Grade the Red Sox trade deadline

How would you grade the additions of Schwarber, Austin Davis and and Hansen Robles?

  • A (Pumped! They killed it)

    Votes: 6 1.3%
  • B (Pretty happy. Did what they had to do)

    Votes: 132 29.2%
  • C (Eh. No First baseman? No SP?!)

    Votes: 200 44.2%
  • D (Really unimpressed)

    Votes: 104 23.0%
  • F (Should almost get fired)

    Votes: 10 2.2%

  • Total voters
    452

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
15,887
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Santana OPS to July 31: .554
Gonzalez OPS to July 31: .583

Why again would we expect them to perform better than that at 1B? You are bordering on trolling at this point. Because Santana had a better OPS in his 44 1B PAs he is a better choice?

Edit: it was mentioned upthread but cherry picking a 44 PA sample based on which position the player is playing is Van-esque
Scottyno was claiming the production at 1B looked bad because players-other-than-Dalbec were worse than he was AT FIRST BASE and thus DRAGGED DOWN THE FIRST BASE NUMBERS.

But those players weren't worse, and didn't drag down the 1B numbers.

That's all I'm saying. I'm not making a recommendation that Danny Santana should have been made into the regular first baseman. (And why the fuck does everyone keep thinking I'm doing that? Seriously?)
 

BroodsSexton

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2006
10,624
guam
Scottyno was claiming the production at 1B looked bad because players-other-than-Dalbec were worse than he was AT FIRST BASE and thus DRAGGED DOWN THE FIRST BASE NUMBERS.

But those players weren't worse, and didn't drag down the 1B numbers.

That's all I'm saying. I'm not making a recommendation that Danny Santana should have been made into the regular first baseman. (And why the fuck does everyone keep thinking I'm doing that? Seriously?)
I think the source of the confusion is that you were focused on the first half of his post (italics below), to which you have a point that is getting lost (i.e., the other guys weren't the ones bringing down the 1B numbers), and he (and everyone else) was focused on the more general statement at the end of his post, which is also true (bolded). But I suspect you are correct that scottyno hadn't looked at S/C/G/C's impact specifically on the 1B numbers.

Yeah, the Sox are 26/30 in 1st base WAA this season at -1.7, but almost half of that is everyone who played 1st base that WASN'T Dalbec, despite him taking 75% of the plate appearances this season. It's impressive how bad Santana/Cordero/Gonzalez/Chavis were in such a short amount of time.
Yes, almost half of the WAA was everyone who played 1st base who wasn't Dalbec. But RR's point is that those guys actually brought up Dalbec's putrid numbers.

Now back to your regularly scheduled shit show.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
14,838
Dalbec has basically played one full MLB season now. We can look at it in three acts.

Act 1 - Welcome to the majors - Dalbec arrives on the scene in Boston in a weird 2020 season, and he plays in 23 games, accumulating 92 plate appearances. In those 92 PA, he hits 8 homers (one homer every 11.5 PA) and puts up this slash line: .263/.359/.600/.959, 149 ops+.

Everyone knew he had prodigious power, but would it translate to the majors? His initial time with the Sox indicated that his power would play. But how would he do when the league adjusted?

Act 2 - The league adjusts - Dalbec starts the 2021 campaign and it's clear they've got him figured out. He struggles with Ks (110 K in 292 PA) and doesn't walk (just 13 walks in those 292 PA). So it's all or nothing with him, and basically....it's nothing. Hitting just 10 homers over those 292 PA (one homer ever 29.2 PA). Like with many young players, his struggles at the plate impact his fielding, and he makes errors all over the place. It's to the point where the Red Sox are looking for a 1b replacement in the trade market. There's nothing in-house though, as all the other options are even worse than him. But the trade deadline passes and Dalbec is still with the club, albeit with a little pressure coming along because Kyle Schwarber has arrived, and though he is still not active yet, and has never played 1b, the club has made a point of saying that they will prep him to play first. Dalbec needs to adjust or be sent packing.

