The Red Sox have fired Chaim Bloom

[Fishy1]

I agree. If Eflin starts the year instead of Kluber, Bloom likely still has a job, although I think the Martin and Jansen deals were based on not being able to sign Eflin or Eovaldi, so the bullpen might have looked very different.

I think I was saying something similar earlier, but upon digging in a little... Eflin's deal was 3/$40m, Eovaldi was 2/$34m, Kluber's was 1/$10m, Martin's was 2/$17.5m and Jansen's was 2/$32. Which is to say they probably still could have gone out and got at least one of Jansen or Martin even if they'd committed to Eovaldi/Eflin. They might have alternatively foregone Duvall at 1/$7m and started the year with Kike in center and Chang at SS. Hard to say without digging into the numbers a little more.

 

[simplicio]

Martin signed the day before Eflin, it was Jansen that signed later.

 

[Fishy1]

Martin signed the day before Eflin, it was Jansen that signed later.

Ah, I didn't look into the dates. Thanks.

 

[nighthob]

I don’t understand the “patience” comment. The team drafted for 4 years under Bloom and there isn’t a single high impact pitching prospect in AA or AAA. What happened in those drafts?

The weird Covid-19 draft and the simultaneous vanishing minor league season had a little to do with this. It’s really been 21-23 and it really is a little early for those guys to be in AA/AAA. A first round college arm might have made it, but those guys come with their own cautions.

 

[Big Papi's Mango Salsa]

I still dont get how Henry and company arent seen as the ones signing off on every big deal (or lack thereof), who make the decisions on how much can be spent (or not) and so on. Bloom wasnt perfect by any means, but to think he really ran the red sox doesnt make much sense to me.

Just to answer this as I think it's fair to say, obviously, and is part and parcel of the discussion of what Fangraphs wrote and the discussion on that, I'll chime in as someone that is admittedly an FSG believer (and if some want to say "apologist" or "stooge", I have nothing to refute that), however...

I truly don't believe that FSG meddles in every baseball decision or mandates what specific players the Baseball Operations Department need to add or subtract. Case in point, I don't think they ever told DDski he needed to extend Chris Sale, but they did need to sign off on his signing, which they did, but ultimately held Dombrowski responsible for the outcome. It's a large reason why he was fired, I'd have to assume.

Conversely, I don't think they told Chaim Bloom if he was hired (or when he was hired) that he HAD to trade Mookie Betts. I believe they probably mandated to him that he HAD TO reset the Luxury Tax Threshold (and probably understood that moving Betts was a possibility). If Bloom had come to ownership and said he wanted to trade Rafael Devers to someone to get them to take David Price; trade Xander Bogaerts to the Padres to get them to take Chris Sale and then to give Mookie Betts a 12 / $365m deal they'd have signed off on that too.

I really do believe that they give each Baseball season an operating budget of $Luxury Tax Threshold and generally speaking let the operations department spend that as they see fit, and then they're responsible for the choices that they make. Dombrowski made a horrendous call on Sale putting them over the tax and was fired for it. Bloom made (I think) a totally justifiable decision on Betts and got pretty good value for him. However the way he spent $236m in 2022 and $216m in 2023 (CBT numbers) was atrocious and part of the reason he is no longer employed in Boston. This was probably exacerbated IF he had the chance to get out from the Sale deal and chose not to...

Again, I could be totally wrong, but it also fits with how FSG has operated since Lucchino took a back seat.



My guess is the next GM/PoBO will get $237m to spend in 2024; $241m the next year and $244m the next and be judged on the success or failure of how they use it. I don't think that is unreasonable.

 

[chrisfont9]

They drafted multiple top 100 hitting prospects, & a lot of interesting, but less elite pitching prospects.

Would you say that pitching is overdrafted? Like at any given moment, if you are going for the best athlete, unless you have a top three pick you're going to keep picking position players?

