Red Sox in season discussion

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
1,635
Chicago, IL
Next years FA class includes Kike Hernandez, Xander Bogaerts, Nate Eovaldi, and maybe Chris Sale, though; with Devers the year after that. The reason that there is so much money coming off the books is because there is almost nobody under contract, in part because Bloom hasn’t given out multi-year deals. I suspect they made add some more players but I don’t think Correa, Schwarber, Suzuki, etc (and trading a bunch of young cost controlled talent) is at all realistic. Dombrowski is not the GM anymore.

But excited to talk about it again and see what happens! If they sign a FA to a $300m deal in the next few weeks, I’ll eat my hat.
I would largely agree with this. Signing expensive FAs has not been Bloom's MO and a shift in strategy, or a new phase in how he regards spending, isn't inevitable. Sox ownership has a pattern of swings between organizational philosophies, compensating (overcompensating) from one to its opposite. I hope Bloom finds a middle ground, and signs Suzuki and another premium arm. But a FA bonanza seems like wishful thinking, given Bloom's history.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,673
Maine
I was thinking about this the other day and it led me to think of Edgar Martinez. Different circumstances, sure; but the Mariners cut bait on Edgar as a regular 3B after three seasons, seeing the true value was in his bat.
Martinez's transition to full-time DH came after two injury plagued years (hamstring one year, wrist the next) and also at age 32. He'd also been effectively replaced while he was hurt by Mike Blowers. I'm not sure there's much of a comparison when talking about a 25 year old Devers that has no clear defensive replacement in the pipeline.

I've made this argument before, but I think they're going to be hard-pressed to convince Devers to move to DH full time when he's two years away from free agency. A 27 year old slugging 3B, even with inconsistent defense, is more valuable on the market than a 27 year old slugging DH.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,298
deep inside Guido territory
The specifics of this new CBA line up in a way that benefits the Red Sox greatly. There is more money to spend under the tax, and the NL now has the DH, creating a much bigger trade market for Martinez. It is quite obvious that Bloom has been following the blueprint that his mentor has used so successfully with the Dodgers, and from my perspective, the new CBA allows the Red Sox to accelerate their timeline by a year. I see the Sox taking advantage of this new opportunity and making moves that they might not have otherwise made this year. Trading JD and signing both Schwarber and Suzuki seems like exactly those kinds of moves.

However, I would be borderline shocked if they sign Correa, move Bogaerts to second against his wishes, and then just let him walk. I think people assuming this is going to happen are dramatically underestimating the degree to which the Sox, having already traded Mookie, will be sensitive to the perception that they will ruthlessly dump generational, face-of-the-franchise players whenever it suits them.
They aren't ruthlessly dumping Bogaerts. X has an opt out after this year and will definitely use it so the Sox will have to assume this is X's walk year. If they can get Carlos Correa, why not do it?
 

IpswichSox

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
2,792
Suburbs of Washington, DC
Correa to me seems like misdirection, unless you know for certain Bogaerts is definitively walking absent a Correa-like deal and also won't move off SS long term. Even if you knew those data points, what are you going to do with Marcelo in two or three years? Chaim doesn't strike me as a "Oh we'll figure that out when we get there" kind of guy.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,673
Maine
They aren't ruthlessly dumping Bogaerts. X has an opt out after this year and will definitely use it so the Sox will have to assume this is X's walk year. If they can get Carlos Correa, why not do it?
If I understand BringBackMo's argument, it's the perception of dumping Bogaerts that is at issue, not whether they're actually doing specifically that. And I can't imagine the average fan is going to see proactively replacing Bogaerts a year before he might opt for free agency and leave as anything but chasing him out of town. It's something that the Red Sox are bound to be mindful of.

While "low-balling" Nomar with a deal that was ultimately pretty generous hurt his feelings, it was the near trade for A-Rod that truly soured the team's relationship with him and led him out of town. Going down a similar road with Bogaerts isn't going to play well, with Xander or the fans.
 

