How to get back in this thing

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
32,938
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Last I checked, those players are both under contract for another 2-3 years. The fact that X has an opt-out is the result of the previous GM, not the current one. So you are in fact dinging them for something they haven't done yet. Bravo.
Devers is in the second year of 3 arb years. He is most certainly not under contract for 2-3 years. They can offer him arb next year but then he'd be a UFA after 2023. They failed to offer him a contract extension he'd be willing to sign back in April as he rejected their offer.

X can (and will) opt out of his deal after this season. He was only offered a mere one-year extension by this FO this spring (which would put him on a 4/90 deal) which is as big of a sign as any they have zero intention of extending him. He is undoubtedly gone after this year.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
17,030
Maine
Devers is in the second year of 3 arb years. He is most certainly not under contract for 2-3 years. They can offer him arb next year but then he'd be a UFA after 2023. They failed to offer him a contract extension he'd be willing to sign back in April as he rejected their offer.

X can (and will) opt out of his deal after this season. He was only offered a mere one-year extension by this FO which is as big of a sign as any they have zero intention of extending him. He is undoubtedly gone after this year.
But THEY'RE NOT GONE YET!!! So you're dinging the front office for things they haven't done yet. Exactly what you claim to not be doing. Clearly you're still upset about Betts. Just because he's gone doesn't mean it's inevitable that X and Devers are going away too. But I guess if being a ball of rage is how you enjoy yourself as a fan, you do you.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
32,938
Deep inside Muppet Labs
But THEY'RE NOT GONE YET!!! So you're dinging the front office for things they haven't done (or not done) yet. Exactly what you claim to not be doing. Clearly you're still upset about Betts. Just because he's gone doesn't mean it's inevitable that X and Devers are going away too. But I guess if being a ball of rage is how you enjoy yourself as a fan, you do you.
We can use our common sense on this. Offering X a one year extension is, like the laughable 5/70 offer they made Lester a million years ago, a clear sign they do not want him back. That was an offer designed to be insulting. Signing Story, a former SS, this offseason is yet another indication he will be leaving the organization.

Getting nowhere with Devers this spring shows a lack of urgency in their intentions of keeping him in this uniform. If they want sustained, Dodger-like success, getting Devers at the very least committed here for the next 5-10 years would be a good start. So far...nothing.

You mention Betts...the Devers situation is more or less a carbon copy of how they handled Mookie's upcoming FA. Maybe they'll handle this differently but it's the same FO and GM, so this might well be their standard approach.
 
Last edited:

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
17,030
Maine
We can use our common sense on this. Offering X a one year extension is, like the laughable 5/70 offer they made Lester a million years ago, a clear sign they do not want him back. That was an offer designed to be insulting.

Getting nowhere with Devers this spring shows a lack of urgency in their intentions of keeping him in this uniform. If they want sustained, Dodger-like success, getting Devers at the very least committed here for the next 5-10 years would be a good start. So far...nothing.
Common sense says that Devers is here through the end of next year regardless of whether they get an extension done yesterday. Common sense also says that Bogaerts, while talking about opting out, hasn't done it yet, so he's still under contract for three more years. Thus there's still time to get something done. The world isn't ending yet.

Remind me which home-grown Dodgers have been extended a year or two before they hit free agency or their contract expired?
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
32,938
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Common sense says that Devers is here through the end of next year regardless of whether they get an extension done yesterday. Common sense also says that Bogaerts, while talking about opting out, hasn't done it yet, so he's still under contract for three more years. Thus there's still time to get something done. The world isn't ending yet.
I mean, there's common sense and there's intentional obtuseness. Of course X is opting out. We know he was offered a one year extension and he turned that down. The very act of offering a one-year extension is a clear and obvious sign the FO has no intention of offering him a longer-term extension. He will opt out this offseason, everyone in the world knows it and thus he is under contract for less than six months.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
17,030
Maine
I mean, there's common sense and there's intentional obtuseness. Of course X is opting out. We know he was offered a one year extension and he turned that down. The very act of offering a one-year extension is a clear and obvious sign the FO has no intention of offering him a longer-term extension. He will opt out this offseason, everyone in the world knows it and thus he is under contract for less than six months.
Who's being obtuse here?