Right now the Anthony pick looks like genius, a teenager mashing at AA who you got in the second round in part by picking a below-slot guy first. But if you're going to keep making these cool upside plays, and those upside guys keep being hitters, then I guess you're going to have to consider trading some of the hitters for pitching.

 

[JM3]

Would you say that pitching is overdrafted? Like at any given moment, if you are going for the best athlete, unless you have a top three pick you're going to keep picking position players?

Right now the Anthony pick looks like genius, a teenager mashing at AA who you got in the second round in part by picking a below-slot guy first. But if you're going to keep making these cool upside plays, and those upside guys keep being hitters, then I guess you're going to have to consider trading some of the hitters for pitching.

The idea is the more players you hit on, the more cost-controlled talent you have, & the more guys you have in your arsenal to trade for pitching. If you spend more resources on less pitching prospects, chances are pretty high that it won't work out. It's not like they're not investing in pitchers...I would say they're just targeting individual pitchers less aggressively & looking for certain archetypes that they may think are undervalued.

It's not like they aren't drafting pitchers at all.

In 2020, 2 of 4 picks were pitchers & 12 of 16 UDFAs were.

In 2021, 8 of 15 guys they drafted & signed were pitchers & 1 of 2 UDFAs.

In 2022, 13 of 18 guys they drafted & signed were pitchers (0 of 2 UDFAs).

& in 2023, 11 of 19 guys they drafted & signed were pitchers (0 of 1 UDFAs).

But in 2020 the 1st 2 were hitters, in 2021 the 1st 2 were hitters, in 2022 the 1st 3 were hitters, & in 2023 the first 3 were hitters.

They are taking a "more darts" approach to pitching, which I think is the sounder analytical strategy in today's day & age. It just takes longer for those darts to necessarily develop into swans. We won't know if it was actually successful as it related to those drafted pitchers for a few years still, though. But I think the theory is sound.

& at some point you have sufficient infrastructure & cost controlled talent to cash in some chips.

 

[simplicio]

My guess is the next GM/PoBO will get $237m to spend in 2024; $241m the next year and $244m the next and be judged on the success or failure of how they use it. I don't think that is unreasonable.

My feeling is the CBT line is nowhere near that much of a hard cap. Historically they've been careful to reset it regularly, as most teams do, but it's never seemed to be an issue when our GMs go moderately over for a couple years.

I fully expect them to go over it this winter and stay there until Sale's off the books.

 

[Yo La Tengo]

Martin signed the day before Eflin, it was Jansen that signed later.

Interesting that Bloom signed arguably the best FA reliever deal (Martin), the best FA hitter deal (Turner... which might be a stretch but he's in the conversation), and nearly signed the best FA starter deal (Eflin). Hitting on all three would have changed the standings and the narrative.

EDIT: Senga might be the best FA starter deal but you get the point.

 

[Big Papi's Mango Salsa]

My feeling is the CBT line is nowhere near that much of a hard cap. Historically they've been careful to reset it regularly, as most teams do, but it's never seemed to be an issue when our GMs go moderately over for a couple years.

I fully expect them to go over it this winter and stay there until Sale's off the books.

Certainly possible / probable.

I also agree it's not really a "hard cap", but I'd assume that someone going over likewise has to "justify that" to ownership, even if its an otherwise small money / short term deal. For example, while I think literally any PoBO would need to get sign off from their owners on giving out a 10yr / $300m contract, I don't think Bloom had to check with Henry first before paying 1/$10m to Corey Kluber. However, I bet in a hypothetical situation of the Sox being at $232M at the end of March, and the new PoBO wants to give 1 yr and $8m to an unsigned Blake Trienen, they'd have to get that approved because going over - and that their decisions would be more closely scrutinized (as in, we went over for you, what did your decisions yield for us).

It'd have REALLY changed the narrative if he'd turned Turner into the next 5 years of Edward Cabrera too, fwiw. At least in my opinion - who knows if it would have changed it for FSG, but I'd have to think it'd have helped.