Niastri

Member
SoSH Member
Correa to me seems like misdirection, unless you know for certain Bogaerts is definitively walking absent a Correa-like deal and also won't move off SS long term. Even if you knew those data points, what are you going to do with Marcelo in two or three years? Chaim doesn't strike me as a "Oh we'll figure that out when we get there" kind of guy.
Bloom knows we need to be good this year and "there is no such thing as a sure thing prospect." Correa helps the team this year and three years is a long time in baseball years. If we need to make space for Mayer in a few years, we can subsidize and trade Correa or move him off short. But we can't leave a void at short for 2-3 seasons waiting for Mayer.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,660
I would largely agree with this. Signing expensive FAs has not been Bloom's MO and a shift in strategy, or a new phase in how he regards spending, isn't inevitable. Sox ownership has a pattern of swings between organizational philosophies, compensating (overcompensating) from one to its opposite. I hope Bloom finds a middle ground, and signs Suzuki and another premium arm. But a FA bonanza seems like wishful thinking, given Bloom's history.
Why do people persist in deferring to Bloom’s “history”? His Red Sox tenure to date has been two years, inheriting a team whose ace needed TJS while entering a pandemic. His time in Tampa was constricted by one of the most miserly owners and lowest payrolls in baseball. He has said, again and again, that the model is the Dodgers, who spend like crazy, and the team’s contention window is now.

The whole point of financial prudence the last couple years was to get us to the next CBA. That might have included a $180m competitive balance tax, but instead we’re at $230 — which greatly favors teams like the Red Sox. Henry is one of the baseball owners who spends the most on on-field talent. Of course Bloom will try to find undervalued guys like Wacha and Refsnyder, but it just doesn’t make any sense to think we’re gonna only do that.

I agree it all starts with Bogaerts. Tell him we want to extend him like an elite 2B and play him there until around 2025, when Verdugo and Schwarber’s contracts are up and Yorke is ready, and then move him to LF/DH. We want him to stay, but we can’t commit to him as the starting shortstop for the next 4-6 years.
 

BringBackMo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,315
They aren't ruthlessly dumping Bogaerts. X has an opt out after this year and will definitely use it so the Sox will have to assume this is X's walk year. If they can get Carlos Correa, why not do it?
That's how you view the situation. But a large portion of the fanbase will not view it that way. People are very aware that Bogaers wants to continue to play shortstop for at least another couple of years. Signing someone else to play that position and moving him off of it will be read by many, many Red Sox fans as treating him poorly and effectively dumping him since he would likely not resign with the club. The point I made in my post is that the Red Sox will be very sensitive to the *perception* that they would be ruthlessly dumping Bogaerts like they did Mookie. Maybe Bloom will do it anyway, and I'm not saying it would be the wrong baseball move, but I think you're kidding yourself if you believe that fans will react to a Correa signing that pushes Xander off short and leads to his departure the following season as, "Well, he just didn't want to be here." I don't think the Red Sox believe that would be the reaction either.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,533
That's how you view the situation. But a large portion of the fanbase will not view it that way. People are very aware that Bogaers wants to continue to play shortstop for at least another couple of years. Signing someone else to play that position and moving him off of it will be read by many, many Red Sox fans as treating him poorly and effectively dumping him since he would likely not resign with the club. The point I made in my post is that the Red Sox will be very sensitive to the *perception* that they would be ruthlessly dumping Bogaerts like they did Mookie. Maybe Bloom will do it anyway, and I'm not saying it would be the wrong baseball move, but I think you're kidding yourself if you believe that fans will react to a Correa signing that pushes Xander off short and leads to his departure the following season as, "Well, he just didn't want to be here." I don't think the Red Sox believe that would be the reaction either.
I agree. If X goes (even if they get Correa) there's going to be a lot of really pissed off fans. Triple that if they lose Devers too. No matter who replaces them.
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,421
That's how you view the situation. But a large portion of the fanbase will not view it that way. People are very aware that Bogaers wants to continue to play shortstop for at least another couple of years. Signing someone else to play that position and moving him off of it will be read by many, many Red Sox fans as treating him poorly and effectively dumping him since he would likely not resign with the club. The point I made in my post is that the Red Sox will be very sensitive to the *perception* that they would be ruthlessly dumping Bogaerts like they did Mookie. Maybe Bloom will do it anyway, and I'm not saying it would be the wrong baseball move, but I think you're kidding yourself if you believe that fans will react to a Correa signing that pushes Xander off short and leads to his departure the following season as, "Well, he just didn't want to be here." I don't think the Red Sox believe that would be the reaction either.
Fans can be wrong that way. They were wrong about the Mookie situation, for example. I'm sure a lot of them are, right now, wrong about the value of signing Correa instead of committing to Bogaerts at SS long-term. Bloom's job is to be right.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,428
They have plenty of money (after this season)

