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 dcb26 on Mar 5, 2023 10:57:50 GMT -5
To take a slightly different approach in evaluating the offseason:
The moves that were made: C+ - While I like a majority of the moves they made overall, It's also hard for me to say they adequately addressed the two biggest issues they faced this offseason, at OF and SS. Even if you don't hold Bogaerts leaving against them, it's really hard to say that a starting middle infield of Hernandez and Arroyo, with hopefully Mondesi and maybe some Story, is anything but problematic. In the OF, they effectively lost Hernandez, added Duvall and Yoshida, and are counting on a significant defensive improvement from Verdugo. Lots of questions there, headlined by how well Yoshida transitions to MLB. On the plus side, they made a number of good moves around the bullpen, Turner seems like a very good add, they secured Devers (who hopefully is motivated rather than complacent) and overall the depth seems a lot stronger than previous years. Additionally, if Mondesi can be healthy and/or Story can play a decent chunk of the year, there's a domino effect which should really improve both the infield AND the outfield.
Compared to last year's team: B/B+ - I didn't mention the starting rotation above because on paper they lost a lot more than they gained, but to me this wasn't a position they needed to add significant resources to. I never thought they needed to or should add more than one starter, and believe the rotation will be a strength even assuming the expected injuries. Overall, compared to last year, I expect full seasons of Casas, Bello, Whitlock, McGuire (and hopefully Wong,) Turner compared to last year's JDM, the revamped bullpen, and the additions of Yoshida, Mondesi, and Duvall to outweigh the losses and improve on last year's results. A healthy season from just one of Hernandez, Arroyo, or Mondesi; or improvements from Verdugo or Duran, could bump this up another level.
As a fan: A- - I don't expect the 2023 RedSox to be a truly great team. That is the extent of my disappointment. Otherwise, so many things I'm excited to watch this year: Bello, Casas, Yoshida (as a 'move' he's a risk, but damn I'm excited to watch him and see how it goes,) Whitlock in the rotation, A pitching staff which can throw strikes, a hopefully non-heart-attack bullpen, a lineup that gets on base, and simply having moved on - for better or worse - from most of the lingering questions of the last few years.
One other thing I've seen alluded to often but not really addressed in terms of this offseason is team leadership and chemistry. Yes, I agree that winning solves most anything - but chemistry can be huge for turning things around when the team isn't winning, and in a number of other ways. I thought all of last year that there was, at the least, a real leadership void on the team; and the more reports that come out, it seems like that was the case. It also looks like there was a concerted effort to transition some of those players out and bring in high-character/veteran leader type players for 2023. I know its cliche but really think that the addition of players like Turner, Kluber, and Jansen can have a positive impact well beyond their numbers.
|
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Mar 5, 2023 11:07:09 GMT -5
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.
I don’t exactly see it as two separate issues. I mean, that decision likely came in part because as the deadline approached they were not in easy range of getting under. So it is fair to look back at waste. But the thing is, if the model is efficiency — then inefficiency becomes more of a glaring issue. You asked elsewhere where the money for X would have come from on a 6/160 contract. Well, that suggests to me a kind of budget care that makes mistakes even more glaring. But last thing… staying under wasn’t important to *me* — but elsewhere you said if they don’t stay under this year, it has to be next year. It seems important to you. If they’d been under last year, they’d need to be under neither this year nor next year. |
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 5, 2023 11:15:07 GMT -5
To take a slightly different approach in evaluating the offseason: The moves that were made: C+ - While I like a majority of the moves they made overall, It's also hard for me to say they adequately addressed the two biggest issues they faced this offseason, at OF and SS. Even if you don't hold Bogaerts leaving against them, it's really hard to say that a starting middle infield of Hernandez and Arroyo, with hopefully Mondesi and maybe some Story, is anything but problematic. In the OF, they effectively lost Hernandez, added Duvall and Yoshida, and are counting on a significant defensive improvement from Verdugo. Lots of questions there, headlined by how well Yoshida transitions to MLB. On the plus side, they made a number of good moves around the bullpen, Turner seems like a very good add, they secured Devers (who hopefully is motivated rather than complacent) and overall the depth seems a lot stronger than previous years. Additionally, if Mondesi can be healthy and/or Story can play a decent chunk of the year, there's a domino effect which should really improve both the infield AND the outfield. Compared to last year's team: B/B+ - I didn't mention the starting rotation above because on paper they lost a lot more than they gained, but to me this wasn't a position they needed to add significant resources to. I never thought they needed to or should add more than one starter, and believe the rotation will be a strength even