 

[Petagine in a Bottle]

How often is cost controlled pitching traded in deals that don’t involve young pitching prospects going back? It’s nice that the Sox have a lot of young positional prospects but can you get a guy like Burnes or Cease or whomever without giving up pitching? Bad teams that are willing to give up good young pitchers usually seem to want even younger pitchers in return, at least in part.

 

[chrisfont9]

How often is cost controlled pitching traded in deals that don’t involve young pitching prospects going back? It’s nice that the Sox have a lot of young positional prospects but can you get a guy like Burnes or Cease or whomever without giving up pitching? Bad teams that are willing to give up good young pitchers usually seem to want even younger pitchers in return, at least in part.

Not often, but I'll toss out my local club these days, the Mariners, who have an absolute wealth of young arms and keep falling short on offense.

 

[Fishercat]

How often is cost controlled pitching traded in deals that don’t involve young pitching prospects going back? It’s nice that the Sox have a lot of young positional prospects but can you get a guy like Burnes or Cease or whomever without giving up pitching? Bad teams that are willing to give up good young pitchers usually seem to want even younger pitchers in return, at least in part.

I did a bit of a breakdown on this earlier in another thread- albeit in a limited scope

http://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?threads/2024-core.40360/post-5737794

The short answer is - not much in the past couple years in the offseason, but more common before that. But you have to be prepared to pay up overall with pro guys or prospects or be prepared to accept a player that may be fatally flawed going forward - but that most of the deals did include some level of pitching prospect (the kind Boston does have some of). It would take them out of the market for some teams who are looking for that more quick "we'll give you a pitcher who is good now for one that may be him in a couple year" type deals (Lynn for Dunning type deal)

The Sox ideal deal is probably something like the Arraez/Lopez deal with Verdugo being the Arraez.

 

[JM3]

How often is cost controlled pitching traded in deals that don’t involve young pitching prospects going back? It’s nice that the Sox have a lot of young positional prospects but can you get a guy like Burnes or Cease or whomever without giving up pitching? Bad teams that are willing to give up good young pitchers usually seem to want even younger pitchers in return, at least in part.

May I interest this other team in a lightly used Brandon Walter? We could also trade from the Murphy/Crawford/Houck group in the right trade.

 

[Manramsclan]

Alex Speier just said on the Red Sox broadcast that the Red Sox were engaged in talks with the Marlins around dealing Justin Turner for Edward Cabrera.

If it was a straight up deal (not totally clear with the way Alex worded it), not doing that is malpractice and he should have been fired on the spot.

 

[Rovin Romine]

Alex Speier just said on the Red Sox broadcast that the Red Sox were engaged in talks with the Marlins around dealing Justin Turner for Edward Cabrera.

If it was a straight up deal (not totally clear with the way Alex worded it), not doing that is malpractice and he should have been fired on the spot.

You do that deal in half a heartbeat.

 

[Manramsclan]

You do that deal in half a heartbeat.

I want a time machine to go back and kill Hitler make the trade happen somehow

 

[Fishercat]

I will say this is the highest number of innings he's pitched in his pro career and only the second over 100 IP. He's only gone over six IP twice... In his MLB career - his debut and once in 2022. He's very very wild.

I think you make that kind of trade you make if you're selling but he's not really an upgrade unless you think the Sox can fix his issues.

 

[simplicio]

A guy that's incapable of going more than 5? He'd fit right in!

 

[Manramsclan]

You guys are being obtuse.

This is exactly the type of trade the Red Sox should be making. That guy has more upside than anyone in our current rotation and has a little over a year of service time. From a pure value perspective a 37 year old DH and backup 1B/3B for an arm like that who is 25 and has the stuff he has is a slam dunk.

It's the right move for a franchise that desperately needs young starting pitching, and it is the right move for any organization who is at all concerned with maximizing the value of their talent. For a guy who was supposedly all about value, not making this trade looks extremely suspicious. Even if you don't think you can "fix" him, the upside is so high you roll the dice.

