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: 4 0.9%
  • B (Pretty happy. Did what they had to do)

    Votes: 122 27.8%
  • C (Eh. No First baseman? No SP?!)

    Votes: 199 45.3%
  • D (Really unimpressed)

    Votes: 104 23.7%
  • F (Should almost get fired)

    Votes: 10 2.3%

  • Total voters
    439

Sandman5756

lurker
Jul 31, 2021
49
That’s not what he said.

Yes, he was available. But he cost more than the Sox wanted to pay.
My point, obviously, is that the Sox should have offered more and done it earlier to short cut the Yankees. The Red Sox need at 1st base, in both fielding AND hitting, was so glaring that two pairs of UV sunglasses could not shield our eyes from the shine.

If the Sox made a fair offer, and the Yankees simply outbid them, it would be nice to know what that offer was. Lack of transparency dulls my sense of empathy for the front office.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
70,891
Oregon
The only way "blame" could be assigned to the Red Sox over not getting Rizzo is that both teams verify that the Cubs would have sent him to Boston for a certain package of players, and the Red Sox declined to make the deal.

And even then, "blame" would have to be judged by whether you believe that price tag was too much.

Now, get the fuck over it and move the fuck on
 

Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat

has big, douchey shoulders
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
If the Sox made a fair offer, and the Yankees simply outbid them, it would be nice to know what that offer was. Lack of transparency dulls my sense of empathy for the front office.
So the right thing for the Sox to do is to tell the public which players in their organization they tried to trade for Rizzo. So fans would feel better that the FO really tried.

That literally never happens and it would be terrible business if it did.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
14,906
Maine
No sense that he was available? Every baseball man in America knew Rizzo was available. Numerous baseball experts were touting him as a logical fit for the Sox, so clearly, he was available.
On the other hand, since I do not know what the Cubs wanted from the Sox in exchange, I can't contest the second part of your argument. The Yankees gave up two prospects for a rental, but he is a rental they may sign if they decide to trade away Voit, to say, the Marlins, for some pitching. What I am saying is that we may come to regret the fact that we did not get him and the Yankees did.
Guess we need to try a new analogy. Yes, he was available. Available like Porsches are available when you need a car. Doesn't mean you can afford to buy the Porsche though. Sometimes, what you can afford is the used Celica that needs a little bit of repair before it's road-ready.

And while we obviously don't know exactly what the Cubs may have asked Bloom for, we can certainly infer roughly what they were after by looking at the Yankees prospects and comparing them to what the Sox have. And based on our extensive history of watching the Yankees acquire talent, it doesn't take a vivid imagination to see that if the Sox did top that offer, the Yankees wouldn't come back and sweeten the pot for the Cubs. The Red Sox are not currently equipped to win a bidding war when the currency is prospects.

And finally, even if the Red Sox had made the best offer to the Cubs and acquired Rizzo, re-signing him this winter would not likely be much of a priority. Not with one of the top prospects in their farm system being a 1B. So that part of the equation is entirely irrelevant to the analysis.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
70,891
Oregon
That literally never happens and it would be terrible business if it did.
"We were going to trade Bob to the Cubs for Rizzo, but they wanted Joey as well, so we didn't want to do it. Bob we would trade, and we'd throw in Chuck, no one wants Chuck ... but we wanted to keep Joey. We'll just have to hope Bob helps us somehow down the road."
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
7,949
I am older than many of you. I remember 1974 and 1978
I'm guessing you also remember the Sox trading away Sparky Lyle for Danny Cater. Seems to be in line with what you're Ok doing to address the team's perceived shortcomings.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
No sense that he was available? Every baseball man in America knew Rizzo was available. Numerous baseball experts were touting him as a logical fit for the Sox, so clearly, he was available.
On the other hand, since I do not know what the Cubs wanted from the Sox in exchange, I can't contest the second part of your argument. The Yankees gave up two prospects for a rental, but he is a rental they may sign if they decide to trade away Voit, to say, the Marlins, for some pitching. What I am saying is that we may come to regret the fact that we did not get him and the Yankees did.

I am older than many of you. I remember 1974 and 1978, years in which the Sox coughed up large leads to the Yankees (and the O's in '74), so the contentment with mediocrity at a few key positions does not sit well with me. The solutions, if you call them that, don't either.
What some of us tend to forget at times or perhaps didn't realize is that The Cubs are paying the remainder of Rizzo's salary for the year and on the surface that sounds pretty sweet. The reality is that in order for Chicago to do that, the cost of prospects heading back from New York are way above what the Sox (or any other team for that matter) would or could comfortably offer. The Yankees had a very deep system and also a numbers crunch that put them in the position of both having quality players to move as well as NEEDING to move them or risk losing them.
 