Act 3 - Dalbec gets his **** together - Since the trade deadline, Dalbec has played 41 games accumulating 140 PA. He's mashed, plain and simple, hitting 13 homers, 9 doubles, and even 2 triples. He's put up a slash line of .320/.407/.746/1.153 over that stretch. He's homering once every 10.8 PA). He's still striking out, but less often (one K every 3.9 PA, compared to one K every 2.6 PA in Act 2). Moreover, he's walking more - one walk every 9.3 PA as opposed to one walk every 22.5 PA in Act 2. The cherry on top is that his blossoming confidence is impacting his fielding in a positive way and he's been excellent at first.

The Act 2 Dalbec is not a playable guy at the major league level. They had to play him because there were no good alternatives, sadly. The Act 3 Dalbec is an MVP, and nobody really expects THAT Dalbec to be what we see moving forward. But I think all three acts present a total picture of a solid major league contributor:

148 g, 524 PA, 31 hr, 92 rbi, .250/.317/.517/.834, 117 ops+

And that at a league minimum salary. That kind of production at that kind of price is worth a TON in this sport.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
28,842
Hingham, MA
Scottyno was claiming the production at 1B looked bad because players-other-than-Dalbec were worse than he was AT FIRST BASE and thus DRAGGED DOWN THE FIRST BASE NUMBERS.

But those players weren't worse, and didn't drag down the 1B numbers.

That's all I'm saying. I'm not making a recommendation that Danny Santana should have been made into the regular first baseman. (And why the fuck does everyone keep thinking I'm doing that? Seriously?)
Yeah I have no idea where @scottyno got the data from but I'd be curious to see the source
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
If that's where they end up on October 3, but Dalbec ends up being a 2-3 WAR 1B moving forward as a result of the experience and adjustments he made this season, then the shitshow in the first half is arguably worth the pain.
Excellent summation, and on that last point I am 100% on the side of it was worth it. At the risk of repeating my earlier posts, I just don't think you get 2-3 win pre-arb guys without growing pains, apart from the occasional Wander Franco types. And those 2-3 win pre-arb guys are just so, so valuable, if your team cares about any of the LT thresholds. Even if Casas comes up and moves Dalbec off the spot, he's either valuable elsewhere or a very good trade piece. We can guess that they stuck it out with him for lack of alternatives, and the trade for Schwarber (plus kicking the tires on Rizzo) shows that the organization at least wanted to take the pressure off him against tough righties, but I also believe (FWIW?) that they have approached this year as a good time for growing pains. Expectations were low, the roster was (and still is) a bit thin, and the long term outlook lies more in correctly managing younger players to succeed, rather than kicking them out of the way in order to win at all costs now.
 
Last edited:

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
28,842
Hingham, MA
@scottyno @Rovin Romine I think here's where the confusion lies:

@Rovin Romine is correct that some of the other 1B have put up better OPS at 1B than Dalbec
@scottyno is correct that the Sox are 26/30 in WAA, with a -1.7 on the season. Per B-R, Dalbec is at -1.0, so the other guys must be at -0.7 for the year. Hence the comment that the other guys have done almost half the "damage" to the numbers in only ~25% of the PAs. Sox 1B have 579 PA on the season. Dalbec has 404 of those 579 (69.8%). So on a per PA basis, Dalbec is at -.002475, and the other guys are at -.004 per PA, which is roughly 60% worse on a per PA basis. Of course, these figures represent the entire season to date. I have no idea what the 1B combined WAA was through July, but it's probably an accurate comment to say that some of the other guys helped the cause, some didn't, and Dalbec didn't, either.
 

