How long will Chaim last?

When will FSG see the light and fire this guy?


  • Total voters
    308

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
43,827
The posters looking beyond Bloom are right imo. Chaim is just the bag person for FSG. The reality is that they don't appear to have the resources and/or the will to play in the FA talent market.

Maybe that's the smart play (for them, I want my owners to buy wins as much as possible) but the Red Sox just aren't a player for premium talent for whatever reason. And Chaim Bloom doesn't control their budget. He just has to take the arrows for how relatively limited it is vs the contenders.
Agree with this take. Chaim has disappointed me but he’s just taking orders. A guy who is literally graded by wins and losses most certainly wants the most talented team on the field as possible. Can’t ever prove it but I suspect he’s been given parameters for spending that just aren’t easy to navigate.

What I don’t understand about FSG is that if you build the development machine that they want, you can afford a higher risk profile due to the cheap talent coming up through the system. I get the Bogaerts decision. Don’t like how it was handled but I get it. Devers…I don’t get. Every structure needs a foundation. What is ours without Devers?

More importantly, you let him go, where is the replacement coming from if you don’t pay up in FA? It’s foolish to assume that you’ll be able to have another Betts, Bogaerts, Devers group come up through the system. It’s hard enough to acquire several elite prospects. And even elite prospects flame out. This ownership group needs to do a better job of flexing their financial muscles to buy certainty.
 

czar

fanboy
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
4,269
Ann Arbor
The posters looking beyond Bloom are right imo. Chaim is just the bag person for FSG. The reality is that they don't appear to have the resources and/or the will to play in the FA talent market.

Maybe that's the smart play (for them, I want my owners to buy wins as much as possible) but the Red Sox just aren't a player for premium talent for whatever reason. And Chaim Bloom doesn't control their budget. He just has to take the arrows for how relatively limited it is vs the contenders.
Yes. If FSG thought Bloom et al.'s decisions on Mookie and X were poor he'd have been canned by now. If Boras thought that the FO would have cut Bloom out and just matched SD's deal, he would have called them. And I'm not a Bloom homer, I think he's kinda replacement-level analytics whatever. But it's not like he's 10%ile guy out there and if we had DD running the show we'd still have everyone on great deals.

I think it's somewhat interesting (telling?) that Sox fans seem to be directing ire (we are right to have ire, BTW) towards Bloom and not FSG. Meanwhile New York media fawns over Steve Cohen's open pocketbook with nary a mention of Billy Eppler.

Swap the two, I figure we'd still be having the same conversation in this thread, just find+replace Bloom with Eppler.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
22,483
I think it's somewhat interesting (telling?) that Sox fans seem to be directing ire (we are right to have ire, BTW) towards Bloom and not FSG. Meanwhile New York media fawns over Steve Cohen's open pocketbook with nary a mention of Billy Eppler.
People have directed their ire to FSG, but every time it’s done there’s 10 posters saying the same thing, “FSG brought me so much joy with four championships in 14 years, how dare you be mad at them? You’re ungrateful, entitled and a pink hat!”

And then it denigrates from there. So Bloom is the de facto choice of anger.

BTW, I’ve been thinking about this a lot over the last few days and I wonder whether Bloom started off his tenure here with a bad rap. Like if he came from the Phillies or the Padres or the Mets, would he have had more of a runway?

I’m still thinking about this and how I want to frame it, because I think he’s not a very good PoBO (too indecisive, unable to read the market correctly, his ability to grade prospects are a bit overrated, he’s still making rookie mistakes in roster manipulations) but how much of that is due to incompetence* versus dealing with a bunch of crap heaped on him that he wasn’t ready for?

* BTW I am under no illusions that I am smarter than Bloom. I’m not. But what I wonder is if he’s smarter than the 29 other guys running MLB teams. I’m not sold that he is. And that’s what’s important.
 

8slim

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
20,550
Unreal America
Why would Bloom allow himself to be the fall guy for ownership? How is looking the fool and covering for them good for his career? I'm sure the money is good, but destroying your professional brand when you have 30 years left to work in baseball seems like a bad trade off.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
4,866
Why would Bloom allow himself to be the fall guy for ownership? How is looking the fool and covering for them good for his career? I'm sure the money is good, but destroying your professional brand when you have 30 years left to work in baseball seems like a bad trade off.
Because that's a culture where the owners and GC's and management all know each other. They're not paying too much attention to what posters on SoSH or the media have to say. Did Bloom help to bring about what Henry and Co. asked of him? Yeah? Then he'll be good for another owner when they face similar decisions.... I can imagine Bloom in San Diego in 3 years.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
35,827
AZ
People have directed their ire to FSG, but every time it’s done there’s 10 posters saying the same thing, “FSG brought me so much joy with four championships in 14 years, how dare you be mad at them? You’re ungrateful, entitled and a pink hat!”
I know this is tongue in cheek, but I do think you have a propensity to mischaracterize what those of us who don't quite see it the way you do actually are saying. Literally nobody says what you say we say.