JD Martinez was supposedly going to opt-out three different times in the last four years and didn't. So forgive me if I don't take Bogaerts opting out as an iron-clad foregone conclusion. He probably will. That still doesn't mean the Sox can't re-sign him. If what it's going to take to keep Bogaerts is market value with zero discount, what difference does it make if they give it to him now or in November/December?
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
32,938
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Who's being obtuse here?

JD Martinez was supposedly going to opt-out three different times in the last four years and didn't. So forgive me if I don't take Bogaerts opting out as an iron-clad foregone conclusion. He probably will. That still doesn't mean the Sox can't re-sign him. If what it's going to take to keep Bogaerts is market value with zero discount, what difference does it make if they give it to him now or in November/December?
Ideally, nothing. But the lack of a similar offer this spring combined with a mere one-year extension means that he'll have all season to think about the inevitability of leaving; by the time any offer is made this fall it will likely be far too late. Timing of the offers does matter. Again, the Lester negotiations provide a clear blueprint here (albeit under a different GM).

JD is a far different and more limited player than X and it's likely not a good comparison between the two. He is also much older. I don't find his situation and opt-ins applicable to X's.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
One does not become the Dodgers by allowing elite talent to leave, and given that Bloom has not given and doesn't appear to be planning to give extensions to X and Devers, I find the idea that the Sox are working towards becoming the Dodgers completely ludicrous. The Dodgers amass talent, and a lot of it. The Sox seem fine with allowing talent, elite talent, to leave freely. One does not get a long stretch of competitiveness by allowing their two best players, both of whom are still in their 20s, to leave the club.

It's not the Dodgers the Sox are trying to become. It's the Rays. Which given Bloom's background, makes perfect sense.

I know their plan. I think their plan is completely misguided and won't work, because Boston has much more money than Tampa and a vastly different sports environment. Boston should be keeping their elite young players because it both makes them better and because they can well afford it. Tampa can do neither of those things so they let them walk and concentrate on drafting players to play cheap for them for a few years.



This makes no sense to me. Of course it was the team Bloom assembled. That is what he put out there to start the season, and that is what they produced. You can argue they were underperforming etc and that's fine, but saying 11-19 wasn't Blooms team is nonsensical. Of course it was. You are what your record says you are. They were an 11-19 team, built by Bloom. Reality always trumps "should haves."

If and only if X and Devers are re-signed to extensions, I will reconsider my stance on their plan. Right now, their actions show neither player will be back. Perhaps I'll be pleasantly surprised.
Out of curiosity, who's running the show in LA? What organisation did he come from? How long did it take him to mold the Dodgers into what we see today? And who served as a mentor to Bloom in Tampa? Also, if Boston gave Mookie the contract that he signed in LA, how much is left for Bogaerts, Devers and any other young player that they may want to lock up early?
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
78,135
Oregon
If what it's going to take to keep Bogaerts is market value with zero discount, what difference does it make if they give it to him now or in November/December?
If they gave it to him now, we wouldn't have to keep hearing the same omniscient management-bashing for the next 5-6 months
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
32,938
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Out of curiosity, who's running the show in LA? What organisation did he come from? How long did it take him to mold the Dodgers into what we see today? And who served as a mentor to Bloom in Tampa? Also, if Boston gave Mookie the contract that he signed in LA, how much is left for Bogaerts, Devers and any other young player that they may want to lock up early?
Friedman has been in LA starting with the 2015 season, during which time they've never finished a full season with fewer than 90 wins and have made the postseason every year while winning a WS. So I guess the answer to how long it took him to get them successful is "no time at all."

Serving as a mentor to Chaim isn't really relevant as they haven't worked together in seven years. Chaim has different philosophies and his success in a big market like Boston hasn't matched that of Friedman in LA (1 playoff appearance, 1 below .500 season, this year).

Your Mookie question is an interesting one, but ultimately it appears the Sox might be extending none of their young stars from that 2018 team. You can't extend everyone but it appears the Sox will be moving on from all of them. Extending Mookie might have cost them X and Devers, but not extending Mookie certainly hasn't guaranteed either of those guys staying.
 

