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
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.
Good statistics, they pretty much put to rest the idea that he was only good because of the sticky stuff.

I did not see the home run on Saturday except on replay. It looked like he tried to get ahead and caught too much of the plate against a good hitter.
Yesterday, he blew a fastball by Springer to go 1-2 (I think), after which DiNardo essentially said that pitch would work once, and if he threw another fastball he better put it somewhere else. I was hoping for an off speed pitch away or a high strike. He went to the well too often and threw a slightly slower FB (94 as opposed to 97) in an even fatter place on the plate. (Mid thigh inner half.)

I think his real mistake was in starting McGwire with two noncompetitive pitches off the plate. That 2-0 hole meant that when he did get two strikes, all McGwire gad to do was foul off his good pitches and wait for a pitch he could take. The walk to the number nine hitter was the first mistake. The repeat of the fastball to Springer in a hitter's spot in the strike zone was the second. I don't know whether that was poor command or poor decision making. If it was poor command, that often comes as a result of overuse.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
32,005
Deep inside Muppet Labs
He threw the HR pitch to Springer right down the middle of the plate, straight as an arrow. He couldn't have made a worse pitch had he been trying to give up the HR. It was a batting practice pitch. It's not a pitch a major league pitcher should be throwing.

I don't know whether that was poor command or poor decision making.
It was both. Both an error to throw another fastball and horrible command.
 

ngruz25

Bibby
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
15,787
Pittsburgh, PA
To my eye, since the sticky stuff crackdown Barnes does not have the same hard breaking curve ball that was generating so many bad swings and misses in the first half of the season. Is there any way to confirm this with Statcast data?

The stats certainly confirm that, while he's still been an effective reliever, he hasn't been the dominant pitcher that he was prior to the crackdown. That's a huge drop in K/9 and K/BB. Maybe that was going to happen anyways and the sticky stuff was just a coincidence, but having watched every game the guy has pitched in, I highly doubt it. It doesn't seem like he has the same trust in the curve, which he was featuring heavily at the start of the season.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
14,912
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Barnes often starts hot and gets fatigued. Historically July is not a great month for him, but he bounces back somewhat in August. There's no reason to think this is limited to "sticky stuff."
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
29,461
Barnes was definitely lacking in command/faith in his curve yesterday, and this was the driver of his woes in the 9th.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
13,650
Now why not show all the middle middle pitches other great pitchers throw? I mean, mistakes happen ALL THE TIME, including by the game's great pitchers. But this was definitely a bad, bad pitch. Look at Springer's heat map on fastballs with two strikes. This is slugging percentage on those pitches. Basically the worst pitch to throw him in that situation. Absolutely right in his wheelhouse.



43307

So yeah, a pretty terrible pitch. BUT...even great pitchers make mistakes like that sometimes. And when they do, well, this is the expected outcome.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
27,819
Hingham, MA
Right, historically he has been bad in June and sucked in August, and very good in April, May, July, and September.
 

patinorange

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 27, 2006
22,729
6 miles from Angel Stadium
Now why not show all the middle middle pitches other great pitchers throw? I mean, mistakes happen ALL THE TIME, including by the game's great pitchers. But this was definitely a bad, bad pitch. Look at Springer's heat map on fastballs with two strikes. This is slugging percentage on those pitches. Basically the worst pitch to throw him in that situation. Absolutely right in his wheelhouse.



View attachment 43307

So yeah, a pretty terrible pitch. BUT...even great pitchers make mistakes like that sometimes. And when they do, well, this is the expected outcome.
The mistake was walking the nine hitter in front of Springer.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
20,680
I think that what makes me so bummed out about this collapse is that we're hearing all sorts of information that doesn't add up.

One hand, we've been told that the Red Sox and their minor league system under Bloom, have made leaps and bounds of where it was a year ago. More than a few writers have said that the Sox are going to lose significant prospects in the Rule V draft due to a roster crunch. But in the last week we've been told that the Red Sox couldn't match up with any team for a first baseman, a starter or a reliever due to their lack of prospects. So what is it? Are the Red Sox rife with prospects or is their system still fallow?

