Rosenthal: Sox Almost Traded Turner, Were In On Verlander
- Thread starter TheYellowDart5
- Start date
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?
I don't see a problem with exploring both options. All that's wasted is time...
I'm more skeptical of the Verlander report -- at most I'd say maybe they kicked the tires to see if they could get a bargain and bowed out when that wasn't the case. But in theory, they could have moved Yoshida to full time DH, rolled with Duvall/Duran/Yoshida in the OF, trade Turner for a good prospect and then trade a fungible prospect for a Ji-Man Choi type to be a poor man's Turner, while also trading for Verlander. Walk and chew gum at the same time.
Real Petyr Baelish "Fight every battle, everywhere, always, in your mind" stuff from Bloom.
I'm OK with Bloom listening to any offers and considering all options. I'm glad they didn't deal Turner but by no means should he have been considered 'off limits'.
Bingo.
Without knowing the names being discussed in exchange for Turner, there's no way to even speculate on what Bloom's thinking might have been. I mean, it seems like Rosenthal is getting the story from the Marlins side so maybe it's a case of Bloom politely listening to see where it went but it was never as close as the story suggests (or the Marlins believed). Or there was a specific player Bloom was after, someone unquestionably worth the sacrifice of a clubhouse vet/leader, and he pursued it until it was clear he wouldn't get his guy so he shut it down. Or anything in between.
In theory though, Verlander would have been for more than just this year. If next year is the beginning of the real window, you may have your top of the rotation starter(if that isn’t his fall off the cliff year). Turner is just for this year, so if the return is great, sure, sell.
I’m not sure how much I believe any of this, but I don’t think it’s too hard to understand them both buying and selling.
They are in on everything, no harm in seeing what’s out there. Who knows what is true or not (since this organization doesn’t leak), but kind of irrelevant at this point.
And if one option was worth pursuing, maybe he lets that guide other deals. For better or worse, Bloom is not operating in a binary GM-ing universe. ("I am buyer" or "I am seller.")
Yeah, but it's just hard to figure where Bloom sees the competition window in these cases (assuming both reports are true). Verlander is under contract but is 40; as much as I like him is he really the guy to add for the next few years?
I can see a better case for trading the 38 year old Turner as it's less likely he'll be here for the Sox team ready to compete for a championship.
The article states that the Marlins have very good cost controlled pitchers. It is what the Sox need the most.
I have to imagine the Mets were asking for one or two of our top guys in return for paying down a lot of Verlander's contract, like they did with Houston to get Gilbert and Clifford. Something like Anthony + Yorke/Bleis is in the same range.
And I'm glad the Sox walked away from those talks if that was the case. If you could get Verlander with the headline guy being a Yorke type, sure, go for it, but the Mets were likely asking for a lot more than that.
And I'm glad the Sox walked away from those talks if that was the case. If you could get Verlander with the headline guy being a Yorke type, sure, go for it, but the Mets were likely asking for a lot more than that.
It’s an incomplete article. It burns the Sox by mentioning Turner but can’t burn the Marlins by mentioning who was potentially part of the deal or the hold up.
Turner is also going to decline his option and become a free agent, so the Sox won’t get any compensation for him. If they could get value for him now, it could potentially be worth it if they could replace him somehow (which is difficult to make work if you have to get a replacement externally) but how much is two months of JT really worth? Guessing not a ton.
I'm sure / I hope that Bloom would have traded Turner (and Paxton with him) to the Marlins if he could have gotten one of Cabrera, Garrett or Max Meyer. They obviously didn't give up anyone close to that for Josh Bell, and Kahlil Watson (whom they did get) isn't such a great return that it would have made any sense, especially since the farm is stacked up the middle.
Glad they were in on Verlander; sucks it didn't happen. I wanted him badly and would have been fine trading Bleis with the Sox getting something else back or the Mets taking on more money in future years; or something around Yorke plus. If Verlander wasn't going to waive his NTC to come to Boston, nothing Bloom could have done about that. If he would have come here and Bloom refused to give up prospects, I'd be disappointed.
Obviously, we'll never know so I'm not going to speculate on which it was, just that at the cost Houston paid, and assuming something similar from the Sox, it's too bad it didn't happen.
For what it's worth @ElcaballitoMVP, BTV (not the be all and end all, but best we've got) shows both Bleis (28.4) and Anthony (24) to be worth more than Gilbert and Clifford combined (20.9). As mentioned, I'd have certainly moved Bleis for Verlander and something else with him / NYM eating more 2024 and 2025 money OR gone to something like Yorke (19) and Abreu (2.4) which is more than Gilbert and Clifford combined. But, to be fair, if the ask from NYM was Anthony (and they wouldn't take Bleis) I'd have walked away.
Glad they were in on Verlander; sucks it didn't happen. I wanted him badly and would have been fine trading Bleis with the Sox getting something else back or the Mets taking on more money in future years; or something around Yorke plus. If Verlander wasn't going to waive his NTC to come to Boston, nothing Bloom could have done about that. If he would have come here and Bloom refused to give up prospects, I'd be disappointed.