Winning championships is really hard. Winning more than one in a short period of time is especially hard. It's a multi-year process that requires more good decisions than bad ones and lots of luck.

This has nothing to do with whether or not I'm mad at FSG and willing to let them be assholes because they've done enough for me not to be mad at them. It's understanding that building championship teams over multiple years is like ocean waves -- they come in slowly, crest, and recede and have to build back up. The ownership has figured out how to get there, then build back up three times, including with very different approaches. The last one drained a lot of resources -- we all understood even when it was happening that building back up would not come overnight. And that there were some drunken spending type decisions that we still needed to get out from under along the way. Dynasties are nearly impossible in baseball now. The Giants thing is just fucking weird.

So the question is not whether to be mad at them, but whether to give them latitude to try to figure out the best way to get the next one. I can fully understand those who think "they've stopped trying" or "they care more about soccer" or "they are cheap." I personally don't think any of that's the case. I think that's small sample frustration about a couple of micro decisions. Are they adding up to a trend? Maybe. But saying you're willing to wait and see is hardly the same as saying that they can do whatever they want and be cheap because of the championships.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
4,866
There's some prevailing belief here that I don't understand. Do posters really believe that Bloom could have extended X 2 years ago up to his age 33 season? There's absolutely no way at all. There's no way in hell that Devers could have been extended up to his age 32 season 2 years ago. A half-breathing agent would know at this point since the Trout and Harper deals that you DO NOT SIGN EXTENSIONS to take you past age 30... possibly 31. Or if you do... make sure you get long, long, long term contracts with opt outs at that age.
Bloom is doing, IMO, the exact job that he was brought in to do. He could have done a few things better but his overall performance, clearly showing that it's Henry's direction he's implementing.... is pretty good.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
22,483
I know this is tongue in cheek, but I do think you have a propensity to mischaracterize what those of us who don't quite see it the way you do actually are saying. Literally nobody says what you say we say.
I am absolutely not mischaracterizing the view here. No way.

The amount of posters who straight up have told me and others who have said that FSG should be to blame that we’re “ungrateful” or “spoiled” or “EEI posters” is more than you apparently remember.

Does everyone feel that way? No. And I specifically said that. But the preamble from proFSGers are always the same, “I never thought that I’d see one World Series Championship in my life, much less four. John Henry and this ownership group has done so much for me and who are you to question how they run their team?”

If you don’t want to believe it or want to discount what I’m saying, that’s perfectly fine and is about what I’d expect of you. Not only that, where did I specifically say that you said this? You did not enter into my thought process at all when I made my comment.
 

mikcou

Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2007
743
Boston
There's some prevailing belief here that I don't understand. Do posters really believe that Bloom could have extended X 2 years ago up to his age 33 season? There's absolutely no way at all. There's no way in hell that Devers could have been extended up to his age 32 season 2 years ago. A half-breathing agent would know at this point since the Trout and Harper deals that you DO NOT SIGN EXTENSIONS to take you past age 30... possibly 31. Or if you do... make sure you get long, long, long term contracts with opt outs at that age.
Bloom is doing, IMO, the exact job that he was brought in to do. He could have done a few things better but his overall performance, clearly showing that it's Henry's direction he's implementing.... is pretty good.
This seems like a total strawman. I havent seen anyone suggest that Devers would have taken a 6-7 year deal; theyve all been 10+. No one suggested last offseason that a 3-4 year deal for Xander would have worked; they were all 6-7. People think its stupid and shitty for a top 3 revenue team to consistently fail to sign their stars because it might be a 9-10 year deal for Devers/Betts and 6/7 for Xander that run to late 30s. That's the market.

