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

chief1

lurker
Aug 10, 2012
125
D. And as well as he's done otherwise, can we hold off on the "In Chaim we trust" until he's been here at least 3 years?
Why didn't the Red Sox become sellers if they thought the buyer market sucked so much? Instead, they pretty much stood pat under the premise that the team as designed could compete for a championship, regardless of the competition improving across the board.

Obviously the fan base would have freaked out, but if there was ever a time to accelerate the Player Development Machine - it seems like last week was it. I'd have to look more closely at the non-Devers players that might have brought some good minor league talent back, but - if the Sox have a plan, they should probably be nimble enough to take advantage of an unusual opportunity to advance it.
This take is spot on. If we expect Chaim to build a farm system the likes of the MFY and Dodgers, there is no way he will be able to do it exclusively thru the draft. The International free agency seems to be a market the MFY are using to separate themselves from the pack. They have (or are ) signing the top Int FA that will more than like be rated higher than Mayer. The red sox were not big spenders here either.
This year seems like a missed opportunity. IMO they should have been in GFIN mode. If they didn't feel they were true contenders, then they should have sold off a few pieces who will not be here for long.
 

Philip Jeff Frye

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2001
8,447
I give it an Incomplete, but provisionally a B.

The choices they made depended on the skill of their scouting/projection.

If, within a few weeks, we have:
1) An improved rotation with Sale (and Houck?) starting,
2) An improved bullpen with one (or more) of the current starters (and Houck?) in the pen throwing gas, and,
3) Schwarber playing a passable 1B while hitting at least league average (whether or not he platoons with Dalbec taking lefties),

then it's a B to A-. Good scouting, good discipline.

If all three don't happen, it's an F.
You beat me to the punch with the incomplete. If Schwaber can't play first because of injury or incompetence, the failure to replace Dalbec will really hurt. I'm willing to wait and see what he does, but how hard is it to find a real first baseman?

Meanwhile, I have no idea what we were doing getting two terrible relievers for what has already been a strong pen likely to improve with whomever Sale displaces from the rotation. Why bother to cut Workman to bring in two guys who have been just as bad?
 

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
1,306
Chicago, IL
I give it an Incomplete, but provisionally a B.

The choices they made depended on the skill of their scouting/projection.

If, within a few weeks, we have:
1) An improved rotation with Sale (and Houck?) starting,
2) An improved bullpen with one (or more) of the current starters (and Houck?) in the pen throwing gas, and,
3) Schwarber playing a passable 1B while hitting at least league average (whether or not he platoons with Dalbec taking lefties),

then it's a B to A-. Good scouting, good discipline.

If all three don't happen, it's an F.
Yeah, there's a big range here isn't there ... maybe more than usual. A lotta IFs and potential eventualities. Though shouldn't our grades be our sense of the deals (non-deals) Bloom made at the time they happen, rather than evaluated in hindsight ...
 

curly2

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 8, 2003
4,506
There was an opportunity to extend Devers? Are you sure? I mean, sure, Bloom could certainly approach Devers and his agents with some offers, but they have to be willing to discuss it for it go anywhere, right?

Contracts are a two-way street. Devers still being on the year-to-year arbitration track doesn't mean that Bloom has blown anything.
There's still time to sign him, of course, and I hope he does. And I don't want him to SCREW players like the Braves did with Albies and, to a lesser extent, Acuna, but I'm basing the "he didn't try" angle off this story. It's from Alex Speier, who I think is the best guy on the beat.

It also says they didn''t discuss locking up Dalbec -- thank God. :)
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
15,627
Maine
There's still time to sign him, of course, and I hope he does. And I don't want him to SCREW players like the Braves did with Albies and, to a lesser extent, Acuna, but I'm basing the "he didn't try" angle off this story. It's from Alex Speier, who I think is the best guy on the beat.

It also says they didn''t discuss locking up Dalbec -- thank God. :)
There's also the likelihood that he didn't discuss/pursue extensions for any of those guys because of the payroll situation. Extending Devers or Verdugo or ERod would have increased their hits on the payroll in a season where they weren't necessarily expecting to be in the position they're currently in. As we've seen in the last few days, they were not inclined to blow past the luxury tax cap while in contention, so I doubt very much they would do it at the start of a season in which everyone's most optimistic expectation was wildcard contender at best.

They should be in a better place to talk extensions for guys this winter/next spring. Especially if they're only going to build and improve on what they've done this year (i.e. being in a position where going over the luxury tax limit feels more worthwhile right from the start of the season). As such, I still have a hard time getting behind any notion that Bloom "blew it."
 

Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat

has big, douchey shoulders
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
There's still time to sign him, of course, and I hope he does. And I don't want him to SCREW players like the Braves did with Albies and, to a lesser extent, Acuna, but I'm basing the "he didn't try" angle off this story. It's from Alex Speier, who I think is the best guy on the beat.