Obviously, we'll never know so I'm not going to speculate on which it was, just that at the cost Houston paid, and assuming something similar from the Sox, it's too bad it didn't happen.
For what it's worth @ElcaballitoMVP, BTV (not the be all and end all, but best we've got) shows both Bleis (28.4) and Anthony (24) to be worth more than Gilbert and Clifford combined (20.9). As mentioned, I'd have certainly moved Bleis for Verlander and something else with him / NYM eating more 2024 and 2025 money OR gone to something like Yorke (19) and Abreu (2.4) which is more than Gilbert and Clifford combined. But, to be fair, if the ask from NYM was Anthony (and they wouldn't take Bleis) I'd have walked away.
Last edited:
Right. But which ones? The ones already in the Marlins' rotation or bullpen or guys on the cusp in AAA? If they're trading Sandy Alcantara for Justin Turner, that's different than if it's Ryan Lindgren and Sixto Sanchez. "Good cost controlled pitchers" is meaningless.
Yep. If one was on the table, he maybe should have grabbed it. But for a less certain prospect, I'd just say there are other ways to acquire an ace this winter.
Whoa! Bleis for Verlander! That would have been a real deadline vet-for-prospect blockbuster! I'd be a no on that myself but I can see it.
These kinds of deals are what I would have wanted out of Bloom. Verlander would’ve been a 2-3 year guy here and getting a young, cheap SP for a pending FA would’ve been a good move.
Speculating here but I wonder if Edward Cabrera was part of the talks with Miami. Former top 100 prospect with 5 years of control left who has struggled in the majors with walks. Was optioned by Miami following the trade deadline. Seems like the long term piece Bloom has talked about acquiring.
I mean, the two guys the Mets got instantly became their 4th and 6th best prospects, and are 68th and somewhere not far outside of 100 on the MLB top 100 list. They are both also far closer to MLB ready (and not currently dealing with a major injury). Bleis would have been way less than what Houston gave up.
So this part here:
But this part here:
* - I remember this sort of thing was associated with the Danny Ainge Celtics, too - "We almost traded for Jimmy Butler, but..." That sort of thing. Port Cellar people, do I remember wrong?
... Reads to me like someone from the Marlins leaked this tidbit to Rosenthal. I doubt the Red Sox would know how the Marlins "felt." I have no idea why they'd leak that, but I'm also not sure I care that much.
But this part here:
... Seems like it could have come from the Red Sox. And I've noticed that, while this current FO doesn't leak what it's presently working on usually (unlike ol' Loose Lips Larry L.), this kind of thing has happened a number of times. There were a bunch of stories in the offseason of "The Red Sox actually offered [Player X] more money, but he chose to play in [City Y] because of [Reason Z]."* I have no idea who's feeding what info here, but I kind of wonder why they are doing it? Is it a misguided attempt to appease the portion of the fanbase who really wants them to do something? Because I don't think it's working.
* - I remember this sort of thing was associated with the Danny Ainge Celtics, too - "We almost traded for Jimmy Butler, but..." That sort of thing. Port Cellar people, do I remember wrong?
Therein lies the rub. We may never know what names were thrown around. There is a reason no trade happened.
I think a piece of valid criticism that can be leveled at the Sox organization is that it has done a poor job of communicating what it's actually up to. We know that the team is doing a kind of stealth/hybrid rebuild--prioritizing future success while putting together rosters that can compete at the margins if everything goes right. But the team won't come right out and say that. And that does lead to these kinds of surreal moments where the team could be either a buyer or a seller (or both!) depending on the parameters of the actual deals that are out there. I've been a vocal supporter of what the Sox are up to, and it's my opinion that Bloom was smart to consider either/both of those specific proposals, but I fully acknowledge that failing to be up front about the guiding strategy has been really annoying, and confounding, to a lot of the team's biggest fans.
Also, this isn't that I hate Bleis. I just think that you're talking about a spot that I feel good about. We have a lot of guys who play CF (Duran, Rafaela, Anthony, Bleis) and they're all young. We have nobody that reasonably profiles as a number 2 starter next year in the organization (Verlander would). Rafaela has the arm to move to a corner, I believe Anthony does as well. Even though he's no longer JUS-TIN-VER-LAN-DER and 5 syllables dominating the male modeling industry (I mean starting pitching industry) any more he's still been more valuable this year than any of our SPs not named Bello, and I think he'd be that next year too.
@LogansDad - depends on the site one uses, right? (And I'm NOT saying MLB front offices evaluate by sites, but it's all we peons have to go on). Fangraphs has Bleis 30th; Gilbert 49th and Clifford unranked. That's why I used BTV instead of a prospect site. But I do think it's interesting that there are some people on here that are like "no way I'd give up Bleis" and others that are like "he's not close to what the Mets gave up." It's why I used BTV though, using someone else values and not my own biases.
To be clear, again, we have no idea what (if anything) was proposed to Bloom nor if Verlander would have come here. Just using what we do know: he was traded; what the Mets received; how one site happens to value those assets.
This.
Part of the problem is that fans and talk radio often view team-building as either "you're the favorite" or "you should begin The Process". Any smart GM is always looking for ways to improve the team both now and later.