Why not just extend Xander now so we can start drinking some ale to celebrate?
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,660
That's how you view the situation. But a large portion of the fanbase will not view it that way. People are very aware that Bogaers wants to continue to play shortstop for at least another couple of years. Signing someone else to play that position and moving him off of it will be read by many, many Red Sox fans as treating him poorly and effectively dumping him since he would likely not resign with the club. The point I made in my post is that the Red Sox will be very sensitive to the *perception* that they would be ruthlessly dumping Bogaerts like they did Mookie. Maybe Bloom will do it anyway, and I'm not saying it would be the wrong baseball move, but I think you're kidding yourself if you believe that fans will react to a Correa signing that pushes Xander off short and leads to his departure the following season as, "Well, he just didn't want to be here." I don't think the Red Sox believe that would be the reaction either.
If Bogaerts is still on the team, playing 2B/LF or wherever and saying he’s happy, this public perception concern won’t matter. I’d offer him the Semien deal and take it from there.

He’s already conceded this offseason that he’s open to moving off position down the road. There’s no recent I’m aware of where he’s said he wants to stay at short “at least another couple of years.”
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
11,920
Yeah, they could extend Bogaerts and or Devers, or sign Correa. They can’t do all of that, though. I get that the new CBA helps but it’s surely not a surprise of where it netted out- and the early activity in the off-season mirrored what Bloom has done so far in his tenure. Might he change and start giving out huge long term deals? Sure…but I’d suspect he’d prefer to be giving long term deals to players like Yorke / Mayer / Casas etc (similar to the Rays with Franco) when the time is right and avoiding huge deals for guys like Bogaerts / Correa which will pay them into their late 30’s.

(Boagerts is open to playing another position “down the road”. He’s also probably open to playing in Colorado. There’s no evidence that he’s willing to be paid like a corner OF or 2B, though. And expecting him to be able to play 2B or LF in a big league game in 4 weeks seems unlikely).
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,233
Fans can be wrong that way. They were wrong about the Mookie situation, for example. I'm sure a lot of them are, right now, wrong about the value of signing Correa instead of committing to Bogaerts at SS long-term. Bloom's job is to be right.
"When you start thinking like a fan, you will end up sitting with them."

--Terry Francona (and probably others before him).
 

sean1562

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 17, 2011
3,620
I think I would prefer them to extend Xander with the understanding that, when/if Mayer is ready, he is going to have to move off SS. Suzuki seems like an obvious fit that won't be too expensive.

They really need to find some SP depth. I don't think a SP rotation of Sale/Eovaldi/Rich Hill/Pivetta/Houck with Wacha as the swingman is a particularly good one. Sale is coming of TJ, Eovaldi has a spotty injury history, Rich Hill is 42 years old, and Houck only threw 90 innings last year.
 

normstalls

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 15, 2004
4,486
Am I in the minority for not wanting to spend a ton to bring in Correa? If the Sox are going to go big, I would much rather see them spend that on extending X. I would be really bummed to see them bring in Correa at the expense of losing X long-term.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,673
Maine
I think I would prefer them to extend Xander with the understanding that, when/if Mayer is ready, he is going to have to move off SS.
This seems like the optimal route to take, especially when you factor in that Bogaerts has reportedly said he'd be open to changing positions down the road. Everyone seems to want to interpret that as he's willing to move now to accomodate a Correa type signing, but I think it's more likely that he was talking about a scenario like this where he's already locked into his last big contract and a young prospect like Mayer is pushing him down the defensive spectrum.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,660
Yeah, they could extend Bogaerts and or Devers, or sign Correa. They can’t do all of that, though.
Why not? Future teams should have plenty of room to maneuver with those contracts on the payroll.

Here’s a possible 2025 lineup scenario with us getting Correa, Schwarber and Suzuki, extending Devers and Bogaerts and trading Duran and Dalbec:

Yorke - 2B (min.)
Schwarber - DH ($15/yr through ‘25)
Correa - SS ($34 million through 2029)
Devers - 3B ($30 million through 2030)
Bogaerts - LF ($25 million through 2028)
Casas - 1B (min.)
Suzuki - RF ($15/yr through ‘25 or ‘26)
R. Hernández - C (min.)
Jimenez/McDonough - CF (min.)