Not having star players is generally a good way of guaranteeing you dont have a good team. Banking on consistently producing them through bringing guys up from the farm is a risky business that results in large streams of seasons where the team isnt any good. Thats a nonsense strategy for a team that generates the revenue (and is risking that revenue) that the Sox do.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
14,384
A three-year drought of what? WS titles? The Red Sox are going to be an org that turns overs its front office every 3 years it doesn’t win a WS? They were in the ALCS in 2021.
A three year drought of not being a playoff team. 2022, 2023, and if they are out of it he will be gone in July-September 2024. That's my prediction. It is a prediction thread and 90% of us will be wrong and 10% will be lucky.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
3,589
I voted "Bloom Forever" for lack of a better option. There's been a few mistakes and a couple bad outcomes, but I think the backlash is overblown.

Here's a list of players set to hit free agency in two years: Soto, Burnes, Bieber, Cole, Sale, Wheeler, Fried, P. Lopez, Woodruff, Stroman, Freddy Peralta, Buehler, Altuve, Ray, Bregman, Morton, Alonso, Adames, Goldschmidt, Eloy Jimenez, Tim Anderson, McNeil, Rizzo, Lynn, Hendricks, Bellinger, Bell, Glasnow, Moncada, Muncy, Heaney, Suarez, Marquez, Soroka, Jansen, Kepler, Kim, O'Neill, Paddack, G. Torres, Y. Diaz, Santander, Haniger, Drury, Jorge Polanco, Means, Springs and Brandon Lowe. We currently have $47M allocated to the 2025 team, lower than every big-market team except the Giants and White Sox.

I'm not advocating that the Red Sox not spend. I want them to spend every year, at least in the top five payrolls in the game. But I think it makes sense not to commit to jamming up some of our positions with players in their mid-thirties on their offensive and defensive decline.

Would you rather have 32-year-old Bogaerts on a 9/$229M contract that offseason or put that money toward more of this pool of players? Or, ignore the Preller factor and say we had been able to get him at 7/$175M — would you rather have Bogaerts at 2B/LF for 5/$125M entering the 2025 season (projected to hit .261/.341/.423) or Yorke/Valdez, with $25 AAV more to allocate to this pool?

The plan seems to me to be for our prospect wave (Casas, Bello, Mayer, Rafaela, Whitlock-as-starting pitcher, Yorke, Bleis if he's ready, Valdez if he sticks, Duran if he's lucky, one of the Winckowski/Mata/Walter/Murphy/Crawford/Seabold/W. Gonzalez/Perales crew) to hit their stride in 2025-26, when there are plenty of solid free agents available we could sign to put the team over the top. In the meantime, we nibble at the edges with players like Jansen and Turner, and maybe a guy like Kluber and sneak into the backdoor of the expanded postseason.
 
Last edited:

astrozombie

lurker
Sep 12, 2022
87
I would like Bloom fired tomorrow, but he probably sticks around for at least a couple of seasons. FSG has other concerns and at this point the Sox are back-burnered with one objective: save money. I don't believe for a second Bloom is authorized to do what he wants with minimal interference from ownership. He was mandated to save money and that is the first, tenth and millionth objective. As long as FSG keeps some fans (and they will - the market is big enough that the goodwill from the past 20 years will carry them, as evidenced even on these boards) Bloom has a pretty long leash that is going to last several seasons.
The issue for me, and the reason Bloom needs to go, is that plenty of other FOs are under a mandate to save money and they can still seem to find talent (usually in the minors) or formulate a plan. Bloom has not really demonstrated that ability - in three years, he took the farm Dombrowski left him, added Mayer and a few low-end depth pieces and all it took was decimating a team that won the WS in 2018. But... he saved money, so as far as FSG is concerned, job well done.
 

grepal

lurker
Jul 20, 2005
49
I voted for the 2024 off season but I think the answer lies with whether or not he is making his own choices or following orders. Clearly the 2023 Sox are a 4th or 5th place club now unless they empty the farm for good players and sign two good SP. I think part of the answer is will the fans watch on NESN or cancel cable packages and whether the ticket sales drop precipitously. He could be gone sooner if Henry needs a fall guy. He could stay longer if the owner wants this version of the Red Sox. If the team is sold it is anyone's guess.
 

8slim

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
20,550
Unreal America
Because that's a culture where the owners and GC's and management all know each other. They're not paying too much attention to what posters on SoSH or the media have to say. Did Bloom help to bring about what Henry and Co. asked of him? Yeah? Then he'll be good for another owner when they face similar decisions.... I can imagine Bloom in San Diego in 3 years.
I'm not so sure that a lot of owners would be excited to introduce Chaim to their fans if he's most known for failing with the Sox and getting canned. Some guys get second chances, but their options tend to be limited. Took Cherington 4 years to get another head gig and it was at the end of the baseball Earth in Pittsburgh.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
35,827
AZ
I am absolutely not mischaracterizing the view here. No way.

