Red Sox in season discussion

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,415
Ah, yes. Forgot about him although I think he's another unlikely to see FA guy given the LAAA's resources and probable mutual desire to remain with the team. But, yes, he's absolutely someone you splurge on, if the opportunity presents itself. Of course, you'd be fighting off the MFY and others. His bat alone is incredibly valuable even if you strip out or reduce the pitching component.

Correa seems like a logical target for me. He's younger and better than Xander. You'd think a guy of Bogaerts' calibre would net a pretty good prospect or two, if that trade scenario played out. Obviously, wouldn't get a ton given his impending FA status but a year of X is still quite valuable.

I think that's probably true about LAA extending Ohtani. And maybe that's for the best. The price will reflect his ability as both a pitcher and a hitter, and it's uncharted territory as far as how long he can actually do that.

Sign Correa, trade Bogaerts, extend Devers and maybe Eovaldi.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
25,924
Miami (oh, Miami!)
But - if the front office isn't willing to commit to Bogaerts on a long term, market value contract, I can't understand why they wouldn't pursue Correa or Story.
Because Mayer is on the way. If Boegarts walks, maybe Downs shows this year if he's ready to play SS in 2023/24. Maybe they sign a stopgap defensive SS for 2023/24. Maybe they extend Xander.

The point is, if they believe Mayer is the real deal, they don't need to try to fix 2023's problem by:
1) signing a 2022 FA top-notch SS at premium prices, then
2) moving them off position (losing value and future-FA-goodwill) or moving Boegarts off position (losing value and goodwill) or being forced to trade Boegart's one year contract to. . .whom?
3) having to trade or displace that FA top-notch SS in 2024/25 when Mayer arrives.
4) and/or then trading Mayer at a restriction.*

(*You could try to lateral Mayer for other young talent, but with $$$ tied up in your aging 2022 FA SS, a Moncada/Sale type trade is less likely. Or at least it results in more MLB payroll tied up into the 2022 FA SS and the traded-for veteren player. To use arbitrary numbers, the end-game is instead of a 2025 with Mayer SS and $60M to spend, you'll have a $30M aging SS, and a $30M FA. Maybe the latter makes sense given organizational needs at the time, but unless there's a GFIN window in play in 2022, I don't see why it's wise to tie your hands.)

In short, it's a hell of a lot of moving pieces to make sure you've got premium offensive production out of SS in 2023/24. And the fact is, you don't need premium offensive production out of SS. You just need it somewhere.


edit - fixed spelling
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
13,220
Correa and Bogaerts are both great, but isn’t the SS of the future….Marcelo Mayer? Granted, things can change, but if his ETA is 2024 and you have Bogaerts until 2022, you really only need to fill 2023. I get that Mayer may not make it and not in the timeline above, but I don’t think that equates to making the organizations largest commitment in history to a guy who plays the same position.

Re; trading Boagerts, what team needs a SS, would be interested in a year of him, but also not interested in signing Correa themselves? It’s a difficult move to pull off three weeks before the season starts. Maybe SD if Tatis’ season is in jeopardy, but hard to see a match.
 

walt in maryland

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
223
Woodbine, MD
Certainly not earth shattering news, but it's the contact issue for Dalbec. When he makes contact, his barrel rates and hard contact make him an elite hitter. Very little soft contact. He just needs to find a way to get bat on ball more frequently. An .800 OPS short money 1st baseman who is going to hit 25-30 home runs, even with slightly negative defense at first is a valuable player. Also worth noting in relation to today's home run, is that he killed the ball in Florida last spring training. Probably their best hitter during the spring. Then they went north and he was a disaster for two months.
Dalbec absolutely can be a valuable player. But he's not going to be the everyday 1B on a pennant contender. Casas is the guy.
 