Some in this thread have opined that Bloom knew that this team wasn't great and was winning due to smoke and mirrors and decided not to mortgage the future for a team that isn't going to go anywhere. Which is fine, but if he understood that, why wouldn't he have sold off parts? Why would he do the absolute worst thing he could do and straddle the line between trying to get a little better and steering into the iceberg? Yeah, it would suck to start trading players away during the last week in July, but how's it going now? At least if he did that, he could have ripped the bandaid off, had a press conference and say something to the effect of, "this team isn't as good as you think" and that they're still on course for their plan of the future--which literally every other GM has (low-cost rookies, prospect producing farm system, adding free agents when needed).

Snark aside, I think that Bloom does have a plan. I also think that the success of this team this year surprised him. What I don't know is whether Bloom is able to handle when his plan (we're going to be really good in two or three years) needs to change (we're pretty good right now and should capitalize on this). Based on his first real trading deadline, my confidence in his ability to manage the present and the future is cratering. Theo was excellent at this, Dombrowski was pretty good, Cherington, not so much. Right now, Bloom is closer to Ben than he is to Theo.
 

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
701
Chicago, IL
I think that what makes me so bummed out about this collapse is that we're hearing all sorts of information that doesn't add up.

One hand, we've been told that the Red Sox and their minor league system under Bloom, have made leaps and bounds of where it was a year ago. More than a few writers have said that the Sox are going to lose significant prospects in the Rule V draft due to a roster crunch. But in the last week we've been told that the Red Sox couldn't match up with any team for a first baseman, a starter or a reliever due to their lack of prospects. So what is it? Are the Red Sox rife with prospects or is their system still fallow?

Some in this thread have opined that Bloom knew that this team wasn't great and was winning due to smoke and mirrors and decided not to mortgage the future for a team that isn't going to go anywhere. Which is fine, but if he understood that, why wouldn't he have sold off parts? Why would he do the absolute worst thing he could do and straddle the line between trying to get a little better and steering into the iceberg? Yeah, it would suck to start trading players away during the last week in July, but how's it going now? At least if he did that, he could have ripped the bandaid off, had a press conference and say something to the effect of, "this team isn't as good as you think" and that they're still on course for their plan of the future--which literally every other GM has (low-cost rookies, prospect producing farm system, adding free agents when needed).

Snark aside, I think that Bloom does have a plan. I also think that the success of this team this year surprised him. What I don't know is whether Bloom is able to handle when his plan (we're going to be really good in two or three years) needs to change (we're pretty good right now and should capitalize on this). Based on his first real trading deadline, my confidence in his ability to manage the present and the future is cratering. Theo was excellent at this, Dombrowski was pretty good, Cherington, not so much. Right now, Bloom is closer to Ben than he is to Theo.
Excellent post. I second.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
I think that what makes me so bummed out about this collapse is that we're hearing all sorts of information that doesn't add up.

One hand, we've been told that the Red Sox and their minor league system under Bloom, have made leaps and bounds of where it was a year ago. More than a few writers have said that the Sox are going to lose significant prospects in the Rule V draft due to a roster crunch. But in the last week we've been told that the Red Sox couldn't match up with any team for a first baseman, a starter or a reliever due to their lack of prospects. So what is it? Are the Red Sox rife with prospects or is their system still fallow?

Some in this thread have opined that Bloom knew that this team wasn't great and was winning due to smoke and mirrors and decided not to mortgage the future for a team that isn't going to go anywhere. Which is fine, but if he understood that, why wouldn't he have sold off parts? Why would he do the absolute worst thing he could do and straddle the line between trying to get a little better and steering into the iceberg? Yeah, it would suck to start trading players away during the last week in July, but how's it going now? At least if he did that, he could have ripped the bandaid off, had a press conference and say something to the effect of, "this team isn't as good as you think" and that they're still on course for their plan of the future--which literally every other GM has (low-cost rookies, prospect producing farm system, adding free agents when needed).

