In Chaim Do You Trust?

Do you trust Chaim Bloom to help bring the Sox back to contention?


  • Total voters
    324
  • This poll will close: .

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
14,229
Michigan
All the more reason it pisses me off when I hear people take ownership's side with pinching pennies over . I'd guess the Sox make around twice that in revenue. Bigger market, NESN, and the last two years are the only two I can find where the Sox didn't sell more tickets, all for a considerably higher average ticket price.
Red Sox revenue in 2021 was $479 million.
https://www.forbes.com/teams/boston-red-sox/?sh=db63e2c7d42d
 

mikcou

Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2007
669
Boston
All the more reason it pisses me off when I hear people take ownership's side with pinching pennies over . I'd guess the Sox make around twice that in revenue. Bigger market, NESN, and the last two years are the only two I can find where the Sox didn't sell more tickets, all for a considerably higher average ticket price.
They almost certainly dont. National revenue (approx. 20% of Atlantas total) goes out pro-rata and almost half (48%) of local revenue is shared amongst the clubs. Total league revenues are only ~12B (~3B of national deals plus ~9B of local - extrapolated from 30x150M revenue sharing*2) or so - no team is generating 10% of that. As you mention, the Braves also had higher attendance this year.

That said, it doesnt take away form the point that Bloom isnt going to have years to put a competitive team together - this is an entertainment business and they are clearly having trouble selling tickets with what is going on. Historically their gates are much higher compared to the rest of the league and anecdotally, I am getting calls a couple of times about ticket packages for 2023 because of my "past historical purchases." I've purchased tickets to may 3-4 games in the last decade and none since 2019. I never got any of these calls until about June or so when they pitched seats for this year and the past couple of months for next year. The business side isnt going to allow that to continue - they lose way too much on the top-line.

The Red Sox are nothing more than entertainment. Life is short and Red Sox fans would like to see the team win. There’s also no need for this franchise to undergo a multi year rebuild before they are legit contenders. So yeah, the impatient and entitled stuff is ridiculous. It’s a sports franchise, if the team stinks people have the right to complain. Just like of a movie stinks or an album stinks.
This is absolutely right. If Bloom's plan is to punt years until his drafts make a good team, he wont be here to see whether the strategy works. Thats true even if Henry has said he will be patient. Patience wears thin quickly when your revenues stopped growing in line with peers (and youre subjected to watching the horrid product from the owner's box). He's also shown that he isnt patient with anyone and is completely comfortable moving on after a few years so I dont see why he would continue with an exec who doesnt well execute.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,625
I voted no. The Betts trade was a travesty and I give him a D- rather than an F only because I understand that management was forcing him to take anything for Betts, including a used band aid.
What the Dodgers were willing to trade for one year of Betts was $48 million. Bloom was ordered to slash payroll and move Betts. There weren’t many options there. Had he put Betts on the market by himself the return would have been more, but Boston wouldn’t have been able to reset the luxury tax. If you want a culprit to that travesty, blame John Henry for approving the horrific Sale extension, which half of us screamed bloody blue murder about at the time of the signing (you should always let injured pitchers test the market).

That contract extension left Boston with a hideously expensive (and underperforming) starting pitching staff. One of Sale/Price had to go, and those contracts were so far under water (think the bottom of the Mariana Trench) that the only way to move one was stapled to Mookie. To be brutally frank, I would have been happy with Boston getting zilch if the Dodgers had been willing to take Sale as well. Alas we have two more years of wondering when Chris Sale will be off the 60 Day DL plus deferred payments to go.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,625
If you have this kind of payroll crunch, isn't that all the more reason to not do things like get JBJ back in the Renfroe deal or take a flyer on Paxton that wasn't going to help any time soon? Those were their biggest acquisitions aside from Story and they got nada from them.

Renfroe was just a 2022 solution, and I get why trading him made sense. The issue was the return. They could have saved money that they could have invested elsewhere, but instead they took on JBJ and his terrible contract. And the prospects they got back weren't top-tier and look even worse now. The idea behind selling high on Renfroe is sound; the problem is they didn't get "selling high" value in return.
I think that Binelas and Hamilton were acceptable value for eating JBJ’s contract, even if I didn’t love either player (Binelas was an older player that beat up mid A pitching and Hamilton is a slap & tickle hitter and poor defender). I mean it wasn’t a ton of money. I don’t think that Binelas and Hamilton were much of a return for Renfroe. My problem with the deal was always that Boston did both, they ate a chunk of money and threw in a solid MLB player. It’s the one deal he’s made that I thought was awful from day one.

The Vazquez deal, on the other hand, I liked. Valdez can really rake, and is an outside candidate to take over LF next season (hopefully, because the alternatives, 2B or 3B are too awful to consider).

We keep hearing that we have to let Bloom’s Player Development System take root and bear fruit. What is his special sauce? What is he doing differently than Dave Dombrowski or Ben Cherington or Theo Epstein or Dan Duquette or Lou Gorman?
The problem with Dombrowski wasn’t talent evaluation, it was his habit of throwing in players to get the MLB players he wanted. That string of 4, 5, and 6 for 1 deals depleted the system of surplus trade value quickly.
 
Last edited:

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,795
Mansfield MA
I think that Binelas and Hamilton were acceptable value for eating JBJ’s contract, even if I didn’t love either player (Binelas was an older player that beat up mid A pitching and Hamilton is a slap & tickle hitter and poor defender). I mean it wasn’t a ton of money. I don’t think that Binelas and Hamilton were much of a return for Renfroe. My problem with the deal was always that Boston did both, they ate a chunk of money and threw in a solid MLB player. It’s the one deal he’s made that I thought was awful from day one.
I agree with this. Getting Hamilton and Binelas while shedding Renfroe's contract so you can make other moves would make sense. But with JBJ's dead weight contract, they actually took on money in the deal. I would want a lot better prospects to make that move.

The Vazquez deal, on the other hand, I liked. Valdez can really rake, and is an outside candidate to take over LF next season (hopefully, because the alternatives, 2B or 3B are too awful to consider).
And it was nice to get prospects that might be able to help soon instead of lottery ticket A ball guys.
 

astrozombie

lurker
Sep 12, 2022
37
What the Dodgers were willing to trade for one year of Betts was $48 million. Bloom was ordered to slash payroll and move Betts.
Totally agree and I acknowledge that this was a salary dump, similar to attaching Gonzalez to the salary dump the Sox did in 2012. That was the crown jewel. That being said I am not sure quite how much credit the organization gets for getting rid of terrible contracts they signed in the first place (thanks Dombrowski!). I know that Betts was the price to pay for unloading salary, though per sportstac it seems like Price still counted against the Sox cap for quite some time. I was just more upset they could not get one higher-rated prospect and instead got some okay ones. I was not thrilled with any of the return, though smarter people than me might disagree.
 