assuming the expected injuries. Overall, compared to last year, I expect full seasons of Casas, Bello, Whitlock, McGuire (and hopefully Wong,) Turner compared to last year's JDM, the revamped bullpen, and the additions of Yoshida, Mondesi, and Duvall to outweigh the losses and improve on last year's results. A healthy season from just one of Hernandez, Arroyo, or Mondesi; or improvements from Verdugo or Duran, could bump this up another level. As a fan: A- - I don't expect the 2023 RedSox to be a truly great team. That is the extent of my disappointment. Otherwise, so many things I'm excited to watch this year: Bello, Casas, Yoshida (as a 'move' he's a risk, but damn I'm excited to watch him and see how it goes,) Whitlock in the rotation, A pitching staff which can throw strikes, a hopefully non-heart-attack bullpen, a lineup that gets on base, and simply having moved on - for better or worse - from most of the lingering questions of the last few years. One other thing I've seen alluded to often but not really addressed in terms of this offseason is team leadership and chemistry. Yes, I agree that winning solves most anything - but chemistry can be huge for turning things around when the team isn't winning, and in a number of other ways. I thought all of last year that there was, at the least, a real leadership void on the team; and the more reports that come out, it seems like that was the case. It also looks like there was a concerted effort to transition some of those players out and bring in high-character/veteran leader type players for 2023. I know its cliche but really think that the addition of players like Turner, Kluber, and Jansen can have a positive impact well beyond their numbers. I really like your summary - it's a well-rounded way of looking at it, and I pretty much agree with each of your three perspectives.
Just wondering about the last point though... Where do you see this concerted effort to address team chemistry by "transitioning out" certain players? I do think that's something they care about, but also they made serious efforts to retain the two most prominent FAs they lost, Bogaerts and Eovaldi.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Mar 5, 2023 11:19:12 GMT -5
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.
So, given the outcomes last year, how is this, and adding or retaining more players on the wrong side of 30, not a recipe for either continued mediocrity or, at best, incremental change? Neither seems like a strategy for truly competing in the toughest division in baseball. |
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 5, 2023 11:21:04 GMT -5
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.
I don’t exactly see it as two separate issues. I mean, that decision likely came in part because as the deadline approached they were not in easy range of getting under. So it is fair to look back at waste. But the thing is, if the model is efficiency — then inefficiency becomes more of a glaring issue. You asked elsewhere where the money for X would have come from on a 6/160 contract. Well, that suggests to me a kind of budget care that makes mistakes even more glaring. But last thing… staying under wasn’t important to *me* — but elsewhere you said if they don’t stay under this year, it has to be next year. It seems important to you. If they’d been under last year, they’d need to be under neither this year nor next year. I'm not saying staying under the CBT doesn't matter; I'm saying it's separate from the question of whether the Paxton signing was good or not. For the record, my view on Paxton is that it was a good gamble, it may well still pay off, and even if it doesn't it's not a big loss. And my view about the CBT is that for various reasons it made sense to go over last year and stay under this year, and my complaint is that they should have gone over by more last year (in particular by signing another outfielder and/or starting pitcher). |
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Mar 5, 2023 11:25:10 GMT -5
I don’t exactly see it as two separate issues. I mean, that decision likely came in part because as the deadline approached they were not in easy range of getting under. So it is fair to look back at waste. But the thing is, if the model is efficiency — then inefficiency becomes more of a glaring issue. You asked elsewhere where the money for X would have come from on a 6/160 contract. Well, that suggests to me a kind of budget care that makes mistakes even more glaring. But last thing… staying under wasn’t important to *me* — but elsewhere you said if they don’t stay under this year, it has to be next year. It seems important to you. If they’d been under last year, they’d need to be under neither this year nor next year. I'm not saying staying under the CBT doesn't matter; I'm saying it's separate from the question of whether the Paxton signing was good or not. For the record, my view on Paxton is that it was a good gamble, it may well still pay off, and even if it doesn't it's not a big loss. And my view about the CBT is that for various reasons it made sense to go over last year and stay under this year, and my complaint is that they should have gone over by more last year (in particular by signing another outfielder and/or starting pitcher).I agree with this completely and stated it after the 2021 season. If you're going over, go big and add talent that can contribute in positions of need for 3-5 years. If you're trying to get under, just get under. |
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 5, 2023 11:29:15 GMT -5
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.