Snark aside, I think that Bloom does have a plan. I also think that the success of this team this year surprised him. What I don't know is whether Bloom is able to handle when his plan (we're going to be really good in two or three years) needs to change (we're pretty good right now and should capitalize on this). Based on his first real trading deadline, my confidence in his ability to manage the present and the future is cratering. Theo was excellent at this, Dombrowski was pretty good, Cherington, not so much. Right now, Bloom is closer to Ben than he is to Theo.
Like you I think the success this season came a surprise. That said, might that success along the impending return of Sale, promotion of Houck and thoughts of inserting Whitlock into the rotation lead him to think that they might be even better next season? If that's the case perhaps selling off parts might not be the best way to go.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
7,949
Snark aside, I think that Bloom does have a plan. I also think that the success of this team this year surprised him. What I don't know is whether Bloom is able to handle when his plan (we're going to be really good in two or three years) needs to change (we're pretty good right now and should capitalize on this). Based on his first real trading deadline, my confidence in his ability to manage the present and the future is cratering. Theo was excellent at this, Dombrowski was pretty good, Cherington, not so much. Right now, Bloom is closer to Ben than he is to Theo.
Awesome - do you think Covid will mess up the duckboat parade this October? I mean, this is year 2 - last year had to have counted for Chaim's 'Bobby V. year', right?
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,302
One hand, we've been told that the Red Sox and their minor league system under Bloom, have made leaps and bounds of where it was a year ago. More than a few writers have said that the Sox are going to lose significant prospects in the Rule V draft due to a roster crunch. But in the last week we've been told that the Red Sox couldn't match up with any team for a first baseman, a starter or a reliever due to their lack of prospects. So what is it? Are the Red Sox rife with prospects or is their system still fallow?
I don't think anyone said we "couldn't match up due to a lack of prospects." I think what people said was that we weren't willing to pay the market price in prospects. And there really isn't a contradiction here: the system is significantly stronger than it was a year ago, but it's not strong enough that we can comfortably match the price the Dodgers paid for Scherzer and Turner (Casas and Duran, for example, aren't nearly as valuable and Ruiz and Gray, so we would have had to add more).

I will say that I was expecting more "trade a couple of Rule 5 edge cases for a marginally useful piece" deals along the lines of Scherff for Robles. But I don't think I would term any of the guys in that bucket as particularly "significant," and I guess I can't be too upset about only getting the one Hansel Robles based on how he's done so far.
 

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
701
Chicago, IL
Like you I think the success this season came a surprise. That said, might that success along the impending return of Sale, promotion of Houck and thoughts of inserting Whitlock into the rotation lead him to think that they might be even better next season? If that's the case perhaps selling off parts might not be the best way to go.
I think that that's the case - the organization sees potential for the team to be even better next year. Buuuuuutttt ... the health fairies are never predictable. So, I don't quite get not seizing your chances when they come cuz you never know with the stuff you can't control.

And next year's team will be followed by a lot of turnover and maybe a step back in 2023 to hopefully leap forward into the new dawn a couple years after that.
 
Last edited:

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
701
Chicago, IL
I don't think anyone said we "couldn't match up due to a lack of prospects." I think what people said was that we weren't willing to pay the market price in prospects. And there really isn't a contradiction here: the system is significantly stronger than it was a year ago, but it's not strong enough that we can comfortably match the price the Dodgers paid for Scherzer and Turner (Casas and Duran, for example, aren't nearly as valuable and Ruiz and Gray, so we would have had to add more).

I will say that I was expecting more "trade a couple of Rule 5 edge cases for a marginally useful piece" deals along the lines of Scherff for Robles. But I don't think I would term any of the guys in that bucket as particularly "significant," and I guess I can't be too upset about only getting the one Hansel Robles based on how he's done so far.
But why is the argument always framed by what the Dodgers paid for Scherzer and Turner, and not what the Giants paid for Bryant? That to me, feels like a middle ground Bloom could have pursued and actualized.

