Poll: Rate Your Faith in the Red Sox Front Office

Rate Your Faith in the Red Sox Front Office


  • Total voters
    577

jteders1

lurker
Dec 5, 2022
30
Because why? I don’t have a Post subscription, so I can’t read it. But if it’s fluff*, provide some counterpoints other than the implied, “no one understands the genius that is Chaim Bloom except the true believers”.

* if you want to say this is clickbait, also show your work. Why would the Post’s baseball writer just start slamming Bloom for no reason?

Jeans is another writer in a long list (Abraham, Speier, Finn, Jennings, Rosenthal, Calcaterra, Stark and more) who are wondering WTF is going on in the Fenway front office. Are these all haters? All enemies of the state?

When professional baseball journalists (and if you notice, even though I think he’s right I didn’t add professional shit stirring Dan Shaughnessy to that list) are saying you had a bad off season, you might have had a band off season.

Most journalists, who are established and don’t need the clicks, don’t write bullshit just to write bullshit. That’s not the way this works.
This, a 1000x this. It’s not one article from Shaughnessy who’s sole job is to piss of Red Sox fans and talk shit about the ownership group. This is now a string of well respected reporters, who are hearing from inside the industry that the Sox offseason has been confusing at best. I’d also add, that there was multiple times reported that X wanted to stay with the Sox, and was willing to negotiate last off season, Boras be dammed. It’s a legit point to bring up that the Sox were wise to not pay 280m for X, but squandered their chance at getting him at reasonable cost in the years leading up to FA.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
2,259
You don't need a sub to read. Just need a free sign-in.
You can also just read the quotes that have already been posted in this thread. Do you see any insight in them? I don't. I can save you the time of reading the full thing and tell you there isn't anything more worthwhile in the rest of it either. Here, I'll quote the last paragraph for you:
Henry has proven he can spend when he wants. The Red Sox farm system is deep enough to deal from, too. Solutions remain available, though Boston’s ownership and front office have not exactly been clear in identifying the problem. Maybe everything will work out to allow them to be competitive. But these are the Boston Red Sox. They should not have to cross their fingers.
Thrilling stuff, huh?

I'd posit that it's only being posted and talked about here because it's the Post and we're going for an appeal to authority.
 

tbb345

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
4,559
Because why? I don’t have a Post subscription, so I can’t read it. But if it’s fluff*, provide some counterpoints other than the implied, “no one understands the genius that is Chaim Bloom except the true believers”.

* if you want to say this is clickbait, also show your work. Why would the Post’s baseball writer just start slamming Bloom for no reason?

Jeans is another writer in a long list (Abraham, Speier, Finn, Jennings, Rosenthal, Calcaterra, Stark and more) who are wondering WTF is going on in the Fenway front office. Are these all haters? All enemies of the state?

When professional baseball journalists (and if you notice, even though I think he’s right I didn’t add professional shit stirring Dan Shaughnessy to that list) are saying you had a bad off season, you might have had a band off season.

Most journalists, who are established and don’t need the clicks, don’t write bullshit just to write bullshit. That’s not the way this works.
This encapsulates a lot of what I’ve been thinking and trying to say.

There’s definitely a lot of media out there whose job it is to stir up shit and get fan engagement, no matter how stupid or ridiculous their points are.
Almost all of talk radio, Shaughnessy, Ben Volin for the Pats, I am sure there are others…but this habit of a lot of posters to treat every journalist or every article written with even a tinge of negativity about the Sox as some sort of smear campaign or agenda driven writing to hurt the Red Sox is a joke.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
2,259
To be clear, I'm not rejecting the Post article as a "smear campaign," I'm rejecting it because it fails to add content to the discussion beyond the data point of "the Post has also written vaguely negative article about the Red Sox offseason." I have yet to see anyone here demonstrate how it does provide any insight.
 

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Staff member
Dope
Apr 9, 2007
16,324
Washington
I'm not sure there's any evidence that he was going to agree to a "reasonable" extension if the Sox had offered one earlier when there was a massive payday waiting for him.
Not strong evidence, but some evidence:

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/35265339/mlb-free-agency-red-sox-xander-bogaerts-rafael-devers
When Bloom signed Trevor Story to a six-year, $140 million contract before spring training last year, Bogaerts felt hopeful that an extension on his own contract might follow. One source close to Bogaerts said he would have seriously considered an extension similar to Story's deal. Instead, the Red Sox offered Bogaerts an additional year and $30 million on top of the three years and $60 million left on his deal. For a player who helped bring championships to Boston in 2013 and 2018 and had grown into the team's de facto captain, the offer felt like "a slap" according to a source close to Bogaerts.
I don't think Bogaerts (or Boras) expected an offer like the one the Padres eventually came up with or how much the market would explode, so I think this report is plausible. An earlier extension similar to Story's probably would have worked out pretty well for Boston and be considered a bargain compared to what the market looks like now.

Cashman got burned the same way with Judge. A better offer earlier would have saved a lot of money compared to what they eventually worked out.
 
Last edited:

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
22,483
To be clear, I'm not rejecting the Post article as a "smear campaign," I'm rejecting it because it fails to add content to the discussion beyond the data point of "the Post has also written vaguely negative article about the Red Sox offseason." I have yet to see anyone here demonstrate how it does provide any insight.
I don’t think anyone here is asking you to break down the article FJM style, but if you want to have a discussion, you simply need to do better than “the whole piece sucks” and “reda it yourself”.