Ganthem

a ray of sunshine
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2022
852
The Red Sox are nothing more than entertainment. Life is short and Red Sox fans would like to see the team win. There’s also no need for this franchise to undergo a multi year rebuild before they are legit contenders. So yeah, the impatient and entitled stuff is ridiculous. It’s a sports franchise, if the team stinks people have the right to complain. Just like of a movie stinks or an album stinks.
You are right. The Sox are entertainment. That is why a bunch of fans, me included, support what Bloom is doing. We would love to see the Sox win it all and then come back the next year and make the playoffs. What people are complaining about is insane and demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of how a consistent, competitive major league team is built.
 

8slim

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
19,596
Unreal America
You are right. The Sox are entertainment. That is why a bunch of fans, me included, support what Bloom is doing. We would love to see the Sox win it all and then come back the next year and make the playoffs. What people are complaining about is insane and demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of how a consistent, competitive major league team is built.
There many ways to build a consistently competitive club. The notion that there is ONE TRUE WAY and Bloom is executing that is silly. I'm entirely agnostic when it comes to Bloom. He has a job to do, and the beauty of sports is that we'll find out fairly conclusively if he's successful in doing that job. I find some of the harsh takes on Bloom to be a bit ridiculous, and I also find the notion that people are "entitled" to be equally ridiculous. This isn't a government policy, or a corporate rescue, it's a baseball club. People can be as entitled as they want.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
22,300
Thank you for the response to my question on Saturday.

I don't think his system or strategy needs to necessarily special or different from other teams to require patience to see whether or not it bears fruit. This isn't the NBA or the NFL where a GM can get near instant results from his first draft. Doesn't matter who's at the helm, it's generally going to take 3-4 years at minimum before we see what kind of talent he's able to find and develop. It took a year and a half for Theo's first draftee to make a major league appearance (the immortal Abe Alvarez) but it was nearly three years before a draftee of consequence broke in (Jonathan Papelbon). Considering Bloom got five bites at the apple (4 signed) in his first draft compared to 52 picks for Theo (34 signed), I doubt the fruit will be forthcoming quite as fast. But it has to come eventually, and that's when he should be judged on it.
Understood. And I get that Theo's or Dombrowski's or whomever's draft picks didn't rocket up the minor league system and pay dividends immediately. That's not what I'm asking. I know that baseball is what it is, some big time prospects get stuck in the minors for years before they make it to the Majors. Some never get out of AA.

But what I'm getting at is that there seems to be a lot of confidence in Bloom and I'm trying to figure out why, if this is just SOP for a big league front office. If Bloom wasn't here, and Joe Schlobotnik was the head of baseball ops, would you place the same faith you have in Bloom in him? I'm taking a long road in asking, what makes Bloom so worthy of being patient for? What is it about his drafting or his signings or his trades that makes you say, "Yup. That's him. This is the guy that's going to lead us back to the promised land!"

And please, I'm not trying to be disrespectful or disingenuous, if Bloom is just doing what other GMs/HOBOs have done for years--what's the big deal about him (other than that he's leading your favorite team)?

Bloom is trying to get the farm system built back up to the point where he can start promoting players to provide a cheap compliment to the more expensive players he will eventually sign, or to trade some of the prospects for young, cheapish talent. Also, by having a farm system that can provide value, either through trade or promotion, it allows Bloom to make big free agent signings without worrying too much about the signing not working out. For example, if the Yanks sign Judge they are not going to be overly concerned if he turns into Eric Hosmer as unlikely as that is. They can either promote a player from the minors who can provide some of the of value from Judge for cheap or they can use the prospects to trade for talent that can do the same thing. It is kind of team building 101.
Yes, I completely understand this. But isn't this something that's been done for well over 100 years? Ball players get old. Ball players all of a sudden don't produce. You need replacements and the cheaper, the better. Understood. But what is Bloom doing that's making you say, "Yes. That's a way of doing something that I've never thought of."

For example, when Epstein was promoted he did something that no one had done before, namely take the smarts of Moneyball (when that was still sort of a new concept) and combined it with John Henry's cash. He saw what Billy Beane did in Oakland worked, but he also knew that extra cash would hedge the bets a bit (ie instead of getting one on-base savant, he picked up three in his first off-season: Mueller, Millar and Ortiz) that way if one of them sucked, he wouldn't have been up a creek. Especially the Millar thing, that was a bold ass move that paid huge dividends that I think sort of gets lost.

Bloom, to his credit, trolls the Rule V waiver wire smartly. I think he's really good at that and Whitlock is a great example of what he's able to do. But what else has he done that's as bold? Maybe taking Judd Fabian in the second round, but that didn't work out. Maybe trading Renfoe at his highest value for JBJ (who was at his lowest value) and two prospects? That didn't work out. IDK.

You want to know what's in the black box, right? I feel like we can't really answer your question unless we work for the team and have all of their proprietary info and whatnot.
If this is your response to this question, we should just close up SoSH right now. None of us knows nothing and we still spend a shit load of time talking about what we don't know for sure.

All that you mention above is about player acquisition. Player development is what do you do with the players once you get them. It seems that some organizations have a method that is working better than others. The Astros, Guardians, and Rays churn them out pitchers every year. I think @jon abbey could give better insight on how the Yankees develop pitching. The Royals are at the other end of the spectrum as they spent a lot of draft capital on pitching and none of them improved.

My hope is that the Sox with Bloom do know a little more about developing pitching once they are drafted. He spent his high picks on hitting and we hope they meet expectations. There is more out there about improving pitching through mechanics, pitch shape, spin, and sequencing that successful teams have used to turn mediocre prospects into above average major league pitchers. It seems that more minor league pitchers in the Sox system made jumps this year and the hope is that becomes normal operating procedure to create a pitching pipeline.
This is a really good point. I'm still not 100% sure on what Bloom's organizational philosophy is, aside that it appears he values middle infielders very highly. And I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Middle infielders, especially shortstops, tend to be the best athletes/players on their teams. They should be able to convert from SS to 2B, 3B or OF very easily. Mookie Betts is one example, he was drafted as a second baseman and turned into an MVP in RF. The annals of baseball are littered with similar stories. I really do like this philosophy and see the wisdom in it--it probably speaks a lot to Bloom's obsession with players having some sort of pliability and being able to play them at multiple positions at the Major League level. I don't really agree with him on that, BTW, not everyone is cut out to be Jose Oquendo or Tony Phillips. It seems to me that baseball is a game where routine and assurance of position matters the most and having players constantly bounce around (Arroyo for example) is not the best idea because it ruins their ability to properly prepare for their jobs.

