(Andy Dwyer voice) Dibs on band name ... the "Irrational Actors"!I think you're just assuming rational actors, when some people are just not rational actors.
(Andy Dwyer voice) Dibs on band name ... the "Irrational Actors"!I think you're just assuming rational actors, when some people are just not rational actors.
Yep, trying to walk the "somewhat honest" line never really plays well -- especially when it's received second-hand, through tweets or asking players what they thought of what the GM saidI agree that he's not very good at communicating. I dont think his *approach* is dehumanizing. His explanation, however, left a lot to be desired. He could've just said the bolded and pointed to a vastly improved prospect pool and his and ownership's belief in "those 26 guys over there."
I agree with pretty much all of this. I don't know if I would use dehumanizing to describe Bloom but I understand what you are getting at.He’s a poor communicator especially when he’s in front of a microphone. The underdog and playoff odds comments don’t come off well. His approach to this year’s team is very dehumanizing. Pointing towards the playoff odds on a day where they’re 1 game out in the loss column with 2 months left comes off as very standoff-ish. Try doing that in front of the team and see the reaction he gets. This game is so driven by numbers and analytics that the human side of things are quickly forgotten.
I don’t see why it’s that confusing. It would effectively downgrade Turner’s spot to Duvall (moving Yoshida to DH) while adding another young pitcher to the pile. Presumably another Boston prospect was heading out too.If true that's very confusing. Trading away Turner would have been likely a selling move. Trading for Verlander would have been a buying/go for it move. Which vision does Bloom have for this year's team?
The issue then was that Lou Gorman couldn't be bothered to listen to his own people who would have told him to keep Bagwell and offer Cooper instead (who it's been reported over the years the Astros likely would have ultimately accepted).And before anyone (OK me) says "but what about Bagwell? The issue then was 'we have Scott Cooper!'," I think there are probably dozens if not hundreds of examples that don't blow up in the prospect-trading team's face quite so spectacularly.
This is a rabbit hole, but Bagwell's entire team hit 31 HR that year, with a slash line of 241/322/326. 10 guys in the league hit double digit HR (old friend Rico Brogna won the HR crown with 21).The issue then was that Lou Gorman couldn't be bothered to listen to his own people who would have told him to keep Bagwell and offer Cooper instead (who it's been reported over the years the Astros likely would have ultimately accepted).
We might be on the same side here, but what Bloom is trying to do isn't complicated at all. I think that most people get what he's trying to do, but for some reason he's using a ton of words to make it sound like he's attempting brain surgery in a dark basement.I think part of that is due to the fact that it is more complicated than just "buying" and "selling", but regardless, I think it's something that would help with his approval rating with Sox fans.
Right. Which is insane. It's not like he didn't grasp the full impact of pitch framing or was reluctant to use the shift, or wasn't tuned into spin rate. 17 year old me in 1989 might not have appreciated the full impact of his walk rate, but given access to nothing more than the basic counting and slash line stats for the league would have known something was up with the power numbers.Lou Gorman had never heard of park effects. The Beehive was a notoriously terrible hitter's park.
100%. Somehow Verlander ended back where he wanted in the first place. And Houston got him back at a severely reduced rate. It’s kinda crazy when you think about it.Verlander had a full no-trade and both HOU and LAD wanted him, the level of BOS’s interest there really didn’t matter. Verlander’s first choice was HOU, Crane really wanted him back, even the Dodgers’ interest level probably didn’t matter much in the end.
A little finger of wit into the eye of the Bloome hater.Real Petyr Baelish "Fight every battle, everywhere, always, in your mind" stuff from Bloom.
It certainly has to do with his current condition (and it's also why if I was forced to bet, I doubt that any club out there has him on their top 30 list of prospects to trade for / see him as valuable as BTV, etc, etc.) Who knows, I could be wrong and GMs could have been on the phone begging Bloom for him.edit--- also want to add that a lot of the "I'd be fine trading Bleis" right now is sort of a bias based on his current condition. It wasn't too long ago that the consensus was that he was the absolute stud of the entire system. He struggled to start the season but was quickly diagnosed with an injury and there was likely a connection in his struggles to start.
The same situation with Yorke last season when he was really looking bad, mostly due to injuries though.
I don't know much about the deep depth of the club, but I'd like to see someone put together a "Do Not Trade" list of prospects (of course they're all expendable in the right deal, yes!) to see discussion on some of them.