Does it have to be: Do what the Dodgers did, or do what Bloom did (only go for a bargain slugger you can get for cheap because he's hurt and a coupla shitty relievers)?

Why the binary?
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
14,906
Maine
But why is the argument always framed by what the Dodgers paid for Scherzer and Turner, and not what the Giants paid for Bryant? That to me, feels like a middle ground Bloom could have pursued and actualized.

Does it have to be: Do what the Dodgers did, or do what Bloom did (only go for a bargain slugger you can get for cheap because he's hurt and a coupla shitty relievers)?

Why the binary?
Was Bryant available for what the Giants paid on Thursday evening when the Schwarber deal was done? Isn't it possible the asking price for Bryant was much higher but came down at the last moment due to the market drying up or the clock running out? The Sox may have been out on him entirely because they had already pulled the trigger on Schwarber. Or because they specifically wanted a LHH.

You want to talk binary, it is never as simple as Team A traded X for a player, therefore Team B could/should have offered X+1 to get him instead. It seems like the temporal aspect of trading sometimes gets overlooked when analyzing deals (or non-deals).
 

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
701
Chicago, IL
Was Bryant available for what the Giants paid on Thursday evening when the Schwarber deal was done? Isn't it possible the asking price for Bryant was much higher but came down at the last moment due to the market drying up or the clock running out? The Sox may have been out on him entirely because they had already pulled the trigger on Schwarber. Or because they specifically wanted a LHH.

You want to talk binary, it is never as simple as Team A traded X for a player, therefore Team B could/should have offered X+1 to get him instead. It seems like the temporal aspect of trading sometimes gets overlooked when analyzing deals (or non-deals).
Yes, I hear you. I suspect you're exactly right - that the actual process of these deals is far more complicated than we (who are not part of ML baseball) can know. Though missing out on making the right offer at the right time is something less than bad luck. That's Bloom's charge and playing the timing card right/not right may well be as much a talent as it is an uncontrollable externality.

He's another binary though: Bloom knows exactly what he's doing and can't make mistakes or Bloom is a fuck up. I don't think either is true. He seems like an excellent man for the job generally, who maybe didn't quite meet this moment.
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,302
It's tough to know what a Bryant-to-the-Sox deal would have looked like without knowing who the Giants liked in our system (and whether we liked Bryant, obviously). But Fangraphs ranked the prospects traded at the deadline, and had Aldo Ramirez at #19 and a 40+ FV. The Cubs got a raw but very toolsy outfielder in Alexander Canario (#17, 45 FV) and a high-floor, close-to-ready starting pitching prospect in Caleb Killian (#24, 40+ FV).

I think a similar package from the Sox might have been either Ramirez plus Gilberto Jimenez (a slightly better second piece to make up for the slightly less good lead piece) OR Connor Seabold and Blaze Jordan (the opposite construction).

But then you add in the fact that Bryant's salary ($18.6M) dwarfs Schwarber's, and either the Sox would have had to go into the luxury tax or they would have had to add more prospects to get the Cubs to cover salary.

Even ignoring the timing issue brought up above and the fact that, as a LHH, Schwarber is a better fit for the roster, I don't think it's at all clear that doing a Bryant deal would have been better value.

ETA: Based on those rankings, the Rizzo deal seems even more insane. I've been thinking it would have been like trading Bello and Jordan -- according to their valuation of Kevin Alcantara, it would have been more like Bello and Duran. Pass.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
14,912
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Even ignoring the timing issue brought up above and the fact that, as a LHH, Schwarber is a better fit for the roster, I don't think it's at all clear that doing a Bryant deal would have been better value.
FWIW, there's a video interview of Bloom saying Schwarber was the best available bat of them all, plus he was a good fit for the team. Those may not be the exact words, but they gave off a "Schwarber was our target" vibe.