walt in maryland

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
223
Woodbine, MD
whoops

I was quite sure the Red Sox were not going to sign a shortstop, and now I kind of believe they are going to sign Story. They clearly have had an intention to spend money to upgrade the lineup, since they presumably made real offers on Suzuki and on Freeman.
Story to 2B would upgrade the lineup and I am fairly convinced they can outbid everyone else involved if they so choose.
They still need a RHH who can play RF. Love Story, but is he going to learn to play 2B in three weeks? And signing Story would obviously be a precursor to Xander opting out and leaving next winter. That might be uncomfortable, to say the least.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,415
Three seasons is an eternity. If, come 2025, you have Correa still at his peak and Marcelo is still a top prospect, you are thrilled that everything has worked out and someone moves to 2B or 3B or CF. Dustin Pedrioa was entrenched at 2B when Mookie Betts came up, so they moved Mookie to the OF, and I'd say that went pretty well. It's not a 100% efficient use of resources, but you are never going to get everything to fall into place perfectly. Tell me the opportunity on the horizon for the Sox to flex their financial muscle that will be better than this.
 

CreightonGubanich

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 13, 2006
1,406
north shore, MA
Because Meyer is on the way. If Boegarts walks, maybe Downs shows this year if he's ready to play SS in 2023/24. Maybe they sign a stopgap defensive SS for 2023/24. Maybe they extend Xander.

The point is, if they believe Meyer is the real deal, they don't need to try to fix 2023's problem by:
1) signing a 2022 FA top-notch SS at premium prices, then
2) moving them off position (losing value and future-FA-goodwill) or moving Boegarts off position (losing value and goodwill) or being forced to trade Boegart's one year contract to. . .whom?
3) having to trade or displace that FA top-notch SS in 2024/25 when Meyer arrives.
4) and/or then trading Meyer at a restriction.*

(*You could try to lateral Mayer for other young talent, but with $$$ tied up in your aging 2022 FA SS, a Moncada/Sale type trade is less likely. Or at least it results in more MLB payroll tied up into the 2022 FA SS and the traded-for veteren player. To use arbitrary numbers, the end-game is instead of a 2025 with Meyer SS and $60M to spend, you'll have a $30M aging SS, and a $30M FA. Maybe the latter makes sense given organizational needs at the time, but unless there's a GFIN window in play in 2022, I don't see why it's wise to tie your hands.)

In short, it's a hell of a lot of moving pieces to make sure you've got premium offensive production out of SS in 2023/24. And the fact is, you don't need premium offensive production out of SS. You just need it somewhere.
I don't disagree that this may be Bloom's rationale, but Marcelo Mayer just turned 19 this offseason and his professional resume consists of 26 games in the FCL. I get his pedigree as a prospect, but I still think it's a little premature to placing arrival dates on him, especially if we're talking about him being good enough to force their hand with a guy like Correa or Bogaerts. Even if that does come to pass, and Mayer's ready for the full time job in 2024, he's met the most optimistic of projections, and I think you put that in the "good problem to have" bucket.

Your point about there being lots of ways to construct a roster though, and having elite production from shortstop being only one of them, is well taken. I just think if they don't want to pay Bogaerts to man the position, it leaves a pretty gaping hole. Presumably they've already decided if they're willing to do so. If not, there happens to be a pretty intriguing replacement available this year, and next to nothing next year. Plugging in a guy like that, or simply signing Xander, seems like a pretty effective way to drastically improve the roster versus signing a fringe-starter level player.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
13,220
Next years FA SS include Bogaerts, Tim Anderson, Trea Turner, and Dansby Swanson. Not as good as this year, but not totally devoid of talent. At this point, waiting it out allows you to see where Mayer is at and gives you a year of X.

If you sign Correa now, you are closing the door on a Boagerts. So you’ve got do something with him pretty quickly, unless you want an awkward year of him playing with his replacement which seems unlikely to work.

Upgrade to Correa is probably worth 1 win this year, and then whatever you can get for X if you trade him? I don’t see how this would work this close to the season starting.
 