BringBackMo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
612
I find the idea that the Sox are working towards becoming the Dodgers completely ludicrous. The Dodgers amass talent, and a lot of it.
My sense is that you are wedded to your misconceptions about how the Dodgers of today became the Dodgers of today, but just in case your mind is open:

A couple of months after taking over the Dodgers in 2014, Friedman let Hanley Ramirez walk. (Sadly, he signed with the Red Sox.) Four years later, Friedman was still slashing payroll while refraining from signing any big free agents. In 2018, he traded Yasiel Puig, Matt Kemp, and others to Cincinnati in a deal that dumped $70 million of salary and brought back minor leaguers Jeter Downs, Josiah Gray, and Yasmani Grandal.

Reaction to all of this? "HE'S RUNNING THE LA DODGERS LIKE THEY'RE THE RAYS!"
Here is one site in the off-seaon of 2019--five years after Friedman joined the organization!--when it was uncertain whether the Dodgers would even resign him to a new contract.
In free agency, Andrew is yet to make a big signing with his biggest moves so far being the signings of Joe Kelly and A.J. Pollock in last year’s free agency.
The draft and player development have been where Andrew Friedman has been at his best during his time with the Dodgers. Walker Buehler is one of his best draft picks so far and then there is the 2016 draft where Will Smith, Dustin May, Tony Gonsolin, Gavin Lux, and D.J. Peters were all selected. Matt Beaty was also part of the 2015 draft where Buehler was drafted.

While Andrew Friedman has not been able to bring that elusive World Series title back to Los Angeles, he has helped lay the foundation for the team to compete for one for many seasons to come. For the next 3-4 seasons at least, the Dodgers will be a juggernaut in the National League.
That proved correct, of course. But it was at least four years into the job before Friendman made a big free agent splash. And the Mookie trade and signing wasn't made until he had thoroughly stocked the system and cut payroll. Those are simply facts.


It's not the Dodgers the Sox are trying to become. It's the Rays. Which given Bloom's background, makes perfect sense.
What is Friedman's background?
You are what your record says you are. They were an 11-19 team, built by Bloom. Reality always trumps "should haves."
They are 18-8 since then. That is a .692 winning percentage, and it is what their record says they are since then. Is that who they are?

Finally: Do you think the Red Sox will make the playoffs this year?
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
32,938
Deep inside Muppet Labs
They are 18-8 since then. That is a .692 winning percentage, and it is what their record says they are since then. Is that who they are?

Finally: Do you think the Red Sox will make the playoffs this year?
If you really want to be pedantic, 18-8 is a smaller sample size than 11-19, so which one is more indicative of the talent level of the team? More generally they're barely over .500 over the full sample size.

As to your answer, my guess is "no." They are still poised on the cusp of not being in the playoffs and they have to play good teams in a brutally long stretch later in the season. We'll see.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
32,938
Deep inside Muppet Labs
My sense is that you are wedded to your misconceptions about how the Dodgers of today became the Dodgers of today, but just in case your mind is open:

A couple of months after taking over the Dodgers in 2014, Friedman let Hanley Ramirez walk. (Sadly, he signed with the Red Sox.) Four years later, Friedman was still slashing payroll while refraining from signing any big free agents. In 2018, he traded Yasiel Puig, Matt Kemp, and others to Cincinnati in a deal that dumped $70 million of salary and brought back minor leaguers Jeter Downs, Josiah Gray, and Yasmani Grandal.

Reaction to all of this? "HE'S RUNNING THE LA DODGERS LIKE THEY'RE THE RAYS!"
Here is one site in the off-seaon of 2019--five years after Friedman joined the organization!--when it was uncertain whether the Dodgers would even resign him to a new contract.


That proved correct, of course. But it was at least four years into the job before Friendman made a big free agent splash. And the Mookie trade and signing wasn't made until he had thoroughly stocked the system and cut payroll. Those are simply facts.



What is Friedman's background?
Friedman was actually winning during all of those early moves. 90+ wins and a playoff appearance every year. He may have been re-tooling on the fly but was still successful on the field. You can trade/allow to walk players as long as you're still winning and making the playoffs.

Bloom has been unable to match that. Drafting and player development would be great to have, but so far have yet to bear much fruit for Bloom. Perhaps it will, but in the meantime the on-field results have been nowhere near those of LA. I'm glad we made the playoffs last year but the hoped-for building from that success hasn't happened.
 

mikcou

Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2007
514
Boston
Who's being obtuse here?

