Red Sox front office re-org/restructure/deck chair rearrangement

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
17,745
Speier in the Glob has the info on a re-org, seems related to the Sportsology consultant audit of the organization:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/10/29/sports/boston-red-sox-front-office/

As Breslow nears the anniversary of his hiring — a time that has come with the shifting dynamics of not only new leadership but also internal and external reviews (including an audit conducted by Sportsology), the departures of several longtime employees, and job and title changes for many members of the front office — the dust has settled on the larger shape of the organization’s restructuring efforts.
Mike Groopman will oversee acquisitions:
The Sox have redefined the work of their front office members around four pillars beneath Breslow: acquisitions, development, R&D, and operations. Each of those areas will be overseen by a different member of the senior leadership team.
Assistant general manager Mike Groopman, who oversaw the team’s analytics efforts for the last three years, will oversee acquisitions — an area that encompasses both amateur and professional player additions, including the team’s amateur, international, and pro scouting departments.
Paul Toboni will be in charge of development still, but no longer scouting. Chris Stasio now Director of Major League Developnment.
Assistant GM Paul Toboni, who’d overseen both player development and scouting, will now focus on development, an area that encompasses not only the domestic farm system but also the team’s Dominican Republic academy as well as development at the major league level. (The Sox have created a new position — director of major league development — that will be filled by Chris Stasio, who’d been assistant farm director in recent years.)
New hire Taylor Swift Smith is in charge of R&D:
R&D, which includes not only analytics and systems development but areas such as sport science and biomechanics, will be overseen by newly hired assistant GM Taylor Smith, who joined the Sox from the Rays last week after serving as Tampa Bay’s director of predictive modeling.
Operations will be overseen by executive vice president Brian O’Halloran.
Role changes for a couple of longtime front office people:
Two assistant GMs will work across departments. Raquel Ferreira will work with budgets as well as with player and staff engagement and retention. Eddie Romero is likewise expected to work across different organizational lanes in a player personnel role. His responsibilities will focus heavily on the big league roster and staff.
While the reporting lines for both international scouting and the Dominican academy had gone up to Romero for more than a decade, the team will now fold its international scouting and player development efforts into the development and acquisitions verticals. Romero is expected to have a continued presence in both areas as part of his jack-of-many-trades role that will also include scouting, player development, and major league responsibilities.
 

mauidano

Mai Tais for everyone!
SoSH Member
Aug 21, 2006
37,402
Maui
Well done.

Everyone has a title now it seems. This is literally rearranging the deck chairs.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
9,103
Seems like a step down for Eddie Romero, who had been considered a potential GM not that long ago.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
25,361
Three hundred people to field a ,500 team. JFC, this team.

At the end of the day baseball, and all professional sports really, isn’t hard: talent wins out pretty much all of the time. There are anomalies but they’re that, anomalies. Predicting them is almost impossible. Unfortunately talent costs money, ergo if you want to win you need to spend.

I don’t get why you need 300 people banging on 300 keyboards to tell you this.
 

sezwho

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
2,387
Isle of Plum
For the record, I hadn’t read the article and found it so implausible I assumed someone got misquoted…like maybe there are 300 total employees or something. Nope ‘a baseball operations department that includes roughly 300 staffers’. Not sure I get it…does this include the kid hitting fungos ?

No wonder they scrounged up a couple spare million dollars for the Consultants…so what is it that you actually do here?
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
8,489
Why is that surprising? It's a multinational enterprise including scouting, the minor league clubs and development programs. 300 doesn't sound like that many at all?
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
22,419
Maine
Before we declare 300 staffers too many, just right, or not enough, what do the baseball ops departments for the other 29 teams in the league look like? Kind of impossible to judge the numbers quoted in that article in a vacuum.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
35,527
It's a bit awkward to have one pillar called development and another called research & development.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
20,032
Before we declare 300 staffers too many, just right, or not enough, what do the baseball ops departments for the other 29 teams in the league look like? Kind of impossible to judge the numbers quoted in that article in a vacuum.
This, as it’s common knowledge that baseball operations staffs across the league have grown significantly in size over the past couple of decades.

It may be that 300 is too many in general. But, if every team has a staff of 300, we would be screaming in protest if the Sox tried to get by with a staff of 290. Posters in the Patriots forum frequently noted that Belichick had 2-3 fewer assistants than other teams.
 