The issue with Bleis is that he’s hurt. It’s a lost year. Not great, but at his age it’s something he can afford.It certainly has to do with his current condition (and it's also why if I was forced to bet, I doubt that any club out there has him on their top 30 list of prospects to trade for / see him as valuable as BTV, etc, etc.) Who knows, I could be wrong and GMs could have been on the phone begging Bloom for him.
But the bigger things for me are 1) he's so far away that I find it really tough to pin that much on him and 2) there are a lot of players we have that play CF and could reasonably move to a corner that we have "ahead" of him, at least in terms of their development.
There is a lot of talk about "the window" and in many ways rightly so. But I think that in many ways the window is closer to open than a lot of people realize. I thought personally that we were looking more at 2025-2030, as recently as the start of the off-season. For me a lot changed with the Devers extension because I think that showed some "urgency" in competing in 2023 and 2024 when I didn't think there would be really any emphasis on that.
However, to the season, Bello, Casas (well, I didn't think he'd be THIS bad defensively, but even there it's looked better recently) and Yoshida have all been what I thought they were capable of. Jansen has provided exactly what I thought he would and Martin has been excellent (and I thought he'd be fine as a set up man on a "meh" team, I didn't expect this). In no ways did I expect over the course of the season (let alone 2/3 of it) Jarren Duran to be a 2.5 bWAR player, Connor Wong to be a 1.8 bWAR player, and Kutter Crawford to be a 1.9 bWAR player.
The reason I bring this all I up is that I spent a good chunk of the off-season and a good part of the "pre deadline" hoping we'd make a move to get a top half of the rotation starter with term. Someone that you felt really good about being a solid #3 with #2 upside type of pitcher right out of the gate. I didn't think it had to be an "ace" but a stabilizing presence that didn't have the "error bars" associated with young players or those coming off injuries. In no particular order I advocated for Kodai Senga, Chris Bassitt, Nate Eovaldi, Jameson Taillon and when all those failed, Michael Wacha. I was also begging for it all trade deadline - and once someone starts a 2024 off-season thread, I'll start begging for it then too.
The guys I was advocating moving top prospects (ex Mayer) for are better than some of the guys mentioned above and not as good (now) as others - and the only one of those mentioned above I'd move top prospects for is Senga. Yes, we can go get a guy like that this off season too, but 1) that wastes THIS season and 2) free agency is never a guarantee that they're going to take your offer.
If the team goes out and signs one of (my order of preference) Yamamoto, Nola, Urias, Montgomery, Stroman, Giolito, Flaherty or Snell, my list of "untouchable" prospects would grow. But with your agreed to caveat of NOBODY is off the table in the right deal (as in sure I'd trade Mayer for Strider or Kirby, but there is no way Atlanta or Seattle would; obviously I'd trade Perales for Austin Riley but Atlanta clearly would not, etc)...
Totally off the table:
1) Mayer
2) Anthony
3) Rafaela (Who by the way is now above his career number with a 5.8% bb rate; has a 154 wRC+ and should have been in Boston weeks ago, while we moved either Arroyo because he is a bad MLB baseball player or moved Duvall or Verdugo to get something better than Duvall would fetch, but I digress...)
Off the table unless it's a 2/3 SP (or better) with term:
4) Gonzalez
5) Perales
6) Teel - but he can't be moved anyway.
Has to be a 2/3 SP with term or at minimum a really good corner OF/MI option with term:
7) Bleis
8) Yorke
One thing I'll note - I do think that Bleis and Yorke are objectively "better" prospects than Gonzalez, Perales and Teel, but again, we have so much "OF talent" and so much "MI talent" that I think they would be easier to part with than the only two guys in our system that look like they realistically even have top half of the rotation potential AND are at advanced levels of the minors.
That's really it. Generally speaking, there are other deals I generally wouldn't do (move guys in the top 20 for a non closer relief pitcher; move guys in the top 15 for a one year rental; etc) but I think it's a really interesting question and it got overlooked.
They are going to be under the tax, and any 2 year commitment to an elite pitcher is a good one. 2 years for just cash; I’m sure that was the allure.Signing Verlander would have been an absolutely bizarre move from Chaim.
I know that they’re always on the lookout for value in all forms, but Verlander is a move to push you over the hump to try and win a World Series, not a move you make to make your terrible rotation look less terrible for a year or two.