It also says they didn''t discuss locking up Dalbec -- thank God. :)
Remind me again of the details of how the Braves forged the signatures of Albies and Acuna.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
1,205
Incomplete sounds like lazy grading. They completed the trade deadline. We are tasked with grading our immediate reaction to how we think it worked out.

If Schwarber hits 20 homers & the random relief pitchers get the last 12 outs of the World Series it's an A+ & if they all suck & singlehandedly cost us our season it's an F-.

I gave it a C because they didn't get a ton accomplished, but realistically they could have made perfect decisions regarding every single option they had & I wouldn't be surprised.
 

DisgruntledSoxFan77

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 12, 2015
1,305
Quincy
There's still time to sign him, of course, and I hope he does. And I don't want him to SCREW players like the Braves did with Albies and, to a lesser extent, Acuna, but I'm basing the "he didn't try" angle off this story. It's from Alex Speier, who I think is the best guy on the beat.

It also says they didn''t discuss locking up Dalbec -- thank God. :)
Albies and Acuna signed contracts that they agreed to. The team didn’t force them to sign them, if they signed that means the players accepted the money they were being offered. If they wanted more then that was on them, not the team. If anyone is at fault it’s on the player (or perhaps the agent if they didn’t advise them they could get more), but there’s been no gripes so clearly the players are happy with what they got. Tough break for the market value, not them
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
16,018
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Though shouldn't our grades be our sense of the deals (non-deals) Bloom made at the time they happen, rather than evaluated in hindsight ...
Not really. Usually the idea of "evaluate the choice made at the moment" is used as a hedge against labeling something a "bad trade" due to an intervening circumstance. Say, a random injury in spring training.

Here, the acquisition of Schwarber is based on the idea he can play 1B and will join the team shortly as a productive batter. They've got to feel confident about that, since they traded for him when he was injured, and didn't pick up another currently healthy, 1B experienced, average bat.

The non-acquisition of a starter means they believe Sale/Houck will balance the rotation and bullpen.

The acquisition of two scrub relievers will bear fruit or not.

We get to evaluate those things when they're expected to bear fruit. If Schwarber can't play first, or remains injured, it's on Bloom, since the choice to acquire an injured Schwarber to play 1B was made instead of pursuing a second option.

OTOH, if Sale (or Eovaldi) gets hit by a truck tomorrow and breaks a leg. . .we can't really hold that against Bloom.
 

curly2

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 8, 2003
4,506
Albies and Acuna signed contracts that they agreed to. The team didn’t force them to sign them, if they signed that means the players accepted the money they were being offered. If they wanted more then that was on them, not the team. If anyone is at fault it’s on the player (or perhaps the agent if they didn’t advise them they could get more), but there’s been no gripes so clearly the players are happy with what they got. Tough break for the market value, not them
My bad in the wording. The Braves obviously didn't force the players to sign. It's almost like they made opening, starting-point offers and the agents foolishly said yes.
 

Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat

has big, douchey shoulders
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
My bad in the wording. The Braves obviously didn't force the players to sign. It's almost like they made opening, starting-point offers and the agents foolishly said yes.
Acuna is great. But he's also out for nearly a year with a serious injury. I doubt he's unhappy right now that he signed the contract.
 

DisgruntledSoxFan77

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 12, 2015
1,305
Quincy
My bad in the wording. The Braves obviously didn't force the players to sign. It's almost like they made opening, starting-point offers and the agents foolishly said yes.
You’re right about that but that’s being screwed by the agents. The team benefited from it and it was a lowball offer but hey if that’s all it took…
 
Feb 6, 2018
2,102
Florida
Well the Sox are in a key series vs Tampa and have Dalbec and Arauz in the lineup so I would grade the deadline an F. We better hold onto the Wild Card because the Yankees are far from out of it.
 
Feb 6, 2018
2,102
Florida
What future is Chaim building towards? What prospect currently in the system outside of Marcelo Mayer is a potential impact player? I mean, Casas is cool but is he what you'd call an all-star caliber impact prospect? I wouldn't from his reports. What's the road to this team contending in 2023 without blowing past the luxury tax? Why are we blowing the rest of Xander and Devers time with the team building to a window that's not going to be open for several more years? They lucked into being better than their projections in the first half and have lucked into beating their pythag and BaseRuns and the response to getting this gift was to trade for an injured corner outfielder and try him at 1B, a couple of rando relievers (I don't know anything about Austin Davis but it's not like the Pirates are some paradigm of pitching development and the Sox seem to be good at identifying these guys, but he's 28 so how can I project him to be some significant add? I can't imagine a use for Hansel Robles and having the Twins PAY HIS SALARY DOWN is an embarrassment,) and to put their trust in MARTÍN PÉREZ and NICK PIVETTA for a playoff run. That sucks!
We tend to overrate our prospects here. I would like to see what Casas can do in the bigs but nobody in our system is untouchable besides Mayer (who can't be traded anyway.)

I'm still a believer in Bloom long term but I think he missed some opportunities to improve this team.
 