JD Martinez was supposedly going to opt-out three different times in the last four years and didn't. So forgive me if I don't take Bogaerts opting out as an iron-clad foregone conclusion. He probably will. That still doesn't mean the Sox can't re-sign him. If what it's going to take to keep Bogaerts is market value with zero discount, what difference does it make if they give it to him now or in November/December?
Weve had this discussion before, but arguing that Xander has three more years when he has already indicated hes testing the market. Its reasonable to call that obtuse.

Maybe he blows out his elbow or knee or gets the Hellenic flu. We're talking about 1% tail outcomes of serious injuries. Otherwise, hes opting out (or coming to a modified agreement that compensates him in a manner assuming he did). Hes a consistent 4 win player who is 29 years old and is only making $20M a year. Hes due for a huge raise from a contract that was negotiated at a discount during his arbitration period - hes as far from a JD comparison as you're going to get.
 

VORP Speed

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
6,123
Ground Zero
My sense is that you are wedded to your misconceptions about how the Dodgers of today became the Dodgers of today, but just in case your mind is open:

A couple of months after taking over the Dodgers in 2014, Friedman let Hanley Ramirez walk. (Sadly, he signed with the Red Sox.) Four years later, Friedman was still slashing payroll while refraining from signing any big free agents. In 2018, he traded Yasiel Puig, Matt Kemp, and others to Cincinnati in a deal that dumped $70 million of salary and brought back minor leaguers Jeter Downs, Josiah Gray, and Yasmani Grandal.

Reaction to all of this? "HE'S RUNNING THE LA DODGERS LIKE THEY'RE THE RAYS!"
Here is one site in the off-seaon of 2019--five years after Friedman joined the organization!--when it was uncertain whether the Dodgers would even resign him to a new contract.


That proved correct, of course. But it was at least four years into the job before Friendman made a big free agent splash. And the Mookie trade and signing wasn't made until he had thoroughly stocked the system and cut payroll. Those are simply facts.



What is Friedman's background?

They are 18-8 since then. That is a .692 winning percentage, and it is what their record says they are since then. Is that who they are?

Finally: Do you think the Red Sox will make the playoffs this year?
Friedman has signed 4 contracts longer than 4 years. 2 of them, Betts and Freeman, recently after he had built out the player development platform. The others were Jansen at 5 years/80m and Maeda at 8 years/25m (+20m posting fee).
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
6,461
Ever since Mookie was traded, the same suspects who can't get over it have been whining about how they won't spend money anymore, and every year the payroll ends up among the tops in the game, at or above the CBT threshold (as it is this year). When it actually dips significantly below, then I'll listen to cries of how they are just not committed to winning.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
31,264
Hingham, MA
Friedman was actually winning during all of those early moves. 90+ wins and a playoff appearance every year. He may have been re-tooling on the fly but was still successful on the field. You can trade/allow to walk players as long as you're still winning and making the playoffs.

Bloom has been unable to match that. Drafting and player development would be great to have, but so far have yet to bear much fruit for Bloom. Perhaps it will, but in the meantime the on-field results have been nowhere near those of LA. I'm glad we made the playoffs last year but the hoped-for building from that success hasn't happened.
As a reminder, this is year 3 of Bloom.

Year 1 was Covid 2020. Not a full season. Horrible team performance by all accounts. No argument
Year 2 was 2021. 90+ wins and ALCS appearance
This is year 3. Outcome TBD. Could land anywhere from 80-90 wins, possible playoff performance. Very much up in the air.

So yeah if you want to say Bloom has failed because he put together a shitty team in 2020 you are free to make that argument. But it's entirely possible that years 2 and 3 will have produced playoff teams. That is winning while re-tooling, no?
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
32,938
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Ever since Mookie was traded, the same suspects who can't get over it have been whining about how they won't spend money anymore, and every year the payroll ends up among the tops in the game, at or above the CBT threshold (as it is this year). When it actually dips significantly below, then I'll listen about how they are just not committed to winning.
There are some whispers I've read that Bloom may attempt to get them under the threshold at the trading deadline, though how he might do that is quite beyond me.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
32,938
Deep inside Muppet Labs
As a reminder, this is year 3 of Bloom.

Year 1 was Covid 2020. Not a full season. Horrible team performance by all accounts. No argument
Year 2 was 2021. 90+ wins and ALCS appearance
This is year 3. Outcome TBD. Could land anywhere from 80-90 wins, possible playoff performance. Very much up in the air.