Otherwise your posts about this are reactionary and asking us to provide examples of what you deem is not insightful is the opposite of how these things work. You think the piece sucks or is misusing data or is wrong in any sort of way, it’s incumbent on you to tell us. Im not doing your homework for you.

This could be an interesting discussion if you put even the slightest bit of effort into the post. But it seems as if you want an argument that you’ve created in your head and we’re supposed to guess what you find “stupid”.

That’s a pointless exercise.
 
Last edited:

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
2,259
I don't want to have a discussion about the article really, because there's nothing in it worth discussing. At best it's a recap of stuff we've already discussed here (in far more detail) a thousand times over, designed for a less informed national audience. Isn't it on the people presenting it as something of interest to SOSH to prove why?
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
22,483
I don't want to have a discussion about the article really, because there's nothing in it worth discussing. At best it's a recap of stuff we've already discussed here (in far more detail) a thousand times over, designed for a less informed national audience. Isn't it on the people presenting it as something of interest to SOSH to prove why?
No. Again, it’s on you to tell us why YOU think it’s fluff. The OP said why he thinks it’s relevant, you’re the one who thinks it’s fluff and clickbait and bullshit. Why?

That’s all I’m asking. If you don’t know or don’t want to answer, that’s cool—there’s a lot of shit you could be doing on a Saturday—but don’t make it appear that that article is bullshit because it’s not. In fact, I’d say that Graves gave Bloom and the Sox the benefit of the doubt on some of their moves.

The one thing that she’s 100% accurate about and is something that I’ve been thinking about a lot is the uncertainty of the 2023 Red Sox.

As presently constructed, the Red Sox have a razor thin margin of error. Everything has to go absolutely right for them to contend. And there’s a ton of variables for that not to go right.

Uncertainty isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It’s why we love Spring Training so much. Which pitcher is going to come out of nowhere and pitch lights out? Is there a rookie who’s on no one’s radar that’s going to make the team?

That’s fun. It’s why sports is interesting.

But this whole Red Sox team is filled with so much uncertainty and questions and things that need to go right, that the whole roster construction is confusing or in the very least an experiment in how luck and variables determine how well a team can compete in an upcoming year.

The Boston Red Sox are one of the Cadillac franchises and whether they want to build up the farm system or not, this amount of uncertainty shouldn’t be sold as normal SOP. These aren’t the plucky A’s or the overachieving Rays.

They’re the Red Sox and for some reason why myself and avast majority of the baseball world, they seem to be cosplaying as the Pittsburgh Pirates. How come?
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
19,039
Miami (oh, Miami!)
No. Again, it’s on you to tell us why YOU think it’s fluff. The OP said why he thinks it’s relevant, you’re the one who thinks it’s fluff and clickbait and bullshit. Why?

That’s all I’m asking. If you don’t know or don’t want to answer, that’s cool—there’s a lot of shit you could be doing on a Saturday—but don’t make it appear that that article is bullshit because it’s not.
Has the OP posted to say why he thinks it's relevant?

I struggle to see why that would be so. The subtitle is "an analysis" by Chelsea Janes.

So what is it analyzing? It identifies a number of things - departures, signings, and some expected improvements in health, but it does no more than that. We've already been over all of this stuff before - several times here.

But, as a result of their analysis, if the writer has an opinion as to whether the team is going to be better or worse, they simply haven't stated it. (And frankly, any analysis that cites the "loss" of Eric Hosmer and Jeter Downs, but fails to mention Bello or Casas at all, smells a tad less than analytical to me.) But YMMV.

As to the bullpen (which was by far the worst element of the team last year) we have a grand total of this single sentence:
And they did revamp their bullpen, which will now include Kenley Jansen, Chris Martin and Joely Rodriguez, all of whom should help.
I'm not joking. That's the analysis.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
22,483
What kind of analysis do you want for an out-of-market team in the Washington Post? What are you expecting? OBP+? FIPs?

Jeans is explaining to her readers, who may be MLB fans but aren’t necessarily Red Sox fans, what is happening in Boston. It would be like if Peter Abraham wrote something about the Giants and their pursuit of Correa and Judge in the Globe’s Sunday Notes.

it’s not going to be terribly in depth and if you’re a Giant fan, you probably already know the information. Also, she’s not writing the headline, so if you’re pissed about that; take it up with her editor.

That being said, she is another in a long line of national baseball writers who are taking the Sox to task and trying to figure out what their deal is. I assume that was the point of the OP’s post, he or she could correct if I’m wrong.

My question with simplico is what does he find wrong with the piece other than a blanket, “it sucks”. Because it doesn’t suck, it’s not inflammatory, the information is correct and other than take some very mild shots at Bloom, I’m not sure what you can argue about it.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
19,039
Miami (oh, Miami!)
What kind of analysis do you want for an out-of-market team in the Washington Post? What are you expecting? OBP+? FIPs?

Jeans is explaining to her readers, who may be MLB fans but aren’t necessarily Red Sox fans, what is happening in Boston. It would be like if Peter Abraham wrote something about the Giants and their pursuit of Correa and Judge in the Globe’s Sunday Notes.

it’s not going to be terribly in depth and if you’re a Giant fan, you probably already know the information. Also, she’s not writing the headline, so if you’re pissed about that; take it up with her editor.

That being said, she is another in a long line of national baseball writers who are taking the Sox to task and trying to figure out what their deal is. I assume that was the point of the OP’s post, he or she could correct if I’m wrong.

My question with simplico is what does he find wrong with the piece other than a blanket, “it sucks”. Because it doesn’t suck, it’s not inflammatory, the information is correct and other than take some very mild shots at Bloom, I’m not sure what you can argue about it.
OK. Do you really want to have a discussion about this or not?
 