Sin Duda

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
957
(B)Austin Texas
It was just after my twenty-sixth post arguing basically the same thing you are that I at last came to understand that’s it’s not “everyone” dumping on Bloom. It’s a couple of Eeyores who keep loudly braying the same thing over and over. They diagnosed Bloom with Tampa Bayitis when he got here. They diagnosed Bloom with Tampa Bayitis at the beginning of last season. They diagnosed Bloom with Tampa Bayitis at the trade deadline. They went quiet after the playoff run, and they stayed that way until, a couple of months later, a few sparkly free agents signed elsewhere. That was proof enough to them of Bloom’s Tampa Bayitis. They’re not interested in arguments about improving farm systems. They’re not interested in ALCS appearances. They want big signings and they want them now. And until they get them, they’re gonna bray.

TL/DR: Eeyores gonna Eeyore.
+1 In Chaim we trust. I love the farm system upgrades. The JBJ trade was not JBJ for Hunter Renfroe. It was two valued (in Chaim's eyes) prospects for Hunter Renfroe and a cooked JBJ stapled onto the trade to get better prospects. I'm sure Chaim believes there is some chance JBJ returns to a serviceable MLB hitter with above average fielding. But I doubt he's counting on it; it was always about the two prospects. I really liked Suzuki until his price went stratospheric. Maybe you Eeyores can take an approach of "I really wish Chaim has signed X or traded Y" rather than "Chaim has Tampa Bayitis!!". We really do need to wait until Spring Training moves are complete before judging Chiam's offseason work, in my opinion.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,415
Yes, you only sign Correa if you've decided Bogaerts is not the long term SS. Guys get traded all the time in the middle of the season, they'd find a taker for at least 85 cents on the dollar. Houston? Seattle?

And good on Castellanos. I want Correa, but failing that I don't want a move for the sake of a move, and that's what Castellanos would have seemed like.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
25,422
The only grade you can give them as of today is Incomplete.

Please read post 2079. Then read it again. Because you dont sound optimistic.

Negativity multiplies itself.
I can be both disappointed in their offseason and still think their teams are going to be competitive.
 

IpswichSox

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
2,795
Suburbs of Washington, DC
I've read a few sites with the new CBA details but I'm unclear on this: If Bogaerts opts out and signs elsewhere after this season, is there a draft pick for us attached? Does that depend on whether the separate international draft is agreed to by this summer, which I think makes the qualifying offer go away? Or something else?
 

Apisith

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2007
3,234
Bangkok
Sign Correa, trade Bogaerts and eat a ton of money to pick up a really good prospect (or two). Bogaerts is projected to be worth ~5 wins (~$40m in free agency rate). He’s due $20m. Say we absorb $10m. The team that gets him would be getting $30m in surplus value. According to fangraphs’ draft value chart, that’s about a #5 pick. So we get another prospect of Mayer’s calibre. I hope Bloom is creative and finds a team that’s willing to spend a good prospect for a year of Xander’s production. And since we have a lot of payroll room, we need to use it to get better prospects.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
25,924
Miami (oh, Miami!)
I don't disagree that this may be Bloom's rationale, but Marcelo Mayer just turned 19 this offseason and his professional resume consists of 26 games in the FCL. I get his pedigree as a prospect, but I still think it's a little premature to placing arrival dates on him, especially if we're talking about him being good enough to force their hand with a guy like Correa or Bogaerts. Even if that does come to pass, and Mayer's ready for the full time job in 2024, he's met the most optimistic of projections, and I think you put that in the "good problem to have" bucket.

Your point about there being lots of ways to construct a roster though, and having elite production from shortstop being only one of them, is well taken. I just think if they don't want to pay Bogaerts to man the position, it leaves a pretty gaping hole. Presumably they've already decided if they're willing to do so. If not, there happens to be a pretty intriguing replacement available this year, and next to nothing next year. Plugging in a guy like that, or simply signing Xander, seems like a pretty effective way to drastically improve the roster versus signing a fringe-starter level player.
I'll concede that Mayer in 2024 would be the pinkest of roses, with 2025 more likely - balanced by a chance of underperformance and non arrival. But I don't think Bloom will be entirely ignoring his presence when considering long term SS deals. (And, FWIW, I'm not a prosepect-fetishist.)