That being said, I'd like to know more about Bloom's pitching philosophy, specifically what does he value most in an arm? I know at the ML level it appears that he likes to take chances on oft-injured and older players to get them at a premium and hope for a bounce back season (see Michael Wacha) but there's a lot of risk with that gamble. Is Bloom an optimistic gambler? I'm beginning to think that he might be, but I'm not sure.
 

8slim

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
19,596
Unreal America
But what I'm getting at is that there seems to be a lot of confidence in Bloom and I'm trying to figure out why, if this is just SOP for a big league front office. If Bloom wasn't here, and Joe Schlobotnik was the head of baseball ops, would you place the same faith you have in Bloom in him? I'm taking a long road in asking, what makes Bloom so worthy of being patient for? What is it about his drafting or his signings or his trades that makes you say, "Yup. That's him. This is the guy that's going to lead us back to the promised land!"
I've been on this board for 20+ years, and it generally has a pro-ownership, pro-GM lean. Not everyone, and not all the time, but it's definitely there. And that's fine, of course. I suspect some of it is because this place was built on being "smarter" than the mouthbreathers at WEEI and trolls like CHB back in the day. So there's a big contrarian streak here. I find that there's generally a vibe in Boston sports media, and in the fan base to a large degree, to blame the owner/GM first. SoSH has long been a counter to that.

Which is all to say that I suspect a lot of Bloom's support is because (a) he has the "right" resume for this job according to how the majority of SoSH is wired, and (b) he's our guy. And that's not to say he hasn't made some very good moves and has earned that support. There's a case to be made that he has. But it goes a bit beyond that as well.

I mean, I'm old enough to remember people making passionate arguments in favor of Joe Kerrigan and John Farrell. It's how this place tends to roll.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
22,300
I've been on this board for 20+ years, and it generally has a pro-ownership, pro-GM lean. Not everyone, and not all the time, but it's definitely there. And that's fine, of course. I suspect some of it is because this place was built on being "smarter" than the mouthbreathers at WEEI and trolls like CHB back in the day. So there's a big contrarian streak here. I find that there's generally a vibe in Boston sports media, and in the fan base to a large degree, to blame the owner/GM first. SoSH has long been a counter to that.

Which is all to say that I suspect a lot of Bloom's support is because (a) he has the "right" resume for this job according to how the majority of SoSH is wired, and (b) he's our guy. And that's not to say he hasn't made some very good moves and has earned that support. There's a case to be made that he has. But it goes a bit beyond that as well.

I mean, I'm old enough to remember people making passionate arguments in favor of Joe Kerrigan and John Farrell. It's how this place tends to roll.
I suspect that this is true, and there's nothing wrong with that. You want to be able to root for your team, which includes your front office and feel that they're making the best decisions.

Shit, I was all aboard the Joe Kerrigan bandwagon mainly because he seemed "smart" and wasn't Jimy Williams.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,795
Mansfield MA
For the people voting "no", how much of your discouragement do you think comes down to player performance? How much do you allow that any GM can only put a process in place, but they can't guarantee the results on feild? Following that, how do you deal with the limitations placed on any process by outside forces (CBA limits, ownership imposed spending limits, etc)?

My own thought is that confidence in Bloom is unnecesarily down after a bad year, corresponding to sentiment being up regarding the team after the playoff run in 2021 (there's a reason I put the expected win total where I did in the preseason prediction game)
Ultimately everything comes down to player performance, right? I guess it's a question of whether it's predictable player performance or not. Enrique Hernandez, for instance, I would give Bloom a pass on given his weird injury and how effective he was in 2021 (and much of his career). I don't think anyone could have foreseen how far J.D. Martinez fell off in the second half. But going into the year with that JBJ / ? RF spot and Bobby Dalbec at 1B (with Travis Shaw making the opening day roster) was ugly. They had bad luck with how the injuries stacked, but Wacha / Eovaldi / Hill / Sale were all at least decent-sized injury risks. And it was hard to see how the bullpen was going to be effective at all.

I think they also planned to have Whitlock & Houck as starters, but... what's your point?

That 3-5 were all acquired by Bloom at almost no cost & had to be because of a lack of financial flexibility out of his control. The Red Sox had 0 minor league pitchers in the pipeline ready to actually come in & contribute at even a replacement level at low cost except Bello later in the season.
Doesn't Bloom bear some of the blame for this? Winckowski was one of the big adds in the Benintendi trade, and he was bad stepping in during this time.
 

TapeAndPosts

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2006
490
I've been on this board for 20+ years, and it generally has a pro-ownership, pro-GM lean. Not everyone, and not all the time, but it's definitely there. And that's fine, of course. I suspect some of it is because this place was built on being "smarter" than the mouthbreathers at WEEI and trolls like CHB back in the day. So there's a big contrarian streak here. I find that there's generally a vibe in Boston sports media, and in the fan base to a large degree, to blame the owner/GM first. SoSH has long been a counter to that.
I agree with this and I think there's also a fantasy baseball element to it. Fantasy baseball trained a generation of fans to think about baseball through the lens of constructing a team, rather than playing the sport. I don't think many of us imagine we could do what Devers or Bogaerts do but we sort of imagine we could do what Bloom and his team does. We are sitting here discussing how to build a roster, much more than how to swing or how to pitch. So we SoSH fans are more likely to identify with the front office than the players.

It also means when things go wrong, the front office is also where the blame goes. Team stinks? The front office decisions are where we tend to go first, instead of the performance of the players (or, it's the front office's fault for getting those players). And issues like "Why don't they resign so-and-so" or "Why didn't they make a deadline deal with so-and-so" gets put on the front office, even though these things require two sides to agree, because that's who we tend to identify with first.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
2,041
Doesn't Bloom bear some of the blame for this? Winckowski was one of the big adds in the Benintendi trade, and he was bad stepping in during this time.
If I recall the context of that post, it was about the 2018 Red Sox prospect list & what Dombrowski left for Bloom in terms of cost-controlled talent (very little).

In terms of that specific criticism? Bloom wasn't exactly selling high when he traded Benny after a down 2019 (dropped from 4.8 to 1.8 WAR) & a really bad truncated 2020 season (4 for 39). Could he have gone for 1 or 2 higher-rated prospects instead of the Franchy/Wincko/De La Rosa/Gambrell/Valdez package? Sure, probably? Would be fun if 1 or 2 of those last 3 were part of one of the next great Red Sox teams, though.

The more cheap talent you have, the less you have to overpay to acquire more cheap talent.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
6,703
Valdez, Downs, Winckowski, Wong, Hernandez, Binelas etc all seem to have lost value since the Sox acquired them; maybe that says something about the Sox ability to evaluate or develop outside talent, or just the fickle nature of prospect value to begin with, but it’s somewhat frustrating.
 