Chaim and the roster are clearly in a transitory phase. I’ve been pretty supportive of the long term vision of building through the draft and they’re keeping the big league club afloat, but the last two trade deadlines have absolutely left me scratching my head.
Sell Paxton and Turner. Especially Paxton, who’s value will probably never be higher. Sell JD last year. These last two deadlines are the definition of half measures. If you’re building the farm system, ship the vets that have no future with the club.
I would rather see the long term vision continuing to be executed than watch them scratch and claw a flawed team into a wild card slot.
Verlander is 40 and hasn’t been great this year. It’s possible it’s related to the change in scenery in NY, but it’s also equally as likely that he’s 40 with a million pitches on the odometer.They are going to be under the tax, and any 2 year commitment to an elite pitcher is a good one. 2 years for just cash; I’m sure that was the allure.
He’s got like a 1.40 ERA in his last 7 starts and a WHIP of 1.14 on the season. He would’ve been our clear ace. It’s all moot now but I suspect he’ll be pretty effective the next 2 years.Verlander is 40 and hasn’t been great this year. It’s possible it’s related to the change in scenery in NY, but it’s also equally as likely that he’s 40 with a million pitches on the odometer.
There is such a thing as a bad investment. Committing to Verlander to play on this team for the next 1.5-2.5 years while they’re so significantly behind the other truly good teams in the AL would be a bad investment.
Verlander is great and one of my favorite pitchers of my generation but, yeah, I wouldn't have wanted to make that commitment. Would rather keep the prospects and throw money at someone like Yamamoto who is obviously unproven in MLB but also much younger and would fit this team's window better. Both former Mets SPs went to teams that made more sense than the Sox.I think the Verlander discussion is a perfect example of what Chaim said about this season when he said "We're not there right now." A team like Houston is a team that might see itself as being a player away from winning a World Series, where the Sox are more of a team that might be a player away from a playoff berth. How much of a commitment are you willing to make in $$$, years or prospects when you assess where you are and where you feel you can go.
What’s mind-boggling is he said “we’re not there right now,” but at least entertained the idea of trading for the rental of a 40 year old starter.I think the Verlander discussion is a perfect example of what Chaim said about this season when he said "We're not there right now." A team like Houston is a team that might see itself as being a player away from winning a World Series, where the Sox are more of a team that might be a player away from a playoff berth. How much of a commitment are you willing to make in $$$, years or prospects when you assess where you are and where you feel you can go.
We're supposed to trust a 40 year old is going to maintain elite levels for two more years? For all the hand wringing over Sale around here, I'm shocked there's much support for Verlander through age 41-42. If he was a two month rental, I can see the attraction (he definitely would be the "ace" right now). Committing to him beyond that is not something that makes a ton of sense for the team as it's currently set up, even at the discounted price the Mets made him available for.He’s got like a 1.40 ERA in his last 7 starts and a WHIP of 1.14 on the season. He would’ve been our clear ace. It’s all moot now but I suspect he’ll be pretty effective the next 2 years.
Wouldn't a competent GM at least entertain any and all trades? Even if it was to assess the market? This seems like a classic "I irrationally hate Bloom so I'm going to shit on him no matter what he does" comment.What’s mind-boggling is he said “we’re not there right now,” but at least entertained the idea of trading for the rental of a 40 year old starter.
So which is it? That type of general confusion is too frequent under Chaim’s watch.
I think you're reading far too much into the word "entertain" and leaning far too much into the binary rhetoric of trade deadlines. Once it became apparent that the Mets were dumping Verlander, "entertain" could mean, "If NY was going to subsidize his entire salary and accept only Dalbec in return, I'd have done it." It probably does *not* mean, "I offered Yorke and Bleis, they wanted Mayer, Rafaela and Anthony."What’s mind-boggling is he said “we’re not there right now,” but at least entertained the idea of trading for the rental of a 40 year old starter.
So which is it? That type of general confusion is too frequent under Chaim’s watch.
For the 799th time, they didn't "let Eovaldi go". They made him a competitive offer and he turned it down.Yeah, people just seem to be ignoring the dramatic decline in Verlander’s stuff and performance this year. 2.5 more years of him is somewhat risky. Regardless, the idea that the Sox would gladly hand over top prospects and assume a fair amount of money doesn’t seem consistent with how they’ve operated the past few years. Heck, they let Eovaldi go over a relatively minimal amount of “just cash”.
