Poll: Rate Your Faith in the Red Sox Front Office

Rate Your Faith in the Red Sox Front Office


  • Total voters
    595

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,057
Mansfield MA
The Renfroe trade was about making an opportunity for Duran. Most people on this board wanted Duran to get that opportunity, so Bloom needed to clear at least a strong-side platoon for him to get a shot.
I don't agree with your theory, and it seems like a pretty massive piece of evidence against your theory that they optioned Duran to Worcester to start the year. If dealing Renfroe was about creating an opportunity for Duran, why didn't they give him the opportunity? It makes no sense. Duran didn't get called up until June. I don't think your theory holds up to scrutiny or logic.

That plan was obscured by several injuries, mostly to Kiké, who had a serious health scare. JBJ didn’t rebound and Duran was mostly bad anyway, so the plan proved flawed in execution.

But I think characterizing it as a dumb move ignores this subplot. The FO wanted to secure PAs for Duran, and Renfroe’s recuperation in 2021 had been so successful that he was no longer platoon-able. The trade wasn’t built on the premise that JBJ would outplay Renfroe. It wasn’t a challenge trade.

We could have just traded Duran (my preference), but a lot of people here were excited by him. We could have traded Kiké, but he had just put up a 5-bWAR season and Duran can’t play CF. We could have traded Verdugo, which in hindsight might have been the move. But we had three solid outfielders and a good 26-year-old outfield prospect, and we had to do something.
Teams are allowed to roster four competent outfielders, and in this case one could be optioned to AAA. Again, the logic doesn't hold up here.

And for what it's worth, I get the idea of selling high on Renfroe, who can be a pretty maddening player. But the return sucked. They didn't save any money because they took on washed-up JBJ and his awful contract, and the prospects they got were mediocre in foresight and look even worse in hindsight.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
12,893
The Renfroe trade being about “getting playing time for Duran” is revisionist history. They reacquired Bradley because they valued defense in RF (Bloom cited wanting a second CF in Fenway, playing RF) and felt his bat would bounce back. Go back and read what Bloom said post trade. They were wrong but it was a logical argument. Not getting a platoon mate (or even a real backup OF) to start the season was bizarre, and sticking with JBJ for nearly the entire season was worse.

https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/jackie-bradley-jr-red-sox-trade-chaim-bloom-alex-binelas-david-hamilton-prospects-mlb/
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,683
The Renfroe trade being about “getting playing time for Duran” is revisionist history. They reacquired Bradley because they valued defense in RF (Bloom cited wanting a second CF in Fenway, playing RF) and felt his bat would bounce back. Go back and read what Bloom said post trade. They were wrong but it was a logical argument. Not getting a platoon mate (or even a real backup OF) to start the season was bizarre, and sticking with JBJ for nearly the entire season was worse.

https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/jackie-bradley-jr-red-sox-trade-chaim-bloom-alex-binelas-david-hamilton-prospects-mlb/
Okay then how was Jarren Duran, MLB’s #26 prospect as of August 2021, going to get at-bats in his age-25 season in Boston? Don’t you think it’d be easier for him to split time with a guy coming off a .497 OPS season (JBJ) but who still has a high defensive floor than it would be a guy three years younger who just put up an .816 OPS and is still playing for arb money?
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
12,893
Okay then how was Jarren Duran, MLB’s #26 prospect as of August 2021, going to get at-bats in his age-25 season? Don’t you think it’d be easier for him to split time with a guy coming off a .497 OPS season (JBJ) but who still has a high defensive floor than it would be a guy three years younger who just put up an .816 OPS and is still playing for arb money?
If that was the plan, why not just trade Renfroe for whatever you can get, and forget about JBJ? Or just non tender him? I don’t think LH Duran splitting time with LB Bradley is very logical. If that was the plan- why didn’t it happen? IIRC, they broke camp with Arroyo as the only backup OF.
 

Philip Jeff Frye

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2001
10,392
I think a minimum of 20 starts between 2 pitchers who AFAIK are currently healthy is a very reasonable expectation.

Paxton got shut down last season with a lat strain, which takes like a couple months maximum to recover from & Sale got shut down with a broken finger.
If Paxton is so healthy, why did he settle for a $6 million contract by exercising his option? He got more money last offseason when he was clearly not so healthy.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
5,863
Probably because he recognized that being unable to throw at all this year depressed his market even further?
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,683
If that was the plan, why not just trade Renfroe for whatever you can get, and forget about JBJ? Or just non tender him? I don’t think LH Duran splitting time with LB Bradley is very logical. If that was the plan- why didn’t it happen? IIRC, they broke camp with Arroyo as the only backup OF.
To your first question, plugging Duran in as the starter would have been very high-risk.

And it wouldn’t have been a direct Duran/JBJ timeshare, because Duran is a bat who can’t play right field. If all were healthy and JBJ wasn’t taking, then Duran would come up in May/June and take starts in LF/CF. Kiké and Verdugo could slide over to right when needed, and JBJ would effectively be the fourth outfielder/defensive replacement, or DFA’d.