So yeah if you want to say Bloom has failed because he put together a shitty team in 2020 you are free to make that argument. But it's entirely possible that years 2 and 3 will have produced playoff teams.
No, it's very reasonable not to hold 2020 against him. That whole season was an utter mess all around the league.

We'll see about this year. Obviously one of the things that goes into consideration here is the on-field performance of the players he's acquired via trade and FA, plus the development of prospects. If the team fails to make the playoffs this year, that could be mitigated in part by the positive development of his younger players plus making moves to shore up the immediate future. For example, if they miss this year but Verdugo takes a big leap forward in terms of production, well that's a credit to Bloom, etc.

There's a continuum to be had for sure.
 

Daniel_Son

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2021
699
San Diego
We can use our common sense on this. Offering X a one year extension is, like the laughable 5/70 offer they made Lester a million years ago, a clear sign they do not want him back. That was an offer designed to be insulting. Signing Story, a former SS, this offseason is yet another indication he will be leaving the organization.

Getting nowhere with Devers this spring shows a lack of urgency in their intentions of keeping him in this uniform. If they want sustained, Dodger-like success, getting Devers at the very least committed here for the next 5-10 years would be a good start. So far...nothing.

You mention Betts...the Devers situation is more or less a carbon copy of how they handled Mookie's upcoming FA. Maybe they'll handle this differently but it's the same FO and GM, so this might well be their standard approach.
The team, by all accounts, negotiated with his agent in the offseason. Devers chose not to sign an extension. Do you think the Sox should have just offered him a blank check?
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
31,264
Hingham, MA
No, it's very reasonable not to hold 2020 against him. That whole season was an utter mess all around the league.

We'll see about this year. Obviously one of the things that goes into consideration here is the on-field performance of the players he's acquired via trade and FA, plus the development of prospects. If the team fails to make the playoffs this year, that could be mitigated in part by the positive development of his younger players plus making moves to shore up the immediate future. There's a continuum to be had for sure.
Agree with every word of this, absolutely. I'd trade a missed wild card spot this year for a theoretical higher chance of being a true contender in 2023-2025. Obviously there's no way to measure that. Best case scenario we get both - more playoff games, continued organizational improvement. And long term deals for X and Devers.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
4,247
There are some whispers I've read that Bloom may attempt to get them under the threshold at the trading deadline, though how he might do that is quite beyond me.
Please share this reading material. SJM... not that you care either way about my opinion.... but you're doing some serious contortions to try and prove a point that you seem to be upholding as a Truth rather than opinion.
2020 is a throwaway year. Absolute garbage. Dodgers only WS victory in a short season where teams could barely keep players on their rosters? There's a bigger asterisk on that accomplishment than on Sosa's, Bonds and McGuire's HR accomplishments.
 

BringBackMo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
612
Friedman was actually winning during all of those early moves. 90+ wins and a playoff appearance every year. He may have been re-tooling on the fly but was still successful on the field. You can trade/allow to walk players as long as you're still winning and making the playoffs.

Bloom has been unable to match that. Drafting and player development would be great to have, but so far have yet to bear much fruit for Bloom. Perhaps it will, but in the meantime the on-field results have been nowhere near those of LA. I'm glad we made the playoffs last year but the hoped-for building from that success hasn't happened.
I guess we'll just have to disagree about all of this. The Sox have been successful at the major league level while rebuilding. Good trades and good drafting have their minor league system in significantly better shape than it was. And player development has resulted in the kinds of leaps for a lot of our pitching prospects that have been absent from the organization for at least a generation. (And not just our prospects, by the way. Nick Pivetta began unlocking his potential last year after coming to Boston, and has hit a new gear lately.)
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
32,938
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Please share this reading material. SJM... not that you care either way about my opinion.... but you're doing some serious contortions to try and prove a point that you seem to be upholding as a Truth rather than opinion.
2020 is a throwaway year. Absolute garbage. Dodgers only WS victory in a short season where teams could barely keep players on their rosters? There's a bigger asterisk on that accomplishment than on Sosa's, Bonds and McGuire's HR accomplishments.
And to think people thought I was being hysterical. The bolded is patent nonsense.

Lemme go look for what I read...might have been on the cesspool that is Twitter. Ugh.
 

CoffeeNerdness

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2012
6,556
If you really want to be pedantic, 18-8 is a smaller sample size than 11-19, so which one is more indicative of the talent level of the team? More generally they're barely over .500 over the full sample size.