More pressing is the "what to do with two SS" issues if Correa were to be signed.

When you combine the two, I'd be very surprised if the Sox got in a bidding war to land Correa.

It was basically the same dynamic with Freeman and Schwarber; the FA is an upgrade, but does not truly fill an immediate organiational need. Then to balance the org, you might trade your surpurfluous $1 assets for 50 cents. Sometimes, as I noted, you have to do that. An overpaid #5 pitcher is better than no #5 at all.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,688
Re; trading Boagerts, what team needs a SS, would be interested in a year of him, but also not interested in signing Correa themselves? It’s a difficult move to pull off three weeks before the season starts. Maybe SD if Tatis’ season is in jeopardy, but hard to see a match.
I don’t see this happening and he has a no trade clause. Theoretically, San Diego maybe after the Tatis thing. I suppose the Phillies and Cardinals could use short-term shortstop upgrades while their prospects (Stott; Sosa/Winn) develop.

To be clear, I want them to sign Correa or Story and keep Bogaerts in the fold somehow. His recent comment complicate that, though they’re weirdly directly at odds with the ESPN report back from October about his future position change. I think the only way you try to trade him in favor of a Correa or Story signing is if he’s made it clear that he doesn’t want to stay (which everything he’s said contradicts), or only wants to stay as a shortstop. The Joon Lee/ESPN story had me optimistic on that. The recent Jen McCaffrey/Athletic piece has me less so.
 
Last edited:

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
21,524
Maine
I've read a few sites with the new CBA details but I'm unclear on this: If Bogaerts opts out and signs elsewhere after this season, is there a draft pick for us attached? Does that depend on whether the separate international draft is agreed to by this summer, which I think makes the qualifying offer go away? Or something else?
Yes, the draft pick compensation for QOs is tied to the international draft. If the draft is implemented, the compensation picks go away.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
25,924
Miami (oh, Miami!)
+1 In Chaim we trust. I love the farm system upgrades. The JBJ trade was not JBJ for Hunter Renfroe. It was two valued (in Chaim's eyes) prospects for Hunter Renfroe and a cooked JBJ stapled onto the trade to get better prospects. I'm sure Chaim believes there is some chance JBJ returns to a serviceable MLB hitter with above average fielding. But I doubt he's counting on it; it was always about the two prospects.
I suspect JBJ is a little more of a wild-card than people credit him as. He had an abysmal year in MIL, but he's going to be 32, and he still had positive defensive value last year. If he can even partially rediscover his swing, or change his approach, he might end up being a plesant surprise.
 

BringBackMo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,382
One thing to keep in mind is that signing free agents is just one way to use your financial advantages. Looking at the Dodgers model again, Friedman spent a few years cutting payroll and improving the farm system. That approach helped him put the Dodgers in position to, first, trade for a superstar in the final year of his contract, and, second, have the financial flexibility required to sign that player to a huge new deal. Couldn't the Sox, after another season of strengthening the system, be in a similar position to acquire a player like, say, Juan Soto a year or so before he becomes a free agent? (Not saying Soto in particular--just using him as an example.) For the record, I would have been just fine with a Schwarber or Suzuki free agent signing if that's the direction the Sox had gone. But I think it's worth considering that the free agent pools of 2023 and 2024 may not be the only places Bloom is eyeing when it comes to impact acquisitions over the next year or two.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
72,573
Who is this account and why should we believe them (about the Sox interest, other reporters have the Phillies)?
Dunno, just an account I follow, you shouldn’t believe anyone including known names until signings are final.
 

Otis Foster

rex ryan's podiatrist
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
1,719
I don’t see this happening and he has a no trade clause. Theoretically, San Diego maybe after the Tatis thing. I suppose the Phillies and Cardinals could use short-term shortstop upgrades while their prospects (Stott; Sosa/Winn) develop.