It’s also the reason, I think, they didn’t sign Pham. They wanted to get Duran a good look, roughly 300 PAs, and none of Kiké/Verdugo/Renfroe or Pham would have assented to splitting time. Nor should they have.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,694
I still think Bloom underestimated the market for Suzuki (a ironically the poor bloke apparently overestimated the market for Yoshida*). JBJ was the defensive backup for late innings/ 4th OF’er.
Duran was in the mix but not Plan A.
*when will that guy get it right?!?!?
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
The Renfroe trade being about “getting playing time for Duran” is revisionist history. They reacquired Bradley because they valued defense in RF (Bloom cited wanting a second CF in Fenway, playing RF) and felt his bat would bounce back. Go back and read what Bloom said post trade. They were wrong but it was a logical argument. Not getting a platoon mate (or even a real backup OF) to start the season was bizarre, and sticking with JBJ for nearly the entire season was worse.

https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/jackie-bradley-jr-red-sox-trade-chaim-bloom-alex-binelas-david-hamilton-prospects-mlb/
I'm pretty much in agreement here, but I don't think Bloom was convinced about Bradley's bat. I think that he hoped him to bounce back to a certain degree, enough so that Bradley could hold a spot on the roster, but I also think that Bradley was "plan B". An occasional, situational starter/defensive specialist as well as an opportunity to buy a couple of prospects for whom "plan A" never materialized. I was never a fan of this trade, but I also realize that given the time that this interview (back in December of last year) there really wasn't any other way that Bloom could spin it.
 

streeter88

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 2, 2006
1,814
Melbourne, Australia
I will be pleasantly surprised if Paxton ever pitches a regular season inning for the Red Sox.
I laughed. And agree 100%. As for Sale, he will blow his foofer valve and be out for the season - again.

For those of you not familiar with what a foofer valve is, let Sale show you the way. He is this generation’s Mark Pryor, and Paxton is Matt Clement.

I will donate $50 to Jimmy Fund if either Sale or Paxton makes more than 5 quality starts next year. And if they combine to make 20 quality starts, I will donate $200 to the Jimmy Fund. Who will match me?
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
25,601
Unreal America

CSteinhardt

"Steiny"
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
3,205
Cambridge
It’s kind of frustrating how the Sox have swung wildly between the (relative) penny-pinching of Cherington to the free-spending of Dombrowski and now back to penny-pinching. It doesn’t seem like it should be THAT hard to find a GM that both understands the value of stars AND that can still plan for future and not overload the team with a bunch of albatross contracts.
This is essentially exactly why I support what Bloom is doing. The value of stars on the open market is that they receive contracts essentially guaranteed to be albatrosses. There was no way to re-sign Xander without a contract in the range of what he actually got, and that contract will certainly be an albatross within a few years. Mookie's contract is already underwater. You cannot sign stars at market rates without paying for it dearly starting partway through the deal.

Moreover, paying full value for FAs isn't ever a way to win by itself. Buying 40-50 WAR at market rates is well over the budget of every major league team. The approach that seems most sustainable is to avoid being attached to players and instead to seek value at every opportunity. It didn't work out the way I'd have liked it to, but the Paxton contract had a lot more chance of being a few WAR better than market value than any superstar signing this year. That's the sort of thing that the Sox should be doing with their larger budget, and this the first version of the front office which seems to put a priority on finding ways to squeeze out this sort of value.

The other half is scouting, and that's where it's still too early to tell. The two most important decisions so far seem to have been Mayer and Yorke, with Yorke in particular a pick that most other front offices probably wouldn't have made. The Yoshida signing seems to be in the same mold, just on a much larger scale. I think we'll know a lot more here after this coming season.

Overall, I like the long-term plan and support the FO, but it's also clear that their player evaluation differs from most other teams. Whether I'll continue to support Bloom after this year depends on seeing that they're right about a majority of the players where everybody else disagrees.
 

mikcou

Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2007
932
Boston
This is essentially exactly why I support what Bloom is doing. The value of stars on the open market is that they receive contracts essentially guaranteed to be albatrosses. There was no way to re-sign Xander without a contract in the range of what he actually got, and that contract will certainly be an albatross within a few years. Mookie's contract is already underwater. You cannot sign stars at market rates without paying for it dearly starting partway through the deal.
How is Mookie's deal underwater? After accounting for the deferrals, he has an AAV of $25M a year. He was worth approaching $85M in 2021-2022 so has basically covered 25% of a 12 year contract in two years. He's still an elite player and is a pretty decent bet to be worth his deal. Some of these deals do in fact work out - not every single big market team other than Boston is just lighting money on fire when they sign stars.
 

streeter88

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 2, 2006
1,814
Melbourne, Australia
This is essentially exactly why I support what Bloom is doing. The value of stars on the open market is that they receive contracts essentially guaranteed to be albatrosses. There was no way to re-sign Xander without a contract in the range of what he actually got, and that contract will certainly be an albatross within a few years. Mookie's contract is already underwater. You cannot sign stars at market rates without paying for it dearly starting partway through the deal.
Mikcou has already responded well, but this post from @radsoxfan is also relevant as a direct rebuttal to the bolded.

319 games and 14.2 WAR in 2.5 seasons and 1 World Series win with LA. He has had some minor injuries and who knows how he will hold up down the road, but it's OK to acknowledge Mookie has still been fantastic with the Dodgers.