8slim

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
19,596
Unreal America
I agree with this and I think there's also a fantasy baseball element to it. Fantasy baseball trained a generation of fans to think about baseball through the lens of constructing a team, rather than playing the sport. I don't think many of us imagine we could do what Devers or Bogaerts do but we sort of imagine we could do what Bloom and his team does. We are sitting here discussing how to build a roster, much more than how to swing or how to pitch. So we SoSH fans are more likely to identify with the front office than the players.

It also means when things go wrong, the front office is also where the blame goes. Team stinks? The front office decisions are where we tend to go first, instead of the performance of the players (or, it's the front office's fault for getting those players). And issues like "Why don't they resign so-and-so" or "Why didn't they make a deadline deal with so-and-so" gets put on the front office, even though these things require two sides to agree, because that's who we tend to identify with first.
I agree. Although I'd say it's not just fantasy baseball, but also the emphasis and influence of advanced analytics. There are many discussions here where someone replies with a WAR metric and then seems to suggest that the debate has concluded. That's just not how the game works, as you suggested.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
20,059
Rogers Park
Can I just say that I think there are a lot of things getting described on this board as "Chaim Bloom's approach" that don't actually seem to me to be Chaim Bloom's approach in any historically-discernible way?

I don't think it's right, for example, to describe Bloom's track record as hoarding prospects and building from within, which some people seem to do here. In his time with the Rays, the Rays were one of the least homegrown big league rosters in MLB, if not the least.

So no. What the Neander/Bloom Rays did a ton of was trade, and the character of those trades was also distinctive. If you look at his time with the Rays, what stands out is the number of prospect-for-prospect and big leaguer-for-big leaguer trades they've made. Yes, they've traded a lot of players that they would not have been able to retain in FA, but they've often gotten back big league contributors. An example there would be the David Price trade that returned Drew Smyly (a pre-arb mid-rotation starter) and Nick Franklin (so-so middle infielder), and also Willy Adames, the Rays SS of the future, for a season and change of David Price. AND ALSO, they traded prospects, but often for other prospects. The highlight here is the Matthew Liberatore and Edgardo Rodriguez for Randy Arozarena trade. Prospect-for-prospect swaps are fairly rare, especially when they involve sending out a top-100 prospect and getting back a guy who — while he had debuted — still had prospect eligibility, and would in fact be a top-100 prospect a year after the trade (and after already being the ALCS MVP).

Scrolling through the logs, I think Dombrowski made one prospect-for-prospect trades (or two: the number depends on whether Blake Swihart was still a prospect when traded) in his time with the Red Sox, and the best player involved was Nick Longhi. Prospects for cash? Sure.

My point is that in his time with the Rays, the Neander/Bloom FO did fairly few straightforward sellers' or buyers' trades. And they did a lot of weird, somewhat hard to figure out trades. I think it's generally clear that they won more than they lost, and it has meant that TB has remained competitive even without drafting terribly well, but some of them — even the wins — are real head scratchers when you look back through them.

So I would encourage people not to hold too tightly to their assessments of what Bloom is all about. Remember last offseason when "the Bloom approach" was not to sign any big FA deals — and then he gave Story $140m? My hypothesis is that he has been focused on acquiring minor leaguers in Boston because that's what we've needed. When he arrived, we had entire levels of the system with nobody worth mentioning, which means we were giving high minors innings and ABs to some real nobodies; that's a big issue longterm. But he will adapt as the situation changes, I'd expect — maybe as soon as this month.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
4,665
Sorry if this is off the topic (it's not specifically, but generally is on)- but what is the Sox draft status and place for next year's and where are they at for the international? Definitely would like to see a buttload of pitchers and a few power bats that aren't terrible at defense. They're pretty well stocked for the more athletic IF types but these guys to me seem like they couldn't really carry the expected offensive load that we normally like to see from corner IF and OF bats.*
*Admitting that I'm not terribly knowledgable of the fahm situation
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
Thank you for the response to my question on Saturday.

If this is your response to this question, we should just close up SoSH right now. None of us knows nothing and we still spend a shit load of time talking about what we don't know for sure.
There is plenty to discuss in terms of the results of the PD system (e.g. linked article below). But I took your question to be asking, what is the difference between Bloom's approach to development versus other teams. That's one area where we can only guess based on results. I'm sure when we started saying "the Astros sure do love spin rates" was about three years after the Astros began to love spin rates. We should have an idea what's in Bloom's black box someday, but not before we see guys coming up through the system. Thus far, I don't know what to say about Bloom other than his drafts have involved a lot of high ceiling high school bats. But it's still early.

https://www.prospects1500.com/al-east/red-sox/2022-red-sox-minor-league-superlatives/
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
17,626
Maine
Sorry if this is off the topic (it's not specifically, but generally is on)- but what is the Sox draft status and place for next year's and where are they at for the international? Definitely would like to see a buttload of pitchers and a few power bats that aren't terrible at defense. They're pretty well stocked for the more athletic IF types but these guys to me seem like they couldn't really carry the expected offensive load that we normally like to see from corner IF and OF bats.*
*Admitting that I'm not terribly knowledgable of the fahm situation
They're picking 14th in each round of the amateur draft next June. That of course doesn't account for possible bonus picks or the possibility they lose picks because they sign QO players. They'll also have the standard international bonus pool allotment when that signing period begins in January.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
There many ways to build a consistently competitive club. The notion that there is ONE TRUE WAY and Bloom is executing that is silly. I'm entirely agnostic when it comes to Bloom. He has a job to do, and the beauty of sports is that we'll find out fairly conclusively if he's successful in doing that job. I find some of the harsh takes on Bloom to be a bit ridiculous, and I also find the notion that people are "entitled" to be equally ridiculous. This isn't a government policy, or a corporate rescue, it's a baseball club. People can be as entitled as they want.
The reason I'm not with the win-now crowd isn't merely impatience, it's that I'm not sure there is a way forward there anymore. Sure, it's baseball, so if you can sneak into the playoffs then theoretically anything can happen. But the player development machines -- Houston, Atlanta, Dodgers, maybe Cleveland and Seattle -- are going to be far better bets to win. The 2021 ALCS feels like the ceiling for a team without a deep talent base, where the Sox made it really exciting... and then kinda got their doors blown off by a team that primarily hits you with wave after wave of pitching. Same with the 2022 World Series. I wouldn't say there is one true way to win -- I support the Bloom approach because that *is* what he's doing so we might as well see it through -- but the alternative is very 2013 Sox, and I think we should count ourselves lucky that it worked even that one time.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
Can I just say that I think there are a lot of things getting described on this board as "Chaim Bloom's approach" that don't actually seem to me to be Chaim Bloom's approach in any historically-discernible way?