scottyno

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
8,874
Yeah I have no idea where @scottyno got the data from but I'd be curious to see the source
Which data? I posted their overall numbers with the Sox and I posted Dalbec's 1st half split. Dalbec was the better hitter, they all sucked, but giving Dalbec all those ABs while he sucked likely played a part in getting him to where he is today which is a guy having an overall season that doesn't suck so it ended up being worth it and didn't really cost the team much of anything in the standings.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
28,842
Hingham, MA
Which data? I posted their overall numbers with the Sox and I posted Dalbec's 1st half split. Dalbec was the better hitter, they all sucked, but giving Dalbec all those ABs while he sucked likely played a part in getting him to where he is today which is a guy having an overall season that doesn't suck so it ended up being worth it and didn't really cost the team much of anything in the standings.
I thought you had WAA for the first half only, didn't realize it was season to date until I re-read your post. My bad.
 

scottyno

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
8,874
I thought you had WAA for the first half only, didn't realize it was season to date until I re-read your post. My bad.
Yeah, I actually tried to find WAR or WAA splits by position, but I don't know if that really exists anywhere that's easy to find. Fangraphs does WAR splits but just for overall, I don't think Bref does WAR splits. I don't think there's a way to break FG down by position, even when you select 1b only they give you their overall WAR not isolated to when they only played 1b.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,865
If someone says the overall numbers at 1B, April-July 2021, are bad in part because players-other-than-Dalbec were bad at 1B, we ought to look at those numbers for those players at 1B for April-July 2021.

Whether or not those players sucked ass elsewhere or elsewhen simply isn't relevant to the question of exactly how bad Dalbec was at 1B, April-July 2021, vis-a-vis players-other-than-Dalbec at 1B for April-July 2021.
Do you have some proof that 1B is some magic elixir that changes players' offensive profile? Because the claim was, simply, that Boston had a shitty 1B position because Bobby Dalbec was the best option. Not that he was any good (until recently anyway). For months Boston had crap options, then Dalbec suddenly began hitting.

And maybe that's just who he is. A guy that gives you lot of JAG performance around some hot streaks. Luckily it won't be our problem for long as Boston will be calling up Casas after he hits his 30th homer in Worcester next year.
 

scottyno

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
8,874
Schwarber is determined to single-handedly save the WAA of all non-Dalbec Sox 1st basemen in one day
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
12,853
Santa Monica
Do you have some proof that 1B is some magic elixir that changes players' offensive profile? Because the claim was, simply, that Boston had a shitty 1B position because Bobby Dalbec was the best option. Not that he was any good (until recently anyway). For months Boston had crap options, then Dalbec suddenly began hitting.

And maybe that's just who he is. A guy that gives you lot of JAG performance around some hot streaks. Luckily it won't be our problem for long as Boston will be calling up Casas after he hits his 30th homer in Worcester next year.
how does Schwarber's mutual option work? is he back at the same price or can he opt-out?
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
2,303
how does Schwarber's mutual option work? is he back at the same price or can he opt-out?
Mutual option means both sides have to agree; he’ll surely opt-out. Not sure the Sox can do much with him until they know what JD is going to do (assume he opts out as well).
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
73,293
Oregon
I attempted to rank those from most to least surprising and gave up. I think the most surprising is Robles/Davis, but it's hard to ignore Iglesias
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
19,353
Rogers Park
I attempted to rank those from most to least surprising and gave up. I think the most surprising is Robles/Davis, but it's hard to ignore Iglesias
Robles has had elite seasons, though, and relievers are often up and down.

For me, it's Shaw. He was an under-the-radar prospect who became a fringe-y big leaguer who had two surprise good seasons for Milwaukee, then messed up his shoulder and was terrible for like almost three years. Like, ~600 PAs of .600 OPS ball across three seasons terrible. That is the profile of a player who is toast.

And then he shows up here and posts a SLG .070 points above his previous season high?
 

EricFeczko

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2014
3,716
I attempted to rank those from most to least surprising and gave up. I think the most surprising is Robles/Davis, but it's hard to ignore Iglesias
If we take those as "decisions" Chaim made regarding the trade deadline -- that accounts for 4+ fWAR since the trade deadline (with Dalbec accounting for 1.8 fWAR).