They also landed him on a massively deferred deal that is pretty reasonable in the context of the league. Fangraphs has Mookie as worth 105.8M over his time with the Dodgers and they have paid him only 14.5M/season each of the last 2 years given all the deferrals.

It's likely not to end well, like a lot of these super long contracts. But no need to pretend it's been anything other a massive win for the Dodgers to this point (Verdugo with 5.5 WAR and I assume the rest of the trade has been essentially zero).

I support the objective of finding excess value, but I think that is a very hard way to make a living and prone to occasional spectacular failure.

Another point: there must be leaders on a team as players actually play in real life and not in some fantasy baseball universe. If in the pursuit of excess value there are no superstars or leaders that can galvanise the rest to follow their example then the team cannot gel. Who will lead the 2023 edition? At this point, it's sure as hell not Chris Sale or Verdugo (much though he might try), and the jury is still out on whether Devers will even be with the team in April.

Finally to the main point of this thread: the front office needs to replace the production of X and JDM (Devers too?), and in the process find a starting SS, 1B/DH, OF, and maybe 3B. And thanks to the Sale / Paxton glassware set, at least 1 top of the line SP. Don't need to "win the offseason" but would be nice if they could claim they actually made the team better, which they failed to do last year.
 

CSteinhardt

"Steiny"
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
3,205
Cambridge
How is Mookie's deal underwater? After accounting for the deferrals, he has an AAV of $25M a year. He was worth approaching $85M in 2021-2022 so has basically covered 25% of a 12 year contract in two years. He's still an elite player and is a pretty decent bet to be worth his deal. Some of these deals do in fact work out - not every single big market team other than Boston is just lighting money on fire when they sign stars.
Mookie's had a very strong first two years. But I don't think you would want to pay him $304M/10 starting in 2023. Even with those great first two years, it's already a bad contract, just not as bad at it would have been if he didn't have two excellent years. If you were running the Sox, would you sign Betts to his remaining deal?

I support the objective of finding excess value, but I think that is a very hard way to make a living and prone to occasional spectacular failure.

Another point: there must be leaders on a team as players actually play in real life and not in some fantasy baseball universe. If in the pursuit of excess value there are no superstars or leaders that can galvanise the rest to follow their example then the team cannot gel. Who will lead the 2023 edition? At this point, it's sure as hell not Chris Sale or Verdugo (much though he might try), and the jury is still out on whether Devers will even be with the team in April.

Finally to the main point of this thread: the front office needs to replace the production of X and JDM (Devers too?), and in the process find a starting SS, 1B/DH, OF, and maybe 3B. And thanks to the Sale / Paxton glassware set, at least 1 top of the line SP. Don't need to "win the offseason" but would be nice if they could claim they actually made the team better, which they failed to do last year.
Baseball's a remarkably individual game. We need good players, certainly, but we don't need specific ones or proven leaders or anything like that. And as you point out, it's not like we have a stacked lineup where we would have noplace to put a newly-signed 1.5 WAR player and thus have to vastly overpay to find an upgrade - we have several places where we can get a few wins better without giving out a superstar contract. For example, to throw out a couple of names, the chances of finding a lot of excess value signing Jean Segura and Willi Castro to their projected deals are a lot better than we'd have gotten signing Xander to 90% of the deal he got.

It doesn't, as you say, mean that we "win the offseason", but signing those sorts of deals to fill those gaps is the way I'd want to handle the remaining part of the offseason, and I do have confidence in the front office to find ways to do that. What I'm still not sure about is the scouting - it's clear that the Sox evaluate talent much differently than most of the league, and whether this succeeds really depends on whether they're right.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
31,608
What I'm still not sure about is the scouting - it's clear that the Sox evaluate talent much differently than most of the league, and whether this succeeds really depends on whether they're right.
And just to add to this, the #1 job of the GM (or CBO) is to evaluate talent. If the GM can evaluate talent, the numbers will likely work themselves out, at least in the short run.

Like them or not, if the Red Sox start winning - i.e., if Chsim has correctly evaluated talent - he will be okay. And OTOH, if Chaim has not evaluated tslent correctly, we're going to have another CBO to scream about in the pretty near future. I'm rooting for the Sox to win but reality is reality if they don't.
 

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
1,240
And just to add to this, the #1 job of the GM (or CBO) is to evaluate talent. If the GM can evaluate talent, the numbers will likely work themselves out, at least in the short run.

Like them or not, if the Red Sox start winning - i.e., if Chsim has correctly evaluated talent - he will be okay. And OTOH, if Chaim has not evaluated tslent correctly, we're going to have another CBO to scream about in the pretty near future. I'm rooting for the Sox to win but reality is reality if they don't.
This is of course, totally fair. I also think we're in agreement that we all WANT Bloom to do exceptionally well.