To be clear, I want them to sign Correa or Story and keep Bogaerts in the fold somehow. His recent comment complicate that, though they’re weirdly directly at odds with the ESPN report back from October about his future position change. I think the only way you try to trade him in favor of a Correa or Story signing is if he’s made it clear that he doesn’t want to stay (which everything he’s said contradicts), or only wants to stay as a shortstop. The Joon Lee/ESPN story had me optimistic on that. The recent Jen McCaffrey/Athletic piece has me less so.
One thing that hasn’t come up in the trade Bogie discussion: his relationship with Devers. IIRC, Devers is reported to look to Bogie as a mentor and role model. If you’ve got an unhappy Bogie with a foot out the door what does that do to the Devers negotiations? Do we wind up with Devers going the Mookie route, going to FA status and offering himself to the open market in a year were there aren’t that many attractive alternatives?
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
It was just after my twenty-sixth post arguing basically the same thing you are that I at last came to understand that’s it’s not “everyone” dumping on Bloom. It’s a couple of Eeyores who keep loudly braying the same thing over and over. They diagnosed Bloom with Tampa Bayitis when he got here. They diagnosed Bloom with Tampa Bayitis at the beginning of last season. They diagnosed Bloom with Tampa Bayitis at the trade deadline. They went quiet after the playoff run, and they stayed that way until, a couple of months later, a few sparkly free agents signed elsewhere. That was proof enough to them of Bloom’s Tampa Bayitis. They’re not interested in arguments about improving farm systems. They’re not interested in ALCS appearances. They want big signings and they want them now. And until they get them, they’re gonna bray.

TL/DR: Eeyores gonna Eeyore.
I'm totally fine with the long game and the refusal to sign guys whose contracts will be bad in a few years. Maybe StuckonYouk is right about Soto being the long game prize. It would stand to reason that you don't want to clog the roster with free agents who want big bucks through their age-37 season, unless it's for a guy like Soto, who you get starting in his age-27 season. I don't really like any of the big FA deals that have happened this past week and I wouldn't want them to commit to Correa or Story either -- forcing Bogaerts out the door and/or blocking two of our top prospects long term. Suzuki would have fit -- we think -- and I'm sure the Sox tried until the money for a guy who's 27 and hasn't ever hit a single baseball in the US got too crazy. Bloom's mantra is flexibility, and they have preserved all of that, while mostly keeping an ALCS team intact.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
Unless Bogaerts signs an extension this offseason, which seams unlikely, it's going to be hard to judge this offseason until next year. If Bloom is willing to commit to Bogaerts long term, as a shortstop, I can understand not signing any large free agent contracts this offseason. Extend Bogaerts, extend Devers, let's see what we have in Duran, Dalbec and Casas, and then go from there. Still think they need a right handed OF bat, but I think trying to find the next Hunter Renfroe in the bargain bin is a viable strategy.

But - if the front office isn't willing to commit to Bogaerts on a long term, market value contract, I can't understand why they wouldn't pursue Correa or Story.

My preference would be to just sign Devers and Bogaerts, leave the left side of the infield alone for now, and hope the defense is good enough. My fear is that Bloom isn't willing to do that, and if so, I think not pushing hard to sign Correa, in particular, would be a mistake.
Supposedly the Orioles have offered Correa 10/300. He's 27 but only twice has he exceeded 140 games. Bogaerts is his equal as a hitter and plays almost every game, so how much is that defensive improvement worth? IMO not as much as the market for Correa will require. Extend Bogaerts or let him play it out and see where things are next winter. Maybe by then we will have some idea about Mayer's trajectory too.
[Apologies for being repetitive, I'm three hours behind most of you, in more ways than one probably.]
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
21,524
Maine
Dunno, just an account I follow, you shouldn’t believe anyone including known names until signings are final.
Agreed. Just trying to determine veracity of the rumor. Who is reporting it does make a difference as to whether it's worth paying any attention at all.
Case in point. If Heyman has it, and only Heyman has it, I can discount it.