Sandman5756

lurker
Jul 31, 2021
49
I'm guessing you also remember the Sox trading away Sparky Lyle for Danny Cater. Seems to be in line with what you're Ok doing to address the team's perceived shortcomings.
Not exactly. At the time we traded Lyle, he was already a known commodity at the Major League level. At the time of that trade, the fans knew it was a bad trade. It turned out worse, even, than they knew. Cater turned into a dud, and Lyle, well, taking out Willoughby might not have been a problem in 1975 if we had Lyle coming in for that save, but my point is that the Lyle Situation is not comparable. However, your point is well taken.

Even worse, we traded Jeff Bagwell for one month of Larry Anderson. I don't want that either. Was the Yankees' farm system so much better than ours that they could give up so much and we couldn't? Or was this Chaim Bloom simply applying his Tampa Bay mentality to the Sox?


>>So the right thing for the Sox to do is to tell the public which players in their organization they tried to trade for Rizzo. So fans would feel better that the FO really tried.
That literally never happens and it would be terrible business if it did.<<

I agree that making public exactly who the Sox were offering is a bad idea. However, knowing whether it was two top ten prospects in our system or maybe a minor leaguer with MLB experience would help. We know exactly what the Yankees gave up, and they got an all star first baseman whose salary is being picked up by Chicago.

I guess the anger I am hearing from everybody about my reasoning means that they are content with a good first half and the strong possibility of a total collapse, because that is what is happening. Hang on tight to those unproven prospects, because we are going to be in fourth place by the time Sale pitches or Schwarber, our second DH, hits. Meanwhile, the Porsche and Mazaratti the Yankees bought are going to lead them into the playoffs.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Not exactly. At the time we traded Lyle, he was already a known commodity at the Major League level. At the time of that trade, the fans knew it was a bad trade. It turned out worse, even, than they knew. Cater turned into a dud, and Lyle, well, taking out Willoughby might not have been a problem in 1975 if we had Lyle coming in for that save, but my point is that the Lyle Situation is not comparable. However, your point is well taken.

Even worse, we traded Jeff Bagwell for one month of Larry Anderson. I don't want that either. Was the Yankees' farm system so much better than ours that they could give up so much and we couldn't? Or was this Chaim Bloom simply applying his Tampa Bay mentality to the Sox?

>>So the right thing for the Sox to do is to tell the public which players in their organization they tried to trade for Rizzo. So fans would feel better that the FO really tried.
That literally never happens and it would be terrible business if it did.<<

I agree that making public exactly who the Sox were offering is a bad idea. However, knowing whether it was two top ten prospects in our system or maybe a minor leaguer with MLB experience would help. We know exactly what the Yankees gave up, and they got an all star first baseman whose salary is being picked up by Chicago.

I guess the anger I am hearing from everybody about my reasoning means that they are content with a good first half and the strong possibility of a total collapse, because that is what is happening. Hang on tight to those unproven prospects, because we are going to be in fourth place by the time Sale pitches or Schwarber, our second DH, hits. Meanwhile, the Porsche and Mazaratti the Yankees bought are going to lead them into the playoffs.
So you're disappointed that they didn't risk an outcome that you didn't want repeated? Also you state that it's a bad idea for Bloom to reveal exactly who he offered in trade, but you want hints for what reason? So people can then further speculate on what they don't know? Of course we know what the Yankees gave up, they made the deal. What sort of BS logic justifies this as reason for needing to know what the Sox offered?
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
24,950
Saskatoon Canada
I like to wait a bit, and in retrospect. Blowing prospects for this team would have been a big mistake. No trade was going to bring 2 starting pitchers.
 

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
694
Chicago, IL
I like to wait a bit, and in retrospect. Blowing prospects for this team would have been a big mistake. No trade was going to bring 2 starting pitchers.
If blowing prospects was mistake, why blow even a single one? They gave up two pitchers who have put in quality innings in the minors, and one former first round pick ... I keep hearing that the team is not good enough to GFIN. They are certainly less talented on paper than the top 3-4 teams ... but, of course, anything can happen in the playoffs.