 

[moondog80]

This is exactly the type of trade the Red Sox should be making. That guy has more upside than anyone in our current rotation and has a little over a year of service time. From a pure value perspective a 37 year old DH and backup 1B/3B for an arm like that who is 25 and has the stuff he has is a slam dunk.

Yeah, you make that deal. But he's literally in the 1st %ile in walk rate. That’s not the 1% you should aspire to. There's an excellent chance we'd all hate him in a year and blame that trade for torpedoing the playoff run.

And of course, this is assuming it was a straight up deal.

 

[simplicio]

Assuming there was a trade there to take.

And yes the Sox do need young starting pitching, but like actual starting pitching, not another guy who struggles to get through 5. We have a million of those already.

 

[TheYellowDart5]

Edward Cabrera is Nick Pivetta but younger and with a plus-plus changeup instead of a plus-plus curveball. He would've driven everyone here insane within four starts. Bloom probably should've made that deal anyway (though the clubhouse might've revolted), but given Cabrera's below-average control, it's somewhat understandable why he didn't.

ETA: Cabrera also has a lengthy injury history with plenty of arm trouble. I think it says a lot that Miami would consider moving him with years of cheap team control to go in exchange for two months of Justin Turner.

 

[Fishercat]

Edward Cabrera has more upside than Brayan Bello is interesting.

I’m not saying don’t make the trade if in sell mode, he has great stuff but he also has substantial issues to the point that Miami demoted him to AAA in a competitive year. Second worst BB/9 in baseball for a guy over 90 innings putting in around 5 IP or so a start with a noted injury history. He’d be an upside play that you hope your coaching staff can fix and that you can stretch him out - probably better for a team running out a couple guys who can make it to the 7th inning already

There would be a very valid reason Miami would move on from him and he seems like another guy who would put the pen in an overworked position very often.

This also assumes it’s a one for one trade and not…whatever it actually was.

 

[jbupstate]

If this guy is so good… why are the Marlins only asking for Turner?

And why couldn’t they get someone younger/better than Turner?

The Pivetta comp is great. Would you trade Turner while in a race for the WC for Nick Pivetta?

 

[Bergs]

I'm in the somewhat amusing position of thinking letting Boom go was the right call more and more as time passes, yet also thinking everything we think we know is complete bullshit.

 

[JimD]

The demotion of Brian O'Halloran on the same day as Bloom's dismissal is weird to me. The guy has been a member of the front office since 2002, so he should have been the very definition of a known quantity, both in terms of getting the GM position a few years ago and in keeping the seat warm after Chaim was walked out. What did he do (or not do) that was so egregious to warrant his removal in even a temporary capacity? Kind of feels like maybe it was 'Team Bloom' vs. the others (Team Cora?) and BOH perhaps chose the wrong side?

 

[simplicio]

Could just be clearing any ambiguity that the new PBO gets to have their own person there, without the stigma of coming in and removing a guy who's been in the organization for 21 years?

 

[Big Papi's Mango Salsa]

If this guy is so good… why are the Marlins only asking for Turner?

And why couldn’t they get someone younger/better than Turner?

The Pivetta comp is great. Would you trade Turner while in a race for the WC for Nick Pivetta?

With the Red Sox pitching staff being so incredibly lacking at the major league and high minors levels, I'd trade two months of Turner for five years of Pivetta (or Cabrera, as the case may be) in a millisecond. Especially since that was ostensibly being discussed late at the deadline (ie after the Sox had decided NOT to pursue the "prospects for starting pitching" moves necessary to make them a true wild card contender).

Cabrera certainly has his issues - to me the most notable one is that unlike Pivetta he can't be counted on to take the ball every 5 days for an entire season with his injury history - but as far as results, he's basically another version of Tanner Houck, just with more upside (at least if one believes in FanGraphs prospect ranking where Cabrera was #100 and Houck was unlisted) and an extra year of control. If for nothing but flexibility (or depth) to move one of Crawford, Houck or Whitlock this off-season, you trade 2 wasted months of Turner for 5 years of Cabrera every time.