Sandman5756

lurker
Jul 31, 2021
95
No question it’s a D. Partially for what did happen , picking up a left handed pitcher with a lifetime ERA approaching 6.00. He coughed up some runs in his first outing. Picking up a left handed bat who doesn’t solve any of the teams real needs. Also, for not doing what needed to be done to get Rizzo, who has won two games for the Yankees in his first two games. I fear another 1974, 1978, or 2011.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
14,063
Well the Sox are in a key series vs Tampa and have Dalbec and Arauz in the lineup so I would grade the deadline an F. We better hold onto the Wild Card because the Yankees are far from out of it.
So a single game in July means the deadline deals were an F?
 

Detts

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
5,165
Greenville, SC
We tend to overrate our prospects here. I would like to see what Casas can do in the bigs but nobody in our system is untouchable besides Mayer (who can't be traded anyway.)

I'm still a believer in Bloom long term but I think he missed some opportunities to improve this team.
Every team’s fan base over rates their prospects. Med evaluations add to the lottery evaluation at the deadline. COME ON SEVEN.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
I give it an Incomplete, but provisionally a B.

The choices they made depended on the skill of their scouting/projection.

If, within a few weeks, we have:
1) An improved rotation with Sale (and Houck?) starting,
2) An improved bullpen with one (or more) of the current starters (and Houck?) in the pen throwing gas, and,
3) Schwarber playing a passable 1B while hitting at least league average (whether or not he platoons with Dalbec taking lefties),

then it's a B to A-. Good scouting, good discipline.

If all three don't happen, it's an F.
I've thought about this exactly as you have except I go with a C/C+ provisionally only for the reason that the next week and 1/2 -2 weeks could be rough stretch as we wait for Sale and Schwarber. Finishing up with TB today and almost needing to sweep Detroit before seeing Toronto for anther 4 games followed by another 3 with TB. Barring a complete collapse they should still make the playoffs, but that wild card game can be a crap shoot. That said I fully understand and appreciate the tightrope Chaim was walking as the deadline wound down.
 

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
1,306
Chicago, IL
Not really. Usually the idea of "evaluate the choice made at the moment" is used as a hedge against labeling something a "bad trade" due to an intervening circumstance. Say, a random injury in spring training.

Here, the acquisition of Schwarber is based on the idea he can play 1B and will join the team shortly as a productive batter. They've got to feel confident about that, since they traded for him when he was injured, and didn't pick up another currently healthy, 1B experienced, average bat.

The non-acquisition of a starter means they believe Sale/Houck will balance the rotation and bullpen.

The acquisition of two scrub relievers will bear fruit or not.

We get to evaluate those things when they're expected to bear fruit. If Schwarber can't play first, or remains injured, it's on Bloom, since the choice to acquire an injured Schwarber to play 1B was made instead of pursuing a second option.

OTOH, if Sale (or Eovaldi) gets hit by a truck tomorrow and breaks a leg. . .we can't really hold that against Bloom.
Well, these are two framings. One framing is "How did it work out." And the other is "How does it look at the time the deal was made." Since no one knows how things will work out at the time a deal/decision is made, then analysis is based on one's interpretation of the likelihood a deal/decision will yield a positive outcome. And a comparison to other options not chosen.

Grady Little keeping Pedro in the game game 7 2003 ALCS (I was at that game btw!) was a TERRIBLE decision. Even if Pedro somehow managed to get out of the inning without letting in any runs, it was still a terrible decision.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Yeah, there's a big range here isn't there ... maybe more than usual. A lotta IFs and potential eventualities. Though shouldn't our grades be our sense of the deals (non-deals) Bloom made at the time they happen, rather than evaluated in hindsight ...
This maybe be a bit apples to oranges, but close enough that you would get my point. Would you grade a student who's not yet finished the test? I mean so if everyone shits all over these moves now and things kick in when Sale and Schwarber return and IF Houck gives us every bit of what we could hope for and IF one or both of these relievers pitch better than expected and IF one of Pivetta/Rodriguez/Perez regains form and IF the Sox bring home a championship should Chaim's approach be labeled a failed tradeline based on what we feel now? It's like trying to grade an active off season, how do you evaluate until following the season's played out? How does one properly evaluate the Mookie trade until we see how Downs, Wong and for that matter Verdugo progress. I remember a lot of moaning about the likes of Napoli, Victorino and Dempster all being brought in at somewhere near $13M per year each (Napoli was later adjusted) in the off season leading up to 2013, but................
 
Last edited:

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
16,018
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Well, these are two framings. One framing is "How did it work out." And the other is "How does it look at the time the deal was made." Since no one knows how things will work out at the time a deal/decision is made, then analysis is based on one's interpretation of the likelihood a deal/decision will yield a positive outcome. And a comparison to other options not chosen.