So, if it was Bloom's contention that this team can't do it ... why not just stand pat. Or even sell a bit. Or even, radically, sell a lot. But at minimum why give up a single asset then?
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
If blowing prospects was mistake, why blow even a single one? They gave up two pitchers who have put in quality innings in the minors, and one former first round pick ... I keep hearing that the team is not good enough to GFIN. They are certainly less talented on paper than the top 3-4 teams ... but, of course, anything can happen in the playoffs.

So, if it was Bloom's contention that this team can't do it ... why not just stand pat. Or even sell a bit. Or even, radically, sell a lot. But at minimum why give up a single asset then?
<iframe src="https://giphy.com/embed/hS2tguWYRStJ6" width="480" height="371" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="
View: https://giphy.com/gifs/photobucket-demi-moore-themishkin-hS2tguWYRStJ6
">via GIPHY</a></p>
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
14,906
Maine
If blowing prospects was mistake, why blow even a single one? They gave up two pitchers who have put in quality innings in the minors, and one former first round pick ... I keep hearing that the team is not good enough to GFIN. They are certainly less talented on paper than the top 3-4 teams ... but, of course, anything can happen in the playoffs.

So, if it was Bloom's contention that this team can't do it ... why not just stand pat. Or even sell a bit. Or even, radically, sell a lot. But at minimum why give up a single asset then?
The argument was never that the team wasn't good enough to GFIN. The argument was and is that the team isn't in a position to be able to GFIN, at least in the way you seem to want where they trade highly rated prospects for short-term gains (rental players). They're contending ahead of schedule. That doesn't mean this is their only or best chance in the next 2-3 years.

They weren't going to beat other teams prospect packages for the big names without stripping what little quality they have on the farm. That doesn't mean they should hoard every minor leaguer they have, especially if they have evaluated them as not being likely big league contributors and a trade partner hasn't.
 

Sandman5756

lurker
Jul 31, 2021
49
So you're disappointed that they didn't risk an outcome that you didn't want repeated? Also you state that it's a bad idea for Bloom to reveal exactly who he offered in trade, but you want hints for what reason? So people can then further speculate on what they don't know? Of course we know what the Yankees gave up, they made the deal. What sort of BS logic justifies this as reason for needing to know what the Sox offered?
I want evidence that there was some effort on their part to get a player who could help them. I have always thought of Schwarber as one dimensional, and he is injured; Rizzo can hit AND play good defense at a position at which the Sox are ranked 32nd in the majors. Moreover, what message did it send to the rest of the team that every other team in our division got one or two prime stars and we got what we got? It either tells them that the front office thinks they are good enough to win it all as they are or that they aren't good enough to win so why bother making the effort to shore up the weaknesses. Frankly, I think it sent the latter message, and the rest of the team is playing like it.

Both relief pitchers have had at least one good outing, but both have given up runs or allowed inherited runners to score. Are either of them as good as the top six relievers we have? Are they better than Darwinzon Hernandez, or Philps Valdez? Jaksel Rios? I don't think so. I think there may have been an improvement over Workman and definitely over Andriese, but that is it. So why bother giving up prospects for guys who don't improve your team?

Schwarber only satisfies one need. An extra left handed bat with power. However, Cruz has hit three homers or more for TB, Rizzo has three homers and numerous RBI and Runs Scored, Gallo has had one big game in which his offense won the game; Berrios has two stellar pitching performances under his belt. Hand has had a couple of saves. In contrast, Schwarber has no at bats, and our new relievers have contributed little.

Moreover, since the trade deadline the Sox are 2-8. They are 1-6 against teams in our division that are (or were) chasing us.

Maybe everyone else is right, we need to rebuild our farm system. We need to draft better, coach better, and hang onto our young talent. We seem to be headed in the right direction. As bad as many of our starters have looked recently, the back end of the rotation has been better than we probably expected before the season started, and I think Pivetta is a keeper. Maybe the other team's pick-ups will cool off and my concerns will be a tempest in a teapot.

On the other hand, it is simply very frustrating to see a lead in the division disappear and especially a nine game lead over the MFY evaporate in such a short time.

It’s an F. They traded for a lousy pitcher and and injured guy. They’re playing themselves out of the playoff picture and have added no one to help stop it.
It’s an F. Bloom’s first real failure.
Exactly. Except I don't think it was Bloom's first failure. Santana and Gonzalez have done very little to help this team. I am so sick of watching Gonzalez watch a fat strike and then swing at a ball in the dirt. I can forgive Dalbec for that; he's a rookie who we put in a tough position. Gonzalez has been a major disappointment.