As opposed to seeing another national reporter and then a local Philly guy report about the Phillies and Castellanos, which gives credence to the story.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,415
I won't be disappointed in not getting Castellanos, but the Red Sox have to lead the MLB in guys they are involved in but don't actually get. Do we think they're really involved with everyone but always coming in 2nd place? Staying on the fringes of stuff as due diligence in case someone is forced to take a very team friendly deal? Just a team that's easy for agents/GMs to name as contenders in order to drive the price up? I'm guessing a combo of 2 and 3.
 

Coachster

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2009
9,106
Maine
You guys have probably all seen this, but it appears we're not in the market for Jorge Soler either.

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2022/03/braves-padres-in-talks-with-jorge-soler.html

If Chaim is going to do the Chaim thing (like he did with Hunter Renfroe), he'll take a flyer on somebody he KNOWS, somebody who has been in the Tampa organization. I'm starting to think Tommy Pham is our guy.

Is there another RHH outfielder with some major league background (but who has never reached his potential) who Bloom can target? I'm out of ideas.
 

Diamond Don Aase

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 16, 2001
1,169
Merrimack Valley
If Chaim is going to do the Chaim thing (like he did with Hunter Renfroe), he'll take a flyer on somebody he KNOWS, somebody who has been in the Tampa organization. I'm starting to think Tommy Pham is our guy.

Is there another RHH outfielder with some major league background (but who has never reached his potential) who Bloom can target? I'm out of ideas.
Pham is only 34 years old, so he should be due to reach his potential any moment now.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
21,524
Maine
I won't be disappointed in not getting Castellanos, but the Red Sox have to lead the MLB in guys they are involved in but don't actually get. Do we think they're really involved with everyone but always coming in 2nd place? Staying on the fringes of stuff as due diligence in case someone is forced to take a very team friendly deal? Just a team that's easy for agents/GMs to name as contenders in order to drive the price up? I'm guessing a combo of 2 and 3.
More 3 than 2, but yeah, probably mostly one or the other.

I readily believe that Bloom and his team have touched base on just about every free agent available this winter. That doesn't mean they have serious interest in all of them, but they wouldn't be doing their jobs if they didn't check in to confirm what they think they already know. Not hard for an agent to spin such a check-in as "the Red Sox have shown interest" to gin up buzz for their clients, and there's no shortage of reporters eager for clicks who will lap up agents' spin for content.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,688
One thing to keep in mind is that signing free agents is just one way to use your financial advantages. Looking at the Dodgers model again, Friedman spent a few years cutting payroll and improving the farm system. That approach helped him put the Dodgers in position to, first, trade for a superstar in the final year of his contract, and, second, have the financial flexibility required to sign that player to a huge new deal. Couldn't the Sox, after another season of strengthening the system, be in a similar position to acquire a player like, say, Juan Soto a year or so before he becomes a free agent? (Not saying Soto in particular--just using him as an example.) For the record, I would have been just fine with a Schwarber or Suzuki free agent signing if that's the direction the Sox had gone. But I think it's worth considering that the free agent pools of 2023 and 2024 may not be the only places Bloom is eyeing when it comes to impact acquisitions over the next year or two.
The Dodgers’ end-of-year payroll since Friedman took over:
2015: $298 million
2016: $252.5 million
2017: $253.6 million
2018: $195 million
2019: $204.9 million
2020: $107.9 million* ($204.6m)
2021: $285.6 million
2022: $277? (not including Freeman)

By the arc you’ve traced, we’re exactly where the Dodgers were when they traded for a superstar in the final year of his contract (Mookie). The Sox and Dodgers are valued at $3.46 and $3.57 billion respectively.