The thing that worries me the most in this type of plan is what seems to be a lack of impact minor league talent that we've seen in some of the moves made by this current front office, particularly on the trade front. Obviously there have been extenuating circumstances in some of the deals, but when you look at what we acquired (or didn't) in terms of prospects for Betts (Downs, Wong); selling extremely low on Benintendi (Cordero, Winckowski, Gambrell, Freddy Valdez and Luis De La Rosa) and Renfroe (Hamilton and Binelas) the production has not been great at the minor league level, and the only player in the top 20 (according to Sox Prospects) is Valdez at 17 from the Vazquez trade last year - which by the way I think was a good move - and can't figure out why we didn't move more.

I'm sure there have been other trades, but those are the ones that stand out in my mind. Couple that with the organizational decision NOT to sell pieces like Eovaldi, Wacha, Hill and Martinez last year both for whatever prospects we could get AND also to get back under the luxury tax - when at the point of the tax deadline I don't believe we'd won a single series victory against any of the other AL East teams - and you begin to fall into the "what is the plan / the plan isn't working" category.

I'd feel a lot different if lets just say Downs, Binelas and Winckowski - or players we'd landed from those deals - were looking like future pieces of the core rather than possible 40 man cuts / fringe pieces.



*Obviously Verdugo was a big part of the Betts trade, and we all know why that had to be made, I think. Landing Pivetta for Workman was an absolute win for Bloom, regardless of how Seabold ever looks. Seeing as to how "well" I think Bloom has done when he's made trade deadline deals - especially relative to other transactions - it really is too bad we didn't sell whatever we weren't planning to bring back (and I now understand why that could not include Bogaerts, thank you again) at the deadline during a lost season. That seems to be Bloom's strength, and we didn't maximize that strength last season.
 
Last edited:

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
14,009
Mookie's had a very strong first two years. But I don't think you would want to pay him $304M/10 starting in 2023. Even with those great first two years, it's already a bad contract, just not as bad at it would have been if he didn't have two excellent years. If you were running the Sox, would you sign Betts to his remaining deal?
Mookie has probably banked 50M of excess value already in 2 years.

In his age 30 season he’s projected as a 5-6 win player, probably another 20-30M or so in excess value if his median projection happens. He will be an “excess value” player for at least a few years, if not more, barring injury.

All these contracts at some point will be underwater, they’re basically just deferred money to keep AAV down but still give the player their true worth. Can’t obsess over how the back end turns out.

If the question is…. If for some reason you remove his huge already banked excess value, would I still take the heavily deferred 10/300 ish left on Mookie?

Sure I would. Look at what these guys are getting this off-season. He’s the same age as Xander and Turner.
 
Last edited:

OCD SS

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mookie's had a very strong first two years. But I don't think you would want to pay him $304M/10 starting in 2023. Even with those great first two years, it's already a bad contract, just not as bad at it would have been if he didn't have two excellent years. If you were running the Sox, would you sign Betts to his remaining deal?
This is a disingenuous way to look at a long term contract. The whole point of any of these long term deals is to be able to accrue the value in the front end when the player is in their prime. Just using FanGraphs values as back of the envelope numbers he’s put up 13.2 fWAR “worth” $105.8M (although I admit that I’m not sure how 2020 affects these). He’s showing surplus value when the Dodgers expect it, and they likely expect the last years to be a sunk cost of an asset that they’ve already extracted the value from. You can’t really argue his contract is underwater if you wouldn’t sign up to accept a greater percentage of decline.

The thing I find interesting is that we didn’t really catch the possible dead years on the end of Mookie’s deal the way we did for Turner and X. Maybe it’s because based on the age he signed and his athleticism, he seemed more likely to play to the end, but I think this shows the Dodgers being slightly ahead of the pack on adjusting their contracts this way.

Edit: or what rsf said.
 

4 6 3 DP

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 24, 2001
2,391
For the life of me I don't understand why Bloom is out doing this interview tour right now. The Red Sox lost Johnny Damon, they lost Ellsbury, they lost Pedro, Mo Vaughn, Roger Clemens - Im sure the list goes on and on. The fans may whine and moan - but ultimately we expect them to fill gaps, field a competitive team, and move on. We lost Clemens, went one year without an ace, and got Pedro. Pedro then replaced by Beckett, Damon eventually by Ellsbury, Ellsbury by Mookie, and so on.

I'm not worried if Bloom's feelings are hurt that the fans are mad at him, the player exercised his right to free agency, and left, and the Red Sox have overcome this in the past, and will again in the future.

My faith in Bloom was far less hurt by X leaving than it was by his inability to get under the tax at the deadline if he wanted to be a seller (I understand we were 2 out and trying to get into the playoffs, but if that's the case I wouldn't have sold, and would have bought and actually tried to make the playoffs)
 

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
1,240
For the life of me I don't understand why Bloom is out doing this interview tour right now. The Red Sox lost Johnny Damon, they lost Ellsbury, they lost Pedro, Mo Vaughn, Roger Clemens - Im sure the list goes on and on. The fans may whine and moan - but ultimately we expect them to fill gaps, field a competitive team, and move on. We lost Clemens, went one year without an ace, and got Pedro. Pedro then replaced by Beckett, Damon eventually by Ellsbury, Ellsbury by Mookie, and so on.

I'm not worried if Bloom's feelings are hurt that the fans are mad at him, the player exercised his right to free agency, and left, and the Red Sox have overcome this in the past, and will again in the future.

