rich free agent class. So, instead, they reset this winter and got a bunch of high variance plug-ins for this year's team, lost the team leader and probably the most popular player with fans since Mookie and may have sent a message to free agents that Boston isn't really going for it this year. Maybe it'll all work out and they'll be in the mix this October, but it'll be a much tougher hill to climb. I could not possibly be less interested in having the trade deadline conversation yet again, but I am sort of curious about the hypothetical in which they do re-sign Bogaerts... Suppose they allocate $27 million in AAV to him, as per their 6/160 offer. What signings do they forgo to make that happen? Surely Duvall ($7 million). They wouldn't need Mondesi ($3 million). Where else do they trim? Pass on the Jansen signing? (Not sure about the timing, but I think they might've gotten him after they realized Bogaerts wasn't coming back?) Pass on Turner and just rotate guys through DH? They could have ducked under last year so that going over with Xander this year already extended wouldn't have been an issue and they would have reset the tax limit already. I would have liked their chances better now, particularly with Bogaers at SS, than at the end of July last year.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 4, 2023 14:55:53 GMT -5
I could not possibly be less interested in having the trade deadline conversation yet again, but I am sort of curious about the hypothetical in which they do re-sign Bogaerts... Suppose they allocate $27 million in AAV to him, as per their 6/160 offer. What signings do they forgo to make that happen? Surely Duvall ($7 million). They wouldn't need Mondesi ($3 million). Where else do they trim? Pass on the Jansen signing? (Not sure about the timing, but I think they might've gotten him after they realized Bogaerts wasn't coming back?) Pass on Turner and just rotate guys through DH? They could have ducked under last year so that going over with Xander this year already extended wouldn't have been an issue and they would have reset the tax limit already. I would have liked their chances better now, particularly with Bogaers at SS, than at the end of July last year. Added a signature to my profile, lest there be any confusion. This thread is about the past offseason.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,965
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Mar 4, 2023 15:05:19 GMT -5
One would suspect he had that control last year, at least to get under, at the trade deadline and could've gotten under and performed the reset. He either over-evaluated his team as constructed, or he chickened out. The half-measures smacked of indecision or poor evaluation, take your pick. This affected the draft pool in a year that one evaluator (so far) called "the best draft class since 2011 (Cole, Springer, Bauer, Rendon, Baez, Lindor, Nimmo, Barnes, Gray, Wong et al) it probably hamstrung the front office in an off-season that had a particularly rich free agent class. So, instead, they reset this winter and got a bunch of high variance plug-ins for this year's team, lost the team leader and probably the most popular player with fans since Mookie and may have sent a message to free agents that Boston isn't really going for it this year. Maybe it'll all work out and they'll be in the mix this October, but it'll be a much tougher hill to climb. I could not possibly be less interested in having the trade deadline conversation yet again, but I am sort of curious about the hypothetical in which they do re-sign Bogaerts... Suppose they allocate $27 million in AAV to him, as per their 6/160 offer. What signings do they forgo to make that happen? Surely Duvall ($7 million). They wouldn't need Mondesi ($3 million). Where else do they trim? Pass on the Jansen signing? (Not sure about the timing, but I think they might've gotten him after they realized Bogaerts wasn't coming back?) Pass on Turner and just rotate guys through DH? I started thinking about this after they finished their off-season moves and it's actually not that hard, assuming that FG is right about their LT payroll being at $218M. The LTT is $233M, but let's say you don't want to exceed ~$228M in order to have room for a deadline pickup. So, with that $10M, the $7M for Duvall and the $3M for Mondesi, you're up to $20M in AAV savings to pay X. They could have signed Andrew Chafin, who got a surprisingly modest deal (one year and an option, AAV of $6.3M) from Arizona, instead of Jansen, and they would have had more than enough to pay X. With the additions of Chafin, Martin, J-Rod and Bleier, you'd still have an improved BP.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Mar 4, 2023 15:18:32 GMT -5