4 wins without giving up anything in the farm system is quite impressive.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,039
I firmly believe that Chaim's plan was Schwarber + CJ Cron-type 1B + at least one better reliever than Robles/Davis, and that he was fully prepared to give up more assets than they ended up using to accomplish this. The Schwarber acquisition went off as planned, but the disappointingly high prices/lack of availability of decent 1B options and the high cost of impact bullpen arms led to settling for two lesser relievers and punting on a first baseman. I know they kicked the tires on Rizzo but were always unlikely to overpay for him, especially once the Yankees were in the mix.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
32,284
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Well I was pretty wrong about Schwarber's contribution. I thought it highly unlikely he'd provide 0.7 WAR for the Sox, and he hasn't. He's provided 1.0 WAR.

Season ain't over yet but who did I make the bet with about a donation to the Jimmy Fund?
 

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
1,292
Chicago, IL
Given that the Red Sox have made it to the ALCS, there may be two ways to retrospectively regard Bloom's deadline moves:

1. Perfect!
- He made the additions he needed to in order to make a deep playoff run, without giving up too much from the farm ...

2: If only!
- The justification offered on this board for approving Bloom's conservative deadline activity were either A. The team is just not good enough to compete for a championship, and/or B. The farm just doesn't have the resources to make any other significant moves.

Now that the team is in the ALCS, can we agree that they ARE good enough ... and, given that the farm system currently ranks as high as #9 in baseball, is it possible a bit more could have been spent to seize the moment here?

Some will say proof is in the pudding. Then again, most said the pudding just wasn't good enough to invest in!

Putting this out there for further consideration/discussion, not to grind any axes ... mighty happy the Sox are in the ALCS!! Just posing a question: does the fact that they've made it to the ALCS alter the analysis?
 
Last edited:

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
28,842
Hingham, MA
Those who think Chaim blew it won’t come off that take. Those who think he nailed it won’t either. Those who think he blew it may ultimately prove “right”, because the Sox are still long shots to win it all. So unless they do win it all, there’s no way to prove to the “blew it” crowded that he didn’t in fact blow it.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
15,887
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Just posing a question: does the fact that they've made it to the ALCS alter the analysis?
Sort of yes, sort of no. The Sox squeaked into the post-season, but did improve their play overall when Schwarber took the field. He certainly had an impact, and there's been talk that Schwarber helped out Dalbec, and he "brought patience" to the Sox lineup. . .but I'm hesitant to think Bloom thought by trading for Schwarber specifically he'd accomplish either of those particular things.

OTOH, the trades represent an upgrade, and there was no key prospect loss. So that's a factor.

It's pretty difficult to grade the deadline moves (and non-moves) as anything near an A or an F in terms of season outcome. The main flaws of the team remain the same (pitching depth and defense), but the bats are hot again. The pitching depth may or may not get exposed as they go, the defense may or may not cost us, the bats may or may not keep up their torrid ways.

In terms of might-have-beens, we really don't know what the other options were. I mean, I'd have loved Scherzer at 0 cost and replacing our worst starter down the stretch with a string of Ws, plus having a true ace for head to head post-season series. . .yeah, that would have been fabulous, and I'd love to see it now. But Max Scherzer for Essentially Nothing wasn't going to happen.
 

BroodsSexton

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2006
10,624
guam
It absolutely should cause people to reconsider if they thought Bloom butchered it. The best teams are going to be coin flips against each other. Trading prospects for marginal gains simply doesn’t change that and isn’t viable long term. And remember, they were leading the division at the deadline, and doing so with style. So there is no imperative at that point to upgrade. You upgrade only if you find value. Now, having seen August and September, would you go back and maybe do something else, if you knew you were going to miss the playoffs? Maybe. But guess what? They didn’t miss the playoffs. And they’ve now kicked the Yankees and Rays to the curb in a one game and five game series—two “stronger” teams in the strongest division (or one of two strongest divisions)—showing both one-game and series strength.