VORP Speed

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
6,758
Ground Zero
This, as it’s common knowledge that baseball operations staffs across the league have grown significantly in size over the past couple of decades.

It may be that 300 is too many in general. But, if every team has a staff of 300, we would be screaming in protest if the Sox tried to get by with a staff of 290. Posters in the Patriots forum frequently noted that Belichick had 2-3 fewer assistants than other teams.
Rays have 350. Guess Sox can’t afford to keep up.
 

Granite Sox

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2003
5,215
The Granite State
Frustrated for Romero. Before sucking their way into selecting Mayer, I thought most of the Sox more exciting talent was coming from Romero’s pipeline (Devers, Rafaela, Bello, Perales, Bleis et al…). I guess Yoshida is also technically a product of Romero’s team as well.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
8,489
Frustrated for Romero. Before sucking their way into selecting Mayer, I thought most of the Sox more exciting talent was coming from Romero’s pipeline (Devers, Rafaela, Bello, Perales, Bleis et al…). I guess Yoshida is also technically a product of Romero’s team as well.
Is there any evidence that Romero has actually had his role reduced beyond speculation in this thread?
 

Granite Sox

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2003
5,215
The Granite State
He is no longer responsible for international scouting and international player acquisition, which was (to the best of my knowledge) his primary responsibility. So whatever his revised role is, it will include a big shift away from his area of expertise. Who knows… maybe he’s looking to diversify his skill set in hopes for a future GM job, but it sure seems like some of the meatier roles (the four pillars *barf*) will be handled by BOH, Groopman, Smith, and Toboni.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
8,489
The reporting says he's still involved in his prior areas too though. I mean I certainly appreciate what he's accomplished there, but I'm not gonna say he owes it to us to keep doing exactly the same thing forever with no upward mobility.
 

Auger34

used to be tbb
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
11,771
So it’s all of the same people, with the exception of one new hire? Bang up job by that consulting firm
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
8,489
Yes with the exception of new hires it's all the people that were there already.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
Three hundred people to field a ,500 team. JFC, this team.

At the end of the day baseball, and all professional sports really, isn’t hard: talent wins out pretty much all of the time. There are anomalies but they’re that, anomalies. Predicting them is almost impossible. Unfortunately talent costs money, ergo if you want to win you need to spend.

I don’t get why you need 300 people banging on 300 keyboards to tell you this.
Have you looked at where talent comes from? You yearn for the days when they had five guys for all of Latin America?

30 teams competing like mad for players in what, 20 countries? 25? With millions invested sometimes in a single player, all to help a team win and drive up their 500m annual revenue. And those 300 people probably make less than the QO for Tyler O'Neill.
 

streeter88

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 2, 2006
2,041
Melbourne, Australia
Article in the Athletic today - where Andrew Bailey recognises they were not good at fixing the long stretches of suck last year "staff's inability to shorten their periods of struggle", and that is a key focus for next year.
FINALLY. Someone in charge applying some introspection, applying reason, and actually taking steps to get better next year. Hooray - that actually makes me slightly hopeful for 2025.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5883188/2024/10/30/andrew-bailey-red-sox-first-year/ - just go to archive.is if you can't read that as I am out of gift articles temporarily.

As Bailey assessed his first season in Boston, he focused more on his shortcomings and the staff’s inability to shorten their periods of struggle. Mitigating what Bailey termed as “that six-to-eight week window where our pitching staff was last in baseball in a lot of different areas” is one of his stated key focal points this winter.

“I’m really proud of the starters, and our whole staff, honestly, but how do we not operate in both ends of the spectrum in being the best and the worst at pockets of time?” he said. “And how do we stay consistent more frequently? I think it’s going to be an area of focus for me.”
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
22,471
Rogers Park
So it’s all of the same people, with the exception of one new hire? Bang up job by that consulting firm
I'm reading between the lines, but it seems like the consultants suggested that the International/Domestic structure was preventing the org from applying the same data-driven evaluation and player development pedagogy to international players *before* they arrived stateside, and that seems like a pretty useful insight.

Then you have Romero, as the senior guy who best understands the Latin program, guide the integration. All of this makes sense to me.
 

Auger34

used to be tbb
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
11,771
Yes with the exception of new hires it's all the people that were there already.
Maybe I missed something in the article, but it mentioned only one new person (Taylor Smith). So would be hire and not hires
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
I'm reading between the lines, but it seems like the consultants suggested that the International/Domestic structure was preventing the org from applying the same data-driven evaluation and player development pedagogy to international players *before* they arrived stateside, and that seems like a pretty useful insight.