You could pass on Mondesi, yes. But my question is… why are you assuming they couldn’t just have a higher payroll? How about they make that deal AND sign these guys? As an aside… I’m always in favor of not signing the glass Canadian. So they go over the CBT this year? Okay, but then they have to re-set next year so you'd have to plan for that. I suspect the plan was always to re-set this year, though, and for various reasons I think that makes the most long-term sense. I guess you are either in or out. If the primary goal is to reset, fine. But that returns me to my diminished interest.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Mar 4, 2023 15:21:16 GMT -5
I could not possibly be less interested in having the trade deadline conversation yet again, but I am sort of curious about the hypothetical in which they do re-sign Bogaerts... Suppose they allocate $27 million in AAV to him, as per their 6/160 offer. What signings do they forgo to make that happen? Surely Duvall ($7 million). They wouldn't need Mondesi ($3 million). Where else do they trim? Pass on the Jansen signing? (Not sure about the timing, but I think they might've gotten him after they realized Bogaerts wasn't coming back?) Pass on Turner and just rotate guys through DH? I started thinking about this after they finished their off-season moves and it's actually not that hard, assuming that FG is right about their LT payroll being at $218M. The LTT is $233M, but let's say you don't want to exceed ~$228M in order to have room for a deadline pickup. So, with that $10M, the $7M for Duvall and the $3M for Mondesi, you're up to $20M in AAV savings to pay X. They could have signed Andrew Chafin, who got a surprisingly modest deal (one year and an option, AAV of $6.3M) from Arizona, instead of Jansen, and they would have had more than enough to pay X. With the additions of Chafin, Martin, J-Rod and Bleier, you'd still have an improved BP. FWIW Red Sox Payroll has them at 225.6 now. Differences I noticed: FG has Chris Martin at 6.75M AAV instead of 8.75, Paxton at 4.2 instead of 5, 9.7 instead of 11 for pre-arb and 40 man guys. It also doesn't account for bonuses that will need to be paid or that they'll probably add at least one of Alfaro/Tapia/Allen which is another $2M.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 4, 2023 15:21:57 GMT -5
I could not possibly be less interested in having the trade deadline conversation yet again, but I am sort of curious about the hypothetical in which they do re-sign Bogaerts... Suppose they allocate $27 million in AAV to him, as per their 6/160 offer. What signings do they forgo to make that happen? Surely Duvall ($7 million). They wouldn't need Mondesi ($3 million). Where else do they trim? Pass on the Jansen signing? (Not sure about the timing, but I think they might've gotten him after they realized Bogaerts wasn't coming back?) Pass on Turner and just rotate guys through DH? I started thinking about this after they finished their off-season moves and it's actually not that hard, assuming that FG is right about their LT payroll being at $218M. The LTT is $233M, but let's say you don't want to exceed ~$228M in order to have room for a deadline pickup. So, with that $10M, the $7M for Duvall and the $3M for Mondesi, you're up to $20M in AAV savings to pay X. They could have signed Andrew Chafin, who got a surprisingly modest deal (one year and an option, AAV of $6.3M) from Arizona, instead of Jansen, and they would have had more than enough to pay X. With the additions of Chafin, Martin, J-Rod and Bleier, you'd still have an improved BP. I didn't realize they were that far under the cap! Yeah, if they could just get by with substituting Chafin (or the equivalent) for Jansen I'd be more than fine with that. To be honest I might prefer Chafin to Jansen straight up.
ADD: Or if, per scottysmalls, they're at $225 million, I guess your proposals, along with a Bogaerts signing, would have them right near the threshold? Would probably need to shave off a few million more somehow...
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Mar 4, 2023 15:49:20 GMT -5
You could pass on Mondesi, yes. But my question is… why are you assuming they couldn’t just have a higher payroll? How about they make that deal AND sign these guys? As an aside… I’m always in favor of not signing the glass Canadian. So they go over the CBT this year? Okay, but then they have to re-set next year so you'd have to plan for that. I suspect the plan was always to re-set this year, though, and for various reasons I think that makes the most long-term sense. Why?