Wanting a shiny new toy is not a managerial strategy. Not a good one anyways.
 

cournoyer

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2012
447
Enfield, Connecticut
Those who think Chaim blew it won’t come off that take. Those who think he nailed it won’t either. Those who think he blew it may ultimately prove “right”, because the Sox are still long shots to win it all. So unless they do win it all, there’s no way to prove to the “blew it” crowded that he didn’t in fact blow it.
You think so? I was pretty down about his moves (or lack thereof) at the deadline but I don't think there is any denying that the Schwarber pickup (excluding Iglesias and Shaw for the moment) was a great decision. It certainly helped that Dalbec caught fire when he did but this team simply would not be where it is without Schwarber. Throw in Robles and the whipped cream and cherries that are Iglesias and Shaw and he did a fantastic job for the team down the stretch.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,039
For those who still think that Bloom 'blew' the deadline - what players would you have wanted? I was happy on July 31st that Chaim stuck to his guns and didn't overpay for Rizzo and that decision looks even better now. In retrospect, any 1B upgrade would have come at the expense of Dalbec's hot streak. They weren't going to go after a top-flight starter like Berrios or Scherzer. What bullpen arm(s) could the Sox have gotten instead of Robles and Davis?
 

Archer1979

shazowies
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
5,371
Right Here
For those who still think that Bloom 'blew' the deadline - what players would you have wanted? I was happy on July 31st that Chaim stuck to his guns and didn't overpay for Rizzo and that decision looks even better now. In retrospect, any 1B upgrade would have come at the expense of Dalbec's hot streak. They weren't going to go after a top-flight starter like Berrios or Scherzer. What bullpen arm(s) could the Sox have gotten instead of Robles and Davis?
I thought Bloom did what he could with what he had to trade. You can only spend what you have available (in this case, not much for trade chips).

However, just looking at the Scherzer deal (below), why the hell did TB not back up the truck to get him from the Nationals? Use him for 2021; trade him in the off-season; and get someone else to eat his salary.

https://dodgerblue.com/dodgers-not-paying-max-scherzer-during-season-nationals-salary/2021/09/01/
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
15,887
Miami (oh, Miami!)
and the whipped cream and cherries that are Iglesias and Shaw and he did a fantastic job for the team down the stretch.
Mmmm. Those guys were kick-the-tires in-season FA acquisitions where the Sox had a clear need, and couldn't/wouldn't tap their minor league system to address it. It's Bloom doing the due diligence that any GM might be reasonably expected to do.

That fact that we got fantastically lucky with both of them shouldn't make much of an impact on our assessment of Bloom. (Beyond that he wasn't asleep at the wheel - a good thing.)
 
Last edited:

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
28,842
Hingham, MA
You think so? I was pretty down about his moves (or lack thereof) at the deadline but I don't think there is any denying that the Schwarber pickup (excluding Iglesias and Shaw for the moment) was a great decision. It certainly helped that Dalbec caught fire when he did but this team simply would not be where it is without Schwarber. Throw in Robles and the whipped cream and cherries that are Iglesias and Shaw and he did a fantastic job for the team down the stretch.
Yes, because if they lose to Houston or Chicago or in the World Series, the "blew it" crowd will just say "see if they just made 1 or 2 more moves they'd have won it all".
 

nolasoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 11, 2004
5,266
Displaced
Those who think Chaim blew it won’t come off that take. Those who think he nailed it won’t either. Those who think he blew it may ultimately prove “right”, because the Sox are still long shots to win it all. So unless they do win it all, there’s no way to prove to the “blew it” crowded that he didn’t in fact blow it.
Actually, Vegas Insider has the Sox @ +375 to win the World Series; third best, behind San Francisco (+300) and Houston (+275). ESPN reported similar odds this AM. Based on these data, I don't think we can classify the Red Sox as "long shots" for the 2021 WS title.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
28,842
Hingham, MA
What's your definition of a long shot? I mean, they can't be 50% to win it before the ALCS has been played
There is a much higher chance of them not winning than winning. No need to get into semantics here. The entire point was that this season is still more likely to end without a title than with a title.
 