Last edited:

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
2,259
Look, the whole article starts with this:

The uncomfortable predicament in which the Boston Red Sox will find themselves on the first day of 2023 is simple: Their roster appears to be significantly less talented than it was in 2022, when the Red Sox finished last in the American League East.
Janes does not offer any evidence of this, simply presents it as fact and moves on as though she's properly established a premise. She hasn't. Let's go through the roster:

1B: Full year of Casas. Upgrade over the Dalbec/Cordero tandem
2B: Story. Same guy, presuming fewer injuries, upgrade.
SS: Unknown, but clearly a downgrade
3B: Raffy, same guy
LF: Yoshida, unknown but the whole scouting department seems pretty adamant that he's at least an offensive upgrade over Verdugo.
CF: Hernandez, same guy, presuming fewer injuries, upgrade over the time Duran got
RF: Verdugo, upgrade over JBJ
C: McGuire, jury's out on offense but certainly a defensive upgrade over Vazquez. And Wong is better than what we got from Plawecki this year.
DH: Turner's bat and defensive flexibility seem likely to be worth more than the half season of suck JDM gave us this year. Upgrade.

SP1: Sale, projected at 2.9 fwar, better than Hill's 1.8 this year (yes, Hill was our most valuable pitcher this year). Upgrade.
SP2: Bello, who both just put up 1.3 fwar to Wacha's 1.5 in less than half as many innings, and seems likely to give us more innings than Wacha's 127. Upgrade.
SP3: Paxton/Whitlock/Houck; both of the latter had significant time lost to injuries, let's say we assume they all get injured injured again so we'll expect as much production, but if any of the 3 stay healthy as starters, likely upgrade.
SP4: Pivetta, still Pivetta.
SP5: Kluber, Eovaldi gave us an injury-plagued 1.0 fwar and looked bad coming back from it at the end. Kluber is old but seems a good bet to produce more than that, and Chaim has so far been pretty successful at getting production on these short term starter deals. Upgrade.
Not having 19 starts from Winckowski and Seabold: priceless.

Relievers:
The negative production of Robles, Diekman, Hernandez, Danish, Bazardo, Ort, Familia, Sawamura and Valdez is gone, replaced by Jansen, Martin and Rodriguez. Huge upgrade.

Now we can have discussions here about whether things look better or worse than last year (to me it seems like they've clearly upgraded the team despite the loss of Xander), but Janes just doesn't do that. Presents it as "significantly less talented" and writes the whole article like that's a given cause she said so.

JMOH, do you want more? I'm not sure what value there really is in continuing to pick apart a fluff piece like this; I can but it took some time to do this much and I'm feeling like it's really not worth it.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
28,628
I have a level of faith in Henry based on nearly 20 years of track record. And I get may of Bloom’s moves individually, plus the overall goal of enhancing the farm system and being sustainable and repeatable as a contender. So I am neither a hater nor someone who expects instant results. What Bloom inherited was a mess franchise-building wise and he’s helped. But all that said—-I find this offseason (and the trade deadline) pretty confusing myself. Fair to note there’s still six-plus weeks to make moves and fill In the roster (perhaps using that improved farm system) but right now...this is not a particularly encouraging last six months.

For me, letting Betts go was a mistake but one that came from a perhaps-defensible starting point: long-term, huge dollar contracts rarely succeed for the signing team. But that doesn’t mean they got enough back or that he wasn’t a better “bet” than what they got.

Bogaerts has warning signs—power-wise and defensively. I am not convinced, as a Boras client, there was some earlier offer that would have locked him in. Maybe Story is the fallback, and that may be ok. But right now, they have traded a plus SS for a below-average 2B/SS and that’s not a win if you don’t reallocate the money.

There may be a plan for this offseason; they may feel that in the big picture they are building the farm, getting younger and more flexible, betting on defense and versatility, and this is ok. But it is not at all surprising people are asking “what is the plan here?”
 
Sep 12, 2022
188
Am I the only one that thinks they will win more games in 2023 than in 2022? They will beat 78 wins in 2023 I think, as my cousin Elvis says if Xander, Nasty Nate and J.D. were so good, than why in the last 2 of 3 years did they finish last with them? Lol. I am still in the Chaim Bloom we trust mode. He has a long term plan.
Well, I wish you all a Happy New Year!
Sincerely Ron
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
14,384
Am I the only one that thinks they will win more games in 2023 than in 2022? They will beat 78 wins in 2023 I think
You have said several times you believe they will make the playoffs*, so I assume you are expecting something like a 10-12 game improvement.

*edit-which is the only thing that really matters
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
22,483
Look, the whole article starts with this:



Janes does not offer any evidence of this, simply presents it as fact and moves on as though she's properly established a premise. She hasn't. Let's go through the roster:

1B: Full year of Casas. Upgrade over the Dalbec/Cordero tandem
2B: Story. Same guy, presuming fewer injuries, upgrade.
SS: Unknown, but clearly a downgrade
3B: Raffy, same guy
LF: Yoshida, unknown but the whole scouting department seems pretty adamant that he's at least an offensive upgrade over Verdugo.
CF: Hernandez, same guy, presuming fewer injuries, upgrade over the time Duran got
RF: Verdugo, upgrade over JBJ
C: McGuire, jury's out on offense but certainly a defensive upgrade over Vazquez. And Wong is better than what we got from Plawecki this year.
DH: Turner's bat and defensive flexibility seem likely to be worth more than the half season of suck JDM gave us this year. Upgrade.