The amount of posters who straight up have told me and others who have said that FSG should be to blame that we’re “ungrateful” or “spoiled” or “EEI posters” is more than you apparently remember.

Does everyone feel that way? No. And I specifically said that. But the preamble from proFSGers are always the same, “I never thought that I’d see one World Series Championship in my life, much less four. John Henry and this ownership group has done so much for me and who are you to question how they run their team?”

If you don’t want to believe it or want to discount what I’m saying, that’s perfectly fine and is about what I’d expect of you. Not only that, where did I specifically say that you said this? You did not enter into my thought process at all when I made my comment.
Ok, fair enough -- I shouldn't say I know what others think or say. Maybe when I read stuff I tend to read it to say what I think.
 
Last edited:

Sox Puppet

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2016
700
Not having star players is generally a good way of guaranteeing you dont have a good team. Banking on consistently producing them through bringing guys up from the farm is a risky business that results in large streams of seasons where the team isnt any good. Thats a nonsense strategy for a team that generates the revenue (and is risking that revenue) that the Sox do.
I agree with this, on the whole. Plus, our farm system hasn't shown any signs of producing or developing, say, the kinds of promising regulars that an Atlanta or even a Baltimore has produced. So that strategy, while appealing, is dubious at best.

On the other hand, I wouldn't have signed X for 11 years, and I wouldn't pay Devers $350M+ just because it "has to be done." I get that there's risk involved and that you're basically counting on eating the last few years of a contract like that, but frankly, I wouldn't really want any part of it.

The third path, then, is to absolutely nail the mid-range signings. If your approach is to tinker around the margins, you can't be wasting money and roster space on the JBJ's or Paxtons of the world. You can't let a promising minor league pitcher be taken #1 in the Rule 5 draft while you keep Darwinzon Hernandez and Kaleb Ort on the 40-man. These are the kinds of moves Bloom has to get absolutely right if he's otherwise hamstrung by ownership.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
27,550
This.

How can anyone answer this intelligently when there are still 3 months of offseason left and then they actually PLAY the games?
In order for the poll to make sense, don't you kind of have to assume the Sox miss the playoffs in 2023? I mean if the Sox do make the playoffs, Chaim has probably bought himself another 2-3 years as a couple of his additions must have popped to create the wins so he'll get the credit.

The AL East is going to be a bear this year. Good thing the unbalanced schedule is getting less unbalanced but if the Sox play to the same %s that they did in 2022 (.342 against AL East and .605 against non-AL East), I have them down for approximately 18-34 against AL East and 66-44 against non-AL East, which is 84 wins, which will not make the playoffs.

No one is going to be surprised if the Red Sox come in last again (sadly) given the talent currently on the team and what's left out on the market.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
4,866
This seems like a total strawman. I havent seen anyone suggest that Devers would have taken a 6-7 year deal; theyve all been 10+. No one suggested last offseason that a 3-4 year deal for Xander would have worked; they were all 6-7. People think its stupid and shitty for a top 3 revenue team to consistently fail to sign their stars because it might be a 9-10 year deal for Devers/Betts and 6/7 for Xander that run to late 30s. That's the market.

Not having star players is generally a good way of guaranteeing you dont have a good team. Banking on consistently producing them through bringing guys up from the farm is a risky business that results in large streams of seasons where the team isnt any good. Thats a nonsense strategy for a team that generates the revenue (and is risking that revenue) that the Sox do.
It might be straw man-ish but it's not inaccurate.
I have read countless posts saying that X should have/could have been extended. I don't see it and I don't agree he would have agreed to any proposal that wasn't completely insane.

You're a player with 3 years before you hit FA and you're considered a cornerstone franchise player for your team with deep pockets and you have Boras for a rep. Here's the situation.... you can tell everyone you're going to just go those 3 remaining years and then go into FA at age 27? 28? How many teams are going to give you a 14 year deal? You want to max out your earnings which to me, means 40-42 years old. Maybe a few will... cool. But from reading the tea leaves it also seems that if you continue to be good, you can get another contract before you start regressing at around age 30, 31 max... .and then a team might still toss you a 10-12 year contract worth even more than that other contract.