My point is that they could have signed him for a few more dollars of “just cash”. This idea that the Sox may have been interested in Verlander for “just cash” doesn’t jive with the way they’ve operated for the last few years. “Just cash” makes it seem as if millions of dollars is nothing or of no consequence to the org and how they do things.For the 799th time, they didn't "let Eovaldi go". They made him a competitive offer and he turned it down.
I've never heard that.... for all we know Eovaldi really wnted to go to TX, which it appears is exactly the case.My point is that they could have signed him for a few more dollars of “just cash”. This idea that the Sox may have been interested in Verlander for “just cash” doesn’t jive with the way they’ve operated for the last few years. “Just cash” makes it seem as if millions of dollars is nothing or of no consequence to the org and how they do things.
He supposedly went back to the Sox to see if their original offer still stood, but they had moved on.I've never heard that.... for all we know Eovaldi really wnted to go to TX, which it appears is exactly the case.
Well... one final thing to remember is that Eovaldi had never really been completely healthy and finished '22 not looking like he'd be able to be very good going forward. I absolutely do not hold that against Bloom (same with Wacha)He supposedly went back to the Sox to see if their original offer still stood, but they had moved on.
but that’s not really the point I was trying to make, that move has been litigated to death.
it’s about the idea that “just cash”, no matter how much, is no biggie.
We will never know what actually happened but I am way more inclined to believe the actual offer was much closer to “Yorke and Bleis” than “Dalbec and you pay all of his salary”.I think you're reading far too much into the word "entertain" and leaning far too much into the binary rhetoric of trade deadlines. Once it became apparent that the Mets were dumping Verlander, "entertain" could mean, "If NY was going to subsidize his entire salary and accept only Dalbec in return, I'd have done it." It probably does *not* mean, "I offered Yorke and Bleis, they wanted Mayer, Rafaela and Anthony."
I think it's $22 million for Verlander with the Mets subsidy. You're not going to get a decent starter for much cheaper than that these days. I would have been happy to see him (and his family) here. Verlander might have pulled the team over the line this year and would give another option to what should be a pretty good team next year.I'm glad the tires were kicked, but you can't have Sale and Verlander on this team and also trying to bring in another #1 type in terms of contract. With those two you have ~60mm locked up in extremely, extremely high risk arms.
This is 100% where I am. No way in hell I would have been happy giving serious prospects for this stage of Verlander. I also want Yamamoto with nearly every fiber of my fandom.Verlander is great and one of my favorite pitchers of my generation but, yeah, I wouldn't have wanted to make that commitment. Would rather keep the prospects and throw money at someone like Yamamoto who is obviously unproven in MLB but also much younger and would fit this team's window better. Both former Mets SPs went to teams that made more sense than the Sox.
Did we just become best friends?This is 100% where I am. No way in hell I would have been happy giving serious prospects for this stage of Verlander. I also want Yamamoto with nearly every fiber of my fandom.
I'm sure Chaim's phone rang and he answered it. Why shouldn't he listen? I'm also sure that the Met's want as many teams interested as possible so they have multiple bidders. And do we know exactly who said that Chaim was entertaining the idea. The fact that he may have taken a call, doesn't necessarily mean that he had entertained what might have been proposed.What’s mind-boggling is he said “we’re not there right now,” but at least entertained the idea of trading for the rental of a 40 year old starter.
So which is it? That type of general confusion is too frequent under Chaim’s watch.
I’m skeptical by nature but . . . yeah, this was my inference."People are mad at us for doing nothing. Quick, leak something that will show we tried for people that wanted us to sell and those that wanted us to buy. That will buy us more time on this re-build without completely sucking plan we've established in The Grand Plan"
Let's not forget that Verlander had a say in all of this. If you're him which team is looking like the better choice.I think it's $22 million for Verlander with the Mets subsidy. You're not going to get a decent starter for much cheaper than that these days. I would have been happy to see him (and his family) here. Verlander might have pulled the team over the line this year and would give another option to what should be a pretty good team next year.
I don't see how anyone can watch this year's team and say they're not competing. They're not odds-on favorites to win the World Series, but they're over .500, have a good run differential, and play well against the good teams. No playoff contender is looking at the schedule and is happy to see the Red Sox coming up on it.
This is pretty paranoid honestly. I am sure that every team even close to the playoffs ASKED about Verlander but Rosenthal didn’t mention any of them.I'm sure Chaim's phone rang and he answered it. Why shouldn't he listen? I'm also sure that the Met's want as many teams interested as possible so they have multiple bidders. And do we know exactly who said that Chaim was entertaining the idea. The fact that he may have taken a call, doesn't necessarily mean that he had entertained what might have been proposed.