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 4, 2023 18:08:55 GMT -5
So they go over the CBT this year? Okay, but then they have to re-set next year so you'd have to plan for that. I suspect the plan was always to re-set this year, though, and for various reasons I think that makes the most long-term sense. Why? Cuz there's penalties for going over three years in a row.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Mar 5, 2023 9:08:51 GMT -5
A- for me. Kluber, Turner, Jansen, Duval, Yoshida, all high reward risk additions. Martin, Mondesi, Rodriquez, Blier do not bring as high of a reward potential, but hey, at a player cost of Barnes and Taylor, that is a damn good upgrade. Tapia or Allen could mean we don't have to settle for an under performing Duran. Alfaro or C. Hamilton may be on the opening day roster at catcher. I get you are likely calling “cost” trades, but there were a lot of guys out: X, Eovaldi, Wacha, Strahm, JDM. So that should be balanced with incoming. All of those guys were free agents, so I don't think it is necessary to consider them when evaluating how the team was built. They'd only be relevant if they would have been better signings at their free market rates than guys we actually did get, and I think all of them very much would not have.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Mar 5, 2023 9:13:24 GMT -5
I get you are likely calling “cost” trades, but there were a lot of guys out: X, Eovaldi, Wacha, Strahm, JDM. So that should be balanced with incoming. All of those guys were free agents, so I don't think it is necessary to consider them when evaluating how the team was built. They'd only be relevant if they would have been better signings at their free market rates than guys we actually did get, and I think all of them very much would not have. That makes some sense if we are rooting for accounting sheets. But money aside, we are hoping for the best possible talent on the field. If they are down X amount from last year, what matters is if they replace and (since they finished last) exceed that talent. I suppose it is a matter of perspective. Some people can look at keeping your powder dry as a win. I am more a damn the torpedoes guy.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Mar 5, 2023 9:15:49 GMT -5
I could not possibly be less interested in having the trade deadline conversation yet again, but I am sort of curious about the hypothetical in which they do re-sign Bogaerts... Suppose they allocate $27 million in AAV to him, as per their 6/160 offer. What signings do they forgo to make that happen? Surely Duvall ($7 million). They wouldn't need Mondesi ($3 million). Where else do they trim? Pass on the Jansen signing? (Not sure about the timing, but I think they might've gotten him after they realized Bogaerts wasn't coming back?) Pass on Turner and just rotate guys through DH? You could pass on Mondesi, yes. But my question is… why are you assuming they couldn’t just have a higher payroll? How about they make that deal AND sign these guys? As an aside… I’m always in favor of not signing the glass Canadian. The glass Canadian picked up a player option, so the team had no say in him coming back in 2023. He's also substantially better than any other pitcher you could sign for 1/4 and almost certainly took a pay cut in order to keep mending in a place where he felt comfortable. I just don't understand the consternation about having a player this good on a 1/4. If he misses 100 games but pitches like James Paxton for 10-12 starts, that's still a great value.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Mar 5, 2023 9:39:59 GMT -5
All of those guys were free agents, so I don't think it is necessary to consider them when evaluating how the team was built. They'd only be relevant if they would have been better signings at their free market rates than guys we actually did get, and I think all of them very much would not have. That makes some sense if we are rooting for accounting sheets. But money aside, we are hoping for the best possible talent on the field. If they are down X amount from last year, what matters is if they replace and (since they finished last) exceed that talent. I suppose it is a matter of perspective. Some people can look at keeping your powder dry as a win. I am more a damn the torpedoes guy. 29/30 teams respect the luxury tax threshold, so "rooting for accounting sheets" is synonymous with rooting for the best possible talent on the field. You want to bring in the most talent possible within your budget. It seems silly to be negative on the offseason on the grounds that they didn't spend more money when their spending patterns have not changed much since they bought the team. By that logic, every offseason can be criticized because they didn't balloon payroll to sign every top free agent. All that should matter when answering this question is how the roster looked at the start of the offseason (which does not include any departing FA) and how the roster looks now. Last year's roster/record is irrelevant because it was already signed and sealed before the period this question is asking about. If you're a fan of specific FA(s) it's not wrong to want to sign them in free agency and to evaluate the team's moves negatively because you think they missed out on a good player. BUT, if all of those players are on your list just because they're former Red Sox players that would be a strange way to evaluate FA talent. See what I'm getting at?