Grady Little keeping Pedro in the game game 7 2003 ALCS (I was at that game btw!) was a TERRIBLE decision. Even if Pedro somehow managed to get out of the inning without letting in any runs, it was still a terrible decision.
I get this to a degree, but one must be reasonable and not treat all trades the same way. Some trades are immediately seen as excellent ones because there's consensus as to what the trade pieces are and how they will function, absent intervening circumstances. E.g., If Bloom had acquired the best first baseman in the game, subsidized, for a bag of balls, it's a good trade, whether or not the 1B gets hit by a bus the next day. The inverse would be true as well for identifying bad trades.

The evaluation of some other trades might depend on something being borne out because the outcome is in doubt, or they were made to achieve a goal. Here we have to see if Bloom was correct about the predicted outcome his specialized knowledge led him to (and/or the goal was achieved.)

I mean we can all guess at likely outcomes prior to their happening, but there's actually a way to see if Bloom is correct in his premises that (absent unforseen intervening events like the runaway bus) Schwarber will get healthy enough to meaningfully contribute, and that he'll play a passable 1B. Then we'll know if he made a correct call.
 

Papo The Snow Tiger

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 18, 2010
970
Connecticut
Since this thread is titled "Grade the Red Sox Trade Deadline" I thought I'd grade on the four objectives going into the deadline: upgrades at first base, starting pitcher, the bullpen and not trade away any significant prospects. I graded each objective as a class and assigned GPA points on the college system, i.e. an A is worth 4.0, B is worth 3.0, all the way down to an F is 0.0. I only graded with respect to the 2021 season and weighted each objective equally. Here's what I came up with (YMMV):
- First base - Kyle Schwarber may be a very good hitter and a good athlete, but he only has one batters experience playing there as a pro. I truly hope it works out, but I remember all too well Hanley Ramirez trying to learn to play LF in the big leagues. It can be argued that this grade should be assigned as incomplete, but since the grade is due today I'd give it a B, 3.0.
- Starting Pitching - No starting pitching was obtained, but since Chris Sale is due back soon and Tanner Houck should be joining him this wasn't the biggest need. I'd give a gentleman's C, 2.0
- Relief Pitching - Picked up two guys with ERA's around 5.00. Only a D for that, 1.0.
- Not trading away any significant prospect - If nothing else Bloom didn't mortgage to future for the 2021 season. This one gets an A - 4.0

The GPA I came up with was 2.25, so a C.
 

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
1,306
Chicago, IL
I mean we can all guess at likely outcomes prior to their happening, but there's actually a way to see if Bloom is correct in his premises that (absent unforseen intervening events like the runaway bus) Schwarber will get healthy enough to meaningfully contribute, and that he'll play a passable 1B. Then we'll know if he made a correct call.
Yes, but Schwarber's health is a gamble like anything else with variable outcomes. Isn't this universally true about any trade/deal? ... because, say, Rizzo could be here (pay no attention to the man in the Yankee uniform) and play like shit ...
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
16,018
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Yes, but Schwarber's health is a gamble like anything else with variable outcomes. Isn't this universally true about any trade/deal? ... because, say, Rizzo could be here (pay no attention to the man in the Yankee uniform) and play like shit ...
I'd agree that's true, but not all unknown variables are equal in kind and scope. Here Bloom traded for an injured LHH, then said he'd be playing 1B, a brand new position. That's a bit of a stretch for me. But Bloom thinks it'll work, and he has access to knowledge I don't have. I assume there are MD vetted estimates on hamstring recovery time, chances of re-injury, and studies on the difficulties of transferring to 1B (and scope of potential downsides) with factors that apply to specifically to Schwarber.

That's why I'd rate it as incomplete. I can't say it's a good trade or a bad trade because (lacking Bloom's knowledge and insight) I have woefully incomplete knowledge of the expected outcomes.

But I will eventually know whether Bloom was right or wrong about those things, to know if Bloom made the correct call given his knowledge.

OTOH, trading a similar prospect for Rizzo would have been a good trade assessable in the moment, given that there's have been no reason in particular for anyone to believe Rizzo would hit poorly on arrival.
 

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
1,306
Chicago, IL
This maybe be a bit apples to oranges, but close enough that you would get my point. Would you grade a student who's not yet finished the test? I mean so if everyone shits all over these moves now and things kick in when Sale and Schwarber return and IF Houck gives us every bit of what we could hope for and IF one or both of these relievers pitch better than expected and IF one of Pivetta/Rodriguez/Perez regains form and IF the Sox bring home a championship should Chaim's approach be labeled a failed tradeline based on what we feel now? It's like trying to grade an active off season, how do you evaluate until following the season's played out? How does one properly evaluate the Mookie trade until we see how Downs, Wong and for that matter Verdugo progress. I remember a lot of moaning about the likes of Napoli, Victorino and Dempster all being brought in at somewhere near $13M per year each (Napoli was later adjusted) in the off season leading up to 2013, but................
I see what you mean by something still being in process (the test not being completed). But my mind is flip flopping around itself here and I certainly might be being obtuse about probability etc (I'm in the arts, ain't in science or law or anything like that so I admit my ignorance) ... I'm stuck on, well ...ANY choice, when viewed with enough time will tell us if it is a "good" choice or not. That's hindsight thinking. So, a grade now is an assessment of the likelihood of a favorable outcome .... It is a gamble that Schwarber can play first base and gets healthy soon ....it's a gamble that Houck can maintain his excellence in ML level ...