My faith in Bloom was far less hurt by X leaving than it was by his inability to get under the tax at the deadline if he wanted to be a seller (I understand we were 2 out and trying to get into the playoffs, but if that's the case I wouldn't have sold, and would have bought and actually tried to make the playoffs)
Obviously I can't speak to Bloom's intentions (and I wasn't old enough when Clemens and Vaughn left to understand the business of baseball / concept of team building beyond my favorite players) but I'll at least take a chance at answering why I'm now much more upset about Bogaerts leaving than some of the others.

First thing is the person handling the Front Office. In each of the situations that you mentioned, the person most visibly responsible for putting together "the next great Red Sox team" had already achieved putting one together on their resume. Pedro, Damon and Manny (Theo), Ellsbury and Lester (Cherington). Nobody was upset to get rid of the folks we lost in the Punto deal...

- I won't list out Perdo and Damon separately since there was so much overlap, but we STILL HAD Ortiz, Manny, Varitek, Youkilis, Nixon, Schilling, Wakefield along with Pedroia, Lester, Papelbon and Buchholz all either in the majors or on the cusp.

- When Ellsbury left we had a core consisting of Ortiz, Pedroia, Napoli, Lester, Lackey, Buchholz, Middlebrooks (whom we felt pretty ok about at the time) and several top prospects young players ready to take over including Bradley Jr (to directly replace Ellsbury), Bogaerts and Betts ready to come up the following year.

- When Mookie left we still had Bogaerts, Devers, Benintendi, Martinez, Vazquez, a "not yet injured" Sale, Eovaldi and Rodriguez. (FWIW, I understood and AGREED with trading Mookie Betts and the core we had in place already.)

- Now we have left one core player Story (at this point I assume best case is Devers is moved for prospects right now, because current FO (not ownership, front office) has shown no ability /inclination to ink elite level contracts unless one wants to count Story), a couple of young players we feel good about (Whitlock, Bello, Casas - though one has shown no ability to hit same handed pitching in the upper minors) and all our top prospects beyond that are in AA at highest.


I think the consternation over Ellsbury leaving, for instance, would have been far greater if the "core" at that point had only been Dustin Pedroia, removing all the veterans and having only the 2006 versions of Lester (Bello) and Buchholz (Whitlock) and the 2004 version of Youkilis (Casas), but that is admittedly speculation.

It's not so much Bogaerts leaving in a vacuum for me. It's Bogaerts leaving, there being no discernable core beyond Story outside of which left to build around, nothing that makes me think we're going to go out and spend or trade for said core pieces, and the vast majority of our highly regarded prospects having not yet shown an ability to master AA ball for a full season.
 
Last edited:

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
25,601
Unreal America
For the life of me I don't understand why Bloom is out doing this interview tour right now. The Red Sox lost Johnny Damon, they lost Ellsbury, they lost Pedro, Mo Vaughn, Roger Clemens - Im sure the list goes on and on. The fans may whine and moan - but ultimately we expect them to fill gaps, field a competitive team, and move on. We lost Clemens, went one year without an ace, and got Pedro. Pedro then replaced by Beckett, Damon eventually by Ellsbury, Ellsbury by Mookie, and so on.

I'm not worried if Bloom's feelings are hurt that the fans are mad at him, the player exercised his right to free agency, and left, and the Red Sox have overcome this in the past, and will again in the future.

My faith in Bloom was far less hurt by X leaving than it was by his inability to get under the tax at the deadline if he wanted to be a seller (I understand we were 2 out and trying to get into the playoffs, but if that's the case I wouldn't have sold, and would have bought and actually tried to make the playoffs)
For as much as this place rolls their eyes at the nearly 3-year long conversation about Mookie leaving, I'm not sure that the front office still completely comprehends just how much that damaged their brand. October 2021 was a wonderful respite from the fallout, but the well has been poisoned, and every time a popular core player is jettisoned (Benintendi, Vazquez, Bogaerts) it re-opens the Mookie wound.

I think this is why Bloom is out talking now in a way he typically does not. It's damage control, when the damage was done a long time ago.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,683
For the life of me I don't understand why Bloom is out doing this interview tour right now. The Red Sox lost Johnny Damon, they lost Ellsbury, they lost Pedro, Mo Vaughn, Roger Clemens - Im sure the list goes on and on. The fans may whine and moan - but ultimately we expect them to fill gaps, field a competitive team, and move on. We lost Clemens, went one year without an ace, and got Pedro. Pedro then replaced by Beckett, Damon eventually by Ellsbury, Ellsbury by Mookie, and so on.
I’d say the difference between now and then is the amount of misinformation that gets circulated by unsourced, non-reporter “influencer” media (like Carrabis, who occasionally talks to people, or that dumb Boston Strong twitter account that just dangles engagement bait).

A lot of that misinfo ends up reaching escape velocity and becomes part of the official story. Trying to correct the record is damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t, but it’s better to err on the side of honesty.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
25,601
Unreal America
Obviously I can't speak to Bloom's intentions (and I wasn't old enough when Clemens and Vaughn left to understand the business of baseball / concept of team building beyond my favorite players) but I'll at least take a chance at answering why I'm now much more upset about Bogaerts leaving than some of the others.
My impression was that when Clemens left the vast majority of the fan base thought his previous 4 seasons had been fairly mediocre, that he had been somewhat lazy in his conditioning, and his better days were behind him. I recall a lot of people (including myself) get mad at Clemens in April/May 1997, wondering where the hell *that* guy had been for 4 years.