As to your answer, my guess is "no." They are still poised on the cusp of not being in the playoffs and they have to play good teams in a brutally long stretch later in the season. We'll see.
Just curious, do you watch the games or have you tapped out?

If you have watched this team over the last month and conclude they're just a meh team I seriously have to question your scouting eye. This is a good, albeit flawed in some aspects(as are most) team that has a top offense even after their HISTORICALLY awful April, a solid staff with an ace at the top and reinforcements both experienced MLBers and MiLers available, a great manager, and a front office who've shown a great touch for in-season moves. At some point, you might have to relent and come to the conclusion that their early-season run of games was the flukey outlier here.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
32,938
Deep inside Muppet Labs
I guess we'll just have to disagree about all of this. The Sox have been successful at the major league level while rebuilding. Good trades and good drafting have their minor league system in significantly better shape than it was. And player development has resulted in the kinds of leaps for a lot of our pitching prospects that have been absent from the organization for at least a generation. (And not just our prospects, by the way. Nick Pivetta began unlocking his potential last year after coming to Boston, and has hit a new gear lately.)
No disagreement about Pivetta, that's immense credit to Bloom who saw something there that could be tapped. Philly is notorious for being an awful place to develop as a pitcher, getting him out of there was a brilliant move.

I will hold off on praising our prospects until they start contributing at the major league level, which is likely a year or two away. We simply don't know what we have yet.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
32,938
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Just curious, do you watch the games or have you tapped out?

If you have watched this team over the last month and conclude they're just a meh team I seriously have to question your scouting eye. This is a good, albeit flawed in some aspects(as are most) team that has a top offense even after their HISTORICALLY awful April, a solid staff with an ace at the top and reinforcements both experienced MLBers and MiLers available, a great manager, and a front office who've shown a great touch for in-season moves. At some point, you might have to relent and come to the conclusion that their early-season run of games was the flukey outlier here.
Of course I've watched the games. Last night was the first time all season they've won a game after trailing after 6 innings. Whitlock's arm slot has dropped, etc. I see all that. I am no scout (to the best of my knowledge no one here is either) so I am reluctant to draw conclusions from what I see other than the results. I saw Verdugo trying to jack everything out of the yard this year which led to a horrible BABIP, but I am not confident enough to proclaim it's all mere bad luck. That's where the real scouts come in.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Friedman has been in LA starting with the 2015 season, during which time they've never finished a full season with fewer than 90 wins and have made the postseason every year while winning a WS. So I guess the answer to how long it took him to get them successful is "no time at all."
How do you feel the NL West competition has stacked up vs LA during Freidman's tenure there? In 2017 the NL West was pretty strong and of course last year's Giant team was great , but over all that division hasn't been what Bloom's team have faced in the AL East.
 

Daniel_Son

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2021
699
San Diego
Um, yes? He's a 25 year old superstar and they're best player. He's on pace for roughly 7 WAR this year. You betcha I would have offered him a blank check.
In the article I linked, he uses the Tatis deal as a reference point for his own deal. I love Devers, and I'd offer him a lot of money to stay here for his entire career, but referencing a player who's got a 160 career OPS+ and has been worth 14 WAR at 22 years old is just insane. Devers has broken 130 twice - he's on pace to have a career year this season, but there's a lot of baseball left to be played.

A more realistic reference, to me, would be the Machado deal (10/300) - and Machado is a much better defender than Devers has ever been.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
6,461
There are some whispers I've read that Bloom may attempt to get them under the threshold at the trading deadline, though how he might do that is quite beyond me.
By all means, feel free to draw conclusions and strong opinions from some whispers that play to your confirmation bias. I'll continue to look at the current payroll, 4 WS titles, and long list of star player acquisitions and continue to believe that management is very much committed to winning.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
32,938
Deep inside Muppet Labs
How do you feel the NL West competition has stacked up vs LA during Freidman's tenure there? In 2017 the NL West was pretty strong and of course last year's Giant team was great , but over all that division hasn't been what Bloom's team have faced in the AL East.
Eh, I tend to think the divisional competition stuff gets awfully overblown. Over the course of due time that tends to even out and isn't much of a factor. If you're a good team year in and year out, you're a good team no matter the division you're in.