SP1: Sale, projected at 2.9 fwar, better than Hill's 1.8 this year (yes, Hill was our most valuable pitcher this year). Upgrade.
SP2: Bello, who both just put up 1.3 fwar to Wacha's 1.5 in less than half as many innings, and seems likely to give us more innings than Wacha's 127. Upgrade.
SP3: Paxton/Whitlock/Houck; both of the latter had significant time lost to injuries, let's say we assume they all get injured injured again so we'll expect as much production, but if any of the 3 stay healthy as starters, likely upgrade.
SP4: Pivetta, still Pivetta.
SP5: Kluber, Eovaldi gave us an injury-plagued 1.0 fwar and looked bad coming back from it at the end. Kluber is old but seems a good bet to produce more than that, and Chaim has so far been pretty successful at getting production on these short term starter deals. Upgrade.
Not having 19 starts from Winckowski and Seabold: priceless.

Relievers:
The negative production of Robles, Diekman, Hernandez, Danish, Bazardo, Ort, Familia, Sawamura and Valdez is gone, replaced by Jansen, Martin and Rodriguez. Huge upgrade.

Now we can have discussions here about whether things look better or worse than last year (to me it seems like they've clearly upgraded the team despite the loss of Xander), but Janes just doesn't do that. Presents it as "significantly less talented" and writes the whole article like that's a given cause she said so.

JMOH, do you want more? I'm not sure what value there really is in continuing to pick apart a fluff piece like this; I can but it took some time to do this much and I'm feeling like it's really not worth it.
Okay. Now we’re talking here. Thank you for teh post.

I think Casas is going to give us more production than Dalbec/Franchy because I don’t think I could fathom worse production. But this isn’t a slam dunk. He’s still a rookie who didn’t exactly light it up in his audition last year.

Plus for some reason they decided to dump Hosmer, who would have been a solid back up plan. It doesn’t appear that Bloom learned his lesson from last year.

I’m not going to go position for position because I think we’re on the same page, but I think the Bogaerts hole is enormous. You either put Story there (not advisable with his arm) and now second is an issue) or Kike plays short and now the outfield is weakened.

Speaking of the outfield, their biggest issue last year was a lack of power. They haven’t addressed that all this year. Where is the power coming from in this lineup?

I think that the bullpen is going to be much better. At least they probably should be. But their starting group lost its two best pitchers and the only replacement is Corey Kluber.

I understand that Sale, Paxton, Houck and Whitlock are penciled in as the new starters, but there’s not a lot of durability there. I mean they could have a fine staff, or it could be a disaster. neither of us can be sure.

I don’t think the point of Jeans’ puece was to go too in depth. Like I said before, she’s writing for people who only care about the Nats or Os but like yo follow the rest of the league. Personally, I think she did a good job encapsulating the Sox’ frustrating offseason
 

gibreel

lurker
Apr 14, 2006
7
"reducing payroll above all else"

What exactly does that mean? Because I read that and think that reducing payroll involves significant cuts, on the order of what the Orioles did a few years ago by dropping from a high of ~$180M (2017) to last season's $64M. But when I look at the Red Sox year over year salary numbers, they dipped significantly in 2020 (a pro-rated version of ~$180M) but have raised the payroll each of the last two years ($201M & $241M) and right now appear to be committed to another season above $200M (~$215M and counting).

Bitch about how they're spending the money, but they are without question spending money. There is no "reality of the situation" in which they are actively trying to reduce payroll.


*all numbers from Cot's. Other sources may vary but generally tell the same tale.
Are they spending money? Sure. Are they spending as much compared to a) their peers and b) their past selves? A cursory look at the data makes clear that the answer to both questions is no. In 2012, the Sox payroll was higher than the mean of the top 5 payrolls in the game (mean was 164.5, Sox were at 173). In 2022, the top 5 mean was 240.6, while the Sox spent 201. The gap between them and the top tier of spenders is only going to widen this year. Another way of looking at this: In 2012, the Yanks had the highest payroll, which, adjusted for 2022 dollars, now amounts to 252. Meanwhile, the 2012 Sox payroll, in 2022 dollars, amounts to 220. The 2022 Sox spent 91% of what the 2012 Sox spent, inflation-adjusted, while the 2022 Yanks spent 95% of what the 2012 Yanks spent, inflation adjusted.

And of course we don't know how 2023 will shake out yet, but the spending gap between the Sox and its large-market peers is almost certainly going to grow, and the level of spending will likely be dwarfed by what was spent a decade ago.

So yes--there is indeed a reality of the situation in which they are reducing spending.
 

bosox1534

lurker
Dec 17, 2022
61
I could be way off on this, so please let me know if I am, but I feel like the way Chaim is attempting to construct this squad is actually better set up for sustained success than a lot of the previous Red Sox teams of recent times. 2018 was a fantastic team however we all kind of saw career years from players and we had little to no injuries. Steve Pearce turned into manny Ramirez for the latter half of the year and into the playoffs and never sniffed the field afterwards. The team caught fire for a year and nothing went wrong. The next year with nearly the same roster we saw an extremely mediocre result. We depleted the farm system and went over the tax for a year of near perfect baseball. The team was not built to last however, due to huge contracts and looming free agents we knew we couldn’t all pay. The Astros don’t win like that. They built up a nucleus of great players similar to the Red Sox, but they had a much better farm system that was ready to step in when those players became free agents. They didn’t panic sign Carlos Correa to a 11 year deal because they were afraid of fans revolting. They had faith in the farm and it produced a near perfect replacement in a Pena. Does anyone honestly believe signing Bogaerts and Mookie to 12 year deals was a good long term move? We would be back here in 3 or 4 years in a similar thread complaining about the horrible contracts this team has given out and how we should’ve focused on building the farm instead. Quit living in the moment so much.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
14,384
I could be way off on this, so please let me know if I am, but I feel like the way Chaim is attempting to construct this squad is actually better set up for sustained success than a lot of the previous Red Sox teams……Quit living in the moment so much.
What year do you think they will compete for the division?
 