Then you have Romero, as the senior guy who best understands the Latin program, guide the integration. All of this makes sense to me.
The people running the development system do not currently appear to be the problem. The version of it from, I dunno, 2016-2021, that was more of an issue? Not sure but they've already turned it around. Bloom probably deserves some credit, I'd imagine. In hindsight he seems like the NFL hot coordinator who gets a head coaching job, when he was really just good at coordinating.

Anyway, the audit may not have been about getting people cashiered as much as finding functions that needed improvement?
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Three hundred people to field a ,500 team. JFC, this team.

At the end of the day baseball, and all professional sports really, isn’t hard: talent wins out pretty much all of the time. There are anomalies but they’re that, anomalies. Predicting them is almost impossible. Unfortunately talent costs money, ergo if you want to win you need to spend.

I don’t get why you need 300 people banging on 300 keyboards to tell you this.
Paralysis by analysis. Welcome to corporate America.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
22,471
Rogers Park
The people running the development system do not currently appear to be the problem. The version of it from, I dunno, 2016-2021, that was more of an issue? Not sure but they've already turned it around. Bloom probably deserves some credit, I'd imagine. In hindsight he seems like the NFL hot coordinator who gets a head coaching job, when he was really just good at coordinating.

Anyway, the audit may not have been about getting people cashiered as much as finding functions that needed improvement?
I don't mean to sound snippy, but is this actually a response to what I wrote?

Nobody's getting cashiered. They are moving from a structure that divides people's areas of responsibility based on the national origin of the players to one that integrates player acquisition (foreign and domestic) under one umbrella and integrates player development (foreign and domestic) under another one; they're now treating the Latin Academy like one of the affiliates, if a unique one. People in this thread were acting like Romero was getting demoted, but it seems more likely that he's just the most obvious choice to lead the implementation of this new strategy as the guy who knows the organization most thoroughly. I imagine he'll land in another senior role once everything is up and running, sort of like Kyle Boddy reorganizing R&D.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
I don't mean to sound snippy, but is this actually a response to what I wrote?

Nobody's getting cashiered. They are moving from a structure that divides people's areas of responsibility based on the national origin of the players to one that integrates player acquisition (foreign and domestic) under one umbrella and integrates player development (foreign and domestic) under another one; they're now treating the Latin Academy like one of the affiliates, if a unique one. People in this thread were acting like Romero was getting demoted, but it seems more likely that he's just the most obvious choice to lead the implementation of this new strategy as the guy who knows the organization most thoroughly. I imagine he'll land in another senior role once everything is up and running, sort of like Kyle Boddy reorganizing R&D.
Sorry, it was more a response to the one you responded to, Augur questioning why the review didn’t lead to staff turnover.
 

TomRicardo

rusty cohlebone
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2006
21,678
Row 14
This, as it’s common knowledge that baseball operations staffs across the league have grown significantly in size over the past couple of decades.

It may be that 300 is too many in general. But, if every team has a staff of 300, we would be screaming in protest if the Sox tried to get by with a staff of 290. Posters in the Patriots forum frequently noted that Belichick had 2-3 fewer assistants than other teams.
It is not the number of staffers, it is the sheer rancidity of the product. This is the worst six year stretch of baseball the Red Sox have had in over 50 years. You would have to go back to the 60s to match it. It is just awful decision after awful decision whose only upside is making a team terrible enough to be able to draft high end talent in the first round. How much money has the team wasted over the last six years on chasing cheap pitching that never actually pitched? How much money did they waste on Story not playing SS or Yoshida being an average DH?

They have outright refused to build top down instead spending more money Quixotian follies in the name of risk aversion.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
20,032
It is not the number of staffers, it is the sheer rancidity of the product. This is the worst six year stretch of baseball the Red Sox have had in over 50 years. You would have to go back to the 60s to match it. It is just awful decision after awful decision whose only upside is making a team terrible enough to be able to draft high end talent in the first round. How much money has the team wasted over the last six years on chasing cheap pitching that never actually pitched? How much money did they waste on Story not playing SS or Yoshida being an average DH?