Why would the Marlins do that? They're right in the thick of playoff contention, they have almost as much pitching as Seattle and they desperately need bats. I fully admit that I'd think of that deal as "too good to be true" from the Red Sox perspective, but I do trust Speier's reporting.

 

[Fishy1]

With the Red Sox pitching staff being so incredibly lacking at the major league and high minors levels, I'd trade two months of Turner for five years of Pivetta (or Cabrera, as the case may be) in a millisecond. Especially since that was ostensibly being discussed late at the deadline (ie after the Sox had decided NOT to pursue the "prospects for starting pitching" moves necessary to make them a true wild card contender).

Cabrera certainly has his issues - to me the most notable one is that unlike Pivetta he can't be counted on to take the ball every 5 days for an entire season with his injury history - but as far as results, he's basically another version of Tanner Houck, just with more upside (at least if one believes in FanGraphs prospect ranking where Cabrera was #100 and Houck was unlisted) and an extra year of control. If for nothing but flexibility (or depth) to move one of Crawford, Houck or Whitlock this off-season, you trade 2 wasted months of Turner for 5 years of Cabrera every time.

Why would the Marlins do that? They're right in the thick of playoff contention, they have almost as much pitching as Seattle and they desperately need bats. I fully admit that I'd think of that deal as "too good to be true" from the Red Sox perspective, but I do trust Speier's reporting.

They might have done it because their offense is miserable and first base was a major hole for them, while their pitching was quite good?

 

[Big Papi's Mango Salsa]

@Fishy1 - I said that. But agree, that's why they'd have done it.

The "must be more" is they probably wanted the $6.7m buyout tied to Turner's player option or however that works out. Which, of course, the Sox should still have done without question.

If you can trade 2 months of an old hitter that isn't under contract for the following year AFTER you've decided not to spend the prospects necessary to improve the team at the deadline (and all reports are this was close to the 6pm cut off itself) you absolutely should do it.

If nothing else, just for the flexibility. Cabrera's presence would allow the Sox to move one of Houck, Crawford or Whitlock as part of a deal for an established top half of the rotation starter and have Cabrera there to step in and replace said pitcher. However instead they're getting two wasted months of Justin Turner before he becomes a FA that cannot be offered a QO even if they wanted him to.

As a "for instance" BTV has a combination of either Bleis, Yorke and Crawford for Logan Gilbert OR Houck and Bleis for Gilbert checking out. You'd have more flexibility to swing that type of deal and have Cabrera step in to replace whichever of those packages Seattle might choose. But instead you have two wasted months of Justin Turner.

Not making that deal is not quite as indefensible as not making the reported Sale deal, but it's close.

 

[richgedman'sghost]

Confused. In a vacuum it's a solid trade for the Red Sox but it was done without the other subsequently logical trades of dealing JD, Eovaldi, Wacha, Bogaerts or anyone else of value that could have got them below the luxury tax.

Bloom's unwillingness to pull the trigger on things that would have made the organization better was ultimately his downfall.

Bogey had 10/5 rights and was not likely to approve a trade. Wacha and Eovaldi were injured or coming off injuries at the trade deadline in 2022.

 

[Fishercat]

I think we still don't know the details of the deal enough to really judge it. The last time the Marlins did a deal kind of like this, they traded for the extra year of control and paid prospects to do it (Arraez for Lopez). If the deal was purely Turner for Cabrera with offsetting cash - unless there was some other mitigating personal circumstances - I think you take that shot to see if Cabrera can be a second Pivetta or you can get him to regularly hit 5-6 IP. But I suspect it wasn't just cash and a player swap if the Marlins were going for 2 months of Turner for years of Cabrera - I think prospects would've been involved.