I don't think it's right, for example, to describe Bloom's track record as hoarding prospects and building from within, which some people seem to do here. In his time with the Rays, the Rays were one of the least homegrown big league rosters in MLB, if not the least.

So no. What the Neander/Bloom Rays did a ton of was trade, and the character of those trades was also distinctive. If you look at his time with the Rays, what stands out is the number of prospect-for-prospect and big leaguer-for-big leaguer trades they've made. Yes, they've traded a lot of players that they would not have been able to retain in FA, but they've often gotten back big league contributors. An example there would be the David Price trade that returned Drew Smyly (a pre-arb mid-rotation starter) and Nick Franklin (so-so middle infielder), and also Willy Adames, the Rays SS of the future, for a season and change of David Price. AND ALSO, they traded prospects, but often for other prospects. The highlight here is the Matthew Liberatore and Edgardo Rodriguez for Randy Arozarena trade. Prospect-for-prospect swaps are fairly rare, especially when they involve sending out a top-100 prospect and getting back a guy who — while he had debuted — still had prospect eligibility, and would in fact be a top-100 prospect a year after the trade (and after already being the ALCS MVP).

Scrolling through the logs, I think Dombrowski made one prospect-for-prospect trades (or two: the number depends on whether Blake Swihart was still a prospect when traded) in his time with the Red Sox, and the best player involved was Nick Longhi. Prospects for cash? Sure.

My point is that in his time with the Rays, the Neander/Bloom FO did fairly few straightforward sellers' or buyers' trades. And they did a lot of weird, somewhat hard to figure out trades. I think it's generally clear that they won more than they lost, and it has meant that TB has remained competitive even without drafting terribly well, but some of them — even the wins — are real head scratchers when you look back through them.

So I would encourage people not to hold too tightly to their assessments of what Bloom is all about. Remember last offseason when "the Bloom approach" was not to sign any big FA deals — and then he gave Story $140m? My hypothesis is that he has been focused on acquiring minor leaguers in Boston because that's what we've needed. When he arrived, we had entire levels of the system with nobody worth mentioning, which means we were giving high minors innings and ABs to some real nobodies; that's a big issue longterm. But he will adapt as the situation changes, I'd expect — maybe as soon as this month.
Thank you, that is very useful perspective.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
22,300
The reason I'm not with the win-now crowd isn't merely impatience, it's that I'm not sure there is a way forward there anymore. Sure, it's baseball, so if you can sneak into the playoffs then theoretically anything can happen. But the player development machines -- Houston, Atlanta, Dodgers, maybe Cleveland and Seattle -- are going to be far better bets to win. The 2021 ALCS feels like the ceiling for a team without a deep talent base, where the Sox made it really exciting... and then kinda got their doors blown off by a team that primarily hits you with wave after wave of pitching. Same with the 2022 World Series. I wouldn't say there is one true way to win -- I support the Bloom approach because that *is* what he's doing so we might as well see it through -- but the alternative is very 2013 Sox, and I think we should count ourselves lucky that it worked even that one time.
I understand this perspective, but it's not that easy to be a player development machine. Houston is really the only franchise in the last 20 years that has bottomed out and found success. The Cubs had one wonderful year and a couple of really good one, but are in a rebuild. The Pirates have been in this bust cycle for years. Seattle just made it into the post season this year, so I'm not sure if we can call them a PDM yet and they had 21 years of wandering in the wilderness. The A's do this as well as anyone and they usually get their doors blown off in October. Same with the Rays. Cleveland hasn't made it to the Series since 2016 (against the Cubs). Even the White Sox, who did a similar retool as the Astros, haven't met with much success.

I'd argue the Dodgers are a hybrid and that the Braves seem poised to be the next Astros, but we'll have to see on that.

My point is, using "The Process" as a strict organizational philosophy (which it appears that you're very much in favor of) is not a guaranteed recipe for success.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
I understand this perspective, but it's not that easy to be a player development machine. Houston is really the only franchise in the last 20 years that has bottomed out and found success. The Cubs had one wonderful year and a couple of really good one, but are in a rebuild. The Pirates have been in this bust cycle for years. Seattle just made it into the post season this year, so I'm not sure if we can call them a PDM yet and they had 21 years of wandering in the wilderness. The A's do this as well as anyone and they usually get their doors blown off in October. Same with the Rays. Cleveland hasn't made it to the Series since 2016 (against the Cubs). Even the White Sox, who did a similar retool as the Astros, haven't met with much success.

I'd argue the Dodgers are a hybrid and that the Braves seem poised to be the next Astros, but we'll have to see on that.

My point is, using "The Process" as a strict organizational philosophy (which it appears that you're very much in favor of) is not a guaranteed recipe for success.
Heh, not the 76ers Process, but the one where the Sox are at least competent at PD and then use their substantial natural advantages over the Tampas and Oaklands to add proven vets, sure, seems worth a try. Agree with your other points. It's baseball, there are rarely ever guarantees, compared to other major sports.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
4,665
I understand this perspective, but it's not that easy to be a player development machine. Houston is really the only franchise in the last 20 years that has bottomed out and found success. The Cubs had one wonderful year and a couple of really good one, but are in a rebuild. The Pirates have been in this bust cycle for years. Seattle just made it into the post season this year, so I'm not sure if we can call them a PDM yet and they had 21 years of wandering in the wilderness. The A's do this as well as anyone and they usually get their doors blown off in October. Same with the Rays. Cleveland hasn't made it to the Series since 2016 (against the Cubs). Even the White Sox, who did a similar retool as the Astros, haven't met with much success.

I'd argue the Dodgers are a hybrid and that the Braves seem poised to be the next Astros, but we'll have to see on that.