They have outright refused to build top down instead spending more money Quixotian follies in the name of risk aversion.
That's why Bloom no longer has an office on Landsdowne Street.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
It is not the number of staffers, it is the sheer rancidity of the product. This is the worst six year stretch of baseball the Red Sox have had in over 50 years. You would have to go back to the 60s to match it. It is just awful decision after awful decision whose only upside is making a team terrible enough to be able to draft high end talent in the first round. How much money has the team wasted over the last six years on chasing cheap pitching that never actually pitched? How much money did they waste on Story not playing SS or Yoshida being an average DH?

They have outright refused to build top down instead spending more money Quixotian follies in the name of risk aversion.
From 1991-98 they never made the ALCS and rarely made the playoffs. Basically this is the worst stretch in the new millennium but the 90s were way worse.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
14,977
From 1991-98 they never made the ALCS and rarely made the playoffs. Basically this is the worst stretch in the new millennium but the 90s were way worse.
Sure, but there are a lot more playoff spots now.

They didn’t win a playoff game from 1987 - 1997, so yeah, that was pretty bad.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
39,815
Hingham, MA
Sure, but there are a lot more playoff spots now.

They didn’t win a playoff game from 1987 - 1997, so yeah, that was pretty bad.
1991-1998
632-599 (.513)
2 playoff appearances (1--6 record)
1 division title
1 last place finish

2019-2024
437-433 (.502)
1 playoff appearance (4-3 record)
0 division titles
3 last place finishes

It's close but I think 2019-2024 has to be slightly worse due to the 3 last place finishes.

In 2021, the Sox finished tied with 92 wins with the MFY. Under the single wild card system, would they have played a one game playoff?
 

TomRicardo

rusty cohlebone
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2006
21,678
Row 14
From 1991-98 they never made the ALCS and rarely made the playoffs. Basically this is the worst stretch in the new millennium but the 90s were way worse.
The Red Sox would have been a WC in 91 and 96 under today's rules so they would have made the playoffs 4 times in those 8 years. On 2021, they are playing a play-in game at Yankee stadium to get the WC if it is a one team WC.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
The Red Sox would have been a WC in 91 and 96 under today's rules so they would have made the playoffs 4 times in those 8 years. On 2021, they are playing a play-in game at Yankee stadium to get the WC if it is a one team WC.
Yeah, if that's your way of measuring success, it's reasonable, but those weren't real contenders, and after 4 titles I'm just not that interested in having a team that plays one extra week, if it gets in the way of rebuilding for a real title run.

1991-1998
632-599 (.513)
2 playoff appearances (1--6 record)
1 division title
1 last place finish

2019-2024
437-433 (.502)
1 playoff appearance (4-3 record)
0 division titles
3 last place finishes

It's close but I think 2019-2024 has to be slightly worse due to the 3 last place finishes.

In 2021, the Sox finished tied with 92 wins with the MFY. Under the single wild card system, would they have played a one game playoff?
Let me ask you this: do you remember anything about those 91-98 playoffs? Because 2021 was pretty sweet. The "last place finishes" is a point of pride thing I guess, although there too the 90s there was a realignment in there so the "last place" got watered down with smaller divisions. Anyway, to each his own.
 
Last edited:

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
39,815
Hingham, MA
Yeah, if that's your way of measuring success, it's reasonable, but those weren't real contenders, and after 4 titles I'm just not that interested in having a team that plays one extra week, if it gets in the way of rebuilding for a real title run.
By the same reasoning 2021 wasn't a contender either.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
39,815
Hingham, MA
Let me ask you this: do you remember anything about those 91-98 playoffs? Because 2021 was pretty sweet. The "last place finishes" is a point of pride thing I guess, although there too the 90s there was a realignment in there so the "last place" got watered down with smaller divisions. Anyway, to each his own.
I remember everything about those playoffs, honestly.

The 2021 run was a ton of fun. I probably had more hope in 1998 than I did in 2021 though, due to the presence of Mo, Nomar, and Pedro.

Edit: I fully agree with your comment about not being interested in a team that just plays an extra week. I want a team that is a true contender.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
25,361
Yeah, if that's your way of measuring success, it's reasonable, but those weren't real contenders, and after 4 titles I'm just not that interested in having a team that plays one extra week, if it gets in the way of rebuilding for a real title run.
Edit: I fully agree with your comment about not being interested in a team that just plays an extra week. I want a team that is a true contender.
I’ve been on this message board since 2001 and I’ve read a lot of crazy things.

But these two posts might be 1 and 1A.

You don’t want the Red Sox in the playoffs because it “gets in the way of rebuilding for a real title run”?