See also: Patriots, New England.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
32,938
Deep inside Muppet Labs
In the article I linked, he uses the Tatis deal as a reference point for his own deal. I love Devers, and I'd offer him a lot of money to stay here for his entire career, but referencing a player who's got a 160 career OPS+ and has been worth 14 WAR at 22 years old is just insane. Devers has broken 130 twice - he's on pace to have a career year this season, but there's a lot of baseball left to be played.

A more realistic reference, to me, would be the Machado deal (10/300) - and Machado is a much better defender than Devers has ever been.
Good points. Machado is a better defender, but for the first time in his career Devers is trending up on D, he's at 0.1 DWar this year after being -0.9 last year.

Using the Tatis deal as a reference doesn't bother me, to me that's a level he wants to negotiate down from.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
32,938
Deep inside Muppet Labs
By all means, feel free to draw conclusions and strong opinions from some whispers that play to your confirmation bias. I'll continue to look at the current payroll, 4 WS titles, and long list of star player acquisitions and continue to believe that management is very much committed to winning.
Quick and dirty, it looks like they'd have to drop about $7 million to get under the threshold. Trading JBJ would likely give them that number.

As to your other point, only once has the ownership group ever expressed concern over the threshold, and that was when Mookie's deal was up.
 

manny

lurker
Jul 24, 2005
195
I don't necessarily agree with SJH's doom-and-gloom outlook on most things current with the Sox, but I agree that the evidence is against the Sox (or any team) completely replicating the 'Dodgers model'. Sure, Bloom wants to re-establish the farm system and have it constantly churning out top prospects, but part of the Dodgers model is a seemingly endless supply of money (or, willingness to spend), including beyond the tax threshold. That is why they can trade for Mookie and give him a massive extension, sign Freeman when they are already beyond the tax threshold, etc. We have seen from the recent past that the Sox will not want to sustain a payroll beyond the tax threshold and while they may go beyond for a season or two, that will lead to the need to cut payroll, avoid FA, trade expensive contracts, etc. in future seasons. We have not really seen that from the Dodgers recently. I don't blame the Sox since the Dodgers are the only team that has really spent obscene amounts of money consistently (maybe the Mets will join, we'll see with Cohen--wonder if his spending patterns mirror the markets). That said, it's also obviously silly to call the Red Sox the Rays as they have consistently had far higher payrolls and I expect them to spend right up to (but under) the tax threshold pretty much every year, which the Rays will never do.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,028
In the article I linked, he uses the Tatis deal as a reference point for his own deal. I love Devers, and I'd offer him a lot of money to stay here for his entire career, but referencing a player who's got a 160 career OPS+ and has been worth 14 WAR at 22 years old is just insane. Devers has broken 130 twice - he's on pace to have a career year this season, but there's a lot of baseball left to be played.

A more realistic reference, to me, would be the Machado deal (10/300) - and Machado is a much better defender than Devers has ever been.
Isn't 10/300 basically offering a blank check when it comes to Devers? Quite a few people (myself included) think 10/300 is way too much for Devers.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Eh, I tend to think the divisional competition stuff gets awfully overblown. Over the course of due time that tends to even out and isn't much of a factor. If you're a good team year in and year out, you're a good team no matter the division you're in.

See also: Patriots, New England.
If you play roughly half of your games withing your division and your division either sucks or is stacked that's a nothing burger?
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
32,938
Deep inside Muppet Labs
I don't necessarily agree with SJH's doom-and-gloom outlook on most things current with the Sox, but I agree that the evidence is against the Sox (or any team) completely replicating the 'Dodgers model'. Sure, Bloom wants to re-establish the farm system and have it constantly churning out top prospects, but part of the Dodgers model is a seemingly endless supply of money (or, willingness to spend), including beyond the tax threshold. That is why they can trade for Mookie and give him a massive extension, sign Freeman when they are already beyond the tax threshold, etc. We have seen from the recent past that the Sox will not want to sustain a payroll beyond the tax threshold and while they may go beyond for a season or two, that will lead to the need to cut payroll, avoid FA, trade expensive contracts, etc. in future seasons. We have not really seen that from the Dodgers recently. I don't blame the Sox since the Dodgers are the only team that has really spent obscene amounts of money consistently (maybe the Mets will join, we'll see with Cohen--wonder if his spending patterns mirror the markets). That said, it's also obviously silly to call the Red Sox the Rays as they have consistently had far higher payrolls and I expect them to spend right up to (but under) the tax threshold pretty much every year, which the Rays will never do.
Yeah, what the Dodgers are doing is well beyond what any other team is doing and there's no chance the Sox do the same:

View: https://twitter.com/KyleAGlaser/status/1533126118764466177?s=20&t=tdDluaK7u8Fai4-9eWI-yg
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
4,247
And to think people thought I was being hysterical. The bolded is patent nonsense.