Barring something wild, 2022 would be our third consecutive year under the CBT — even though there’s absolutely no good reason we should be under the CBT tax this year. We’re poised to be way under the CBT in ‘23-24 (of $233 million and $237 million). Looking at the players available in the next two free agent markets, I have no idea how we’re going to spend that money.

I’m definitely not saying we’re suddenly the Rays. But I don’t necessarily see that we’re on the same path as the Dodgers. My theory is less that Bloom is diligently exerting financial restraint and more that he’s realizing his free agent targets don’t want our money.

For example, we as fans know Noah Syndergaard signed with the Angels for 1/$21M despite an “aggressive offer” from the Sox, but we don’t know exactly what that offer was or why he didn’t take it. You could make a case that Freeman, Suzuki, Schwarber, Stroman, EdRod and McHugh all fall into this category too. Last year, Morton, Ozuna, Semien, Springer, Kluber did. Did the Sox get outbid in every one of these cases because the bids crept up a few million more than Bloom was comfortable? I don’t think we can assume that.

Last year, the restraint from spending made some sense. We wanted to stay under the CBT (again) for the new CBA. This year? It does not make sense.

The Dodgers are the Dodgers because a lot of people want to play and live in southern California — not as true for Boston. But if that’s the case, what’s the Plan B? Why hasn’t Devers even so much as received a contract extension? Why haven’t we gotten in on more of the salary dump trades besides JBJ?
 
Last edited:

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
I won't be disappointed in not getting Castellanos, but the Red Sox have to lead the MLB in guys they are involved in but don't actually get. Do we think they're really involved with everyone but always coming in 2nd place? Staying on the fringes of stuff as due diligence in case someone is forced to take a very team friendly deal? Just a team that's easy for agents/GMs to name as contenders in order to drive the price up? I'm guessing a combo of 2 and 3.
I think another part of this is once the Sox, Yanks, Dodgers etc... have expressed interest in a player, agents want this know. So sure, every player the Sox inquire about they are 'in on". It's good for negotiations to have big market teams known to be "in on" your guy. It also makes for good click bait.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
72,573
even though there’s absolutely no good reason not to be under the CBT tax this year.
Not to call you out, your posts are great but I feel like I am seeing a lot of posts on this board lately where people accidentally type the opposite of what they mean, and it's confusing.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,688
Short term could also mean open to a pillow deal. Which is what I suspect Bloom wants. 1/25 to play 2B for a year.
His tweet is ambiguous whether the positional change alone would be short-term or the whole contract. Either sounds great to me but I’d be happy going up to six years for Story.
 

Jack Rabbit Slim

Member
SoSH Member
May 19, 2010
1,305
Assuming Heyman isn't just making things up, with both the Giants and Sox only having 2B open it will be interesting to know who the other two teams are. Twins? Angels? I imagine the Orioles would only be in on Correa but not Story due to the age difference.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jun 22, 2008
36,517
I suspect JBJ is a little more of a wild-card than people credit him as. He had an abysmal year in MIL, but he's going to be 32, and he still had positive defensive value last year. If he can even partially rediscover his swing, or change his approach, he might end up being a plesant surprise.
I agree. If we grab a LF/1B/DH guy out of the bargain bin and otherwise roll with the roster we’ve got, JBJ would be functionally backing up 5 positions, as Hernandez would presumably move to the infield in case of an injury at 2B or SS. If JBJ is healthy and plays anything like his pre-2021 self, he’ll get 350+ PAs. There’s less opportunity for him if we sign Trevor Story, but I don’t think that’s going to happen.
 

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
1,674
Chicago, IL
It was just after my twenty-sixth post arguing basically the same thing you are that I at last came to understand that’s it’s not “everyone” dumping on Bloom. It’s a couple of Eeyores who keep loudly braying the same thing over and over. They diagnosed Bloom with Tampa Bayitis when he got here. They diagnosed Bloom with Tampa Bayitis at the beginning of last season. They diagnosed Bloom with Tampa Bayitis at the trade deadline. They went quiet after the playoff run, and they stayed that way until, a couple of months later, a few sparkly free agents signed elsewhere. That was proof enough to them of Bloom’s Tampa Bayitis. They’re not interested in arguments about improving farm systems. They’re not interested in ALCS appearances. They want big signings and they want them now. And until they get them, they’re gonna bray.