My point is, using "The Process" as a strict organizational philosophy (which it appears that you're very much in favor of) is not a guaranteed recipe for success.
I'm not sure if I'm really responding to you or not... but using " the process" can work (obviously if it's a good process) but also staying flexible. In general I'm pro-Bloom but along with the JBJ deal, the one thing he needs to do is leverage prospects into good deals. We all know this of course..... and it's got to be one of the more difficult aspects of being a GM, but he's got to turn Dalbec and Duran (and others) into something. I'd say at the end of last year, Dalbec could easily have brought a decent return if added to the right mL pitcher. Duran could have brought something good back if he was packaged towards the middle of '21. Now I'm stepping right up and admitting that I was pro-Dalbec..... but not pro-Duran (although I'm holding out hope more on Duran than Dalbec at this point) so I'm not saying at all that I'm right here. But it's not my job either. It is Bloom's job. Who in the minors will be part of The Process and who will be shipped out to bring in outside talent. You sure as hell don't want to see Mayer as the next SS and then package up Romero and then Mayer ends up being the worse of the two players. But generally just pointing out that having a continuous graduation of players into the ML roster contributing right after a star leaves (see Astros, Houston) is great but also just hoarding every player because one is worried that they might lose that gamble is terrible use of the resources.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
22,300
I'm not sure if I'm really responding to you or not... but using " the process" can work (obviously if it's a good process) but also staying flexible. In general I'm pro-Bloom but along with the JBJ deal, the one thing he needs to do is leverage prospects into good deals. We all know this of course..... and it's got to be one of the more difficult aspects of being a GM, but he's got to turn Dalbec and Duran (and others) into something. I'd say at the end of last year, Dalbec could easily have brought a decent return if added to the right mL pitcher. Duran could have brought something good back if he was packaged towards the middle of '21. Now I'm stepping right up and admitting that I was pro-Dalbec..... but not pro-Duran (although I'm holding out hope more on Duran than Dalbec at this point) so I'm not saying at all that I'm right here. But it's not my job either. It is Bloom's job. Who in the minors will be part of The Process and who will be shipped out to bring in outside talent. You sure as hell don't want to see Mayer as the next SS and then package up Romero and then Mayer ends up being the worse of the two players. But generally just pointing out that having a continuous graduation of players into the ML roster contributing right after a star leaves (see Astros, Houston) is great but also just hoarding every player because one is worried that they might lose that gamble is terrible use of the resources.
I agree and I think that's what really hurt Ben Cherington. And the opposite is what hurt Dombrowski, though I'd also say that DD was really good at separating the prospects from the suspects. Honestly, I can't believe that DD didn't trade Devers or Betts or Benintendi or any of our young guys for a starting pitcher or a fourth outfielder. He might have been impetuous, but he does have a good eye for keeping talent--developing it might be a bit trickier for him.

I was never sold on Dalbec and I was praying that Bloom would send him away, but at the same time I was riding high on Duran. The point isn't that I'd be a bad HOBO (that's obvious) but I hope that Bloom learned something during last offseason and that it's okay to get rid of prospects if you feel that they're not going to help you. I know that he's not going to be DD, but Cherington 2.0 is not a good idea either. There are scores of prospects in the Red Sox system, Bloom's job is to figure out which ones are good (maybe 3% of the crop) and get rid of the others to help the Major League team. You can't keep everyone, simply there aren't enough positions to do so, so he has to start dealing. Not everyone, of course, but there are a lot of holes in this lineup, staff and bullpen. Prospects are the exact currency needed to fill them.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
20,059
Rogers Park
I was never sold on Dalbec and I was praying that Bloom would send him away, but at the same time I was riding high on Duran. The point isn't that I'd be a bad HOBO (that's obvious) but I hope that Bloom learned something during last offseason and that it's okay to get rid of prospects if you feel that they're not going to help you. I know that he's not going to be DD, but Cherington 2.0 is not a good idea either. There are scores of prospects in the Red Sox system, Bloom's job is to figure out which ones are good (maybe 3% of the crop) and get rid of the others to help the Major League team. You can't keep everyone, simply there aren't enough positions to do so, so he has to start dealing. Not everyone, of course, but there are a lot of holes in this lineup, staff and bullpen. Prospects are the exact currency needed to fill them.
Can I reiterate that Bloom has, throughout his entire career, including in Boston, traded away prospects? This is tilting at windmills.
 

Ganthem

a ray of sunshine
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2022
852
Thank you for the response to my question on Saturday.



Understood. And I get that Theo's or Dombrowski's or whomever's draft picks didn't rocket up the minor league system and pay dividends immediately. That's not what I'm asking. I know that baseball is what it is, some big time prospects get stuck in the minors for years before they make it to the Majors. Some never get out of AA.

But what I'm getting at is that there seems to be a lot of confidence in Bloom and I'm trying to figure out why, if this is just SOP for a big league front office. If Bloom wasn't here, and Joe Schlobotnik was the head of baseball ops, would you place the same faith you have in Bloom in him? I'm taking a long road in asking, what makes Bloom so worthy of being patient for? What is it about his drafting or his signings or his trades that makes you say, "Yup. That's him. This is the guy that's going to lead us back to the promised land!"

And please, I'm not trying to be disrespectful or disingenuous, if Bloom is just doing what other GMs/HOBOs have done for years--what's the big deal about him (other than that he's leading your favorite team)?



Yes, I completely understand this. But isn't this something that's been done for well over 100 years? Ball players get old. Ball players all of a sudden don't produce. You need replacements and the cheaper, the better. Understood. But what is Bloom doing that's making you say, "Yes. That's a way of doing something that I've never thought of."

For example, when Epstein was promoted he did something that no one had done before, namely take the smarts of Moneyball (when that was still sort of a new concept) and combined it with John Henry's cash. He saw what Billy Beane did in Oakland worked, but he also knew that extra cash would hedge the bets a bit (ie instead of getting one on-base savant, he picked up three in his first off-season: Mueller, Millar and Ortiz) that way if one of them sucked, he wouldn't have been up a creek. Especially the Millar thing, that was a bold ass move that paid huge dividends that I think sort of gets lost.

Bloom, to his credit, trolls the Rule V waiver wire smartly. I think he's really good at that and Whitlock is a great example of what he's able to do. But what else has he done that's as bold? Maybe taking Judd Fabian in the second round, but that didn't work out. Maybe trading Renfoe at his highest value for JBJ (who was at his lowest value) and two prospects? That didn't work out. IDK.



If this is your response to this question, we should just close up SoSH right now. None of us knows nothing and we still spend a shit load of time talking about what we don't know for sure.



This is a really good point. I'm still not 100% sure on what Bloom's organizational philosophy is, aside that it appears he values middle infielders very highly. And I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Middle infielders, especially shortstops, tend to be the best athletes/players on their teams. They should be able to convert from SS to 2B, 3B or OF very easily. Mookie Betts is one example, he was drafted as a second baseman and turned into an MVP in RF. The annals of baseball are littered with similar stories. I really do like this philosophy and see the wisdom in it--it probably speaks a lot to Bloom's obsession with players having some sort of pliability and being able to play them at multiple positions at the Major League level. I don't really agree with him on that, BTW, not everyone is cut out to be Jose Oquendo or Tony Phillips. It seems to me that baseball is a game where routine and assurance of position matters the most and having players constantly bounce around (Arroyo for example) is not the best idea because it ruins their ability to properly prepare for their jobs.