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
1,292
Chicago, IL
Mmmm. Those guys were kick-the-tires in-season FA acquisitions where the Sox had a clear need, and couldn't/wouldn't tap their minor league system to address it. It's Bloom doing the due diligence that any GM might be reasonably expected to do.

That fact that we got fantastically lucky with both of them shouldn't make much of an impact on our assessment of Bloom. (Beyond that he wasn't asleep at the wheel - a good thing.)
Somehow the site quoted me for a thing I don't think I ever said .... unless my sleep meds took hold one night or something ...or those damn Russian bots are at it again!
 

wilked

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
2,805
There is a much higher chance of them not winning than winning. No need to get into semantics here. The entire point was that this season is still more likely to end without a title than with a title.
I'm not trying to get into a semantics battle, but that applies to every team, every year. I think we are probably saying the same thing, but I do disagree that you need to win a World Series to say with some confidence if a trade was a winner or loser.
 

cournoyer

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2012
447
Enfield, Connecticut
Yes, because if they lose to Houston or Chicago or in the World Series, the "blew it" crowd will just say "see if they just made 1 or 2 more moves they'd have won it all".
Haha you're probably right. A few posters here come to mind for sure, but if you're looking at it rationally Chaim did a pretty great job getting what he did, while not selling off any serious prospects. They would probably say it's all results-based and not winning a WS is a fail, but personally by getting this far I think the Front Office can be happy with what they did. You can't win it every year, but if you're putting yourself in the top 4 out of 32 and giving yourself a chance after last year's ugliness, I'm pleased.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
28,842
Hingham, MA
I'm not trying to get into a semantics battle, but that applies to every team, every year. I think we are probably saying the same thing, but I do disagree that you need to win a World Series to say with some confidence if a trade was a winner or loser.
For an individual trade, agree. But for the collective "trade deadline", the "blew it" crowd won't be satisfied unless the Sox win it all. Which (of course!) they are still unlikely to do.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
28,842
Hingham, MA
Haha you're probably right. A few posters here come to mind for sure, but if you're looking at it rationally Chaim did a pretty great job getting what he did, while not selling off any serious prospects. They would probably say it's all results-based and not winning a WS is a fail, but personally by getting this far I think the Front Office can be happy with what they did. You can't win it every year, but if you're putting yourself in the top 4 out of 32 and giving yourself a chance after last year's ugliness, I'm pleased.
Giving yourself a chance, but on top of that, not risking anything in future years by doing so. That's the key
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
20,942
Hey, I was wrong about the deadline. I thought that Bloom didn't do enough and I was mostly basing my opinion on what was happening at the time. The Sox were falling like a lead balloon and the players that he acquired either were hurt and not immediately helping (Schwarber) or seemed like retreads (Robel and Davis). Turns out the Yale-educated GM knew more than me. Weird. :)

Having said all that, the Sox have done some pretty amazing things in the last ten days that not even the most optimistic of us thought were possible. Many times over the last month, reporters have been lauding the Rays for their daily pregame defensive drills and admonished the Sox for not doing something similar. And that made sense. The Rays are a terrific defensive team and the Sox, well, aren't. But which team made two errors in the last inning with their season on the line? It was the Rays. Who would have predicted that?

I guess that's what's so cool about baseball.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
15,449
Maine
I thought Bloom did what he could with what he had to trade. You can only spend what you have available (in this case, not much for trade chips).

However, just looking at the Scherzer deal (below), why the hell did TB not back up the truck to get him from the Nationals? Use him for 2021; trade him in the off-season; and get someone else to eat his salary.

https://dodgerblue.com/dodgers-not-paying-max-scherzer-during-season-nationals-salary/2021/09/01/
A) He's a free agent this winter. So no trade in the off-season, no recouping some of the prospects or off-loading any money. He was purely a rental.