Other prospects: Jordan (1B/DH), Bleis (OF), Downs (2B/SS), Hamilton (SS), Binelas (3B), Bonaci (3B), Wong (C/2B), Lugo (SS)

In ‘26, Schwarber walks, Mayer gets promoted, Correa moves to 3B, Devers moves to DH.

We’ll also have a number of very cheap rotation options from a group of Houck, Whitlock, Gonzalez, Seabold, Bello, Mata, Crawford, Walter, Groome, Ward, Winckowski, German and Song. Not all pan out of course, but they don’t all need to.

I’m not sure exactly what the 2025 competitive balance tax is ($230 + x escalation) but that roster is comfortably under it.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,369
Man, I just want to say it's SO great to be talking about baseball and moves the Sox can make, instead of talking about labor issues.
 

BringBackMo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,315
Fans can be wrong that way. They were wrong about the Mookie situation, for example. I'm sure a lot of them are, right now, wrong about the value of signing Correa instead of committing to Bogaerts at SS long-term. Bloom's job is to be right.
Let me start by stating that I agree with you in your Mookie assessment. He's one of my five favorite ballplayers and I wish every day that he were still on the Sox, but given the situation, trading him was the right thing to do. But even here at SOSH, that trade remains very controversial in some quarters. Sports are about winning, yes, but they are also about entertainment, and most clubs are very sensitive to the marketing and engagement aspects of the business. Bloom's job is to be right about baseball. It's my opinion that others in the organization would be consulted about anything involving Bogaerts' future with the club.

He’s already conceded this offseason that he’s open to moving off position down the road. There’s no recent I’m aware of where he’s said he wants to stay at short “at least another couple of years.”
I have myself cited that particular portion of that particular article many times in the past. Let's just agree that we don't know what "down the road" means. I am dubious that it means "this season," which is what a Correa signing would necessitate. But just to be clear now in a way that I wasn't before: I was responding to the good @nvalvo post from this morning in which he specifically advocated signing Correa and then letting Bogaerts walk after this year as a way of absorbing some of the cost. If your plan in the next few weeks is to sign Correa AND sign Bogaearts to an extension that will pay him like a shortstop--which is absolutely what it will take--while also convincing him to move off short this year.... Well, sure, if they can pull all of that off then l can get on board with it. But I think it's unlikely that is what the Sox are going to do.
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,421
Am I in the minority for not wanting to spend a ton to bring in Correa? If the Sox are going to go big, I would much rather see them spend that on extending X. I would be really bummed to see them bring in Correa at the expense of losing X long-term.
Is that just about familiarity? Correa is younger and better, and I say that as someone who loves Xander Bogaerts like a son.
 

Daniel_Son

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2021
1,683
San Diego
Who says no to something like this?

Boston gets: Frankie Montas, Sean Murphy, Elvis Andrus, Stephen Piscotty
Oakland gets: Dalbec, Duran, Houck, Arroyo, Martinez, cash


This is the blockbuster form of this deal, but smaller permutations (removing Houck and Murphy) would work too. Not sure what we’d do with Piscotty, especially if we’ve got Suzuki, but it doesn’t matter — we could even DFA him. Just load up on short-term payroll hits.
Not sure I'm seeing why the A's would do this. Trading their star catcher and a 28-year-old cost-controlled starter for a 33-year old DH and bunch of good-but-not-great players doesn't seem very enticing. Trade simulator (not the be-all end-all, I know) seems to agree - 92 value for the A's package vs. 23 for the Sox. Sox are going to need to offer a top prospect to get either of those guys, and I don't think the farm is quite there yet to be dealing out those sorts of players.

Given some of the names still on the board, I think free agency is the way to complete this team. Give me Suzuki and one of Rodon, Kikuchi, or Sanchez.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,660
I have myself cited that particular portion of that particular article many times in the past. Let's just agree that we don't know what "down the road" means. I am dubious that it means "this season," which is what a Correa signing would necessitate. But just to be clear now in a way that I wasn't before: I was responding to the good @nvalvo post from this morning in which he specifically advocated signing Correa and then letting Bogaerts walk after this year as a way of absorbing some of the cost. If your plan in the next few weeks is to sign Correa AND sign Bogaearts to an extension that will pay him like a shortstop--which is absolutely what it will take--while also convincing him to move off short this year.... Well, sure, if they can pull all of that off then l can get on board with it. But I think it's unlikely that is what the Sox are going to do.
I’m with you that we don’t know what “down the road” means exactly. But I’d contend that any sort of concession on that point from Bogaerts this offseason is a sign that it’s closer than we think. He’s a Boras client, it’s wild that he’d give that point away.