That being said, I'd like to know more about Bloom's pitching philosophy, specifically what does he value most in an arm? I know at the ML level it appears that he likes to take chances on oft-injured and older players to get them at a premium and hope for a bounce back season (see Michael Wacha) but there's a lot of risk with that gamble. Is Bloom an optimistic gambler? I'm beginning to think that he might be, but I'm not sure.
That is the point. Bloom is pretty much doing what any smart GM would do. Obviously we can't compare Bloom to a Gm a hundred years ago given that Baseball was vastly different. We can compare Bloom to DD and at some point Cherington. DD got himself into trouble because he identified a player he wanted and he didn't care the prospect or monetary cost. Cherington didn't seem capable of trading prospects until they had no value. Neither of those strategies are going to lead to long term success for an organization. Phillies fans are going to discover this in a few years. Weather or not Bloom is too propsect happy ala Cherington, we will find out in the next few years. Somebody after your post mentioned that this board tends to be filled with pro owner/team president indvidiuals. I disagree. I think this board is filled with individuals who understand the nuances of team building. Most of the WEEI crowd wants Bloom to just throw prospects and money around and damn the consequences. They want instant gratification. They want their binky signed no matter the cost because ooh home runs. The rest of us want to give Bloom a few more years to see if he can do what a bunch of smart Presidents, such as the Astros, Yanks, and Dodgers to name a few are doing. We understand that getting the farm to the point where the Sox can be mention in the same breath as those teams take time. Henry is hoping that Bloom is able to do what just about every smart team president does. Now the question is does Bloom develop the farm system, trade for the right players and sign for the right players to make the Sox consistently in the playoffs? If in two years the answer is no, then Bloom should be shit canned.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
22,300
Can I reiterate that Bloom has, throughout his entire career, including in Boston, traded away prospects? This is tilting at windmills.
Who is making absolute statements? So has Cherington. Dombrowski has traded for prospects in his career. But based on most of the transactions that Bloom's made in the last three years he has shown that he propensity to acquire prospects, rather than trade them. You can say that there was a reason for this, but his track record speaks for itself.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
22,300
Most of the WEEI crowd wants Bloom to just throw prospects and money around and damn the consequences. They want instant gratification. They want their binky signed no matter the cost because ooh home runs.The rest of us want to give Bloom a few more years to see if he can do what a bunch of smart Presidents, such as the Astros, Yanks, and Dodgers to name a few are doing. We understand that getting the farm to the point where the Sox can be mention in the same breath as those teams take time. Henry is hoping that Bloom is able to do what just about every smart team president does.
I mean this with the utmost respect, but just because you agree with what the front office is doing does not make you a better fan than anyone else. Whether it's a WEEI "mouth breather" or some guy at the end of a bar in Charlestown.

So please stop putting yourself on some sort of imaginary fan pedestal--you've been doing it a lot during this conversation and it's absolutely obnoxious.

You should try to make your point a bit more intelligently than "I'm smart and anyone who disagrees is an idiot".
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
17,626
Maine
Can I reiterate that Bloom has, throughout his entire career, including in Boston, traded away prospects? This is tilting at windmills.
I think the key thing is in order to trade away prospects, or be best able to separate the prospects from the "suspects", is to have a robust supply of prospects. Perhaps the reason he hasn't appeared to be able to make all the right moves so far is he doesn't yet have that robust supply of prospects. Perhaps the reason he chose to hold on to Dalbec and Duran instead of identifying them as "suspect" is a lack of depth. They look like better prospects than they are because they're the best of a weak class. Hopefully this winter and beyond, as the farm system starts to produce more and better talent, the task will get easier.

It's arguable that Dombrowski excelled in his prospect identification because of how many he had to choose from. It was easy to hold on to Betts and Devers and Benintendi because he had the Moncadas and Espinozas and Kopechs to move instead.
 

Ganthem

a ray of sunshine
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2022
852
I mean this with the utmost respect, but just because you agree with what the front office is doing does not make you a better fan than anyone else. Whether it's a WEEI "mouth breather" or some guy at the end of a bar in Charlestown.

So please stop putting yourself on some sort of imaginary fan pedestal--you've been doing it a lot during this conversation and it's absolutely obnoxious.

You should try to make your point a bit more intelligently than "I'm smart and anyone who disagrees is an idiot".
Don't worry. I don't think it is just me who has more knowledge about what goes into creating a sustainable team. I think there is a good chunk of this board who also understands it.
 

8slim

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
19,596
Unreal America
Don't worry. I don't think it is just me who has more knowledge about what goes into creating a sustainable team. I think there is a good chunk of this board who also understands it.
Hahaha. I love this place, but if we had a nickel for every time "a good chunk of this board" coalesced around a strategy that turned out to be terrible, we'd all be rich.

ONE TRUE WAY!
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
6,703
Much of the systems ascent is because of the development of guys brought in by DD. Are we really confident that Bloom has a great eye for talent? Some of the early returns on player he targeted in trades isn’t super great. Clearly too soon on the drafts, besides the slam dunk with Mayer and obviously it can shift quickly. It’s early and we will learn a lot more in the coming year, I think it’s way too early to give Bloom a grade other than incomplete. Who the heck knows yet?
 

Ganthem

a ray of sunshine
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2022
852
Much of the systems ascent is because of the development of guys brought in by DD. Are we really confident that Bloom has a great eye for talent? Some of the early returns on player he targeted in trades isn’t super great. Clearly too soon on the drafts, besides the slam dunk with Mayer and obviously it can shift quickly. It’s early and we will learn a lot more in the coming year, I think it’s way too early to give Bloom a grade other than incomplete. Who the heck knows yet?
We don't know and that is the point. In order to suss out what will be successful, Bloom needs a few more years. One bad year after a year in which they almost made the world series, doesn't tell us much.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
I agree with this. Getting Hamilton and Binelas while shedding Renfroe's contract so you can make other moves would make sense. But with JBJ's dead weight contract, they actually took on money in the deal. I would want a lot better prospects to make that move.
It was only $12m left on the deal plus a mutual option that cost the Sox another $8m. What is the amount of money a team is willing to eat before giving up valuable prospects? High variability but Milwaukee had a below average payroll total, so they certainly could have chosen to eat Bradley's cost and not give up a prospect they really cared about.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
20,059
Rogers Park
Who is making absolute statements? So has Cherington. Dombrowski has traded for prospects in his career. But based on most of the transactions that Bloom's made in the last three years he has shown that he propensity to acquire prospects, rather than trade them. You can say that there was a reason for this, but his track record speaks for itself.
Ok. Cherington has never to my recollection traded a top 100 prospect in Boston or in Pittsburgh. And he’s had many!

Dombrowski has traded more than one as part of the same trade for controllable star players like Miguel Cabrera and Chris Sale.

In Boston, the best prospects Bloom has traded were Jay Groome and Aldo Ramirez, but earlier in his career Bloom has traded a top-100 prospect *for a player with remaining rookie eligibility.*

That’s what I’m trying to say. People are looking at Bloom as if he’s the inverse of late-career Dombrowski, and it’s just not really supported by the track record.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,625
It was only $12m left on the deal plus a mutual option that cost the Sox another $8m. What is the amount of money a team is willing to eat before giving up valuable prospects? High variability but Milwaukee had a below average payroll total, so they certainly could have chosen to eat Bradley's cost and not give up a prospect they really cared about.
Then why bother eating Bradley’s salary? Let Milwaukee trade two marginal prospects for a decent MLB OF and be done with it.
 