Of note, the Marlins made two trades at the deadline for infielders which I do think are somewhat informative to their mindset

Received Josh Bell for Jean Segura and Khalil Watson
Received Jake Burger for Jake Eder

Josh Bell has a fairly similar deal to Justin Turner - opt out after 2023, 2/33 - definitely worse this year but has historically been a 2 WAR kind of guy. Segura was released, Watson was a high end Marlins prospect who has been a disappointment and is mid-teens in the Guardians system. Higher end guy potentially but not what anyone was hoping and a distance away

Jake Burger has had a very nice little year and is controlled until 2029 - Jake Eder is a good prospect coming off Tommy John as a 24 y/o in AA - upside for sure but risk.

I struggle a bit to believe with those two deals that the Sox would've gotten Cabrera, even with all his flaws, just for Turner alone given then that's that the Marlins paid for Josh Bell and Jake Burger all things considered. I think prospect(s) from the Sox would've been involved or another player to be honest. Maybe I'm wrong though.

 

[moondog80]

Confused. In a vacuum it's a solid trade for the Red Sox but it was done without the other subsequently logical trades of dealing JD, Eovaldi, Wacha, Bogaerts or anyone else of value that could have got them below the luxury tax.

Bloom's unwillingness to pull the trigger on things that would have made the organization better was ultimately his downfall.

They were also trying to win. Trading Vazquez didn't make the team worse (because they picked up McGuire). Trading those guys would have. There was a price where they would have moved them, but rentals were not getting much in return, as evidenced by Carlos Rodon and Willson Contreras not getting moved form teams that were worse than the Red Sox.

People are also acting like not getting under the tax cost had some massive cost. It turned two (supplemental) 2nd round picks into two 5th round picks. Pick a random year, google the 2nd round of the draft, and tell me how many names you've heard of, remembering that picks would have been at the end of the 2nd round. Yes, you'll find a star sometimes. You'll also find a star in the 5th round too sometimes (Mookie Betts!). 2nd round picks are better than 5th round picks. But if the deal is Emmanuel Valdez and two 5th round picks for two 2nd round picks, give me Valdez + the 5th rounders every time.

 

[cantor44]

They were also trying to win. Trading Vazquez didn't make the team worse (because they picked up McGuire). Trading those guys would have. There was a price where they would have moved them, but rentals were not getting much in return, as evidenced by Carlos Rodon and Willson Contreras not getting moved form teams that were worse than the Red Sox.

People are also acting like not getting under the tax cost had some massive cost. It turned two (supplemental) 2nd round picks into two 5th round picks. Pick a random year, google the 2nd round of the draft, and tell me how many names you've heard of. Yes, you'll find a star sometimes. You'll also find a star in the 5th round too sometimes (Mookie Betts!). 2nd round picks are better than 5th round picks. But if the deal is Emmanuel Valdez and two 5th round picks for two 2nd round picks, give me Valdez + the 5th rounders every time.

If they were trying to win, then perhaps they should have traded for some clear upgrades here or there. Was there anyone out there who thought the team, as it was constituted around the trade deadline in 2022, would be a competitive post season team? And surely no one believed Pham and Hosmer would make a difference. Keep in mind that Bloom himself confessed that things didn't "go as expected" from the penultimate day to the deadline itself. Seem like he was gonna do some selling, and then had to pivot. If recent intel is of any use, maybe he was reluctant to pull any risky triggers.
EDIT: Hosmer cost nothing, so made sense to add him, didn't hurt, but almost certainly wasn't going to and didn't help.

 

[Big Papi's Mango Salsa]

They were also trying to win. Trading Vazquez didn't make the team worse (because they picked up McGuire). Trading those guys would have. There was a price where they would have moved them, but rentals were not getting much in return, as evidenced by Carlos Rodon and Willson Contreras not getting moved form teams that were worse than the Red Sox.