So, given the outcomes last year, how is this, and adding or retaining more players on the wrong side of 30, not a recipe for either continued mediocrity or, at best, incremental change? Neither seems like a strategy for truly competing in the toughest division in baseball. I mean, I gave them a B-, and would have given them a C or C+ if not for the Devers extension, so...?
But also, there's more to a roster than free agent signings, obviously. They're adding a bunch of young talent as well: full seasons from Bello and Casas, hopefully more innings from Whitlock, and other young pitching that may prove important to their season. Plus whatever they get from Sale+Paxton will be more than they got last year. WAR totals also probably underestimate bullpens, and they invested considerably there. Plus the calculation above doesn't include trades, and the Mondesi/Bleier additions help a bit. Plus the easier schedule should add a win. Plus regressing clutch hitting to the mean should add a win or two. Altogether that's what gets me to my 88 win prediction.
|
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 5, 2023 12:10:55 GMT -5
One other thing I've seen alluded to often but not really addressed in terms of this offseason is team leadership and chemistry. Yes, I agree that winning solves most anything - but chemistry can be huge for turning things around when the team isn't winning, and in a number of other ways. I thought all of last year that there was, at the least, a real leadership void on the team; and the more reports that come out, it seems like that was the case. It also looks like there was a concerted effort to transition some of those players out and bring in high-character/veteran leader type players for 2023. I know its cliche but really think that the addition of players like Turner, Kluber, and Jansen can have a positive impact well beyond their numbers. I really like your summary - it's a well-rounded way of looking at it, and I pretty much agree with each of your three perspectives. Just wondering about the last point though... Where do you see this concerted effort to address team chemistry by "transitioning out" certain players? I do think that's something they care about, but also they made serious efforts to retain the two most prominent FAs they lost, Bogaerts and Eovaldi.
I don't think that any of the players they moved on from were "bad" people as individuals or anything like that, but it seemed to me that the 2022 team was factioned, and didn't really have the leadership to bridge the gaps. It seemed to play out around the catchers - there was a group who rallied around Vazquez and became vocal when he was traded, and there was a group who really liked Plawecki and become vocal when he was let go. I imagine there were others that didn't come to public attention. I do think its somewhat notable that both of them were moved mid-season, and a number of the players who spoke up, especially in the Plawecki 'camp', are no longer with the team. I personally thought their effort to retain Eovaldi was very half-hearted, but that may just be me, and they pretty clearly moved on from Hill, Wacha, and Barnes, to name a few others. Add JDM to that list as well. Again, I don't mean to say anything against those guys, just that I'm not sure they were the right fit for a rebuilt, young-ish team needing to prove itself. You could look at that and say "those are just the guys they didn't re-sign" and might well be right, just my opinion but I think there may have been more of a method to who they pursued and how. For Bogaerts, I know this will not be a popular opinion, but I don't think he was the leader the team needed. That's not to say the FO actively wanted him out, I would be shocked if they did, but that he didn't seem like the type to a rally an entire locker room and bring a disparate group of individuals together. He seemed like an all-around good person, looked out for his teammates, was well-spoken, and a guy I was proud to have represent my favorite team. He was also my favorite player, and I'm definitely past the age of having favorite players - I'm sure I wont have another one, so I'm truly sorry he's gone. Much like Pedroia before him though, I think he was being shoehorned into a type of leadership role that he wasn't really a fit for, and I'm hopeful that some of the new additions can help there. (Also, I'm incredibly curious to see how Devers reacts to being THE face of the franchise - he always stuck with Bogaerts and a few others, and I'm fascinated to to see if this is his chance to really come into his own and express himself and stand out, or if that's something he's just not comfortable with.) |
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Mar 5, 2023 12:37:20 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. This will be my last comment on this topic because it's been discussed to death, but "last place" is a tiresome and misleading thing to harp on. It implies the team was terrible, which it wasn't. It was a smidge under .500 in the toughest division in baseball after being hit by an absurd amount of injuries. The issues with the 2022 team were much more the injuries than the talent, so griping about the talent leaving is missing the point.