Who knows what level of spin gets deployed and why, but if the above wasn't true, Bloom has little apparent reason to double down on it after the fact.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
32,005
Deep inside Muppet Labs
I know this is a dick thing to say, but Schwarber isn't a good fit for the team if he's not actually playing.

I get how in a vacuum a LHH fits better, the cost and salary was lower and he was having a good year, but shit man. The guy can't play right now. He was injured when we traded for him, so this isn't just some bad luck. Bloom acquired him knowing full well his impact would be delayed and limited.

What's he going to be like when he finally comes off the IL? Will he be rusty? Where will he play? We should probably wait to see if he contributes anything to the team before saying he is a better fit.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
49,695
deep inside Guido territory
I know this is a dick thing to say, but Schwarber isn't a good fit for the team if he's not actually playing.

I get how in a vacuum a LHH fits better, the cost and salary was lower and he was having a good year, but shit man. The guy can't play right now. He was injured when we traded for him, so this isn't just some bad luck. Bloom acquired him knowing full well his impact would be delayed and limited.

What's he going to be like when he finally comes off the IL? Will he be rusty? Where will he play? We should probably wait to see if he contributes anything to the team before saying he is a better fit.
If he somehow picks up his option for next year, it will allow Chaim to save face a bit for this deadline. But, the odds of that are pretty low.
 

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
701
Chicago, IL
I know this is a dick thing to say, but Schwarber isn't a good fit for the team if he's not actually playing.

I get how in a vacuum a LHH fits better, the cost and salary was lower and he was having a good year, but shit man. The guy can't play right now. He was injured when we traded for him, so this isn't just some bad luck. Bloom acquired him knowing full well his impact would be delayed and limited.

What's he going to be like when he finally comes off the IL? Will he be rusty? Where will he play? We should probably wait to see if he contributes anything to the team before saying he is a better fit.
Not a dick thing to say, just the truth.

I mean, Bobby Dalbec is STILL the starting first baseman for the Red Sox .... still ... it's still going on .... terrible.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
14,906
Maine
Not a dick thing to say, just the truth.

I mean, Bobby Dalbec is STILL the starting first baseman for the Red Sox .... still ... it's still going on .... terrible.
Dalbec is in a strict platoon at 1b, and has been since Cordero came up. It just so happens the Sox have faced NINE left-handed starters in their last 15 games. I know that doesn't really counter your overall point that 1B production hasn't been great, but it's not as though the team isn't trying new things to address 1B.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
27,819
Hingham, MA
I know this is a dick thing to say, but Schwarber isn't a good fit for the team if he's not actually playing.

I get how in a vacuum a LHH fits better, the cost and salary was lower and he was having a good year, but shit man. The guy can't play right now. He was injured when we traded for him, so this isn't just some bad luck. Bloom acquired him knowing full well his impact would be delayed and limited.

What's he going to be like when he finally comes off the IL? Will he be rusty? Where will he play? We should probably wait to see if he contributes anything to the team before saying he is a better fit.
Additionally... he's never really played 1B.
 

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
701
Chicago, IL
Dalbec is in a strict platoon at 1b, and has been since Cordero came up. It just so happens the Sox have faced NINE left-handed starters in their last 15 games. I know that doesn't really counter your overall point that 1B production hasn't been great, but it's not as though the team isn't trying new things to address 1B.
I stand corrected, you're right. The new look is not much better unfortunately: Bobby Dalbec and Franchy Cordero are still getting starts. STILL!
 

curly2

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 8, 2003
4,372
I know this is a dick thing to say, but Schwarber isn't a good fit for the team if he's not actually playing.
It's not a dick thing to say. If Schwarber had been healthy when they acquired him and he got hurt in his first game coming back, that's not on Bloom (or anyone). But he traded for a guy they knew was injured and knew wouldn't play during a crucial stretch of games against the Rays, Jays and Rays again.