Not sure I'm seeing why the A's would do this. Trading their star catcher and a 28-year-old cost-controlled starter for a 33-year old DH and bunch of good-but-not-great players doesn't seem very enticing. Trade simulator (not the be-all end-all, I know) seems to agree - 92 value for the A's package vs. 23 for the Sox. Sox are going to need to offer a top prospect to get either of those guys, and I don't think the farm is quite there yet to be dealing out those sorts of players.
FWIW, I’m seeing the trade sim values on that much closer than that — 92 value for the A’s and around 82 or so for the A’s, assuming the Sox pay half of JDM’s contract.
 

normstalls

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 15, 2004
4,486
Is that just about familiarity? Correa is younger and better, and I say that as someone who loves Xander Bogaerts like a son.
I would say it is 80% homerism and 20% Astro taint. I know it is not necessarily the best way to run a team, but I always prefer spending money to keep a homegrown talent vs. throwing a ton at a flashy FA that often doesn't work out. I would love to see Xander and Raffy be lifetime Sox.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,369
Correa vs. Bogaerts

Career
Correa: .277/.356/.481/.837, 127 ops+, 7.3 bWAR/162
Bogaerts: .290/.353/.459/.812, 115 ops+, 4.2 bWAR/162

Best season
Correa (2021): 104 r, 26 hr, 92 rbi, .279/.366/.485/.850, 131 ops+, 7.2 bWAR
Bogaerts (2019): 110 r, 33 hr, 117 rbi, .309/.384/.555/.939, 139 ops+, 6.3 bWAR

Bogaerts is 29, Correa is 27. Correa is the better overall player (much better defensively). I love X unconditionally, and of course he's OUR guy, so I don't want Correa to replace him on that level. But...Correa IS better.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,298
deep inside Guido territory
That's how you view the situation. But a large portion of the fanbase will not view it that way. People are very aware that Bogaers wants to continue to play shortstop for at least another couple of years. Signing someone else to play that position and moving him off of it will be read by many, many Red Sox fans as treating him poorly and effectively dumping him since he would likely not resign with the club. The point I made in my post is that the Red Sox will be very sensitive to the *perception* that they would be ruthlessly dumping Bogaerts like they did Mookie. Maybe Bloom will do it anyway, and I'm not saying it would be the wrong baseball move, but I think you're kidding yourself if you believe that fans will react to a Correa signing that pushes Xander off short and leads to his departure the following season as, "Well, he just didn't want to be here." I don't think the Red Sox believe that would be the reaction either.
I really have to disagree with pretty much everything you and others are saying. What makes the Mookie departure and a potential Xander departure different is who they have replacing the player. When you trade Betts and all you get back is Alex Verdugo and some minor league players, fans are going to have a problem with that. You dumped a MVP-caliber player and you didn't get a player close of his value in return. With a Bogaerts departure, you're getting back a player that is arguably better all around and is younger. I would have no problem getting Correa and either moving X to another position or trading him. And I'm speaking as someone who is a gigantic Bogaerts fan.

If you're worry about what the fans think, you're going to be sitting with them soon.
 

Daniel_Son

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2021
1,683
San Diego
FWIW, I’m seeing the trade sim values on that much closer than that — 92 value for the A’s and around 82 or so for the A’s, assuming the Sox pay half of JDM’s contract.
Weird, must've missed a name. My mistake. I still don't think that any of our guys move the needle on Murphy + Montas. Maybe a smaller deal for Manaea?
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,187
I agree. If X goes (even if they get Correa) there's going to be a lot of really pissed off fans. Triple that if they lose Devers too. No matter who replaces them.
I agree with the above. But I also think that more than any fan base in America, Bill Belichick has conditioned Boston sports fans to prioritizea the results over how the team got there, so I think Chaim can get away with doing what he believes makes sense so long as he succeeds like he did last year.
 