I agree with you that the goal should almost always be to have a better team than the previous season - and rejoice, for in this case we absolutely do - but that is not a reasonable criterion for assessing offseason performance because it ignores context. Imagine you're the 2021 Chicago Cubs and have just traded Baez, Schwarber, Rizzo, and Bryant at the deadline to jumpstart a rebuild, for example. Are you still going to assess the next offseason based on whether or not they improved over the last year's roster? I understand having high standards as a fan, but this just not a good metric for assessing offseason team building. You need to limit focus to the offseason when assessing the offseason or you're answering a different question.
As for Paxton, if everything went well in his recovery last year he may have been contributing by August or September, but he would not have gotten a 1/6 deal with no option to maybe contribute so late in the year. Paxton was clearly signed for the chance at two discounted option years in 2023-2024. The setbacks in his recovery ended up meaning the 2/26 option didn't make sense, but him picking up the 1/4 means the risk has very much paid off. Even if you want to tack on the 1/6 from last year to the 1/4 for this year, you still have a pitcher of Paxton's caliber on a 1/10 deal. If Paxton looks like his old self he would still be worth that money in 10-12 starts, and obviously there's huge upside for more if he stays healthy even if his stuff is diminished. Since 2016 Paxton has been worth ~$1.2 million per start. If he's even 75% that valuable he's still worth the $10 million on 10-12 starts.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,965 
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Mar 5, 2023 12:41:05 GMT -5
I don’t exactly see it as two separate issues. I mean, that decision likely came in part because as the deadline approached they were not in easy range of getting under. So it is fair to look back at waste. But the thing is, if the model is efficiency — then inefficiency becomes more of a glaring issue. You asked elsewhere where the money for X would have come from on a 6/160 contract. Well, that suggests to me a kind of budget care that makes mistakes even more glaring. But last thing… staying under wasn’t important to *me* — but elsewhere you said if they don’t stay under this year, it has to be next year. It seems important to you. If they’d been under last year, they’d need to be under neither this year nor next year. I'm not saying staying under the CBT doesn't matter; I'm saying it's separate from the question of whether the Paxton signing was good or not. For the record, my view on Paxton is that it was a good gamble, it may well still pay off, and even if it doesn't it's not a big loss. And my view about the CBT is that for various reasons it made sense to go over last year and stay under this year, and my complaint is that they should have gone over by more last year (in particular by signing another outfielder and/or starting pitcher). They invested a relatively small amount in Paxton in the hopes of a big payout. Most of the time when you do that with a rehabbing P, it's not going to work out - which is precisely why the cost is low - but that doesn't mean you should never do it. You do it in a targeted, thoughtful way and with the advice of your medical people. Every now and then you'll get a Luis Tiant or a Bret Saberhagen. That makes the low-cost misses worthwhile. It's a venture capitalist's approach. It's just too easy and simplistic to say Paxton hasn't worked out, and ah-ha! that shows it's never worthwhile to take those chances. The Red Sox have much bigger problems than James Paxton's $4M 2023 AAV. |
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 5, 2023 12:50:41 GMT -5
I really thought that people had learned after the 20-21 offseason that neither "WAR of FA's departed vs. WAR of FA's signed" nor "WAR of FA's signed vs. WAR of FA's signed by other teams in the division" are accurate measures of offseason success or how a team will perform in the following season
|
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Mar 5, 2023 13:11:18 GMT -5