bosox1534

lurker
Dec 17, 2022
61
What year do you think they will compete for the division?
Did anyone think the 2021 team would compete for the division? They had a lot of question marks as well but I don’t remember anything close to the amount of negativity this off-season has seen. Position by position this team is closer than people think, and arguably very similar if not better than the 2021 team.
C-The combo of McGurie/Wong is just as good as a solo Vazquez imo and it costs about half as much.
1B-Would anyone be shocked in Casas hit 25-30 hrs and drove in 80-90 rbis? His power potential is real and I expect him to be a huge contributor. Seemed silly to spend money on guys like Abreu or Bell when this guy is ready to go.
2B-Arroyo is the weakest link of this lineup. Even at his worst however, he is still a slightly below average hitter with above average second base defense. Also I believe we will sign another middle infielder at some point.
SS-Hot take, but I expect a healthy Story to have an equal if not better WAR than Xander in San Diego. Especially if he ends up playing second.
3B-Devers is gonna rake, and I believe he gets resigned despite the pessimist views I see in this chat.
OF-Yoshida should play average defense in left field in Fenway, and his bat control is legit. Don’t see how he isn’t at least an above average contact hitter. I believe he could put up Benintendi-esque numbers. Verdugo is an average defender who will hit between .280-300 every year with 60-80 rbis and 15-20 hrs. Not a Mookie, but not a bad replacement by any means. kike at the very least is a gold glove caliber glove in CF every year.
DH-If last years JD is who he is now, Turner is an equal bat who can play defense.
Rotation-lots of question marks, however there’s no reason this rotation can’t be too 5 in the American League. A healthy sale and Paxton to go along with a workhorse like pivetta and a budding star in Bello and throw in Kluber, this rotation could be really good. Sale is obviously the main catalyst for success, and I don’t see why he can’t go back to his pre-2019 form. It’s not like his injuries are nagging.
Bullpen-Much improved from years prior. Best bullpen since 2018 in my opinion.
I believe this team competes for a division title by 2024 and it doesn’t only last for a couple years followed by a 4 year rebuild.
 
Sep 12, 2022
188
BTW. That Xander Bogaerts contract 11 years was terrible. Let's see how good this contract in 5 years. He hit 15 homeruns last year. 5 on the road. This wasn't Manny. Bring me Iggy or Elvis. Ha ha
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
22,483
People weird this ownership won 4 World Series since 2004. San Francisco Giants won 3. Both owners getting lambasted. Sad.
What’s so sad about this? Sports is a what-have-you-done-for-me-lately business. Players can’t hit or pitch any more and they’re gone without a second thought.

Owners spend until they don’t want to. Henry doesn’t want to anymore. That’s his wont to do so. Why do I have to think this is okay? Why is it sad?

Owners aren’t our friends and they aren’t generous benefactors bestowing baseball to us as some sort of benevolent act of kindness. Owners own baseball teams to make money. They see us as people who are willing to give them money on an almost daily basis.

Stop viewing them as anything but people trying to separate you from your hard earned cash.

John Henry charges the highest concession and ticket prices in baseball and in return he’s putting out a shit team. That’s what’s sad. Not the people complaining about it.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
10,623
What’s so sad about this? Sports is a what-have-you-done-for-me-lately business. Players can’t hit or pitch any more and they’re gone without a second thought.

Owners spend until they don’t want to. Henry doesn’t want to anymore. That’s his wont to do so. Why do I have to think this is okay? Why is it sad?
Why did he have a $246m tax payroll last year if he doesn't want to spend anymore?
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
22,483
So you're saying he doesn't want to spend, yet he either 1. Didn't tell that to Bloom or 2. He told Bloom and Bloom disobeyed his orders?
Scotty I’ve explained my thoughts on this to you on a weekly basis for months. I’m not getting into with you again. Sorry.

Either you get what I’m saying or you don’t. But I don’t have the strength to keep typing the same stuff to you again.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
10,623
I know if I was running a multi billion dollar company, didn't want to spend, and the guy in charge of setting my payroll was ignoring me I'd definitely keep him around and allow him to spend almost $250m on 2 players over 2 seasons.
 

bosox1534

lurker
Dec 17, 2022
61
Would resigning Bogaerts make this team a World Series contender, or even a division contender? Of course not. He’s a great player, but is he a great enough player to justify paying him $25M a year until he’s 40? Absolutely not. The Padres will be the same team they have been the past 4 years, a contender who can never win the big one. Xander isn’t a game changer.
 