So posters here seem to be upset that Bloom didn't lock up X until he hit age 32 or 33 ideally 2 years ago... or for those generous (just look at the poll) they all might want him until he's 38 but... not really. Everyone is contorting themselves trying to figure out how a bad defensive 35 year old who is no longer hitting more than 15 HR's a season is going to make it as an OF'er or 1B or 3B. You don't want that guy on the team.... and you don't want that guy sucking up 15% of payroll with another guy sucking up another 15% when everyone is hoping to sign young cost controlled talent to long term contracts "buying out arb years"....

Having star players is a great way to guarantee you have a good team. Signing stars whose fire is starting to fade is a GREAT way to cripple your club for the future... .see Red Sox, Boston. Angels, Anaheim and countless other teams that have brought in "stars" that quickly became an anchor.

Devers is another matter... he's young. But any contract he will sign... either in FA or an extension.... will guarantee he opts out by age 30. He'd be a real dumbass to not have that and I sure as hell can't blame Bloom for that.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
40,706
Why would Bloom allow himself to be the fall guy for ownership? How is looking the fool and covering for them good for his career? I'm sure the money is good, but destroying your professional brand when you have 30 years left to work in baseball seems like a bad trade off.
Execution, especially when its done exactly to specifications, is a very valuable skillet. If Chaim Bloom is being directed to operate within very tight parameters and is getting it done even at the expense of his Q rating with basement dwellers, I'd imagine a lot of owners would consider him for their next opening.

If you are a Sox owner, Bloom is kind of your dream front office type. Has the pedigree but will essentially do whatever you need.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
In order for the poll to make sense, don't you kind of have to assume the Sox miss the playoffs in 2023? I mean if the Sox do make the playoffs, Chaim has probably bought himself another 2-3 years as a couple of his additions must have popped to create the wins so he'll get the credit.
Yes. THAT poll is answerable. THIS poll is not
 

8slim

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
20,550
Unreal America
Execution, especially when its done exactly to specifications, is a very valuable skillet. If Chaim Bloom is being directed to operate within very tight parameters and is getting it done even at the expense of his Q rating with basement dwellers, I'd imagine a lot of owners would consider him for their next opening.

If you are a Sox owner, Bloom is kind of your dream front office type. Has the pedigree but will essentially do whatever you need.
I'm not convinced, respectfully. Bloom likely had several suitors, it doesn't seem logical to me that he'd choose a job where "success" didn't involve a real commitment to a winning MLB club. I suspect that Henry told him he'd have several years to implement his strategy, and we're still a couple years away from when FSG expects that to pay off.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
20,221
Rogers Park
Obviously if they make the playoffs he's not getting fired.

If they have a winning record he's probably not getting fired.

But if it ends up in the dumpster fire that a lot of folks are predicting...
A lot of folks here and in the media are predicting that. Notably, projection systems aren’t, and it seems pretty clear that we’re not done adding.

We’ll see who’s right, I suppose.
 

MyDaughterLovesTomGordon

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
11,845
If Joey Wendle is the starting shortstop on opening day, X is hitting .300 for the Padres on Memorial Day, and the Sox are 10 games under on July 4th, he’s done.

The Sox need to be relevant for lots of other things to make money, too.
 

bloodysox

lurker
Sep 25, 2011
2,754
Louisville, Colorado
The posters looking beyond Bloom are right imo. Chaim is just the bag person for FSG. The reality is that they don't appear to have the resources and/or the will to play in the FA talent market.

Maybe that's the smart play (for them, I want my owners to buy wins as much as possible) but the Red Sox just aren't a player for premium talent for whatever reason. And Chaim Bloom doesn't control their budget. He just has to take the arrows for how relatively limited it is vs the contenders.
I call BS on them not having the resources to play in the FA talent market. They pull in the third most revenue in baseball (right behind the Yankees and Dodgers) and teams with far less revenue like the Padres are outbidding us.

It’s pretty obvious they don’t want to get locked into long term mega deals which is understandable but if you charge the prices the Red Sox do it’s not unreasonable for fans to expect them to extend stars like Devers.

Letting the X man go was the right move but if they don’t extend Devers I might have to take a break from the team. Devers is the perfect player to lock up long term due to his age and the likelihood that he will remain valuable as he ages as he will be able to put up solid production at DH later in his career. It’s also very possible he hasn’t even peaked yet.
 