Chainsaw318

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2006
1,744
Burned . . . Blacklisted
Much of the systems ascent is because of the development of guys brought in by DD. Are we really confident that Bloom has a great eye for talent? Some of the early returns on player he targeted in trades isn’t super great. Clearly too soon on the drafts, besides the slam dunk with Mayer and obviously it can shift quickly. It’s early and we will learn a lot more in the coming year, I think it’s way too early to give Bloom a grade other than incomplete. Who the heck knows yet?
I think there are some false questions here.

I would defer to the Sox Prospects folks, who have stated that so far as they know, a GM isn’t making draft decisions really after round 1. So I don’t know if you can link a lot of picks directly to an executive in charge.

I think the model of wanting to build a talented and deep farm to build organizational depth rather than solely as trade capital is more of a potential difference in operation.

It’s also a little diminishing of the development and continuity of staff that has developed in the FO and player development roles with the Red Sox over time, such as Mike Richard and Paul Toboni advancing with the organization over the past decade to now senior player dev roles. Folks who were scouts in the early 2010s are now bigger voices in the room, and they seem like smart people.

If you are interested, I would recommend the Sox Prospects episode with Toboni, or a chat he had with Sosher David Laurila at fangraphs.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
2,041
Hahaha. I love this place, but if we had a nickel for every time "a good chunk of this board" coalesced around a strategy that turned out to be terrible, we'd all be rich.

ONE TRUE WAY!
The thing is that all the consistently successful franchises have also coalesced around this strategy.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
10,409
Totally agree and I acknowledge that this was a salary dump, similar to attaching Gonzalez to the salary dump the Sox did in 2012. That was the crown jewel. That being said I am not sure quite how much credit the organization gets for getting rid of terrible contracts they signed in the first place (thanks Dombrowski!). I know that Betts was the price to pay for unloading salary, though per sportstac it seems like Price still counted against the Sox cap for quite some time. I was just more upset they could not get one higher-rated prospect and instead got some okay ones. I was not thrilled with any of the return, though smarter people than me might disagree.
They did get 1 higher rated prospect. He just happened to no longer be considered a prospect because he was coming off a very good rookie season after being a top prospect the year before.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,795
Mansfield MA
It was only $12m left on the deal plus a mutual option that cost the Sox another $8m. What is the amount of money a team is willing to eat before giving up valuable prospects? High variability but Milwaukee had a below average payroll total, so they certainly could have chosen to eat Bradley's cost and not give up a prospect they really cared about.
I have a hard time with the idea that it's "only $12 MM" when I hear money constraints as a big reason why Bloom did so little in the offseason and the team had so many holes going into the year. If they are so financially constrained, why blow $12 MM on JBJ and another $10 MM on James Paxton? Save those kind of gambles for when they have more salary flexibility. I get Bloom didn't sign the Sale extension (among others) and he's the one who's stuck with it (/ them), but it doesn't seem to me he was smart with the (limited) economic resources he did have.

Sure, a year later maybe. At the time Binelas was coming off a big season. Anyway, I'm done relitigating this deal.
I get people are tired of talking about it, but part of the issue is that Bloom hasn't been in a position to make a lot of moves. A lot of small moves have worked out, but the big ones - the Betts trade (and his hands were probably 75% tied there), the Benintendi trade, and the Renfroe trade - all look crappy. Story is his biggest signing and that's TBD. I think it's fair to say it's not a big sample and the farm system progress is a "black box", as stated by others above. I don't think we know a lot about Bloom at this point, but the few data points we have do not look great.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,625
Sure, a year later maybe. At the time Binelas was coming off a big season. Anyway, I'm done relitigating this deal.
Binelas was an older player beating up on Middle A pitching. That’s a profile with limited value (see Kavadas, Niko). Like I said, it was an OKish return for either eating JBJ’s salary or a power hitting corner OF. Not both.
 

mikcou

Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2007
669
Boston
Binelas was an older player beating up on Middle A pitching. That’s a profile with limited value (see Kavadas, Niko). Like I said, it was an OKish return for either eating JBJ’s salary or a power hitting corner OF. Not both.
Its a good return for eating the remainder of JBJ's salary. Is it really even OK for Renfroe? I keep coming back to if we offered Hamilton and Binelas back to MIL for one year of Renfroe now do they take it? I think they absolutely dont - there are a fair amount of guys like Binelas (as you mention Kavadas, who was available after round 10 in the draft for slightly over slot and has been exactly what people though hed be and I think most would take him over Binelas at this point) and fast guys who cant do anything else are everywhere.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
20,059
Rogers Park
I think there's some revisionism about Renfroe's value here. If I recall correctly, MLBTR thought there was a chance he might be non-tendered. They think he might be non-tendered this off-season. I think that second idea is a bit exaggerated, but it highlights the point. Renfroe after '21 was coming off a career year with the bat, and he's the exact kind of player that the arb system makes expensive: HR power is his carrying tool, and he doesn't do a ton else well. There are a lot of teams for whom he'd be an expensive acquisition.

He would have really helped Boston this year, as Bradley failed to bounce back and a bunch of other OF options got hurt (Kiké) or didn't develop as hoped (Duran). I understand why there's angst about the trade, which was a bad move in retrospect and at best a puzzling one in prospect, but that doesn't magically give Renfroe a ton of trade value.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
6,703
Non tendering him would have been preferable to taking on $20M in salary for two moderate prospects. But Renfroe was a 2+ win player in 21, he was not a risk to get non-tendered at all.

Renfroe had value to a team looking to contend- and I think that’s where the disconnect is; many thought the Sox were that kind of team but many of Bloom’s off-season moves seemed to place a higher priority on future years than the present.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,625
He would have really helped Boston this year, as Bradley failed to bounce back and a bunch of other OF options got hurt (Kiké) or didn't develop as hoped (Duran). I understand why there's angst about the trade, which was a bad move in retrospect and at best a puzzling one in prospect, but that doesn't magically give Renfroe a ton of trade value.
I don't think anyone was saying that he had a ton of trade value. Most of us specifically granted that the return would have been OK for just Renfroe or just eating JBJ's deadweight contract. Because Hamilton looks like organizational filler and Binelas was a guy whose "monster year" consisted of a 21 year old college player beating up on younger players in low/mid A. Until those guys reach age appropriate settings you're dealing with complete wildcards (again, see Kavadas, Niko). So there should have been at least one real prospect for doing both.