I really thought that people had learned after the 20-21 offseason that neither "WAR of FA's departed vs. WAR of FA's signed" nor "WAR of FA's signed vs. WAR of FA's signed by other teams in the division" are accurate measures of offseason success or how a team will perform in the following season If you want the full equation of year-to-year improvement it probably looks like: Players Added - Players Lost + Player Development + Variance = Improvement In the context of the question asked, my interpretation is that the first two variables are all that we're discussing. Am I wrong? Maybe it is “offseason” as a term? Does player development count as “offseason”? Totally a matter of perspective. I don’t see Bello as a product of this offseason. So the question is also different from overall expectations. Development — Casas, Bello esp. — is a long term project, not an offseason move. But others can see it differently (I can see the case for arguing they preclude other moves… we didn’t sign player X because they were here). |
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 5, 2023 13:13:48 GMT -5
I really thought that people had learned after the 20-21 offseason that neither "WAR of FA's departed vs. WAR of FA's signed" nor "WAR of FA's signed vs. WAR of FA's signed by other teams in the division" are accurate measures of offseason success or how a team will perform in the following season If you want the full equation of year-to-year improvement it probably looks like: Players Added - Players Lost + Player Development + Variance = Improvement In the context of the question asked, my interpretation is that the first two variables are all that we're discussing. Am I wrong? Among other things, the "players added" include trade acquisitions, and if they break even just on free agents, they're solidly ahead when you add in Mondesi (and I personally think the Barnes for Bleier swap was an upgrade).
More broadly, the offseason (what this thread is about) consists of more than just maximizing 2023 WAR. There's the Devers extension; there's the long-term planning (in an alternate universe they might have traded Bello or Casas or Bleis and gone over the CBT to go for it now, which would have been a mistake, or taken on an albatross long term contract, which they avoided); etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Mar 5, 2023 14:44:48 GMT -5
I'm going with an F. They lost their 2nd best player in free agency. The contract he got was stupid, but it never should have gotten there. They also barely went over the luxury tax, so the comp pick is useless. Same with Eovaldi. Paxton is already dealing with a hamstring issue. Paxton and Sale are two guys who can make this a great season, but two guys I expect nothing from. Paxton didn't pitch at all last year and this year is already missing the opening day roster. After missing, I think the last 3 years, starting his comeback season late isn't a great sign. I've always been a big fan of Kluber, but I think he and Eovaldi are at best a wash. Yoshida will likely be a good leadoff hitter, but an outfield defense of Duvall, Yoshida and Verdugo is going to be sub par. Not to mention they have Duran in case someone goes down. Duvall was terrible and hurt last year. It sounds like the Red Sox and Story waited to see if surgery could be avoided. Can't blame anyone for being hurt, but the delayed gamble seems to have failed. Jansen, the guy that the Dodgers lost faith in 2020 WS run, has a concern with declining stuff to go along with the fact he was the slowest pitcher in all of baseball and now has to deal with a clock. www.ocregister.com/2021/03/07/dodgers-still-searching-for-ways-to-reverse-kenley-jansens-decline/Mondesi is a speedy guy whose slowing down and doesn't get on base and isn't overly healthy. He had a negative 0.1 WAR last year. Kiké needing to play SS or 2B isn't optimal. Hopefully his injury-plauged down season was an aberration. The 4 years prior he has 2 pretty strong seasons and 2 mediocre ones with last year being bad. Hopefully he's on the good side. They added a bunch of old guys and injury riddled guys. Sure, JBJ, Dalbec, Franchy and Duran were so bad that replacing with competent players greatly boosts the overall lineup despite losing Xander and Story, but what are the odds Dalbec doesn't get on the field with an injury to Duvall, Casas (or performance if Casas shows he isn't ready) or whomever. Same with Duran. Justin Turner is 38. This team was hamstrung in the off-season because they failed to get under and now that they're likely to use this season as a bridge, there's literally nothing for them to buy the next two years other than their own guys. I also still think they're weaker at catcher than last year. I also expect some regression from Devers and not sure how I feel about Verdugo's bat any more. When they first got him I agreed he was, "everything Benintendi should have been". Now he's Benintendi when he got traded out of Boston. I think this is a borderline playoff team still, but this team is either going to be the 2013 Red Sox or the 2014 ones. Not a fan of really any of their moves, but I wanted to vent it on this thread so I can refer back when they win the WS. |