B) Scherzer had a no-trade so he controlled where he went (and reportedly preferred the west coast)
 

Archer1979

shazowies
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
5,371
Right Here
A) He's a free agent this winter. So no trade in the off-season, no recouping some of the prospects or off-loading any money. He was purely a rental.

B) Scherzer had a no-trade so he controlled where he went (and reportedly preferred the west coast)
A) Thanks. I got somewhat confused by the deal, but it really underscores just how financially cheap he would have been for TB.

B) That makes sense then. It would have been a hard sell especially since TB wouldn't have ponied up the cash that generally loosens player's preferences.
 

ledsox

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 14, 2005
368
Hey, I was wrong about the deadline. I thought that Bloom didn't do enough and I was mostly basing my opinion on what was happening at the time. The Sox were falling like a lead balloon and the players that he acquired either were hurt and not immediately helping (Schwarber) or seemed like retreads (Robel and Davis). Turns out the Yale-educated GM knew more than me. Weird. :)

Having said all that, the Sox have done some pretty amazing things in the last ten days that not even the most optimistic of us thought were possible. Many times over the last month, reporters have been lauding the Rays for their daily pregame defensive drills and admonished the Sox for not doing something similar. And that made sense. The Rays are a terrific defensive team and the Sox, well, aren't. But which team made two errors in the last inning with their season on the line? It was the Rays. Who would have predicted that?

I guess that's what's so cool about baseball.
I appreciate you owning that. I thought Bloom did what he needed to do at the deadline. Was very happy with him getting Kyle at that price. But just a couple weeks ago I thought the Sox would probably miss the playoffs. Crazy season for sure, I just know I’m very happy Bloom is running the show.
 
Last edited:

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,865
I'm not trying to get into a semantics battle, but that applies to every team, every year. I think we are probably saying the same thing, but I do disagree that you need to win a World Series to say with some confidence if a trade was a winner or loser.
That’s not what he’s saying, he’s just pointing out that no matter what the Red Sox do (shy of winning the series) the “Bloom blew the trade deadline!!” crowd will complain that Boston should have backed the truck up for Scherzer. Honestly I’m glad they didn’t, because while they now have a top ten rated system, a large part of that rating is the top end hitting talent (Casas, York, Jordan, and Mayer) and not the rest of the system.

Somehow the site quoted me for a thing I don't think I ever said .... unless my sleep meds took hold one night or something ...or those damn Russian bots are at it again!
Please don’t get the cerulean conspiracy theorists going. A good quarter of the V&N weirdos are still convinced that I’m a Russian spy.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
28,842
Hingham, MA
That’s not what he’s saying, he’s just pointing out that no matter what the Red Sox do (shy of winning the series) the “Bloom blew the trade deadline!!” crowd will complain that Boston should have backed the truck up for Scherzer. Honestly I’m glad they didn’t, because while they now have a top ten rated system, a large part of that rating is the top end hitting talent (Casas, York, Jordan, and Mayer) and not the rest of the system.



Please don’t get the cerulean conspiracy theorists going. A good quarter of the V&N weirdos are still convinced that I’m a Russian spy.
Correct. Unless they win it all they "could have done more". Obviously the same statement can be made of any other team. Like the Yankees. LOL Yankees.
 

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
1,292
Chicago, IL
That’s not what he’s saying, he’s just pointing out that no matter what the Red Sox do (shy of winning the series) the “Bloom blew the trade deadline!!” crowd will complain that Boston should have backed the truck up for Scherzer. Honestly I’m glad they didn’t, because while they now have a top ten rated system, a large part of that rating is the top end hitting talent (Casas, York, Jordan, and Mayer) and not the rest of the system.



Please don’t get the cerulean conspiracy theorists going. A good quarter of the V&N weirdos are still convinced that I’m a Russian spy.
Are you?