bosox1534

lurker
Dec 17, 2022
61
Would resigning Bogaerts make this team a World Series contender, or even a division contender? Of course not. He’s a great player, but is he a great enough player to justify paying him $25M a year until he’s 40? Absolutely not. The Padres will be the same team they have been the past 4 years, a contender who can never win the big one. Xander isn’t a game changer.
And quit acting like we aren’t spending money. By the time this offseason is over it’s likely we are top 8 in payroll. We aren’t the Oakland A’s for god sake.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
43,827
And quit acting like we aren’t spending money. By the time this offseason is over it’s likely we are top 8 in payroll. We aren’t the Oakland A’s for god sake.
Nobody is pretending the Red Sox are the A’s. This is a team that is top 3-4 in revenue. They’re the 3rd most valuable team per Forbes. Money is not an issue here. The owners are spending some money but they’re balking at paying top dollar for elite talent. Their supposed rationale is this development machine they’re trying to build. Who knows. But the fans are clearly taking notice. Whether you’re cool or not with this approach is seemingly a matter of personal preference.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
14,384
Would resigning Bogaerts make this team a World Series contender, or even a division contender? Of course not. He’s a great player, but is he a great enough player to justify paying him $25M a year until he’s 40? Absolutely not. The Padres will be the same team they have been the past 4 years, a contender who can never win the big one. Xander isn’t a game changer.
Who are you arguing with? I've heard people say they f'd up by not offering ~6/160 when it might have closed the deal.. Who on this board advocated matching the Padres offer?
 

bosox1534

lurker
Dec 17, 2022
61
Who are you arguing with? I've heard people say they f'd up by not offering ~6/160 when it might have closed the deal.. Who on this board advocated matching the Padres offer?
Because the 6/160 was never a real contract. Xander knew more money would be available on the market. Why would he take a hometown discount again? Just because 6/160 could’ve been offered doesn’t mean he would’ve taken it. They said the same things about Mookie.
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
18,046
Because the 6/160 was never a real contract. Xander knew more money would be available on the market. Why would he take a hometown discount again? Just because 6/160 could’ve been offered doesn’t mean he would’ve taken it. They said the same things about Mookie.
A credible journalist reported that Xander would have seriously considered an offer in that range and was not pleased by the FO's extension offer. Similar reporting indicated that Raffy wasn't happy with the FO's approach to his extension talks last offseason via the Olson comp. It seems like there's a disconnect between the FO's approach to these talks and the results. But hey, good for Raffy. Now he'll rake in well over $300M instead of a number approaching that on the low end. Bad for allocating money elsewhere on the roster.

Inside the Red Sox's free agency plans after Xander Bogaerts (espn.com)
When Bloom signed Trevor Story to a six-year, $140 million contract before spring training last year, Bogaerts felt hopeful that an extension on his own contract might follow. One source close to Bogaerts said he would have seriously considered an extension similar to Story's deal. Instead, the Red Sox offered Bogaerts an additional year and $30 million on top of the three years and $60 million left on his deal. For a player who helped bring championships to Boston in 2013 and 2018 and had grown into the team's de facto captain, the offer felt like "a slap" according to a source close to Bogaerts.
 

Tony Pena's Gas Cloud

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 12, 2019
98
Because the 6/160 was never a real contract. Xander knew more money would be available on the market. Why would he take a hometown discount again? Just because 6/160 could’ve been offered doesn’t mean he would’ve taken it. They said the same things about Mookie.
I agree with the crux of your argument, but one nitpick: Bogaerts did not take a "hometown discount" with his extension. It made him the highest paid shortstop in baseball at the time.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
4,867
I just don’t believe X and Boras seriously would have accepted a contract that would have taken him to FA at age 35. He at best would be offered 1/10 deals at that point on.
 

jteders1

lurker
Dec 5, 2022
30
I just don’t believe X and Boras seriously would have accepted a contract that would have taken him to FA at age 35. He at best would be offered 1/10 deals at that point on.
I find this stance odd when Xander had already accepted a contract extension taking him to 30. I think you're comparing last year to this years free agent signings. This year went bananas, and threw everything out of whack, but a 6/160, or 7/180 contract extension last off season would have been would have been a more than fair offer and very difficult for Xander to turn down. Bloom misread where the market was going, it is what it is.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
4,867
I find this stance odd when Xander had already accepted a contract extension taking him to 30. I think you're comparing last year to this years free agent signings. This year went bananas, and threw everything out of whack, but a 6/160, or 7/180 contract extension last off season would have been would have been a more than fair offer and very difficult for Xander to turn down. Bloom misread where the market was going, it is what it is.
No… think about full value of the contract and when opt-outs occur
 

astrozombie

lurker
Sep 12, 2022
87
I just don’t believe X and Boras seriously would have accepted a contract that would have taken him to FA at age 35. He at best would be offered 1/10 deals at that point on.
Maybe the offer would not have been exactly 6/160 but it at least represented a good faith starting point. The issue is that the FO made an offer that was in such bad faith that X and Boras felt there was no point negotiating; it was a waste of time. The FO implied that they think so little of X that it was easy to walk away and mutually exclusive to that, scored a huge deal in FA that I doubt X or even Boras could have foreseen.
 

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
234
I just don’t believe X and Boras seriously would have accepted a contract that would have taken him to FA at age 35. He at best would be offered 1/10 deals at that point on.
While I personally disagree since you've had respected writers floating that he would have seriously considered it, lets operate under the assumption that you're totally correct and Boras would not have let Bogaerts take that deal.

A) If that was the case, and the best offer they were prepared to make was - in essence - 4 years at $90m then shouldn't Bloom have thus known there was no chance Bogaerts would accept that and also that there was no way he was going to be re-signed in the offseason? Or is he horrible at reading a market in 2022 and again in 2023?