The question - were there other options (and here admittedly we are working with crazy conjecture) that may have given a better likelihood of a favorable outcome? That were slightly less of a gamble?

I play a lot of backgammon. The whole game is to take small risks to create higher probabilities for future positive outcomes. But there's a lotta luck. A player playing probability better than their opponent can still lose ....cuz of luck. So - if I make a move that has good math behind it and still lose, my move can still be seen as good, despite the outcome. Anyway, I guess that's all obvious, forgive me.

A SECOND question is what Bloom's decision reveals about his assessment of the current team, and the organization, and the weighing of present vs. future. This is subjective, but he certainly can be criticized in this regard. If 0 is total GFIN (Dodgers, trade the farm) and 10 don't give up any assets save for the future, Bloom seemed to be an 8 here .... I was hoping he'd be more like 5 ...be a bit more aggressive ....that's sorta the subtextual evaluation.

I understand he couldn't do what the Dodgers did. But I can't understand why he couldn't do what the Giants did to get Bryant ...or maybe spend that capital to get
one of the second echelon of starting pitchers like Gibson.

Schwarber I do think is a good get ... but he's injured and will miss what may be the most crucial stretch of the regular season.
 
Last edited:

Sandman5756

lurker
Jul 31, 2021
95
This maybe be a bit apples to oranges, but close enough that you would get my point. Would you grade a student who's not yet finished the test? I mean so if everyone shits all over these moves now and things kick in when Sale and Schwarber return and IF Houck gives us every bit of what we could hope for and IF one or both of these relievers pitch better than expected and IF one of Pivetta/Rodriguez/Perez regains form and IF the Sox bring home a championship should Chaim's approach be labeled a failed tradeline based on what we feel now? It's like trying to grade an active off season, how do you evaluate until following the season's played out? How does one properly evaluate the Mookie trade until we see how Downs, Wong and for that matter Verdugo progress. I remember a lot of moaning about the likes of Napoli, Victorino and Dempster all being brought in at somewhere near $13M per year each (Napoli was later adjusted) in the off season leading up to 2013, but................
You have some good points here, but the problem I have is that we did not do enough to get Rizzo who was the most obvious choice. Cash an got him for NY and he has been a huge part of the reason the Yankees swept the Marlins. Meanwhile, Chavis replacement made two errors in one inning while the guy we got in that deal coughed up runs that put a close game out of reach.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
15,627
Maine
You have some good points here, but the problem I have is that we did not do enough to get Rizzo who was the most obvious choice. Cash an got him for NY and he has been a huge part of the reason the Yankees swept the Marlins. Meanwhile, Chavis replacement made two errors in one inning while the guy we got in that deal coughed up runs that put a close game out of reach.
Can you clarify what you think was "enough" to get Rizzo? Basically, what would it have taken to get him, do you think?

It's very easy to just throw out there that not enough was done to get player X, but few ever show their work.
 

canyoubelieveit

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 8, 2006
7,644
I'm going to post something selfish and immature because I think a lot of fans can relate to it.

Putting aside the long-term needs of the franchise and the valid justifications for the moves which were made and not made, in the end I felt like a kid who was looking forward to his birthday, who felt he was mature enough to not want lots of expensive presents, but just wanted a couple of small toys he thought his family could afford. In the end he got some socks because it turns out there wasn't enough money for toys, except one cool gadget he didn't expect, but that gadget is broken and on backorder...but a refurbished model should arrive next month, fingers crossed. And then was told by the rest of his family that he shouldn't feel sad because his parents made a smart decision not to spend their limited money on toys, and because they actually got an amazing deal on the broken gadget that will hopefully arrive next month.

Now, the kid already has a lot of great toys that he probably takes for granted. But sometimes when you're a kid it's simply exciting to get new stuff, and it's sad when you expected new stuff and didn't get anything good on your actual birthday. This can be true even when you're a 47 year old kid who still can't believe that the Red Sox have won four (4!) World Series in his lifetime.

So grade D, based on how my childish brain feels, not on a thoughtful assessment of all real-world factors at play.
 
Last edited:

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Can you clarify what you think was "enough" to get Rizzo? Basically, what would it have taken to get him, do you think?