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Mar 5, 2023 10:12:13 GMT -5
That makes some sense if we are rooting for accounting sheets. But money aside, we are hoping for the best possible talent on the field. If they are down X amount from last year, what matters is if they replace and (since they finished last) exceed that talent. I suppose it is a matter of perspective. Some people can look at keeping your powder dry as a win. I am more a damn the torpedoes guy. 29/30 teams respect the luxury tax threshold, so "rooting for accounting sheets" is synonymous with rooting for the best possible talent on the field. You want to bring in the most talent possible within your budget. It seems silly to be negative on the offseason on the grounds that they didn't spend more money when their spending patterns have not changed much since they bought the team. By that logic, every offseason can be criticized because they didn't balloon payroll to sign every top free agent. All that should matter when answering this question is how the roster looked at the start of the offseason (which does not include any departing FA) and how the roster looks now. Last year's roster/record is irrelevant because it was already signed and sealed before the period this question is asking about. If you're a fan of specific FA(s) it's not wrong to want to sign them in free agency and to evaluate the team's moves negatively because you think they missed out on a good player. BUT, if all of those players are on your list just because they're former Red Sox players that would be a strange way to evaluate FA talent. See what I'm getting at? But if you take a roster… subtract a number of its leading players… then say “go” — don’t you think that is the measure? You finish in last and lose key talent. Aren’t you responsible for filling those slots and likely exceeding them (not to repeat last place)? If the *excuse* is money, fine, but to point to the tax line actually seems to concede that a limitation prevented them fully doing what they needed. The team they were building from was the one *after* FA losses. So I measure from there. As for Paxton, he picked up a player option… after sitting all last year. So they are actually paying him this year for that, too. Let’s not forget, they are likely *under* the tax line last year without money wasted on him. So if they get 10-12 starts, you can say that cost $4 million, but I call that a disaster.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 5, 2023 10:39:42 GMT -5
(I started out trying to make another point, but this ended up being basically a steelman of manfred's argument...)
If you're not inclined to sign big long-term contracts then you can avoid the dead money effect towards the end of those deals (e.g., they've only just escaped the Price contract that's been weighing them down for years). But you also don't get the benefit of the beginning of those deals, which usually return a nice surplus for the team. E.g., that Judge contract is probably going to end badly for the Yankees, but they're paying him $40 million this year to get a projected ~$60 million or something in value.
The Red Sox currently have two guys on 9-figure free agent contracts. One of them is Sale, who would be getting toward the "dead money" end of his deal even if that deal hadn't been dead money from the start. The other is Story, who is the one guy who should be providing serious surplus value, but he'll be out for at least half the season and maybe all of it. They also added Yoshida for a lot of money, and he might be good but given his profile he'll be hard pressed to put up a really big WAR total. So among their FA signings there just aren't any likely BIG sources of WAR bounty.
The other (and even better) source of WAR surplus is young cost-controlled players, and the Red Sox have a few of those, but none other than Devers that project to like all-star level this year.
And this is how we end up with a roster of 25 league average players plus Devers. But hey, if Devers has a 7 WAR season, that means they ought to win 86 games and probably make the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 5, 2023 10:51:08 GMT -5
29/30 teams respect the luxury tax threshold, so "rooting for accounting sheets" is synonymous with rooting for the best possible talent on the field. You want to bring in the most talent possible within your budget. It seems silly to be negative on the offseason on the grounds that they didn't spend more money when their spending patterns have not changed much since they bought the team. By that logic, every offseason can be criticized because they didn't balloon payroll to sign every top free agent. All that should matter when answering this question is how the roster looked at the start of the offseason (which does not include any departing FA) and how the roster looks now. Last year's roster/record is irrelevant because it was already signed and sealed before the period this question is asking about. If you're a fan of specific FA(s) it's not wrong to want to sign them in free agency and to evaluate the team's moves negatively because you think they missed out on a good player. BUT, if all of those players are on your list just because they're former Red Sox players that would be a strange way to evaluate FA talent. See what I'm getting at? But if you take a roster… subtract a number of its leading players… then say “go” — don’t you think that is the measure? You finish in last and lose key talent. Aren’t you responsible for filling those slots and likely exceeding them (not to repeat last place)? If the *excuse* is money, fine, but to point to the tax line actually seems to concede that a limitation prevented them fully doing what they needed. The team they were building from was the one *after* FA losses. So I measure from there. As for Paxton, he picked up a player option… after sitting all last year. So they are actually paying him this year for that, too. Let’s not forget, they are likely *under* the tax line last year without money wasted on him. So if they get 10-12 starts, you can say that cost $4 million, but I call that a disaster. FYI, fangraphs had an article the other day that showed how much teams lost in free agency in terms of 2022 WAR and how much they gained. The Red Sox lost 12.7 and gained 9.5. But the big caveat is that their single biggest addition, Yoshida, wasn't in the majors last year so he's left out of the "gain" column. Factor him in and they basically break even.
On Paxton: is this going to be like the Garrett Richards thing, where you would simply not stop complaining about what was a really trivial investment, by starting pitcher standards? It's a 2/10 deal, and even if it doesn't work out at all it's fine. Yeah, sure, the CBT thing; but if that was so important to you then you could point to half a dozen other ways they could have stayed under (not added JBJ, traded JDM/Eovaldi, etc.). They signed Paxton, and then separately they decided to go over the CBT; they're two different issues.
|
|
|