More people were upset about Mo (he was my favorite player and I was hopping mad that he left) but there were similar concerns about his fitness, his off the field activities (he was basically part of the furniture at the Foxy Lady), and his inevitable breakdown.

And most importantly, in both cases there wasn't a recent history of the team jettisoning a wildly popular, in-his-prime player.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
25,601
Unreal America
I’d say the difference between now and then is the amount of misinformation that gets circulated by unsourced, non-reporter “influencer” media (like Carrabis, who occasionally talks to people, or that dumb Boston Strong twitter account that just dangles engagement bait).

A lot of that misinfo ends up reaching escape velocity and becomes part of the official story. Trying to correct the record is damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t, but it’s better to err on the side of honesty.
I see that "the media" is a major angle in a lot of your posts, and to some extent I appreciate that. But people have been griping about the unfair Boston sports media since Ted Williams patrolled left field. Not much has changed in that regard for decades. I don't think Bloom is facing anything that many, many Sox GMs haven't had to deal with.
 

Garfinvold

New Member
Dec 8, 2022
20
My impression was that when Clemens left the vast majority of the fan base thought his previous 4 seasons had been fairly mediocre, that he had been somewhat lazy in his conditioning, and his better days were behind him. I recall a lot of people (including myself) get mad at Clemens in April/May 1997, wondering where the hell *that* guy had been for 4 years.

More people were upset about Mo (he was my favorite player and I was hopping mad that he left) but there were similar concerns about his fitness, his off the field activities (he was basically part of the furniture at the Foxy Lady), and his inevitable breakdown.

And most importantly, in both cases there wasn't a recent history of the team jettisoning a wildly popular, in-his-prime player.
People in '97 were acting like Clemens was always great and Duquette stupidly let him go. He was not. He was pretty mediocre for 4 years. Not SSS. He did pitch better the last 6 weeks of 96, but I wouldn't have counted on that to continue.

Mo Vaughn everybody knew was going to leave. The team obviously didn't want him. Probably had something to do with his outside activities.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
People in '97 were acting like Clemens was always great and Duquette stupidly let him go. He was not. He was pretty mediocre for 4 years. Not SSS. He did pitch better the last 6 weeks of 96, but I wouldn't have counted on that to continue.

Mo Vaughn everybody knew was going to leave. The team obviously didn't want him. Probably had something to do with his outside activities.
Nobody much liked Clemens by the time he left Boston, for a variety of reasons. He was lazy, he was arrogant, he was fucking nuts in ways that seemed designed to sabotage the team (eye black and TMNT shoelaces incident...), but mostly it just seemed like his time in Boston was up. He'd been there for what felt like a really long time, through three distinct eras of the team, and it just seemed like the Red Sox needed to move on without him. He had entered a Fat Elvis stage. As said above, that he whipped himself into (*cough*) shape and became a dominant pitcher was viewed as a slap in the face to Boston fans who put up with his so-so effort and conditioning for years, and now he had the gall to claim Boston fans had been unfair, and Duquette had gravely insulted him and all that. Bullshit. He concocted an alternate history to rationalize turning wholesale to steroids. But after that, there was nobody in sports that Boston Red Sox fans hated more than Clemens from about 1998 until 2004 when A-Rod jumped into the lead.

Vaughn leaving stung a little but the Sox had Nomar entering his prime and had recently gone out and got Pedro. They were also coming off of a playoff appearance (was 1998 the least circumstantial Red Sox playoff appearance of them all?), so it felt like things were going to be ok.
 

Garfinvold

New Member
Dec 8, 2022
20
Nobody much liked Clemens by the time he left Boston, for a variety of reasons. He was lazy, he was arrogant, he was fucking nuts in ways that seemed designed to sabotage the team (eye black and TMNT shoelaces incident...), but mostly it just seemed like his time in Boston was up. He'd been there for what felt like a really long time, through three distinct eras of the team, and it just seemed like the Red Sox needed to move on without him. He had entered a Fat Elvis stage. As said above, that he whipped himself into (*cough*) shape and became a dominant pitcher was viewed as a slap in the face to Boston fans who put up with his so-so effort and conditioning for years, and now he had the gall to claim Boston fans had been unfair, and Duquette had gravely insulted him and all that. Bullshit. He concocted an alternate history to rationalize turning wholesale to steroids. But after that, there was nobody in sports that Boston Red Sox fans hated more than Clemens from about 1998 until 2004 when A-Rod jumped into the lead.

Vaughn leaving stung a little but the Sox had Nomar entering his prime and had recently gone out and got Pedro. They were also coming off of a playoff appearance (was 1998 the least circumstantial Red Sox playoff appearance of them all?), so it felt like things were going to be ok.
Revisionist historians like Shaughnesssy (hate even mentioning his name so I just misspelled it like Lancellotti and Finnvold) try to claim Clemens sucked because the team sucked, Even though they won the division in 95 and finished 3 games out of a playoff spot in 96- Guess who was 3 games under .500 that year. I know pitcher wins and losses don't matter, but it is something to think about. Toronto in 97 was much worse than either of those teams.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
25,671
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Mookie has probably banked 50M of excess value already in 2 years.
That's not really a thing. Those seasons are done and the results are what they are.