Gdiguy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,759
San Diego, CA
* BTW I am under no illusions that I am smarter than Bloom. I’m not. But what I wonder is if he’s smarter than the 29 other guys running MLB teams. I’m not sold that he is. And that’s what’s important.
This comment struck me, because I've been thinking about this idea in the same context as the old saying 'Markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent'. I kind of feel like the same thing is true with GMs - at some point it doesn't necessarily matter if he's smarter, because doing all the right things (which probably does mean never signing superstar players to 10 year deals) may lead you to being a consistent winner in the $/WAR contest, but might not actually ever get you to the WS.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
4,866
If Joey Wendle is the starting shortstop on opening day, X is hitting .300 for the Padres on Memorial Day, and the Sox are 10 games under on July 4th, he’s done.

The Sox need to be relevant for lots of other things to make money, too.
100% absolutely NOT. The FO is the group that decided to not meet SD's asking price. The media will rip Bloom to shreds. Half of SoSH will post stuff like this but from every clear point.... X was not coming back unless he agreed to a real dumb contract, and that is all that Bloom was going to make, clearly under Henry's direction.
 

Tony Pena's Gas Cloud

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 12, 2019
98
This whole poll and the reason for starting it seem like nonsense to me. There's very little that Bloom himself has done that can be classified as out and out incompetent. It seems that your disagreement with some of the signings triggered this thread, and in your mind that necessitated a poll. A simple read through of this page shows that every move Bloom (and by proxy the front office) has done makes sense on some level and has plenty of defenders.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
4,866
This comment struck me, because I've been thinking about this idea in the same context as the old saying 'Markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent'. I kind of feel like the same thing is true with GMs - at some point it doesn't necessarily matter if he's smarter, because doing all the right things (which probably does mean never signing superstar players to 10 year deals) may lead you to being a consistent winner in the $/WAR contest, but might not actually ever get you to the WS.
Signing super star 10 year contracts to young players, how the Braves have done it is smart. Signing 31 year old players already showing signs of decline is not.
You definitely need to have some "stars". The way the Braves are going about it looks right (at this point in time), but you're still going to have "stars" walk (Astros, Dodgers).
 

Wallball Tingle

union soap
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
2,356
I voted 2024 offseason... based on the idea that both of the next two years suck. But not at all certain that will be the case. It'll be pretty funny if they're awesome.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
40,706
I call BS on them not having the resources to play in the FA talent market. They pull in the third most revenue in baseball (right behind the Yankees and Dodgers) and teams with far less revenue like the Padres are outbidding us.

It’s pretty obvious they don’t want to get locked into long term mega deals which is understandable but if you charge the prices the Red Sox do it’s not unreasonable for fans to expect them to extend stars like Devers.

Letting the X man go was the right move but if they don’t extend Devers I might have to take a break from the team. Devers is the perfect player to lock up long term due to his age and the likelihood that he will remain valuable as he ages as he will be able to put up solid production at DH later in his career. It’s also very possible he hasn’t even peaked yet.
I don't think they have the kind of money needed to compete with the most prolific spenders in the league but that's just my guess. Or they simply cannot stomach the way these high end contracts are being structured.

It really doesn't matter because the net effect is that this team isn't likely to be a player for a premium FA until something changes. My bet is that Bloom moving on won't be that catalyst but it's just a guess.
 

mikcou

Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2007
743
Boston
It might be straw man-ish but it's not inaccurate.
I have read countless posts saying that X should have/could have been extended. I don't see it and I don't agree he would have agreed to any proposal that wasn't completely insane.

You're a player with 3 years before you hit FA and you're considered a cornerstone franchise player for your team with deep pockets and you have Boras for a rep. Here's the situation.... you can tell everyone you're going to just go those 3 remaining years and then go into FA at age 27? 28? How many teams are going to give you a 14 year deal? You want to max out your earnings which to me, means 40-42 years old. Maybe a few will... cool. But from reading the tea leaves it also seems that if you continue to be good, you can get another contract before you start regressing at around age 30, 31 max... .and then a team might still toss you a 10-12 year contract worth even more than that other contract.

So posters here seem to be upset that Bloom didn't lock up X until he hit age 32 or 33 ideally 2 years ago... or for those generous (just look at the poll) they all might want him until he's 38 but... not really. Everyone is contorting themselves trying to figure out how a bad defensive 35 year old who is no longer hitting more than 15 HR's a season is going to make it as an OF'er or 1B or 3B. You don't want that guy on the team.... and you don't want that guy sucking up 15% of payroll with another guy sucking up another 15% when everyone is hoping to sign young cost controlled talent to long term contracts "buying out arb years"....

Having star players is a great way to guarantee you have a good team. Signing stars whose fire is starting to fade is a GREAT way to cripple your club for the future... .see Red Sox, Boston. Angels, Anaheim and countless other teams that have brought in "stars" that quickly became an anchor.