It's very easy to just throw out there that not enough was done to get player X, but few ever show their work.
Yes, people have to look at the whole equation here. The Cubs and Yankees worked a deal that seems to be a win for both. The MFY got Rizzo to fill a need and the Cubs were willing to buy (by picking up the remainder of Rizzo's contract) better prospects than the Sox were willing/able to part with. From what I understand, New York was willing/able to up the ante in talent because they have a rich farm system which is combined with a need to move some assets because of a numbers crunch regarding the 40 man roster decisions and possible rule 5 player losses.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
I play a lot of backgammon. The whole game is to take small risks to create higher probabilities for future positive outcomes. But there's a lotta luck. A player playing probability better than their opponent can still lose ....cuz of luck. So - if I make a move that has good math behind it and still lose, my move can still be seen as good, despite the outcome. Anyway, I guess that's all obvious, forgive me.

A SECOND question is what Bloom's decision reveals about his assessment of the current team, and the organization, and the weighing of present vs. future. This is subjective, but he certainly can be criticized in this regard. If 0 is total GFIN (Dodgers, trade the farm) and 10 don't give up any assets save for the future, Bloom seemed to be an 8 here .... I was hoping he'd be more like 5 ...be a bit more aggressive ....that's sorta the subtextual evaluation.

I understand he couldn't do what the Dodgers did. But I can't understand why he couldn't do what the Giants did to get Bryant ...or maybe spend that capital to get
one of the second echelon of starting pitchers like Gibson.

Schwarber I do think is a good get ... but he's injured and will miss what may be the most crucial stretch of the regular season.
I'll defer to you on backgammon as I've never played the game, but I'm guessing that with the math and probability stats figured in there is a pattern that becomes established that helps determine your decision on how and what to bet. There is no pattern here, nor as far as I can see any way to establish one. I'm disappointed in the lack of return over the last couple of days, BUT I understand the tightrope Chaim was walking. As for Bryant and Gibson, I have a couple of thoughts. First, I'm sure Chaim inquired about both. So what was the ask and what was the offer? We have no idea. What we do know is that it truly was a seller's market this year with seemingly no shortage of suitors. I would have loved to have had Bryant as not only a huge upgrade at first but as a huge upgrade over Marwin Gonzalez as the utility Swiss Army knife. I have no idea what the Sox offered nor am I familiar with the players that Chicago got in return, but clearly the Cubs valued SF's offer more than Boston's. Was there anyone other than "the untouchables" that the Cubs would have considered? Obviously not. The price, whatever it may have been, was too rich for Bloom and SF landed him. As for Gibson, this was a six man deal with Gibson and Kennedy going to The Phillies. Texas may have preferred the package for both players to anything Chaim was able to offered for one, the other or both. Again I don't know Texas' farm system or the needs they have targeted, but the Phillies deal must have been favorable to every other offer they received.
 

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
1,306
Chicago, IL
I'll defer to you on backgammon as I've never played the game, but I'm guessing that with the math and probability stats figured in there is a pattern that becomes established that helps determine your decision on how and what to bet. There is no pattern here, nor as far as I can see any way to establish one. I'm disappointed in the lack of return over the last couple of days, BUT I understand the tightrope Chaim was walking. As for Bryant and Gibson, I have a couple of thoughts. First, I'm sure Chaim inquired about both. So what was the ask and what was the offer? We have no idea. What we do know is that it truly was a seller's market this year with seemingly no shortage of suitors. I would have loved to have had Bryant as not only a huge upgrade at first but as a huge upgrade over Marwin Gonzalez as the utility Swiss Army knife. I have no idea what the Sox offered nor am I familiar with the players that Chicago got in return, but clearly the Cubs valued SF's offer more than Boston's. Was there anyone other than "the untouchables" that the Cubs would have considered? Obviously not. The price, whatever it may have been, was too rich for Bloom and SF landed him. As for Gibson, this was a six man deal with Gibson and Kennedy going to The Phillies. Texas may have preferred the package for both players to anything Chaim was able to offered for one, the other or both. Again I don't know Texas' farm system or the needs they have targeted, but the Phillies deal must have been favorable to every other offer they received.
We do know that the Giants got Bryant for two prospects (as far as my cursory research indicates) not ranked in the top 100 in baseball ....so ..

Also, it seems to me that trading for a guy who is injured needs to be part of the grade/evaluation of Bloom's deadline activity (rather than saying, "well incomplete because Schwarber is injured and we have to see how he plays"). That is - you're trading for players to help you over the last 9 weeks of the season and potentially for the playoffs. If the key trade you made is for a guy who is going to miss three crucial weeks of that period, then that has to be taken into account. You got a guy for a 6 weeks rather than 9 - that matters. In my mind, the grade goes down because Bloom traded for a guy he KNEW couldn't contribute for a few weeks (as opposed to a guy who gets injured after you trade for him). Isn't the purpose for making trades at the deadline to get a shot in the arm/bring in the calvary/hit the gas/hone in for the kill ...?

Bloom and organization decided to step on the gas "in a few weeks." It may prove fatal to the season ...
 
Last edited:

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
1,306
Chicago, IL
I'm going to post something selfish and immature because I think a lot of fans can relate to it.