Mookie was instrumental in the weirdo 2020 year and the Dodgers WS victory. Other than that, in 2021 and 2022 Mookie's been a key contributor to a talented Dodger club that hasn't gone as far into the post-season as one might expect. His contract carries $29 or $30M per year toward the tax threshold.

The question should really be (given the Dodger's free spending ways), was there an opportunity cost attached to Betts' contract that prevented the Dodgers from doing any better?

I'm not aware of one, but I don't follow the Dodgers that closely. Given Mookie's solid play - I'd be comfortable assuming it's money well spent that didn't otherwise hamper the club from signing other players.

Going forward, we have the 2023 season through the 2032 season. Will the middle or back end of the deal actually hamper the Dodgers? We just don't know. But they'll weigh it against the 2020 WS, and the post-season runs in 2021 and 2022. What value they have is highly dependent on the franchise's view of such things. Not all franchises will value them and/or building their fan-base equally.
 

mikcou

Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2007
932
Boston
That's not really a thing. Those seasons are done and the results are what they are.

Mookie was instrumental in the weirdo 2020 year and the Dodgers WS victory. Other than that, in 2021 and 2022 Mookie's been a key contributor to a talented Dodger club that hasn't gone as far into the post-season as one might expect. His contract carries $29 or $30M per year toward the tax threshold.

The question should really be (given the Dodger's free spending ways), was there an opportunity cost attached to Betts' contract that prevented the Dodgers from doing any better?

I'm not aware of one, but I don't follow the Dodgers that closely. Given Mookie's solid play - I'd be comfortable assuming it's money well spent that didn't otherwise hamper the club from signing other players.

Going forward, we have the 2023 season through the 2032 season. Will the middle or back end of the deal actually hamper the Dodgers? We just don't know. But they'll weigh it against the 2020 WS, and the post-season runs in 2021 and 2022. What value they have is highly dependent on the franchise's view of such things. Not all franchises will value them and/or building their fan-base equally.
The Mookie deal has an AAV of ~$25M due to the significant deferrals in the deal. I'm sure the Dodgers are plenty happy with a 10/250 (again after deferrals) for a guy whos a good bet for 25 wins over the next five years.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
8,159
Boston, MA
The Mookie deal has an AAV of ~$25M due to the significant deferrals in the deal. I'm sure the Dodgers are plenty happy with a 10/250 (again after deferrals) for a guy whos a good bet for 25 wins over the next five years.
The deferrals don't matter for the CBT. He costs the Dodgers $30.4 million per year against the cap no matter how they structured the payouts.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,860
That's not really a thing. Those seasons are done and the results are what they are.

Mookie was instrumental in the weirdo 2020 year and the Dodgers WS victory. Other than that, in 2021 and 2022 Mookie's been a key contributor to a talented Dodger club that hasn't gone as far into the post-season as one might expect. His contract carries $29 or $30M per year toward the tax threshold.
They won the WS in 2020
They lost in the NLCS in 2021
The lost in the NLDS in 2022 — they also won 108 games in the regular season

In two of those three years, the Red Sox finished in last. The other year they went to the ALCS.

The Dodgers have been pretty successful over Betts’ three years. I’m not saying Mookie is the sole reason for that but blowing off his contributions like “his teams haven’t done much in the playoffs” is not 100% accurate.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
25,671
Miami (oh, Miami!)
They won the WS in 2020
They lost in the NLCS in 2021
The lost in the NLDS in 2022 — they also won 108 games in the regular season

In two of those three years, the Red Sox finished in last. The other year they went to the ALCS.

The Dodgers have been pretty successful over Betts’ three years. I’m not saying Mookie is the sole reason for that but blowing off his contributions like “his teams haven’t done much in the playoffs” is not 100% accurate.
Was that what I was doing?
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,860
Was that what I was doing?
Seems to me you said Mookie was part of ann underachieving Dodgers team. I’m pointing out that they’re really not. Is that not what you meant by “talented Dodgers club that hasn’t gone as far into the postseason as one might expect.”?

Unless you think that the Dodgers should have threepeated.

But you tell me what you meant.
 

mikcou

Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2007
932
Boston
The deferrals don't matter for the CBT. He costs the Dodgers $30.4 million per year against the cap no matter how they structured the payouts.
Did this change in the 2022 CBA? The prior CBA very clearly states that deferrals that do not have an interest component of at least AFR +1.5% are discounted to present value. Mookie's deferrals have no interest attached to them.

I cant find any report that this changed.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
25,671
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Seems to me you said Mookie was part of ann underachieving Dodgers team. I’m pointing out that they’re really not. Is that not what you meant by “talented Dodgers club that hasn’t gone as far into the postseason as one might expect.”?

Unless you think that the Dodgers should have threepeated.