BringBackMo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,315
If you're worry about what the fans think, you're going to be sitting with them soon.
My argument is not that it would be wrong from an on-field perspective for the Red Sox to sign Correa and move on from Bogaerts. My argument is that clubs do consider things like marketing and entertainment value, and it is my opinion that, at least partially for this reason, the Red Sox will not sign Correa and start him at shortstop in 2022.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,298
deep inside Guido territory
My argument is not that it would be wrong from an on-field perspective for the Red Sox to sign Correa and move on from Bogaerts. My argument is that clubs do consider things like marketing and entertainment value, and it is my opinion that, at least partially for this reason, the Red Sox will not sign Correa and start him at shortstop in 2022.
Why can't you market Carlos Correa? I get X is homegrown, but Correa is a very likeable player with a big personality who would endear himself to the fanbase pretty quickly.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,673
Maine
Why can't you market Carlos Correa? I get X is homegrown, but Correa is a very likeable player with a big personality who would endear himself to the fanbase pretty quickly.
As normstalls alluded to a few posts up, there is probably some Astros taint on Correa. Not saying that that can't be overcome, but I feel like it would be like bringing in ARod to replace Nomar in 2004, only ARod already had the steroids stench on him plus the slappy mcbluelips incident on his resume. Sure he's the better, younger player, but he's been the enemy also.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,298
deep inside Guido territory
As normstalls alluded to a few posts up, there is probably some Astros taint on Correa. Not saying that that can't be overcome, but I feel like it would be like bringing in ARod to replace Nomar in 2004, only ARod already had the steroids stench on him plus the slappy mcbluelips incident on his resume. Sure he's the better, younger player, but he's been the enemy also.
I think it would be overcame pretty quickly once he's in a Sox uniform. Correa is one of those players who you love if he's on your side and you hate if he's on the other.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,274
Red Sox could make $15 million or more selling jersey sponsorships
Tucked into baseball's new CBA is a provision allowing teams to sell advertising in the form of helmet decals and uniform patches. It may not sound like much, but it could be big business -- especially for the Red Sox.T

According to multiple sources with knowledge of the discussions, the Red Sox have engaged with the powerhouse Creative Artists Agency to find sponsorship partners in a deal that could be worth $15-$20 million annually.

Purists might howl, but part of the purpose of the new CBA was to open new revenue streams, and jersey sponsorships could be hugely lucrative. The NBA, NHL, NASCAR, and Major League Soccer already include advertisements on their uniforms/racing suits, and European soccer fans are used to seeing kits emblazoned with corporate logos.
https://www.nbcsports.com/boston/red-sox/sources-red-sox-could-make-15-million-or-more-selling-jersey-sponsorships
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,533
I agree with the above. But I also think that more than any fan base in America, Bill Belichick has conditioned Boston sports fans to prioritizea the results over how the team got there, so I think Chaim can get away with doing what he believes makes sense so long as he succeeds like he did last year.
I agree with you. But the difference is that Bloom might get there some day, he's done some good things, Belichick has won six Super Bowls with the Pats, so he gets a lot more latitude.

If you're worry about what the fans think, you're going to be sitting with them soon.
And yes, I get this sentiment, it's been stated twice already here. But at the same time, the Boston Red Sox are not Chaim Bloom's personal fantasy team. Moving players, especially ones that are home grown and part of two World Series Championships, create backlash. Especially one who has been here for 10 seasons like Bogaerts. Double especially since the Sox moved another homegrown star two years ago in Mookie Betts. You don't have to listen to the fans, but you do have to take them into consideration.

Depending on what happened that day, the Sox are on edge of being the second, third or fourth-favorite team in the city. Will Boston ever not love the Sox? No. Of course not, but the city could love them a little less than they once did. Getting rid of homegrown talent is one great way to lessen that bond--especially since most fans feel that the "right" way to build a club is through homegrown players, which is something that they've been told by not just journalists, but club officials too. And I know that most people here look at the numbers; Correa is younger and has really good numbers, but he's not X. Bogaerts has a shot of being one of the best shortstops in Red Sox history (top three at least), do you get rid of that for a player who may be marginally better? IDK.

It just sends a shitty message to both fans and players alike that you can do everything you can for the Boston Red Sox, but the instant that a new, somewhat better player comes along; you're gone. Business is business, I get it, but ...
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,533
"earned his stripes"? as a utility infielder for a few years ten years before he managed here? That might be a stretch.
He was a member of the 2007 World Series Championship team and was a favorite of the Greatest Red Sox Manager of All Time Terry Francona. So I agree that he "earned his stripes" in that it wasn't like Denny Walling came to manage the Sox.
 