I don't know if this is the case but it makes way, way more sense than some random other team or the Mets leaking that the Red Sox "entertained" trading for Verlander"People are mad at us for doing nothing. Quick, leak something that will show we tried for people that wanted us to sell and those that wanted us to buy. That will buy us more time on this re-build without completely sucking plan we've established in The Grand Plan"
Wow, you read WAY more into that than was written. I never accused or intimated that Rostenthal was was lying or was lied to. How often do we hear at the trade deadline that certain teams are "in on" or "entertaining" talks about different players? These are words used to garner interest and discussion from people who are in the business of garnering interest and discussion. We're 3 days post deadline and the homepage I use is still a revolving door of these types of stories. Every GM or President of Baseball Ops was on the phone "entertaining" offers.This is pretty paranoid honestly. I am sure that every team even close to the playoffs ASKED about Verlander but Rosenthal didn’t mention any of them.
This was also a post-mortem of the trade deadline…what motive would Rosenthal have to lie? Or what motive would someone have to lie to Rosenthal about this? Verlander got traded to the Astros, the Mets got a good prospect out of it. The Mets are happy, the Astros are happy. This isn’t a scenario of an agent or team leaking something to Jon Heyman to drive up the price or to try and change the narrative.
Chaim probably made a decent offer for Verlander. Maybe he offered Yorke or something similar. In the end, it doesn’t matter and the Astros made a better offer (and Verlander probably wanted to go there anyway).
I just don’t get the rush to claim that it’s likely the Sox offered a couple of hot dogs or the Mets called and Chaim immediately hung up. As I said earlier, Rosenthal is a pro’s pro and there’s no reason for anyone to leak lies about the Sox and possibly trading for Verlander
I don't think it's confusing at all. The team is good enough to make the playoffs and a front line starter who can eat innings could be the difference in them making the postseason. If he could acquire a guy like Verlander for something like Yorke/Blaze, he'd probably do it, but when the cost got prohibitive (Bleis/Yorke or more), he walked away. The Mets got a very good return for Verlander, IMO, a price a team like Houston could pay because they're trying to win now. It's not a price the Red Sox could afford to match/exceed given the timeline Chaim has been pretty consistently building towards. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't entertain trade offers for a guy who could've helped this season and next at a position they need help.What’s mind-boggling is he said “we’re not there right now,” but at least entertained the idea of trading for the rental of a 40 year old starter.
So which is it? That type of general confusion is too frequent under Chaim’s watch.
What does Verlander get you for that money though? A wild card play-in victory instead of missing the playoffs altogether?I don't think it's confusing at all. The team is good enough to make the playoffs and a front line starter who can eat innings could be the difference in them making the postseason. If he could acquire a guy like Verlander for something like Yorke/Blaze, he'd probably do it, but when the cost got prohibitive (Bleis/Yorke or more), he walked away. The Mets got a very good return for Verlander, IMO, a price a team like Houston could pay because they're trying to win now. It's not a price the Red Sox could afford to match/exceed given the timeline Chaim has been pretty consistently building towards. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't entertain trade offers for a guy who could've helped this season and next at a position they need help.
Getting through the wild card round and taking a shot at a best of 5 against one of the division winners sounds pretty good. It's better than missing the playoffs altogether and much, much better than finishing under .500 and not having any good games to watch in August and September.What does Verlander get you for that money though? A wild card play-in victory instead of missing the playoffs altogether?
What do you consider a true contender and what are those holes? The Rays just lost their best starter. The Orioles' rotation is full of nobodies and they barely have a better run differential than the Red Sox. The Astros and Rangers are good teams, but they're not 110-win juggernauts.I’m not a Chaim hater by any means, but this team has more holes than just “starter” and they’re a long ways away from being a true contender.
The Red Sox were in the ALCS less than 2 years ago. They currently have a winning record. If Chaim adds a starter and figures out the logjam in the outfield, they'll be good next year, too. I don't know where this 3-4 years away stuff comes from. That's a really long time in baseball and we have only the slightest idea of who may be on the team then. Even the best teams have a ton of churn in 4 years.By the time Boston’s next wave of young guys are ready, Verlander is probably retired. His timeline does not at all match up with the organizational timeline of 3-4 years away.