But you tell me what you meant.
If the Sox won 111 games and lost the ALDS 3-1, you would not say they were a talented club that hasn’t gone as far into the postseason as one might expect?"
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,860
If the Sox won 111 games and lost the ALDS 3-1, you would not say they were a talented club that hasn’t gone as far into the postseason as one might expect?"
It’s the randomness of the post season. You know it’s not that unusual that best team over the six months of the regular season loses in October.

It happens all the time.
 

Shaky Walton

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 20, 2019
794
If you had told me in 2003, on the morning after Grady's Boner, that the Red Sox would win 4 titles betwen that day and 2022, and one of the teams would bring great, everlasting shame upon the MFYs, and another would be one of the most dominant teams in recent memory, and I would (a) vote 0% in such a poll in December, 2022, and (b) have some level of trouble as to how anyone could vote higher than that (and I know that MANY have), I would have thought you were a first ballot lunatic.

The tweets and posts showing what Bloom started with and what he has now are sobering. So is the lack of movement or an apparent plan of any kind other than being financially prudent. So is the fact that Bloom was so shocked and rattled by Xander signing in SD. What the actual fuck did he think was going to happen? So is the current roster. Yes, they play no games in December. And none until April. But how he's going to put together a team that can win even 75 games at this point is beyond me.

I hope I am wrong. Many here preach patience. And point to the improved system. And like the spring in Chaim's step.

Maybe Devers will get signed. Maybe it wont be as Pedro predicted when he was asked about how he thought Devers might react to Bogey moving on. Maybe it's only about the Benjamins for Devers and the Sox can get out of their own way and get a market deal done.

Maybe a lot of things. But all I see is a man who seems to be so far over his skis that he's about to face plant and an ownership group who seems totally disengaged. And Sam Kennedy reminding me of the "All is Well" Fratboy in Animal House.
 
Last edited:

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,431
The tweets and posts showing what Bloom started with and what he has now are sobering. So is the lack of movement or an apparent plan of any kind other than being financially prudent. So is the fact that Bloom was so shocked and rattled by Xander signing in SD. What the actual fuck did he think was going to happen? So is the current roster. Yes, they play no games in December. And none until April. But how he's going to put together a team that can win even 75 games at this point is beyond me.
They won 78 games last year with 40-50 starts from garbage Worcester pitching, an injured/overworked bullpen, and over 1100 PAs from Dalbec, Duran, JBJ, and Franchy and you don't see how they can put together a team that can win over 75 games in 2023?
 

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
1,240
I really think there is a difference between having faith in the Front Office (Baseball Ops) and in Ownership (FSG). Ownership can make good and bad choices on whom to have running their operations department just like a GM can make good and bad choices on players (I mean, I think we all hold Theo in extremely high regard, but he did sign Carl Crawford, trade Rizzo for Gonzalez, etc, etc).

My guess is they thought that Bloom would be another in the line of Theo Epstein and Ben Cherington as opposed to Dave Dombrowski. I can absolutely see why they thought that, I for one was thrilled when Bloom was hired, and if nothing else, I thought he was in that vein.

In no way shape or form did I think that after 3 years on the job the only valuable MLB assets we'd have on the roster who seem to in any way be part of the "core" would be a second basement coming off a slightly above average offensive season, a slightly above average left fielder, whom we're going to ask to play right field, a good prospect at 1b (whom hasn't shown an ability to hit same handed pitching in even the high minors) and two pitchers whom have combined to start 20 MLB games in their career, yet here we are.

Henry and FSG, generally speaking, give their baseball OPS department around $225m (luxury tax threshold) in salary and let them spend it. Generally, we think of good owners as cutting the check and getting out of the way, and then hopefully making changes when one appears to need to be made. I really do believe that if the 2023 season plays out on the field that we it appears on paper, you're going to see significant changes in the front office, and I have faith that FSG will do just that.

*To be clear, I WANT Bloom to be right and 2023 to be more like 2021 or even 2013 and less like 2020 and 2022. I don't think it will be, but that's what I hope happens.
 

Shaky Walton

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 20, 2019
794
They won 78 games last year with 40-50 starts from garbage Worcester pitching, an injured/overworked bullpen, and over 1100 PAs from Dalbec, Duran, JBJ, and Franchy and you don't see how they can put together a team that can win over 75 games in 2023?
Yes. This team will be missing one of its most productive bats. The pen clearly looks stronger and Yoshida might be a player. But the rotation now has lots of holes.

That said, my post was meant as a rant, and 75 was hardly precise. I could have written 81. I think they are not even close to being a contender. And that's why I vote 0%. Not the particular number of wins.
 

Papo The Snow Tiger

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 18, 2010
1,448
Connecticut
For as much as this place rolls their eyes at the nearly 3-year long conversation about Mookie leaving, I'm not sure that the front office still completely comprehends just how much that damaged their brand. October 2021 was a wonderful respite from the fallout, but the well has been poisoned, and every time a popular core player is jettisoned (Benintendi, Vazquez, Bogaerts) it re-opens the Mookie wound.

I think this is why Bloom is out talking now in a way he typically does not. It's damage control, when the damage was done a long time ago.
The 1918 Red Sox won the World Series during the Harry Frazee era, but to this day his name is mud around these parts.