That’s not how sports works but okay, that’s a take I guess.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
20,032
I’ve been on this message board since 2001 and I’ve read a lot of crazy things.

But these two posts might be 1 and 1A.

You don’t want the Red Sox in the playoffs because it “gets in the way of rebuilding for a real title run”?

That’s not how sports works but okay, that’s a take I guess.
Not going to disagree that getting into the playoffs should not be considered a "problem".

But I think the discussion got derailed a bit when the 1991 Red Sox were pointed to as a potential "success" simply because they would have made the playoffs under the current format. The 1991 team won all of 84 games, three more than the 2024 Sox, and consisted of Roger Clemens, Wade Boggs, and a number of declining or mediocre players. Nobody thinks of the 1991 Red Sox as a team that current management should emulate as a model.

The goal for wins should ultimately be much higher than 84. Sure, I'd take the Royals or Tigers season this year over that of the Sox. But I don't think fans here or in general would be happy if the Sox ceiling over the next 10 or so years was getting out of the wild card round to lose in the Division Series.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
39,815
Hingham, MA
I’ve been on this message board since 2001 and I’ve read a lot of crazy things.

But these two posts might be 1 and 1A.

You don’t want the Red Sox in the playoffs because it “gets in the way of rebuilding for a real title run”?

That’s not how sports works but okay, that’s a take I guess.
I probably could have worded it better, but I'm not interested in being a perennial contender for the 3rd wild card in the 86 win range or whatever. As @lexrageorge says, they should be trying to build a team that wins 90+ games (Theo always targeted 95) and has the right type of talent to play deep into October. Multiple good starters, quality pen, scary bats, good on defense and the bases, etc. Not just build a team to sneak into the playoffs and see what happens. Making the playoffs is obviously not a bad thing. But fielding a team that is trying for the 3rd WC is a lot different than the division.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
33,397
I believe MLB is not like NFL or NBA, where you can kind of envision a 'post season' oriented team. In MLB, to a fair degree, the things you need in the post-season are also the ones you show during the 162. So I'm not at all clear what the difference really is team-construction wise betwen 'make playoffs' and 'title cotender'

There's some things one can name---an ace starter; a closer, etc. that arguably help some as to winning in post-season. But only some, and only at the margins - that is what studies seem to consistently show. And as this year's Dodgers showed, especially on pitching side injuries destroy the theoretical plans for 'ace' pitchers and closers anyway increasingly often these days

So absent some specific examples this feels like a false dichotomy to me. I get there's small transactions one can criticize---do you add a fringe player for a fringe prospect at deadline? But those are small potatoes.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
I’ve been on this message board since 2001 and I’ve read a lot of crazy things.

But these two posts might be 1 and 1A.

You don’t want the Red Sox in the playoffs because it “gets in the way of rebuilding for a real title run”?

That’s not how sports works but okay, that’s a take I guess.
If you can't tell the difference between a team that sneaks into the playoffs and one that has a chance in October after being on this board since 2001, it has to do with depth which... anyway, you figure it out.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
25,361
Not going to disagree that getting into the playoffs should not be considered a "problem".

But I think the discussion got derailed a bit when the 1991 Red Sox were pointed to as a potential "success" simply because they would have made the playoffs under the current format. The 1991 team won all of 84 games, three more than the 2024 Sox, and consisted of Roger Clemens, Wade Boggs, and a number of declining or mediocre players. Nobody thinks of the 1991 Red Sox as a team that current management should emulate as a model.

The goal for wins should ultimately be much higher than 84. Sure, I'd take the Royals or Tigers season this year over that of the Sox. But I don't think fans here or in general would be happy if the Sox ceiling over the next 10 or so years was getting out of the wild card round to lose in the Division Series.
I probably could have worded it better, but I'm not interested in being a perennial contender for the 3rd wild card in the 86 win range or whatever. As @lexrageorge says, they should be trying to build a team that wins 90+ games (Theo always targeted 95) and has the right type of talent to play deep into October. Multiple good starters, quality pen, scary bats, good on defense and the bases, etc. Not just build a team to sneak into the playoffs and see what happens. Making the playoffs is obviously not a bad thing. But fielding a team that is trying for the 3rd WC is a lot different than the division.
I think that we might be on the same side of the fence here in that I don’t want the FO’s plan to be the Sox sneaking into the playoffs and hoping to get hot at the right time. That runs contrary to a front office with 300 people analyzing data.