People are also acting like not getting under the tax cost had some massive cost. It turned two (supplemental) 2nd round picks into two 5th round picks. Pick a random year, google the 2nd round of the draft, and tell me how many names you've heard of, remembering that picks would have been at the end of the 2nd round. Yes, you'll find a star sometimes. You'll also find a star in the 5th round too sometimes (Mookie Betts!). 2nd round picks are better than 5th round picks. But if the deal is Emmanuel Valdez and two 5th round picks for two 2nd round picks, give me Valdez + the 5th rounders every time.

While it's fair that they were trying to win and made a calculation to buy and sell based on the 33% chance to make the playoffs (or whatever the number was) it's also fair for FSG to look at the decision Bloom made based on the data he had available and as such hold making the decision against him as an example of misreading the landscape / his own team (especially when he made the exact same call with similarly predictable results in the 2023 season).

It's also fair, at that point, to say "Chris Sale is no longer Dave Dombrowski's albatross, he is yours", which would again be totally reasonable. He had a chance to get out from the deal and decided that what Sale offered was worth more, he was wrong, and held accountable for that - as he should have been.

As others have mentioned, it really is amazing the huge role that Chris Sale has had in bringing down to PoBO's in the past 5 years.

 

[moondog80]

If they were trying to win, then perhaps they should have traded for some clear upgrades here or there. Was there anyone out there who thought the team, as it was constituted around the trade deadline in 2022, would be a competitive post season team? And surely no one believed Pham and Hosmer would make a difference. Keep in mind that Bloom himself confessed that things didn't "go as expected" from the penultimate day to the deadline itself. Seem like he was gonna do some selling, and then had to pivot. If recent intel is of any use, maybe he was reluctant to pull any risky triggers.
EDIT: Hosmer cost nothing, so made sense to add him, didn't hurt, but almost certainly wasn't going to and didn't help.

Because they were trying to win but not all the way in. A reasonable approach for a team with about a 1/3 chance at the postseason. We will do what we can to win this year because there is a decent chance, but that chance isn't so good that it's worth selling of the future.

Bloom made mistakes, apparently more than we realized if it's true that he passed up a shot to move Chris Sale at the 2022 deadline. His general philosophy - improve where we can but not that expense of the future, sell only if the return justifies throwing away a 1/3 postseason shot -- was sound.

 

[Harry Hooper]

Bloom made mistakes, apparently more than we realized if it's true that he passed up a shot to move Chris Sale at the 2022 deadline. His general philosophy - improve where we can but not that expense of the future, sell only if the return justifies throwing away a 1/3 postseason shot -- was sound.

It looks like in 2022 and 2023 the players on the team with flagging energies in August really missed the jolt of meaningful additions at the deadline and faded away. Perhaps a "discount rate" needs to be applied in the future to a team's postseason chances if the proposed course is going to be minimal action on the trade front, and then that might tip the decision towards selling off instead?

 

[JM3]

Mariners went 20-4 immediately after mostly selling at the deadline. Maybe it's a function of something other than simply lack of buying at the deadline.

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

I think if there are injured impact players returning, that can be fine expectations to improve the team but in the future I hope those players are finishing a good long quality rehab in AAA.

 

[Petagine in a Bottle]

Mariners went 20-4 immediately after mostly selling at the deadline. Maybe it's a function of something other than simply lack of buying at the deadline.

Wonder if this varies based on the environment and mood of the team. On last nights telecast, OB and Speier talked a lot about how DD would frequently ask Cora “what do you need” and go out and get it- the implication being that Bloom didn’t. Last few years, the players and staff seemed kind of surprised about what did or didn’t happen at the deadline- at least suggests lack of communication and unclear messaging among front office, coaches, and players.

 

[JM3]

Wonder if this varies based on the environment and mood of the team. On last nights telecast, OB and Speier talked a lot about how DD would frequently ask Cora “what do you need” and go out and get it- the implication being that Bloom didn’t. Last few years, the players and staff seemed kind of surprised about what did or didn’t happen at the deadline- at least suggests lack of communication and unclear messaging among front office, coaches, and players.