TL/DR: Eeyores gonna Eeyore.
I'm gonna keep arguing for something more nuanced: That maybe Bloom is deserving of mixed reviews. Do we have to divide ourselves into the Pollyannas and the Eeyores? Might all this - like everything - exist on a continuum? I like Bloom's rebuilding of the farm. I like his ability to sign some undervalued guys like Kiké. He seems like a good and intelligent person. I also sense he's afraid to spend - prospects or money - is somewhat risk adverse. Maybe my feeble pessimistic mind can't comprehend his 3-D chess grand plan. Or maybe I'm onto something.

Meanwhile, I do see what appears to me to be a good deal of Bloom hero worship going on on this site. Folks who bray in outrage if anyone criticizes Bloom and invalidate that criticism as some sort of congenital pessimism. Maybe Bloom deserves some criticism. And some praise. He's good at what he does, but he's not perfect.
 

BringBackMo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,382
By the arc you’ve traced, we’re exactly where the Dodgers were when they traded for a superstar in the final year of his contract (Mookie).
OK, a lot to chew on in your good post. I guess I just disagree--or at least I need more evidence before I can agree with your premise.

First, it's not strictly a payroll issue when it comes to trading for stars and then extending them, right? Payroll is half of it, but so is the condition of the farm system. When Bloom took over, the system was essentially barren. The Sox had emptied it out in pursuit of glory in 2018 and (sigh) 2019. I think we can all agree that Bloom absolutely is prioritizing longterm stability in the minor league system. He's been in accumulation mode since he got here and I'm sure you agree that he still is. Friedman took over with the Dodgers in October 2014, and he traded for Mookie in February of 2020, so call it five and a half years later. I'm not an expert in the Dodgers' moves, so I'm not sure if they'd made other big trades involving prospects prior to that, but my general understanding is that they'd been largely in acquisition mode up to that point. So even if we're right now where the Dodgers were in terms of the payroll situation, I'm not convinced that we're where they were in terms of the condition of the farm system.
For example, we as fans know Noah Syndergaard signed with the Angels for 1/$21M despite an “aggressive offer” from the Sox, but we don’t know exactly what that offer was or why he didn’t take it. You could make a case that Freeman, Suzuki, Schwarber, Stroman, EdRod and McHugh all fall into this category too. Last year, Morton, Ozuna, Semien, Springer, Kluber did. Did the Sox get outbid in every one of these cases because the bids crept up a few million more than Bloom was comfortable? I don’t think we can assume that.
Where are you getting your information that we were all-in on trying to sign these players? I know Heyman was tweeting a lot about supposed Sox interest, but I've seen nothing to indicate that Bloom was truly in on any of them, or that he offered as much as the teams that ended up signing them. To be clear: I'm sure he was interested in some of them, but that's far from saying that he was going all-out for them. For us to conclude that players simply don't want to sign here, we'd have to accept that the Sox offered the same amount or more as what they eventually got, right? I mean, who has reported any of that? I'm actually quite dubious that it's true. And I think we're losing our heads a little bit if we're suggesting that star players just don't want to play for the Red Sox anymore.
The Dodgers are the Dodgers because a lot of people want to play and live in southern California — not as true for Boston. But if that’s the case, what’s the Plan B? Why hasn’t Devers even so much as received a contract extension? Why haven’t we gotten in on more of the salary dump trades besides JBJ?
There's still plenty of time in the off-season. Bloom has indicated that the Sox are going to begin work on extensions, and I'm imagine that Devers would be one of the candidates. And why can't we keep getting in on salary dumps? The off-season isn't over. Once the season start, it seems to me, these kinds of questions will be more appropriate. I don't understand why we're demanding answers to them now.