Putting aside the long-term needs of the franchise and the valid justifications for the moves which were made and not made, in the end I felt like a kid who was looking forward to his birthday, who felt he was mature enough to not want lots of expensive presents, but just wanted a couple of small toys he thought his family could afford. In the end he got some socks because it turns out there wasn't enough money for toys, except one cool gadget he didn't expect, but that gadget is broken and on backorder...but a refurbished model should arrive next month, fingers crossed. And then was told by the rest of his family that he shouldn't feel sad because his parents made a smart decision not to spend their limited money on toys, and because they actually got an amazing deal on the broken gadget that will hopefully arrive next month.

Now, the kid already has a lot of great toys that he probably takes for granted. But sometimes when you're a kid it's simply exciting to get new stuff, and it's sad when you expected new stuff and didn't get anything good on your actual birthday. This can be true even when you're a 47 year old kid who still can't believe that the Red Sox have won four (4!) World Series in his lifetime.

So grade D, based on how my childish brain feels, not on a thoughtful assessment of all real-world factors at play.
Love this!!! So funny and true!
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
15,627
Maine
We do know that the Giants got Bryant for two prospects (as far as my cursory research indicates) not ranked in the top 100 in baseball ....so ..

Also, it seems to me that trading for a guy who is injured needs to be part of the grade/evaluation of Bloom's deadline activity. That is - you're trading for players to help you over the last 9 weeks of the season and potentially for the playoffs. If the key trade you made is for a guy who is going to miss three crucial weeks of that period, then that has to be taken into account. You got a guy for a 6 weeks rather than 9 - that matters. In mind, the grade goes down, because Bloom traded for a guy he KNEW couldn't contribute for a few weeks (as opposed to a guy who gets injured after you trade for him). Isn't the purpose for making trades at the deadline to get a shot in the arm/bring in the calvary/hit the gas/hone in for the kill ...?

Bloom and organization decided to step on the gas "in a few weeks." It may prove fatal to the season ...
Two years ago, the Schwarber deal might well have been a waiver trade on August 15 (or there abouts) after he was activated from the IL rather than a deadline deal while he was still on the IL, and no one would blink an eye at having him for "only" six weeks instead of nine. I think the end of waiver trades has to be a consideration here.
 

Philip Jeff Frye

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2001
8,447
I'm going to post something selfish and immature because I think a lot of fans can relate to it.

Putting aside the long-term needs of the franchise and the valid justifications for the moves which were made and not made, in the end I felt like a kid who was looking forward to his birthday, who felt he was mature enough to not want lots of expensive presents, but just wanted a couple of small toys he thought his family could afford. In the end he got some socks because it turns out there wasn't enough money for toys, except one cool gadget he didn't expect, but that gadget is broken and on backorder...but a refurbished model should arrive next month, fingers crossed. And then was told by the rest of his family that he shouldn't feel sad because his parents made a smart decision not to spend their limited money on toys, and because they actually got an amazing deal on the broken gadget that will hopefully arrive next month.

Now, the kid already has a lot of great toys that he probably takes for granted. But sometimes when you're a kid it's simply exciting to get new stuff, and it's sad when you expected new stuff and didn't get anything good on your actual birthday. This can be true even when you're a 47 year old kid who still can't believe that the Red Sox have won four (4!) World Series in his lifetime.

So grade D, based on how my childish brain feels, not on a thoughtful assessment of all real-world factors at play.
Great post. I feel this way too. One the one hand, it seems like Bloom did a good job of staying calm, not getting into a bidding war for somebody, and not mortgaging the future on a team that for all it's surprising success this year, is probably not nearly as good as the Dodgers, Padres or Astros. On the other, it's disappointing that he didn't find a way to upgrade the obvious weaknesses on this team that has a great chance to make the crapshoot post season.
 

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
1,306
Chicago, IL
Two years ago, the Schwarber deal might well have been a waiver trade on August 15 (or there abouts) after he was activated from the IL rather than a deadline deal while he was still on the IL, and no one would blink an eye at having him for "only" six weeks instead of nine. I think the end of waiver trades has to be a consideration here.
totally. but them's the new rules ... the Sox were clearly facing a very vulnerable period - guys playing hurt, starting pitching sucking and bullpen showing signs of wear and tear. All on the precipice of facing our divisional rivals, what 13-14 times in the upcoming few weeks after 7/30? It's not hyperbole to see these first few weeks after the deadline as potentially determinative ...Sox organization couldn't find a way, or was unable, or chose not to step on the gas during this crucial stretch via a trade and roster management.

Maybe Sox turn things around and surprise us (they've done as much for most of the season). I hope so ... but got a nagging feeling the lack of reinforcements right now is gonna hurt.
 
Last edited:

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
15,627
Maine
totally. but them's the new rules ... the Sox were clearly facing a very vulnerable period - guys playing hurt, starting pitching sucking and bullpen showing signs of wear and tear. All on the precipice of facing our divisional rivals, what 13-14 times in the upcoming few weeks after 7/30? It's not hyperbole to see these first few weeks after the deadline as potentially determinative ...Sox organization couldn't find a way, or was unable, or chose not to step on the gas during this crucial stretch via a trade and roster management.