Devers is another matter... he's young. But any contract he will sign... either in FA or an extension.... will guarantee he opts out by age 30. He'd be a real dumbass to not have that and I sure as hell can't blame Bloom for that.
I guess I just dont agree that many people are annoyed that they didnt sign Xander 2-3 years ago to a short term deal. They're upset that they didnt sign him last offseason to a 6-7 year deal. Thats a deal that isnt taking him to 31-33; its taking him to 35-36. You take the downside at 35-36 to get his early 30s, just like every other long term deal around.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
17,920
Maine
I guess I just dont agree that many people are annoyed that they didnt sign Xander 2-3 years ago to a short term deal. They're upset that they didnt sign him last offseason to a 6-7 year deal. Thats a deal that isnt taking him to 31-33; its taking him to 35-36. You take the downside at 35-36 to get his early 30s, just like every other long term deal around.
If there's anyone annoyed that they didn't sign Bogaerts to a deal taking him to age 33, they're simply not paying attention because HE HAD A DEAL THAT TOOK HIM THROUGH AGE 33 ALREADY. He opted out of it. Expecting Bloom to negotiate to replace one contract with another of equal length is insanity.
 

mikcou

Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2007
743
Boston
If there's anyone annoyed that they didn't sign Bogaerts to a deal taking him to age 33, they're simply not paying attention because HE HAD A DEAL THAT TOOK HIM THROUGH AGE 33 ALREADY. He opted out of it. Expecting Bloom to negotiate to replace one contract with another of equal length is insanity.
We dont need to rehash it, but I think most people would disagree with you - the team guaranteed him through 33 - it was a one side commitment to that age.
 

8slim

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
20,550
Unreal America
Signing super star 10 year contracts to young players, how the Braves have done it is smart. Signing 31 year old players already showing signs of decline is not.
You definitely need to have some "stars". The way the Braves are going about it looks right (at this point in time), but you're still going to have "stars" walk (Astros, Dodgers).
Honestly, if there was a better candidate for the "10 year contract" than Mookie I don't think one exists. Even with the luxury tax, and Price, and all that, it's still mind-blowing to me that *he* was where they drew the line. Devers is the next best thing the Sox will have in that circumstance for years. If they don't lock him up then it's 100% fair to assume that the combo of Bloom and this ownership group simply won't manage the team the way at least 1/3rd of the league will.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
19,039
Miami (oh, Miami!)
We dont need to rehash it, but I think most people would disagree with you - the team guaranteed him through 33 - it was a one side commitment to that age.
And does that not indicate that Xander wanted to test the free agent market when he was 30 years old?

You're right in that there's no need to rehash this.

But there is a need for people to stop using wishcast scenarios as fuel for their perpetual grievance machines.
 

BringBackMo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
736
Honestly, if there was a better candidate for the "10 year contract" than Mookie I don't think one exists. Even with the luxury tax, and Price, and all that, it's still mind-blowing to me that *he* was where they drew the line. Devers is the next best thing the Sox will have in that circumstance for years. If they don't lock him up then it's 100% fair to assume that the combo of Bloom and this ownership group simply won't manage the team the way at least 1/3rd of the league will.
It has been pointed out repeatedly that it has been widely reported that the Red Sox offered Betts a 10-year, $300 million contract in 2019. They did not draw the line there. Rehashing this rehash still further, Betts made it clear that he was going to free agency no matter what. The Sox dealt him to LA. Most observers expected Betts to go to free agency. Then the pandemic happened, baseball was shut down, and the economic future of the entire nation looks shaky. Betts then accepted the huge deal from the Dodgers rather than go to free agency. Because we have no evidence to the contrary, you are free to argue that Betts simply didn't want to sign with the Sox, or that Betts was always going to sign with the Dodgers rather than go to free agency, or that the Sox never would have given Betts the deal the Dodgers did even if they knew he wasn't going to free agency. You can argue all of these things because we simply don't know. But what you cannot argue is that the Sox refused to offer Betts a 10-year deal. They did.
https://www.masslive.com/redsox/2020/07/mookie-betts-ex-boston-red-sox-star-doesnt-regret-turning-down-300m-extension-offer-once-i-make-a-decision-i-make-a-decision.html
 