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Mar 5, 2023 15:47:08 GMT -5
I'm going with an F. They lost their 2nd best player in free agency. The contract he got was stupid, but it never should have gotten there. They also barely went over the luxury tax, so the comp pick is useless. Same with Eovaldi. Paxton is already dealing with a hamstring issue. Paxton and Sale are two guys who can make this a great season, but two guys I expect nothing from. Paxton didn't pitch at all last year and this year is already missing the opening day roster. After missing, I think the last 3 years, starting his comeback season late isn't a great sign. I've always been a big fan of Kluber, but I think he and Eovaldi are at best a wash. Yoshida will likely be a good leadoff hitter, but an outfield defense of Duvall, Yoshida and Verdugo is going to be sub par. Not to mention they have Duran in case someone goes down. Duvall was terrible and hurt last year. It sounds like the Red Sox and Story waited to see if surgery could be avoided. Can't blame anyone for being hurt, but the delayed gamble seems to have failed. Jansen, the guy that the Dodgers lost faith in 2020 WS run, has a concern with declining stuff to go along with the fact he was the slowest pitcher in all of baseball and now has to deal with a clock. www.ocregister.com/2021/03/07/dodgers-still-searching-for-ways-to-reverse-kenley-jansens-decline/Mondesi is a speedy guy whose slowing down and doesn't get on base and isn't overly healthy. He had a negative 0.1 WAR last year. Kiké needing to play SS or 2B isn't optimal. Hopefully his injury-plauged down season was an aberration. The 4 years prior he has 2 pretty strong seasons and 2 mediocre ones with last year being bad. Hopefully he's on the good side. They added a bunch of old guys and injury riddled guys. Sure, JBJ, Dalbec, Franchy and Duran were so bad that replacing with competent players greatly boosts the overall lineup despite losing Xander and Story, but what are the odds Dalbec doesn't get on the field with an injury to Duvall, Casas (or performance if Casas shows he isn't ready) or whomever. Same with Duran. Justin Turner is 38. This team was hamstrung in the off-season because they failed to get under and now that they're likely to use this season as a bridge, there's literally nothing for them to buy the next two years other than their own guys. I also still think they're weaker at catcher than last year. I also expect some regression from Devers and not sure how I feel about Verdugo's bat any more. When they first got him I agreed he was, "everything Benintendi should have been". Now he's Benintendi when he got traded out of Boston. I think this is a borderline playoff team still, but this team is either going to be the 2013 Red Sox or the 2014 ones. Not a fan of really any of their moves, but I wanted to vent it on this thread so I can refer back when they win the WS.Pro-Level retro humble brag with two shots of humility. Endorse. |
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Mar 5, 2023 15:50:34 GMT -5
So, given the outcomes last year, how is this, and adding or retaining more players on the wrong side of 30, not a recipe for either continued mediocrity or, at best, incremental change? Neither seems like a strategy for truly competing in the toughest division in baseball. I mean, I gave them a B-, and would have given them a C or C+ if not for the Devers extension, so...? But also, there's more to a roster than free agent signings, obviously. They're adding a bunch of young talent as well: full seasons from Bello and Casas, hopefully more innings from Whitlock, and other young pitching that may prove important to their season. Plus whatever they get from Sale+Paxton will be more than they got last year. WAR totals also probably underestimate bullpens, and they invested considerably there. Plus the calculation above doesn't include trades, and the Mondesi/Bleier additions help a bit. Plus the easier schedule should add a win. Plus regressing clutch hitting to the mean should add a win or two. Altogether that's what gets me to my 88 win prediction.