And the answers to when he would return were always "soon." From way-too-many years following sports, if the only answer is "soon," that means, "We don't know, but we hope soon."
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
7,949
I suspect that Bloom might well have ponied up for Bryant if the Sox reached deadline afternoon with no significant offensive help acquired, but the plan changed once he got a good deal for Schwarber. I believe that they did plan to follow up the KS trade with a deal for a mid-tier first baseman at a reasonable cost, plus the relief help. His trading partners likely bet that the Sox would be desperate to acquire a 1B and would eventually overpay, and thus never relented even when the clock approached 4:00 p.m.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
20,680
The other thing that bugs me about the Schwarber acquisition is that if he's going to play first base, he needs to be stapled to someone. Let me explain, he's played zero games at first so we don't know how good of a first baseman he's going to be. Let's assume that he's okay, he makes the routine plays but isn't Keith Hernandez. As the Sox get further along into the season and into more important games, my assumption is that Cora will/would remove him in latter innings for defensive purposes. This means that Dalbec will man first base probably after the seventh inning in close games.

Close games can go either way. Removing Schwarber for defensive purposes obviously means removing his bat from the lineup, which means Dalbec's bat could come into play in some really important situations. Watching Dalbec whiff on three fastballs in the ninth while Schwarber is sitting on the bench is going to be extremely frustrating.

This occurred to me a few days ago, but it's predicated on a. the Sox making the postseason and b. Schwarber ever not being hurt.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
14,912
Miami (oh, Miami!)
The other thing that bugs me about the Schwarber acquisition is that if he's going to play first base, he needs to be stapled to someone. Let me explain, he's played zero games at first so we don't know how good of a first baseman he's going to be. Let's assume that he's okay, he makes the routine plays but isn't Keith Hernandez. As the Sox get further along into the season and into more important games, my assumption is that Cora will/would remove him in latter innings for defensive purposes. This means that Dalbec will man first base probably after the seventh inning in close games.

Close games can go either way. Removing Schwarber for defensive purposes obviously means removing his bat from the lineup, which means Dalbec's bat could come into play in some really important situations. Watching Dalbec whiff on three fastballs in the ninth while Schwarber is sitting on the bench is going to be extremely frustrating.

This occurred to me a few days ago, but it's predicated on a. the Sox making the postseason and b. Schwarber ever not being hurt.
Theoretically he could be lateraled to LF or DH, with JD going to LF or exiting the game? He's not a great defensive OF player, save for the good arm, and LF in Fenway has its own learning curve.

But I doubt he's routinely lifted for Dalbec unless he proves to be a total butcher. First, because Cora does not usually do that sort of thing, and second because Dalbec isn't a clear upgrade over an average-ish 1B.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
20,680
Theoretically he could be lateraled to LF or DH, with JD going to LF or exiting the game? He's not a great defensive OF player, save for the good arm, and LF in Fenway has its own learning curve.

But I doubt he's routinely lifted for Dalbec unless he proves to be a total butcher. First, because Cora does not usually do that sort of thing, and second because Dalbec isn't a clear upgrade over an average-ish 1B.
If he (or JD) go to the outfield, who sits? Renfroe? Durran?

The one hallmark of these Red Sox teams is that they've been able to play pretty good defense. Xander, the three B's in the outfield, Vazquez, Moreland were all really good, so Cora never had to maneuver players around in the latter innings like Tito had to do when Millar or Ortiz played first. Devers was a bit of an adventure, but his bat more than made up for his glove and sometimes Nunez was deployed at third when things weren't going great. I just find it hard to believe that Cora would be okay with a dude with balky hamstrings, groin and a grand total of 300+ innings (best case scenario) at first in high-leverage situations.