Having said that, if given the choice between Red Sox making the playoffs and starting the offseason a month earlier, I’m taking the former every time. He MLB isn’t like the NBA or the NFL or the NHL where you can get an immediate difference maker in the first round.

In fact I’d argue that draft rounds matter little in baseball because you can pick an All Star player in the sixth round just as easily as you can get a bust in the first. The Process doesn’t translate to MLB as well as it does in the NBA specifically.

So to say, “I’d rather miss the playoffs for a better draft pick” is an erroneous statement because baseball is the one sport where you absolutely don’t have to trade wins for drafting success.

In addition there are other avenues to create a monster team. There’s the international draft, free agency, and trades. A team doesn’t need to be built only through the amateur draft.

As far as the 91 season goes, the Twins and the Braves played in the Series that year. Both were in last place in 1990 (one was one year wonder, the other was a budding dynasty).

That was a year where a lot of teams were lumped together (and also the only year where every team in a division were .500 or better). The Sox probably wouldn’t have won, but you never know.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
Nobody was saying the Sox should tank for draft picks, close to everyone here realizes the MLB draft isn't like other sports. It was a question of whether you trade prospects at the deadline to patch up a roster that is never going to be more than a fringe contender. Usually it's for pending free agents. That's the real choice the Sox and other middle of the pack teams have faced in this run of no rings.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
39,815
Hingham, MA
I think that we might be on the same side of the fence here in that I don’t want the FO’s plan to be the Sox sneaking into the playoffs and hoping to get hot at the right time. That runs contrary to a front office with 300 people analyzing data.

Having said that, if given the choice between Red Sox making the playoffs and starting the offseason a month earlier, I’m taking the former every time. He MLB isn’t like the NBA or the NFL or the NHL where you can get an immediate difference maker in the first round.

In fact I’d argue that draft rounds matter little in baseball because you can pick an All Star player in the sixth round just as easily as you can get a bust in the first. The Process doesn’t translate to MLB as well as it does in the NBA specifically.

So to say, “I’d rather miss the playoffs for a better draft pick” is an erroneous statement because baseball is the one sport where you absolutely don’t have to trade wins for drafting success.

In addition there are other avenues to create a monster team. There’s the international draft, free agency, and trades. A team doesn’t need to be built only through the amateur draft.

As far as the 91 season goes, the Twins and the Braves played in the Series that year. Both were in last place in 1990 (one was one year wonder, the other was a budding dynasty).

That was a year where a lot of teams were lumped together (and also the only year where every team in a division were .500 or better). The Sox probably wouldn’t have won, but you never know.
Yeah, I'm not saying I'd rather miss the playoffs for a better draft pick. That's kind of irrelevant IMO. I'm more just saying I think I'd rather have a team that cycles through a few 92-98 win seasons with "true contenders" even if that means some 77 win seasons during the down cycle or whatever, in comparison to a team that wins 86 every year and is the 3rd WC but doesn't really have the pieces to win it all. Of course, I guess sometimes you don't really know whether those 86 win teams have the pieces or not until you get into the dance.

End of the day, it's kind of like porn - hard to specifically define, but you kind of know a contender when you see it.
 

SuperDieHard

New Member
Jun 13, 2015
26
I think most are saying the same thing here- less interested in what I’ll call the Twins way (surprise team that wins it all every so often but really far from the favorite most years) vs. solid powerhouse contender. Trying to ride the Twins way Bloom waffled two trade deadlines when it was pretty obvious the team should have been in sell/rebuild mode….you end up spinning your wheels and hoping for luck to get over the hump. Some of the problem can be put on the fandom which management always felt couldn’t handle a full rebuild (which we sort of ended up getting our version of anyway) or giving up on a year when they were still “in it”. It looks like they’re positioned well to go back to the powerhouse route with the kids that are coming….now to make the right complementary moves….
 

SuperDieHard

New Member
Jun 13, 2015
26
Just using them as an example of the get hot one year and win type vs perennial powerhouse for 4-7 yrs….I think the1991 run stuck in my head because I know someone who’s a Twins fan, but you could say the same for many teams that win- and if you’re a small market team that’s kind of what you hope for…but we have top tier revenue and are capable of the other way…
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
35,732
Little worried this is a "too many cooks in the kitchen" situation. But I'll give credit to Breslow trying something different with the external auditing and full restructuring.