8slim

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
20,550
Unreal America
It has been pointed out repeatedly that it has been widely reported that the Red Sox offered Betts a 10-year, $300 million contract in 2019. They did not draw the line there. Rehashing this rehash still further, Betts made it clear that he was going to free agency no matter what. The Sox dealt him to LA. Most observers expected Betts to go to free agency. Then the pandemic happened, baseball was shut down, and the economic future of the entire nation looks shaky. Betts then accepted the huge deal from the Dodgers rather than go to free agency. Because we have no evidence to the contrary, you are free to argue that Betts simply didn't want to sign with the Sox, or that Betts was always going to sign with the Dodgers rather than go to free agency, or that the Sox never would have given Betts the deal the Dodgers did even if they knew he wasn't going to free agency. You can argue all of these things because we simply don't know. But what you cannot argue is that the Sox refused to offer Betts a 10-year deal. They did.
I'm familiar with all that. No need to get into all this again.
 

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Staff member
Dope
Apr 9, 2007
16,324
Washington
But there is a need for people to stop using wishcast scenarios as fuel for their perpetual grievance machines.
Yes, there are fans who are angry and disappointed with Bloom and ownership and are heartily expressing it. But you know who they aren't attacking? Fans here who are OK with the current plan, whatever that is.

But you do you. Again.
 

mikcou

Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2007
743
Boston
And does that not indicate that Xander wanted to test the free agent market when he was 30 years old?

You're right in that there's no need to rehash this.

But there is a need for people to stop using wishcast scenarios as fuel for their perpetual grievance machines.
When there are reports that Xander would have taken a 6-7 year deal a bit above what Story signed for last offseason, I wouldnt characterize it as wishcasting (say like wishing hed sign a 3 year deal), but more of a consideration of whether Bloom legitimately effed up.

You can say you dont believe the reports, but I dont think characterizing something that has reasonably been reported as "wishcasting" is a reasonable characterization of a position.
 

BringBackMo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
736
I remain a supporter of Bloom and what he is doing. I think he fucked up the Bogaerts situation badly. He wanted him back, he could have locked him up last offseason, and he should have. He went into this offseason convinced that Bogaerts would stay. Bogaerts probably WAS going to stay, but San Diego struck out with Judge and Turner
I'm familiar with all that. No need to get into all this again.
Oh.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
19,039
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Yes, there are fans who are angry and disappointed with Bloom and ownership and are heartily expressing it. But you know who they aren't attacking? Fans here who are OK with the current plan, whatever that is.

But you do you. Again.
You're right. I'll leave them to their anger and disappointment and hearty expressions.
 

Ganthem

a ray of sunshine
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2022
914
Yes, there are fans who are angry and disappointed with Bloom and ownership and are heartily expressing it. But you know who they aren't attacking? Fans here who are OK with the current plan, whatever that is.

But you do you. Again.
Except they refer to us as Bloomers and it is meant derogatorily. Furthermore referring to the current plan as whatever that is, is in and of itself dismissive. More to the point, I don't think Rovine is attacking anyone personally. He is saying their arguments are a form of wish casting and between that, the bad faith arguments and the arguments that make no sense, this board has become a very angry and unstable place.
 

8slim

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
20,550
Unreal America
I remain a supporter of Bloom and what he is doing. I think he fucked up the Bogaerts situation badly. He wanted him back, he could have locked him up last offseason, and he should have. He went into this offseason convinced that Bogaerts would stay. Bogaerts probably WAS going to stay, but San Diego struck out with Judge and Turner

Oh.
Not trying to be dismissive. Just sensitive to the fact that we've been litigating Mookie for 3 years and I know everyone is tired of it! I shouldn't have even made the comment I did, the Mookie talk rarely is productive.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
15,961
I voted after next season if it comes to that.

Bloom was brought in specifically to bring in with a mandate to cut payroll and invest in the farm system. He succeeded at the first, although they were still over the tax line for some reason when last season ended, which does not speak well of Bloom's abilities. As for the farm system, its best prospects are still a couple of seasons away at least, and while improved, their system still seems to be lacking when compared to their AL East competitors.

This ownership has changed their approach before, and will have no problems doing so again if the team struggles in 2023. Either way, Bloom will still have a choice of suitors.

I don't think they have the kind of money needed to compete with the most prolific spenders in the league but that's just my guess. Or they simply cannot stomach the way these high end contracts are being structured.

It really doesn't matter because the net effect is that this team isn't likely to be a player for a premium FA until something changes. My bet is that Bloom moving on won't be that catalyst but it's just a guess.
FSG is not lacking in funding. It's likely, however, that they don't want to be laden with long contracts.