This is fair. Still to be seen if they get a full season out of Bello given his current status. Ditto for any production from Paxton. I feel like the easier schedule is a wash for the AL East, but I understand the argument that it may be enough to push the Sox up by 3-5 wins. Then again, Seattle gets to beat up on the AL Central more, too, and have ample games against LAA and Tex. |
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Mar 5, 2023 15:52:11 GMT -5
Had a couple other thoughts that will I think help me score the off-season (with varying degrees of importance), once we have more data on them:
- Did they effectively evaluate Verdugo and Kiké defensively at their new homes?
- Was Brasier worth keeping?
- Can they get ~900 PAs combined from Arroyo, Story, Mondesi?
- How will Eovaldi look?
And of course all the performances of the additions. But I think evaluation of their existing players is an important part of the offseason grading, for instance last year they bet on Dalbec/Casas at first and were wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 5, 2023 16:07:09 GMT -5
I mean, I gave them a B-, and would have given them a C or C+ if not for the Devers extension, so...? But also, there's more to a roster than free agent signings, obviously. They're adding a bunch of young talent as well: full seasons from Bello and Casas, hopefully more innings from Whitlock, and other young pitching that may prove important to their season. Plus whatever they get from Sale+Paxton will be more than they got last year. WAR totals also probably underestimate bullpens, and they invested considerably there. Plus the calculation above doesn't include trades, and the Mondesi/Bleier additions help a bit. Plus the easier schedule should add a win. Plus regressing clutch hitting to the mean should add a win or two. Altogether that's what gets me to my 88 win prediction.
This is fair. Still to be seen if they get a full season out of Bello given his current status. Ditto for any production from Paxton. I feel like the easier schedule is a wash for the AL East, but I understand the argument that it may be enough to push the Sox up by 3-5 wins. Then again, Seattle gets to beat up on the AL Central more, too, and have ample games against LAA and Tex. I think the math is pretty straightforward here - they're trading 24 games against AL East opponents (projected .525ish winning percentage) for 24 games against NL opponents (projected .500ish winning percentage). Should be worth about 1 win. Certainly not 3-5.
Also the Mariners don't play the AL Central more; they swap own division opponents for NL opponents too. Since their divisional opponents were collectively below .500 last year, they actually have a marginally tougher schedule this year.
The Red Sox are the only team in all of baseball that had four divisional opponents above .500 last year. As such, a) they benefit more than any other team from the more balanced schedule relative to last year; b) they still have one of the tougher schedules in MLB, since they do, after all, still play a third of their games within the division.
|
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 5, 2023 16:11:22 GMT -5
Among other things, the "players added" include trade acquisitions, and if they break even just on free agents, they're solidly ahead when you add in Mondesi (and I personally think the Barnes for Bleier swap was an upgrade). More broadly, the offseason (what this thread is about) consists of more than just maximizing 2023 WAR. There's the Devers extension; there's the long-term planning (in an alternate universe they might have traded Bello or Casas or Bleis and gone over the CBT to go for it now, which would have been a mistake, or taken on an albatross long term contract, which they avoided); etc.
I would agree the trades count and agree that both are positive, but I don't think either has a lot of impact so I just lumped them into the spaghetti bucket. The Devers signing is interesting. I've been thinking of it as more of a net neutral because they just retained their guy, but now that you mention it they probably deserve more credit than that. Strategy is something I didn't account for, I don't want to get too far down a rabbit hole but I will say that the roster flexibility does allow almost all the prospects to play their way onto the team which to some extent I think is on purpose.Bolded is the part I think is important when considering the player development aspect. I agree with your initial point that having Bello or Casas etc. in the org or even MLB-ready has nothing to do with this offseason - but their role next year does. E.g. If the Sox had gone and invested significant resources in a 'premium' backup 1B and Casas has a big year, that's a mistake; if in the same example Casas struggles, that's a good move. I am very much in favor how seem to have aligned the roster for younger players (Bello and Whitlock in the rotation, Houck likely not in the rotation, no obstacles for Casas at 1B, etc.) so I count this as a positive for the current offseason and it influences how I feel they have positioned the team vs last year. |
|
|