I was happy with the Schwarber transaction when I first heard it, but between the injuries, the learning-first-base-on-the-fly and his hot-and-cold season; I'm thinking that this was a real dud of a deal.
 

cournoyer

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2012
431
Enfield, Connecticut
The other thing that bugs me about the Schwarber acquisition is that if he's going to play first base, he needs to be stapled to someone. Let me explain, he's played zero games at first so we don't know how good of a first baseman he's going to be. Let's assume that he's okay, he makes the routine plays but isn't Keith Hernandez. As the Sox get further along into the season and into more important games, my assumption is that Cora will/would remove him in latter innings for defensive purposes. This means that Dalbec will man first base probably after the seventh inning in close games.

Close games can go either way. Removing Schwarber for defensive purposes obviously means removing his bat from the lineup, which means Dalbec's bat could come into play in some really important situations. Watching Dalbec whiff on three fastballs in the ninth while Schwarber is sitting on the bench is going to be extremely frustrating.

This occurred to me a few days ago, but it's predicated on a. the Sox making the postseason and b. Schwarber ever not being hurt.
In my opinion, if he's making the routine plays then he is staying in the game, plain and simple. There's no way Cora will be taking his bat out of the lineup, especially in must-win games; the Red Sox have made their bed at the trade deadline, now they'll have to sleep in it. I don't love Schwarber playing 1B but clearly this is their plan which is fine. If we actually watch Dalbec strike out at the end of a game with Schwarber on the bench I'd be stunned. I just hope we get his bat in the lineup soon and his groin isn't too messed up or the trade really will be a dud.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
32,005
Deep inside Muppet Labs
After Barnes’ implosion tonight the Sox should probably start making some waiver trades to sell off useful pieces. 2-10 in their last 12 and now 5 games back. This team is dead.

Time to admit the season is a failure and get some assets in.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
13,650
After Barnes’ implosion tonight the Sox should probably start making some waiver trades to sell off useful pieces. 2-10 in their last 12 and now 5 games back. This team is dead.

Time to admit the season is a failure and get some assets in.
No such trades are possible. The rules have changed.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
32,005
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Actually I’m not. I didn’t realize the rules have changed.

In any case the larger point remains. Naturally if Bloom had acquired a real first baseman at the deadline the popup Franchy missed in the 9th would have been caught and perhaps the game ends differently.
 

scottyno

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
8,253
Yeah this is a pretty discouraging sign for people thinking Bloom showed promise. He couldn’t have done worse at the deadline this year.
Trading a bunch of prospects so they could have won 1 or maybe 2 extra games in the last 2 weeks would have been much worse at the moment. No move he could have made would have fixed 80% of the team going bad at the same time.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
13,650
In Apollo 13, Gene Kranz asked, after the ship had the catastrophe, “What’s good on the spacecraft?”

We can ask the same question about this team right now. The list is pretty short, sadly.
 

scottyno

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
8,253
In Apollo 13, Gene Kranz asked, after the ship had the catastrophe, “What’s good on the spacecraft?”

We can ask the same question about this team right now. The list is pretty short, sadly.
Hernandez, Erod, Whitlock (before today) and Verdugo and Houck once they get back, not sure how Cora or Bloom should have been able to fix that.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
29,461
I will be shocked if Vaz's workload at C is considerably reduced, so given the ongoing Schwarber health issues maybe it's time to give a real run to Plawecki out there at 1B as platoon mate to Franchy?
 

DisgruntledSoxFan77

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 12, 2015
1,160
Quincy
I will be shocked if Vaz's workload at C is considerably reduced, so given the ongoing Schwarber health issues maybe it's time to give a real run to Plawecki out there at 1B as platoon mate to Franchy?
Nothing says “successful season going well!” quite like openly pining for more playing time for Kevin Plawecki
 

cournoyer

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2012
431
Enfield, Connecticut
Nothing says “successful season going well!” quite like openly pining for more playing time for Kevin Plawecki
I mean I agree with your overarching point but he does have a .778 ops in 100 at bats. SSS, but I think he should be starting for the time being over Vazquez. I just can't stand to watch Vaz hit lately and much of his pitch calling last night was questionable.