Maybe Sox turn things around and surprise us (they've done as much for most of the season). I hope so ... but got a nagging feeling the lack of reinforcements right now is gonna hurt.
To overcome all of the bolded in time to have an impact on the next three weeks, they probably would have had to make more trades than any individual team made over the last week. Even if they only address the spots that everyone here was saying they needed to address (1B, a starting pitcher, and bullpen help), that doesn't heal the guys who are dinged up, or straighten out the multiple starters who aren't going to be displaced by a new arm, or give all the relievers the rest they truly need. Deadline trades aren't a magic wand, after all. And that's before we face the reality that in the market that emerged, the Sox were overmatched to compete for even the middle of the road players who were available.

I think you're very much overestimating how much they could have "stepped on the gas" in the next couple weeks even with a big splash deadline.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
We do know that the Giants got Bryant for two prospects (as far as my cursory research indicates) not ranked in the top 100 in baseball ....so ..

Also, it seems to me that trading for a guy who is injured needs to be part of the grade/evaluation of Bloom's deadline activity (rather than saying, "well incomplete because Schwarber is injured and we have to see how he plays"). That is - you're trading for players to help you over the last 9 weeks of the season and potentially for the playoffs. If the key trade you made is for a guy who is going to miss three crucial weeks of that period, then that has to be taken into account. You got a guy for a 6 weeks rather than 9 - that matters. In my mind, the grade goes down because Bloom traded for a guy he KNEW couldn't contribute for a few weeks (as opposed to a guy who gets injured after you trade for him). Isn't the purpose for making trades at the deadline to get a shot in the arm/bring in the calvary/hit the gas/hone in for the kill ...?

Bloom and organization decided to step on the gas "in a few weeks." It may prove fatal to the season ...
We agree on the time frame of Schwarber and Sale's return to the active roster. As to the highlighted, IF Bloom traded for Schwarber with no intentions of making any other deals, if he makes that deal and thinks to himself, "Mission accomplished", then sure it's shit job out of him. But we know that there were constraints, no vault full of cash and no fully stocked farm system with budding stars three deep at every position. What we don't know is what conversations were had, but I believe that this was a last minute deal. If that's the case then perhaps the Hoyer was playing a game of chicken and as the clock is running out he happens to be on the phone with SF and is forced to take less than they may have gotten elsewhere leaving everyone looking foolish with the exception of The Giants. Again, I don't know and the point is that none of us do.
 
Last edited:

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
1,306
Chicago, IL
Olney on ESPN: Other teams FO assessments on Schwarber's medicals had them believing he wouldn't be back until the end of August. Jeesh.
 

Wolong51

lurker
Oct 24, 2020
14
Like many of you, I have mixed emotions about this trade deadline. Intellectually, I fear that Bloom made the right decisions. With the current state of the starting pitching, one Max Scherzer is not enough. We need three of Max.
Having said that, I do think that teams get a jolt of energy when “the new guy” walks through the clubhouse door on July 31st.
Yanks, Blue Jays, etc. got that. Red Sox did not.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
58,242
Grain of salt. Olney has been shitting on the Sox and their dealings since the trade deadline passed.
He just tweeted something wildly factually wrong about the Kumar Rocker situation and had to delete it pretty quickly, he is moving towards Jon Heyman territory pretty quickly.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
40,664
Like many of you, I have mixed emotions about this trade deadline. Intellectually, I fear that Bloom made the right decisions. With the current state of the starting pitching, one Max Scherzer is not enough. We need three of Max.
Having said that, I do think that teams get a jolt of energy when “the new guy” walks through the clubhouse door on July 31st.
Yanks, Blue Jays, etc. got that. Red Sox did not.
The Yanks and Blue Jays also got to play terrible teams. The Sox are playing Tampa on the road. If they look this bad against Detroit this week, then I’ll start worrying.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
58,242
The Yanks and Blue Jays also got to play terrible teams. The Sox are playing Tampa on the road. If they look this bad against Detroit this week, then I’ll start worrying.
Detroit has quietly been kind of good since early May, 42-33 after a 9-24 start.
 

crow216

Dragon Wangler
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
19,482
Garden City
I've been reading the thread and staying away because I don't wanna piss off any sox fans. But I feel like I can put it in a way that doesn't sound too biased.

Chaim should have done more but might have done enough. That's kind of the best way I can summarize it. August is going to be tough but if the Sox can be in a similar position at the start of September, plus or minus a couple games, they'll still be in striking distance of somewhere nobody expected them to be while the Yankees might "feel good" about overcoming the position this Sox team put them in. You guys have a lot to worry about and a lot to be excited about at the same time.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
30,811
FWIW the message crawler at the bottom of the screen on the same network just flashed the Schwarber is nearing his rehab assignment.
He's taking batting practice already, so end of August would seem to be too pessimistic.