Yeah, ideally if you start trading prospects it's out of organizational prospect depth. 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. I've read some qualitative assessments of Bleis that make him sound like something special, but as you say, it's hard to know what the evaluations really say, let alone where he will be in four years.
Also, Larry Anderson was a rental relief pitcher. Jeff Bagwell was crushing AA to the tune of an .880OPS as a 22 year old.
Justin Verlander is a starter with multiple years of control left at "cheap money" (because of how much the Mets took on from that salary) and Bleis is coming off a major shoulder injury while having never had any success above the rookie league.
I'd never advocate trading Marcelo Mayer (or Bleis, or any top prospect) for David Robertson, for the record.
Could't this also be it's strength?
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. I know that I'm pretty high on Winkelman and see his arc as very similar to Jon Lester's (high K rate, high BB rate that is beginning to creep down as he matures) and he's the closest to being a GOOD starter (Drohan looks like he's more in the Murphy category- which is great but I don't see them as a high-ceiling types) nearest the ML team. The other high end talent is down in the single A's. Winkelman could be up in late '24. Others are late '25 at the earliest IMO.
Last edited:
"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"
How is this a valid criticism? Other than it would be nice to know there's no reason that you or I or anyone in the media needs to know what the Sox think their strengths and weaknesses are or what they're planning on doing. Even less reason for other teams to know.
I think it's valid because the approach is genuinely confusing to some people who care about the team. I think it's possible for the team to pursue the precise course that it has while also communicating it better to fans. I don't think such an approach would would squander any competitive advantage.
Considering how people reduce things to binaries like buy or sell, I think selling "hybrid" approach would be taken as "they're covering up their incompetence" instead of "fans are smart enough to understand this approach".
I think the nuance and complexity of communication like that makes it a fool's errand these days. Most of the local mainstream mocks the stated goal of "competing now and building for the future" (or however he said it) as either being "cheap" or "stupid" or "greedy" and those who pursue it are just "nerds" and "whizkids," and those who accept these obviously false and insulting word salad positions are fanboys and morons who just seem happy to pay for John Henry's next yacht while not relaizing that they are being fleeced, etc etc.
A longer, more detailed explanation would be met with similar derision. And the audience that youre aiming for, IMO, is incapable or unwilling to accept or understand the idea of "buying AND selling" (or neither or both).
Tl:dr...I dont think Bloom needs to compete with talk radio.
I agree there's no competitive disadvantage to doing so. But there's also no advantage, IMO. The people that most people pay attention to wouldn't bother to give it the time of day.
Your statement, "I think a piece of valid criticism that can be leveled at the Sox organization is that it has done a poor job of communicating what it's actually up to." could also be taken as, "They keep their intentions pretty well hidden so they don't show their hand". But who really needs to know what their intentions are? As fans we're really not.. it'd be nice to know exactly what they're doing but I get that there's a lot of need to keep that stuff out from the public..... the most involved fans can probably pick up on their angle but casual fans not so much... and it's what I think a lot of the Bloom, "he doesn't have a plan" comes from. Personally I think he clearly does, it's just not as obvious as Theo's (put together a good team and win some WS mostly from FA signings) or DD's being similar to Theo's..... you sort of need to be more invested in the entire system to see where he's headed.
I think it also requires starting with the assumption that the GM has some semblance of an idea of what he is doing, and then you try to figure it out. Someone not starting from that premise will *never* accept any explanation.
These are all thoughtful replies from posters that, generally speaking, sit on the same side of the Bloom line as me. This comment, to me, gets to the heart of what I'm trying to say:
EDIT: Was typing while Joe Dokes said it better--but I'd like to think that there's room for people to see and accept the plan. Maybe I'm wrong.
And I think it's even more than "he doesn't have a plan." There are posters on this site who think that he doesn't know what he's doing, because the Sox didn't go after this particular player they wanted or that one. Maybe it's true that I'm being naive, but I'd like to think that a better-articulated explanation of the team's approach would help people understand it better.
EDIT: Was typing while Joe Dokes said it better--but I'd like to think that there's room for people to see and accept the plan. Maybe I'm wrong.
I think you're just assuming rational actors, when some people are just not rational actors.
Once you get beyond "the human drama of athletic competition," (sport for its own sake) sports fandom itself borders on the irrational.
What do you mean? (as I refuse to move from one spot on the couch for four hours for fear of derailing a rally).
Ha. Exactly.
Even more, though, is the idea that we "root" for people, at least some of whom, if they were our neighbors, we'd quite possibly avoid at all costs. I'm right there, too. Spurred by friends with little or no interest in sports, I occasionally wonder why. Then I freak out because I can't find my lucky Nuke LaLoosh rally garter and all is well again.
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.
"Of course, there are those who learn after the first few times. They grow out of sports. And there are others who were born with the wisdom to know that nothing lasts. These are the truly tough among us, the ones who can live without illusion, or without even the hope of illusion. I am not that grown-up or up-to-date. I am a simpler creature, tied to more primitive patterns and cycles. I need to think something lasts forever, and it might as well be that state of being that is a game; it might as well be that, in a green field, in the sun."
I 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."