Yeah, something definitely was not working the last couple years after the deadline in Boston. Whether it's on Cora to keep morale high regardless of what happens, whether it's on Bloom to do more at the deadline, or whether it's on the players to be professional - or most likely some combination of the above, who knows?

 

[soxhop411]

Mariners went 20-4 immediately after mostly selling at the deadline. Maybe it's a function of something other than simply lack of buying at the deadline.

Yeah, something definitely was not working the last couple years after the deadline in Boston. Whether it's on Cora to keep morale high regardless of what happens, whether it's on Bloom to do more at the deadline, or whether it's on the players to be professional - or most likely some combination of the above, who knows?

I mean buying does guarantee anything either, see the Angels...

 

[bosockboy]

Mariners went 20-4 immediately after mostly selling at the deadline. Maybe it's a function of something other than simply lack of buying at the deadline.

Cora leaving Schreiber in for that 2nd inning pretty much turned them around. Haven’t looked back.

 

[jbupstate]

They might have done it because their offense is miserable and first base was a major hole for them, while their pitching was quite good?

In a league starving for pitching the Marlins could not have received more than 2 months of Turner?

I’m not buying the story.

And since Bloom was canned for not making the playoffs again… I challenge anyone who says they would trade Turner in a WC race for a pitcher that probably doesn’t move the needle this year. Bloom probably makes the trade a couple years ago but his job was obviously on the line.

I’m salty because Bloom has taken too much heat for FSG. Impossibly tasked to trade a franchise icon over money, to compete with mediocre talent and restock the systems. Sure he signed up for it but right now he’s the classic scapegoat.

Now they need someone to be more decisive and creative? This would raise red flags if I’m a candidate. My expectations are a hire low on experience who what’s the chance because everyone should see this might not be a good situation.

 

[Petagine in a Bottle]

In a league starving for pitching the Marlins could not have received more than 2 months of Turner?

I’m not buying the story.

They wanted a veteran power bat for the stretch run. An expiring contract was ideal. Hard to imagine many hitters better than Turner available for a guy who probably doesn’t figure into their long term plans.

 

[Fishy1]

In a league starving for pitching the Marlins could not have received more than 2 months of Turner?

I’m not buying the story.

I get what you're saying, but the Marlins have really really really struggled to score, generating a negative run differential despite a pretty good pitching staff and a positive record.

Cabrera is also a pretty stressed asset. The BB rate is horrible, and he doesn't pitch much even when he's healthy. He's young, cost controlled, and effective despite control issues. I could see as others have said that the Marlins might've wanted a prospect or two.

Turner was a bat at a position of weakness for them. It strikes me as fairly plausible.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

In a league starving for pitching the Marlins could not have received more than 2 months of Turner?

I’m not buying the story.

This is kinda where I am too. The only way it makes sense is if the Marlins came asking for Turner and Bloom asked for Cabrera in return. I can't imagine if the Marlins were dangling him out there that there wouldn't have been other suitors.

As it turns out, Burger for a low-level prospect is probably a better deal for the Marlins than Cabrera for Turner (5 years of control on Burger) and addresses the same short-coming (as does acquiring Bell). Maybe that's where the Turner talks ended, not with Bloom passing.

 

[JM3]

Isn't the reporting just that they were discussing a deal "centered around" Turner & Cabrera? Which could mean almost anything in terms of what was actually on the table.

Seems pointless to litigate, though.

 

[jbupstate]

Isn't the reporting just that they were discussing a deal "centered around" Turner & Cabrera? Which could mean almost anything in terms of what was actually on the table.

Seems pointless to litigate, though.

I didn’t see the full story. Thought it was one for one. I still think it’s part of an unwarranted smear. A ton of items to jam Bloom over. This one is nuts. If you hear this on the airwaves (I know) or the mouthpiece Speier you’d think Bloom passed on a potential Ace.