Niastri

Member
SoSH Member
Correa vs. Bogaerts

Career
Correa: .277/.356/.481/.837, 127 ops+, 7.3 bWAR/162
Bogaerts: .290/.353/.459/.812, 115 ops+, 4.2 bWAR/162

Best season
Correa (2021): 104 r, 26 hr, 92 rbi, .279/.366/.485/.850, 131 ops+, 7.2 bWAR
Bogaerts (2019): 110 r, 33 hr, 117 rbi, .309/.384/.555/.939, 139 ops+, 6.3 bWAR

Bogaerts is 29, Correa is 27. Correa is the better overall player (much better defensively). I love X unconditionally, and of course he's OUR guy, so I don't want Correa to replace him on that level. But...Correa IS better.
Plus we get Correa for four prime years immediately after his best season.

Bogaerts gives us two years including immediately after a season where injuries hurt his production.

If we can get Correa in a way that doesn't crush our budget, he's the better choice.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,233
He was a member of the 2007 World Series Championship team and was a favorite of the Greatest Red Sox Manager of All Time Terry Francona. So I agree that he "earned his stripes" in that it wasn't like Denny Walling came to manage the Sox.
In the context of whether fans will hurl rocks and garbage at Correia because of his Astortaint, Cora's "stripes" are pretty faint, IMO.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,298
deep inside Guido territory
I agree with you. But the difference is that Bloom might get there some day, he's done some good things, Belichick has won six Super Bowls with the Pats, so he gets a lot more latitude.



And yes, I get this sentiment, it's been stated twice already here. But at the same time, the Boston Red Sox are not Chaim Bloom's personal fantasy team. Moving players, especially ones that are home grown and part of two World Series Championships, create backlash. Especially one who has been here for 10 seasons like Bogaerts. Double especially since the Sox moved another homegrown star two years ago in Mookie Betts. You don't have to listen to the fans, but you do have to take them into consideration.

Depending on what happened that day, the Sox are on edge of being the second, third or fourth-favorite team in the city. Will Boston ever not love the Sox? No. Of course not, but the city could love them a little less than they once did. Getting rid of homegrown talent is one great way to lessen that bond--especially since most fans feel that the "right" way to build a club is through homegrown players, which is something that they've been told by not just journalists, but club officials too. And I know that most people here look at the numbers; Correa is younger and has really good numbers, but he's not X. Bogaerts has a shot of being one of the best shortstops in Red Sox history (top three at least), do you get rid of that for a player who may be marginally better? IDK.

It just sends a shitty message to both fans and players alike that you can do everything you can for the Boston Red Sox, but the instant that a new, somewhat better player comes along; you're gone. Business is business, I get it, but ...
The bolded is what you say it is--the business of sports. I think the fans want World Series championships no matter how they come.

The reason we're in this discussion is because we're at a crossroads with Bogey in his current contract situation. You and others are looking at this like that Bogaerts is signed concretely for another 3-4 years and they are looking at Correa anyways. He can easily opt out and choose another team in a year's time and there's nothing the Sox can do about that. How would fans feel about management if Bogaerts opted out and left Boston with a gaping hole at SS? All management can do is evaluate the situation at hand taking emotions out of it and do what's best for the organization. If signing Correa is the best thing for the team, then they should do it.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,428
some of this CC discussion is giving me Willie McGee flashback vibes.

Both of the SS’s in question are skilled to play multiple positions and I don’t believe either one has said they’re never willing to move a position. Both can play 2B and both can play LF and both can play 3B.

CC would make the team better. Full stop.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,673
Maine
The bolded is what you say it is--the business of sports. I think the fans want World Series championships no matter how they come.

The reason we're in this discussion is because we're at a crossroads with Bogey in his current contract situation. You and others are looking at this like that Bogaerts is signed concretely for another 3-4 years and they are looking at Correa anyways. He can easily opt out and choose another team in a year's time and there's nothing the Sox can do about that. How would fans feel about management if Bogaerts opted out and left Boston with a gaping hole at SS? All management can do is evaluate the situation at hand taking emotions out of it and do what's best for the organization. If signing Correa is the best thing for the team, then they should do it.
Gaping hole may be over stating it. The following shortstops could be on the market next winter with Bogaerts: Tim Anderson, Elvis Andrus, Didi Gregorius, Dansby Swanson, and Trea Turner. One of them could be signed on a short term basis to bridge to Mayer. Or Nick Yorke could be shifted back to shortstop if they needed more options in the pipeline. Sure Correa would be ideal to fill a hole, but it's not as though he's the only alternative to keeping Bogaerts around.