B) If the idea is that Bogaerts is a sub par defensive shortstop whom would age off the position and thus not be worth a long term deal in the first place, so they didn't really want him and that's why they signed Story, shouldn't there have been much more of a plan in place to replace him as a middle of the order bat. Losing your 3rd or 4th hitter in the line up (his two most occupied positions) is kind of a problem that should be addressed. I like the Yoshida signing, but you're relying on a guy coming over from Japan, an old DH on a one year deal and a guy whom has shown no ability to hit LHP in the minors to replace a guy that has been a ~ 130 wRC+ player for the past 5 years and, at least ostensibly, another middle of the order bat (Devers) as well.

C) Lets assume there WERE plans in place to replace that production that haven't come to fruition, doesn't that speak to Bloom not being able to execute his plans, which would be problematic. I of course allow that "its not even MLK day yet" and that we need to continue to see what the off-season holds - but the pattern to present doesn't make me think a massive trade (or Devers extension) is on the horizon.

D) As the last point, since optics shouldn't be a huge role, but wouldn't it have been a far better look - having offered him more than you just gave Story and having Bogaerts turn it down. That would have been a serious attempt to keep a star franchise player, by saying we value you MORE than the guy we just gave this deal to, and close to the top of the (2022) free agent class. Yes, the media and fans will always find something to complain about, but that is a lot more difficult to poke holes in. Now, I personally don't believe that the Front Office really cares about public perception (and I think this should come pretty far down the list in terms of making choices anyway) but it keeps being brought up, so it would have been a much easier sell to the fan base of - we really wanted this player here and we made an offer higher than one of the top FA middle infielders just signed for, but he wants to test free agency and that is something he's earned.


As much as I like Bogaerts as a player and for the intangibles that came with it, my biggest problem isn't in letting him go, but it's in what they've done / not done around the roster to build a better baseball team instead of committing the money to one player.

Has the team improved from where they were at the end of last year - I don't think that's certain based on the current roster, but it's certainly possible, with some very large error bands - so lets assume they have. The question isn't are they better than the 2022 Red Sox, the question is have they done enough to improve to a greater extent than the 2023 Orioles, Rays, Blue Jays and Yankees, and I think that is a very likely no.

With the players they've acquired, they also haven't done anything to improve the farm system or the 2024-27 window that many people keep pointing too, and seem to be prioritizing 2023 (looking more and more like a lame duck season from Devers with every passing day and every bit of "information" we receive) than that 2024-27 window, which is what gives me so little faith in what Bloom is doing.
 
Last edited:

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
14,384
Because the 6/160 was never a real contract. Xander knew more money would be available on the market. Why would he take a hometown discount again?
BPMS covered the most important points, but I will add one comment/question. You seemed to be celebrating Bloom's handling of l'affaire Xander, but here I read you as essentially saying that Bogaerts was determined to go to free agency (barring an offer that the Red Sox would never make) and was inevitably going to get an offer from someone else that the Red Sox would never match, so he was likely gone. And that Bloom pretty much knew that or should have known that (hence, why they wouldn't offer 6/160 awhile ago). That implies all the stuff about Xander being their priority blah blah was window dressing. That all seems plausible.

Can you not agree that the jury is still out on whether Bloom had therefore formulated an effective contingency plan for a playoff caliber middle infielder and a replacement ~130ish OPS+ middle-of-the order bat? And as usual, I'm OK with 2024 being the time frame for those but YMMV.
 

bosox1534

lurker
Dec 17, 2022
61
BPMS covered the most important points, but I will add one comment/question. You seemed to be celebrating Bloom's handling of l'affaire Xander, but here I read you as essentially saying that Bogaerts was determined to go to free agency (barring an offer that the Red Sox would never make) and was inevitably going to get an offer from someone else that the Red Sox would never match, so he was likely gone. And that Bloom pretty much knew that or should have known that (hence, why they wouldn't offer 6/160 awhile ago). That implies all the stuff about Xander being their priority blah blah was window dressing. That all seems plausible.

Can you not agree that the jury is still out on whether Bloom had therefore formulated an effective contingency plan for a playoff caliber middle infielder and a replacement ~130ish OPS+ middle-of-the order bat? And as usual, I'm OK with 2024 being the time frame for those but YMMV.
Although it was never said directly, I think the Story signing was the contingency plan. I think Bloom realized the kind of money Xander would garner, and he also didn’t want to commit to two expensive middle infielders for a minimum of 5 or 6 years when you have one of the most highly touted prospects in a while ready to play SS by 2024. If Blooms long term plan to have an infield of Casas, Story, Mayer, and Devers, isn’t this kind of what we all expected/wanted? I honestly don’t believe the difference in Story to Xander is that much, especially when factoring in the contract.
 

bosox1534

lurker
Dec 17, 2022
61
I agree with the crux of your argument, but one nitpick: Bogaerts did not take a "hometown discount" with his extension. It made him the highest paid shortstop in baseball at the time.
Fair, but it also included opportunities for opt-outs and in comparison with other similar players contracts it still seemed relatively team friendly. Sure, on paper it was a decent contact for Xander, but he could’ve gotten more on the open market no doubt.
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
18,046
Although it was never said directly, I think the Story signing was the contingency plan. I think Bloom realized the kind of money Xander would garner, and he also didn’t want to commit to two expensive middle infielders for a minimum of 5 or 6 years when you have one of the most highly touted prospects in a while ready to play SS by 2024. If Blooms long term plan to have an infield of Casas, Story, Mayer, and Devers, isn’t this kind of what we all expected/wanted? I honestly don’t believe the difference in Story to Xander is that much, especially when factoring in the contract.
Penciling in Mayer by 2024 seems aggressive to me. I hope the kid is great, but until he's a bit closer to the bigs I think it's silly to plan around his development. I'd also prefer Xander in the Story slot at a similar contract if the reporting was true, but I guess we'll see how Story handles SS this year.
 