In fact, in today's game Gonzalez pinch hit for Dalbec and watched a pitch in the middle of the zone, swung at a ball in the dirt, checked his swing on a ball in the dirt and then watched a pitch in the middle of the strike zone. Frankly, I'd rather have had Dalbec. Warwin has been useless.
 
Last edited:

RobertS975

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
87
Rizzo started like a ball of fire, but in the last 7 games, he has come down to earth at .185/.258/.295 with 1 HR. Almost Dalbecian...
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Rizzo started like a ball of fire, but in the last 7 games, he has come down to earth at .185/.258/.295 with 1 HR. Almost Dalbecian...
I'm not going to swap sides on the topic of this thread, but are we now going to cherry pick a seven game stretch and make Dalbec comps in defense for not making deals? Bloom felt that the team wasn't in a position to out bid New York for Rizzo's services, period.
 

RobertS975

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
87
I'm not going to swap sides on the topic of this thread, but are we now going to cherry pick a seven game stretch and make Dalbec comps in defense for not making deals? Bloom felt that the team wasn't in a position to out bid New York for Rizzo's services, period.
Don't misunderstand...I would have done anything within reason to have gotten Rizzo. But it may not have made that huge a difference.
 

Papo The Snow Tiger

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 18, 2010
917
Connecticut
Last edited:

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
14,906
Maine
How many Red Sox or Yankees had to be tested for Covid symptoms since visiting Florida last weekend? IIRC there's JD, Duran and Carlos Febles for the Sox and Sanchez, Cole, Montgomery and now Rizzo for the Yankees.

Edit: JD and Duran are back in the lineup today, so it looks like their tests were negative.
I think all the Sox have been tested this weekend because of entering Canada, which is how Febles was found (he's reportedly asymptomatic). The players may have caught a non-COVID bug as they've had a few players ill but testing negative this week.

It would seem like the Yankees are testing because of symptoms or close contact tracing.
 

RobertS975

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
87
How many Red Sox or Yankees had to be tested for Covid symptoms since visiting Florida last weekend? IIRC there's JD, Duran and Carlos Febles for the Sox and Sanchez, Cole, Montgomery and now Rizzo for the Yankees.

Edit: JD and Duran are back in the lineup today, so it looks like their tests were negative.
Rizzo, despite being a cancer survivor, reportedly has NOT been vaccinated.
 

curly2

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 8, 2003
4,372
A big part of today's disaster is on Bloom. Cora has overworked Taylor, Sawamura, Ottavino and Barnes, in part because Bloom's two acquisitions are awful.
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
21,328
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
Could we not have used a pitcher like Gant? That's who I wanted. Not a star. Not Scherzer. A #3 or #4 starter. Controllable for 2022. Making 2 million a year. A guy like him would NOT have raided the farm. He was gotten for a 5 + ERA 38 year old. Sigh.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
32,005
Deep inside Muppet Labs
They had to use Marwin Gonzalez as a PH in the 9th today despite his being terrible because they didn’t acquire any other healthy options at the deadline. As a result the Sox are falling rapidly out of the playoff picture.

Bloom has utterly failed this trading deadline and it’s fair to question his overall competence at this point.
 

Sandman5756

lurker
Jul 31, 2021
49
A big part of today's disaster is on Bloom. Cora has overworked Taylor, Sawamura, Ottavino and Barnes, in part because Bloom's two acquisitions are awful.
Exactly. If these new acquisitions were useful, they would have pitched. Instead, we used the overtired closer and set up man. The real issue was walking the #9 hitter.

Frankly, they should have used either Rios or the better of the two acquisitions (the righty) for the eighth inning. Overworking Barnes and Ottavino is a little like Gene Mauch Pitching Short and Bunning twice on two day's rest in 1964 as the Phillies coughed up a 6 1/2 game lead in the last twelve days of the season.
 
Last edited:

NYCSox

chris hansen of goats
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 19, 2004
9,242
Some fancy town in CT
I know a number us were clamoring for Rasiel Iglesias. Probably should have gotten a two fer and added Jose as well. Some stability at 2B would have been nice.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
7,949
Frankly, they should have used either Rios or the better of the two acquisitions (the righty) for the eighth inning. Overworking Barnes and Ottavino is a little like Gene Mauch Pitching Short and Bunning twice on two day's rest in 1964 as they laughed up a 6 1/2 game lead in the last twelve days of the season.
C'mon - if Cora did that and had the same result, he would have been crucified for not bringing in his best relievers.
 