Lemme go look for what I read...might have been on the cesspool that is Twitter. Ugh.
You're right. I was being crazy.... 2020 was a totally normal year and I should give it every bit as much credence as normal years.

*I also don't take the Strike Shortened season as a true season. I could have given two shits about baseball that year.
 

CoffeeNerdness

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2012
6,556
I am no scout (to the best of my knowledge no one here is either)
Right, but the point is you're an avid fan who watches all the games and posts on a message board for other huge Sox fans, so when you watch this team do you think they're the April Sox or the May/June Sox? Do you think this team is good, bad, or mediocre? Do you think maybe you're a bit too married to your early season blistering hot EEI takes and saying today that this team is a good team that should be in the playoff hunt makes those takes even sillier? This is venturing into Costanza 'you wanna get nuts?!?!' territory.

When I watch this team my feeling is that April was a complete fluke, they'll be in the playoffs for sure, and they have a pretty decent chance of vaulting over both TB and Toronto.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
17,768
Devers is currently on pace for:

124 r
231 h
67 2b
35 hr
90 rbi
408 total bases
8.7 bWAR
slash line of: .342/.374/.603/.977
170 ops+

He's 25 years, 227 days old. Not counting 2020 (a "season" in which he was still good), this is his ops+ trend the last 4 seasons: 94, 132, 132, 170.

What in the world would he get on the open market if he could sign freely with any team right now? 12/400? What should Boston be willing to extend him for? That's a serious question.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
2,998
Quick and dirty, it looks like they'd have to drop about $7 million to get under the threshold. Trading JBJ would likely give them that number.
I don’t think anyone’s trading for JBJ without the Sox assuming a bunch of his contract or sending prospects, and they’d have to be considerably lesser than Hamilton/Binelas or what’s the point.

I think it’s far likelier they add. It doesn’t matter. It’ll be extremely tough to exceed the first CBT threshold the next two years even if they extend X and Devers.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,028
Right, but the point is you're an avid fan who watches all the games and posts on a message board for other huge Sox fans, so when you watch this team do you think they're the April Sox or the May/June Sox? Do you think this team is good, bad, or mediocre? Do you think maybe you're a bit too married to your early season blistering hot EEI takes and saying today that this team is a good team that should be in the playoff hunt makes those takes even sillier? This is venturing into Costanza 'you wanna get nuts?!?!' territory.

When I watch this team my feeling is that April was a complete fluke, they'll be in the playoffs for sure, and they have a pretty decent chance of vaulting over both TB and Toronto.
If one is still looking at overall season performance to date, I could see why they'd be negative. There are 4 positions hitting well below average. Of course, those 4 players have been trending upwards and their stats could be/are bogged down by a bad April.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
32,938
Deep inside Muppet Labs
It's not all that difficult, perhaps you've got too many arguments going on at once.
Or you're explaining yourself poorly.

Either way, they're a team that won 90+ games a year for seven years, made the playoffs every year in that time and won a WS plus multiple other postseason series against teams outside their division. They're an excellent team regardless of who their division-mates happen to be.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
17,768
Or you're explaining yourself poorly.

Either way, they're a team that won 90+ games a year for seven years, made the playoffs every year in that time and won a WS plus multiple other postseason series against teams outside their division. They're an excellent team regardless of who their division-mates happen to be.
Of course they are. I don't think anyone has argued otherwise. They'd be a good team in any division. But it is also true that the AL East has been a monster of a division. This year the top 4 teams are 4 of the top 6 teams in the AL, and 4 of the top 12 in all of baseball. It's absolutely stacked, and if you put any of them in a lesser division, their combined winning percentage would likely be such that NYY, Tor, TB, and Bos would be 4 of the top 8-10 teams in all MLB. And they're all in the same division.

It really does matter, especially with unbalanced scheduling.