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
1,420
Chicago, IL
While I personally disagree since you've had respected writers floating that he would have seriously considered it, lets operate under the assumption that you're totally correct and Boras would not have let Bogaerts take that deal.

A) If that was the case, and the best offer they were prepared to make was - in essence - 4 years at $90m then shouldn't Bloom have thus known there was no chance Bogaerts would accept that and also that there was no way he was going to be re-signed in the offseason? Or is he horrible at reading a market in 2022 and again in 2023?

B) If the idea is that Bogaerts is a sub par defensive shortstop whom would age off the position and thus not be worth a long term deal in the first place, so they didn't really want him and that's why they signed Story, shouldn't there have been much more of a plan in place to replace him as a middle of the order bat. Losing your 3rd or 4th hitter in the line up (his two most occupied positions) is kind of a problem that should be addressed. I like the Yoshida signing, but you're relying on a guy coming over from Japan, an old DH on a one year deal and a guy whom has shown no ability to hit LHP in the minors to replace a guy that has been a ~ 130 wRC+ player for the past 5 years and, at least ostensibly, another middle of the order bat (Devers) as well.

C) Lets assume there WERE plans in place to replace that production that haven't come to fruition, doesn't that speak to Bloom not being able to execute his plans, which would be problematic. I of course allow that "its not even MLK day yet" and that we need to continue to see what the off-season holds - but the pattern to present doesn't make me think a massive trade (or Devers extension) is on the horizon.

D) As the last point, since optics shouldn't be a huge role, but wouldn't it have been a far better look - having offered him more than you just gave Story and having Bogaerts turn it down. That would have been a serious attempt to keep a star franchise player, by saying we value you MORE than the guy we just gave this deal to, and close to the top of the (2022) free agent class. Yes, the media and fans will always find something to complain about, but that is a lot more difficult to poke holes in. Now, I personally don't believe that the Front Office really cares about public perception (and I think this should come pretty far down the list in terms of making choices anyway) but it keeps being brought up, so it would have been a much easier sell to the fan base of - we really wanted this player here and we made an offer higher than one of the top FA middle infielders just signed for, but he wants to test free agency and that is something he's earned.


As much as I like Bogaerts as a player and for the intangibles that came with it, my biggest problem isn't in letting him go, but it's in what they've done / not done around the roster to build a better baseball team instead of committing the money to one player.

Has the team improved from where they were at the end of last year - I don't think that's certain based on the current roster, but it's certainly possible, with some very large error bands - so lets assume they have. The question isn't are they better than the 2022 Red Sox, the question is have they done enough to improve to a greater extent than the 2023 Orioles, Rays, Blue Jays and Yankees, and I think that is a very likely no.

With the players they've acquired, they also haven't done anything to improve the farm system or the 2024-27 window that many people keep pointing too, and seem to be prioritizing 2023 (looking more and more like a lame duck season from Devers with every passing day and every bit of "information" we receive) than that 2024-27 window, which is what gives me so little faith in what Bloom is doing.
Forgive me for not adding substance to the conversation, but every now and then you gotta just affirm a post. Firmly agree with everything above (except, perhaps, right now, the team is not better than 2022, though could still change). Well done.
 

bosox1534

lurker
Dec 17, 2022
61
Penciling in Mayer by 2024 seems aggressive to me. I hope the kid is great, but until he's a bit closer to the bigs I think it's silly to plan around his development. I'd also prefer Xander in the Story slot at a similar contract if the reporting was true, but I guess we'll see how Story handles SS this year.
I agree in that it’s early, but we are in a different time of baseball. Guys like Soto and Rodriguez and Adley are coming up earlier and earlier, and this has only helped their development. I think it’s fair to say Mayer is in a similar boat regarding talent. And whether he be ready in 2024 or 2025, the blocking issue remains the same. Is Bogaerts worth his money if he is moved to left field?

If the reporting is true, sure Xander would’ve been a better option than Story based on the bat and Story’s arm problems, but that’s only if the reporting is true, and nobody knows the true story other than Xander and Boras and Chaim. So I have to go off what I know, which is that multiple teams believe Xander is worth $300M, which I strongly disagree with.
 
Last edited:

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
14,384
Although it was never said directly, I think the Story signing was the contingency plan. I think Bloom realized the kind of money Xander would garner, and he also didn’t want to commit to two expensive middle infielders for a minimum of 5 or 6 years when you have one of the most highly touted prospects in a while ready to play SS by 2024. If Blooms long term plan to have an infield of Casas, Story, Mayer, and Devers, isn’t this kind of what we all expected/wanted? I honestly don’t believe the difference in Story to Xander is that much, especially when factoring in the contract.
Well moving Story to SS still leaves second base open for now and uncertainty in the middle of the order. And in my mind likely a downgrade at both SS and 2B over the short-term.

As for the long-term plan, that’s fine and I agree it’s basically what we expected down the road.

But of course a lot depends on signing Devers. One of the consequences of JD’s decline plus losing Betts plus losing Xander plus not extending Devers last year is that Devers has incredible leverage. What is he worth in theory is almost an irrelelevent question: he may be worth more to the Red Sox than he is to any other team because..,what else are they going to do?

Mayer seems 2025-ish to me so Bloom better also have a short-term plan - ie this year or next - or he may not have a chance to be there for 2025. I think that’s what we are waiting on. (Edit - that and Devers)

I am open to the possibility Bloom has a trick up his sleeve that I did not see coming.