RobertS975

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
87
Barnes overworked perhaps, but IMO, another guy who was not the same shutdown guy after the sticky stuff rules took effect!
 

Sandman5756

lurker
Jul 31, 2021
49
C'mon - if Cora did that and had the same result, he would have been crucified for not bringing in his best relievers.
I agree. He would have. In hindsight, after using Barnes twice yesterday and Ottavino yesterday, pitching them as longs as he did was problematic. He expected more out of Taylor and more out of Sawamura. Their failure meant that the others had to come in earlier.

My comment sounded like a condemnation of Cora; it was more of an after-the-fact observation that they would have been better off using Rios or maybe Robles. It says a lot that Cora did not use the guys Bloom acquired.
 

soxin6

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
3,976
Huntington Beach, CA
Barnes overworked perhaps, but IMO, another guy who was not the same shutdown guy after the sticky stuff rules took effect!
His curveball has been much more hittable since the sticky stuff was eliminated. He is not the same pitcher that he was early in the season, but he could have just been pitching over his actual ability and now we are seeing the real Barnes again.
 

Dduncan6er

lurker
Apr 16, 2020
232
Springfield, MA
Could we not have used a pitcher like Gant? That's who I wanted. Not a star. Not Scherzer. A #3 or #4 starter. Controllable for 2022. Making 2 million a year. A guy like him would NOT have raided the farm. He was gotten for a 5 + ERA 38 year old. Sigh.
Gant had a 5.12 FIP and a 6.6 BB/9 this year. There’s a reason he was traded for so little. He’s another Richards/Perez.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
3,708
Portland
We aren't privy to who or what was available at what price to upgrade the roster - it's been beaten to death that the chips weren't worth investing in this year's team. And that's totally valid. But the relievers acquired and his evaluation of them were really puzzling, and they'll be lucky to get 30 games out of Schwarber.

There really isn't much to blame beyond that. Barnes has been arguably a top 3 reliever in baseball, but with some loud blown saves mixed in. That Blue Jays lineup is absolutely brutal and Cora went down with the ship, and it was the right move. The Blue Jays are now mercifully other AL East teams problems

There are reinforcements coming and finally an easier schedule than the Rays or Yankees the rest of the season. Take advantage of the O's, Rangers, Nats and Twins, hope for 4 or 5 out of 9 vs the Rays, and .500 vs the rest.

And something, something house money.
 
Last edited:

nazz45

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2003
2,715
Eternia
Given the way things are going, I’m glad the Red Sox held most of their cards.
Agreed. At this point, the trades they did make are a negative. Unless Schwarber has another June-like run if he can get healthy, giving up a legit asset for him is a significant mistake by Bloom. Even if Aldo Ramirez doesn’t turn into anything, he could have been off loaded in another deal in the future.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
13,650
His curveball has been much more hittable since the sticky stuff was eliminated. He is not the same pitcher that he was early in the season, but he could have just been pitching over his actual ability and now we are seeing the real Barnes again.
June 21 was the day MLB started going after the sticky stuff.

Barnes pre-June 21: 29.1 ip, 16 h, 10 r, 10 er, 7 bb, 52 k, 3.07 era, 0.78 whip, 16.0 k/9, 0.55 h/ip, 0.23 bb/ip, 70% strikes
Barnes since then: 16.0 ip, 10 h, 6 r, 4 er, 5 bb, 18 k, 2.25 era, 0.94 whip, 10.1 k/9, 0.63 h/ip, 0.31 bb/ip, 65% strikes

So he's had a better ERA, but has allowed more baserunners, and he's struck out guys at a lower rate.

I mean, until the very small sample Toronto series, from June 21 til before this weekend's series, he had put up this line:

14.2 ip, 8 h, 3 r, 1 er, 4 bb, 16 k, 0.61 era, 0.82 whip, 9.8 k/9, 0.55 h/ip, 0.27 bb/ip, 65% strikes

So it doesn't appear to be the sticky stuff issue. He had a bad couple of moments this weekend.
 

nazz45

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2003
2,715
Eternia
For a different play who might not work out
But maybe one with a healthy hamstring at the start?

Edit - Of course, there are no guarantees. Any move has the potential to fail for many different reasons. I think trading for an injured player pending free agency is fair to critique.
 
Last edited: