Red Sox Rumors - Just Kidding

Manramsclan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
3,353
RE: Correa
If I recall correctly often there is language added to the contract usually related to whatever it is they found during the physical. Such as, if the player loses 175 games to Achilles injury over the first 4 years of the contract then the rest is voided or reduced. If anything, those limits and penalties end up creating a whole new avenue for negotiations so perhaps the press conference will be delayed but I doubt that it will be voided.
RE: Drury
At that money, the Red Sox not being involved is terrible. A RHB with power who can play 2B/3B/1B would have been perfect for this team.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
22,214
I’m not a professional athlete, but I can guarantee you that’s not how athletes think. They never believe they’re going to get hurt and they always bet on themselves. That’s because most of the times this events pay off.

My guess is that Devers sees himself having a Judge year more than what happened to Correa.
Then why do any of these young stars sign long term deals that they KNOW will end up shorting them money compared to what they could make on the open market?
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
23,671
Then why do any of these young stars sign long term deals that they KNOW will end up shorting them money compared to what they could make on the open market?
No group of players is a monolith, I didn’t say all players don’t do that but a vast majority don’t. Because if you turn your logic around, why would any player go to FA when a potential career ending injury is a play away?

Some players, especially younger ones like the Braves group, will take the stability and money in their early years but when players (like Devers) are a year away from FA, most bet on themselves and envision mountains of cash.

And to be fair, a devastating injury is more of an outlier than a dude getting a gigantic contract. A great percentage of these top tiered players are going to get paid.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,001
Interesting. Goodrum had a lost year last year but seemed like a useful guy to have around before that. Good defensive infielder who can actually play shortstop, decent pop. He was a plenty helpful going into 2022, when he signed a $2.1M deal with the Astros as Jeremy Peña insurance.

From 2018-21, he put up a 5.8 fWAR, on par with Josh Bell, C.J. Cron and Hunter Renfroe. He’s 31. Nothing earth-shattering, but there’s a good chance he gets a solid 300 utility PAs or so if he’s healthy and that same guy.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
7,455
From 2018-21, he put up a 5.8 fWAR, on par with Josh Bell, C.J. Cron and Hunter Renfroe. He’s 31. Nothing earth-shattering, but there’s a good chance he gets a solid 300 PAs or so if he’s healthy and that same guy.
In Worcester? I'm not crapping on the signing because you need depth but if he gets 300 PA in Boston, something has gone wrong.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
3,352
I took chawson to mean that given a chance due to injury, Goodrum has the skill set to potentially play his way into a more regular role.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
68,758
From The Athletic piece on the Drury signing:

“The Red Sox, Diamondbacks and Marlins were in the mix for Drury, who could have signed with one of those clubs for more money with a one-year opt-out, a source said. But Drury’s connection with Nevin proved pivotal.”

Nevin managed Drury in AAA and was the one who recommended he sign with the Reds last year, which kickstarted his career.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
7,455
From The Athletic piece on the Drury signing:

“The Red Sox, Diamondbacks and Marlins were in the mix for Drury, who could have signed with one of those clubs for more money with a one-year opt-out, a source said. But Drury’s connection with Nevin proved pivotal.”

Nevin managed Drury in AAA and was the one who recommended he sign with the Reds last year, which kickstarted his career.
I'm a little skeptical of the Drury interest once Turner was on board. I think there's just an autofill that puts the Red Sox in any sentence listing the teams that just missed out on a guy.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,001
In Worcester? I'm not crapping on the signing because you need depth but if he gets 300 PA in Boston, something has gone wrong.
If he’s healthy, the upside seems like Brock Holt, almost to the letter. Goodrum has more pop but strikes out more and is a better defender. Holt could play anywhere, but Goodrum plays anywhere well.

Holt had a lost year too in 2017, then came back for some solid seasons.

MLB careers through age 29:
NG: 9.2 BB%, 30.7 K%, .167 ISO, 88 wRC+, +13.3 defensive runs, 5.5 fWAR
BH: 8.3 BB%, 18.7 K%, .095 ISO, 88 wRC+, -8.4 defensive runs, 3.6 fWAR
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
7,455
If he’s healthy, the upside seems like Brock Holt, almost to the letter. Goodrum has more pop but strikes out more and is a better defender. Holt could play anywhere, but Goodrum plays anywhere well.

Holt had a lost year too in 2017, then came back for some solid seasons.

MLB careers through age 29:
NG: 9.2 BB%, 30.7 K%, .167 ISO, 88 wRC+, +13.3 defensive runs, 5.5 fWAR
BH: 8.3 BB%, 18.7 K%, .095 ISO, 88 wRC+, -8.4 defensive runs, 3.6 fWAR
Sure, but he's not on the ML roster unless there's an injury, right?
 

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
528
From The Athletic piece on the Drury signing:

“The Red Sox, Diamondbacks and Marlins were in the mix for Drury, who could have signed with one of those clubs for more money with a one-year opt-out, a source said. But Drury’s connection with Nevin proved pivotal.”

Nevin managed Drury in AAA and was the one who recommended he sign with the Reds last year, which kickstarted his career.
So we're in play for the same free agents as the Marlins and the Diamondbacks. This completely sums up the Chaim Bloom plan and experience, no?

My own snarky comments aside, Goodrum is fine to be depth. Honestly, this is what I think we should be spending on depth pieces - grab as many as you can for absolutely nothing on minor league deals and you use them for "not closer" relief and bench pieces - or whatever is left over if you want to go MLB guys.

I can't stand spending money on guys like Matt Barnes, Chris Martin, Joely Rodriguez, Rob Refsnyder, Ryan Brasier, Josh Taylor, (truth be told Drury would have been in this level for me), etc while then letting your superstars go and not replacing them.

Fill those spots with league minimum guys / minor league contracts and use the "savings" to have some elite talent at the top of your roster. Spend on those players (above) when you have the elite talent already (the 2013 Red Sox model; not whatever the heck this is).
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,001
Sure, but he's not on the ML roster unless there's an injury, right?
Sure, or a trade. They’d have to see something from him in Worcester, because it’s hard to tell what happened to him last year.

But all I’m saying is that if he’s the guy he was from 2018-21, that guy looks higher on our MI depth chart right now than anyone besides Story and Arroyo.
 
Last edited:

CoffeeNerdness

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2012
8,093
No group of players is a monolith, I didn’t say all players don’t do that but a vast majority don’t. Because if you turn your logic around, why would any player go to FA when a potential career ending injury is a play away?
You have to get an offer to reject an offer, so how many players actually receive the types of offers being talked about here because player reaching free agency doesn't equal a player who rejected an offer that would take them off the market before FA.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
7,455
Sure, or a trade. They’d have to see something from him in Worcester, because it’s hard to tell what happened to him last year.

But all I’m saying is that if he’s the guy he was from 2018-21, that guy looks higher on our MI depth chart right now than anyone besides Story and Arroyo.
Agree. Not that that's a high bar to clear.

It's a solid move, but it doesn't eliminate the need to bring in someone to start at 2B or SS.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
10,214
Goodrum was solid in 2018 and 2019, when he was 26/27, awful since. But, they need some veteran depth, he should be more useful than Downs was last year, a low bar to clear obviously.
 

A Bad Man

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2016
1,043
Goodrum has two options remaining, so not too much downside here. Fits in with his career 122 wRC+ vs L. Can't hit righties (career 72 wRC+).
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,001
I wonder what the Angels are going to do with all those infielders. Urshela is a solid overall player with declining defensive skills who can only really handle third at this point. Rengifo had a minor (if not entirely convincing) breakout last year and is a capable defensive shortstop. Fletcher, signed long-term, is a good shortstop but with a noodle bat. Drury now takes second. Their outfield is full.

Then there’s Rendon. It’s too early to consign him to the bench/permanent IL/dustbin of history, and they don’t have the luxury (in 2023) of slotting him at DH. They’ll certainly want to give him a chance to rebound — but how?

This is mostly just an Angels-related riff, but I wonder if any of these other fellas are available after the Drury signing, particularly Urshela or Rendon. I don’t want to displace Devers, but I am a little bullish on the prospect of a (heavily!) subsidized Rendon rebounding at the plate, and he does have some distant experience at 2B.
 
Last edited:

Rice4HOF

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 21, 2002
1,847
Calgary, Canada
... I am a little bullish on the prospect of a (heavily!) subsidized Rendon rebounding at the plate, and he does have some distant experience at 2B.
I think people underestimate how heavily he would have to be subsidized. According to Baseball Trade Values, even if they attached both Trout and Ohtani to him, and we sent back, say Ryan Brasier, they would still need to give us an extra $30 M to even it out!
59198
 

Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat

has big, douchey shoulders
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I think people underestimate how heavily he would have to be subsidized. According to Baseball Trade Values, even if they attached both Trout and Ohtani to him, and we sent back, say Ryan Brasier, they would still need to give us an extra $30 M to even it out!
View attachment 59198
Who says no?
 

Marbleheader

Dope
Dope
Sep 27, 2004
11,578
Just attach Sale's contract.

What a sad off-season. I like to have a little hope come spring training. I'm already looking at 2024 draft prospects.
 

streeter88

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 2, 2006
1,725
Melbourne, Australia
I can't stand spending money on guys like Matt Barnes, Chris Martin, Joely Rodriguez, Rob Refsnyder, Ryan Brasier, Josh Taylor, (truth be told Drury would have been in this level for me), etc while then letting your superstars go and not replacing them.

Fill those spots with league minimum guys / minor league contracts and use the "savings" to have some elite talent at the top of your roster. Spend on those players (above) when you have the elite talent already (the 2013 Red Sox model; not whatever the heck this is).
not sure where this fits, but will leave it here to respond to BPMS post above. Could fit equally well in Devers or Front Office Faith thread…

To use an analogy from another sport, it strikes me that this is the Belichick model — avoid spending big on the stars, and have a substantial middle class of players.

I think most fans, including me, would agree with your contention that a major league roster is subpar without at least a couple of actual stars — to create excitement, sell tickets and jerseys, and ensure long term TV interest.

I’m not sure if any MLB franchises have managed to win a WS using the Belichick model, or for that matter to be successful in the medium to long-term. It certainly has not been the Red Sox model up to now. If that is Bloom’s plan, I don’t think he will be in the chair long enough to see whether it works.
 

Ganthem

a ray of sunshine
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2022
914
not sure where this fits, but will leave it here to respond to BPMS post above. Could fit equally well in Devers or Front Office Faith thread…

To use an analogy from another sport, it strikes me that this is the Belichick model — avoid spending big on the stars, and have a substantial middle class of players.

I think most fans, including me, would agree with your contention that a major league roster is subpar without at least a couple of actual stars — to create excitement, sell tickets and jerseys, and ensure long term TV interest.

I’m not sure if any MLB franchises have managed to win a WS using the Belichick model, or for that matter to be successful in the medium to long-term. It certainly has not been the Red Sox model up to now. If that is Bloom’s plan, I don’t think he will be in the chair long enough to see whether it works.
I don't think Bloom is as on the hot seat as you might think he is. Major league teams need stars, but that is not synomous with going full Mets. I think ownership and Bloom see the Astros and Dodgers and want to get to the point where they might have one or two gigantic contracts on the books, but most of the spending is mid tier. Lastly I don't think you need stars, whatever the means, to create excitment and sell tickets. If the team was full of players nobody has ever heard of and they were storming towards a playoff berth, there will be plenty of excitement, ticket sales and merchandise sales.
 

NickEsasky

Please Hammer, Don't Hurt 'Em
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 24, 2001
8,773
I don't think Bloom is as on the hot seat as you might think he is. Major league teams need stars, but that is not synomous with going full Mets. I think ownership and Bloom see the Astros and Dodgers and want to get to the point where they might have one or two gigantic contracts on the books, but most of the spending is mid tier. Lastly I don't think you need stars, whatever the means, to create excitment and sell tickets. If the team was full of players nobody has ever heard of and they were storming towards a playoff berth, there will be plenty of excitement, ticket sales and merchandise sales.
I mostly agree with this with the caveat that if they aren’t storming to the playoffs then having stars still helps get eyeballs and butts in seats.
 

jbupstate

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2022
313
New York, USA
Belichick won Super Bowls with literally the best player in the history of his sport.... how is that winning without superstars?
Brady wasn’t being paid any where close to his superstar market level. This allowed the Patriots to have consistent depth across the team. I mean the team did finish 11-5 with Matt Cassel in 2008.

Part of the Belichick model was also letting a very good player go a year early. Sentimental decisions can kill teams. That’s why fans are not GMs.
 

Sec42R37S21

lurker
Dec 13, 2022
7
I don't think Bloom is as on the hot seat as you might think he is. Major league teams need stars, but that is not synomous with going full Mets. I think ownership and Bloom see the Astros and Dodgers and want to get to the point where they might have one or two gigantic contracts on the books, but most of the spending is mid tier. Lastly I don't think you need stars, whatever the means, to create excitment and sell tickets. If the team was full of players nobody has ever heard of and they were storming towards a playoff berth, there will be plenty of excitement, ticket sales and merchandise sales.
It's been 22 years since Manny Ramirez signed an 8 year/160 million contract. 20 million per year 22 years ago is worth 40 million today for star players. The prices and years on contracts for star players will not be going down. They are getting what the market will pay. And the Red Sox as a whole have decided they won't pay these prices. Not sure whose fault that is, but they won't pay it and thus we've lost Betts, Bogaerts, Benintendi, and Vazquez.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
60,042
Brady wasn’t being paid any where close to his superstar market level. This allowed the Patriots to have consistent depth across the team. I mean the team did finish 11-5 with Matt Cassel in 2008.

Part of the Belichick model was also letting a very good player go a year early. Sentimental decisions can kill teams. That’s why fans are not GMs.
Damnit, why can’t Bloom sign an MVP with a super wealthy spouse?!

Has ownership/does ownership ever give a timeline for the turnaround? I think fans would be ok if they heard, “we will always be competitive, but we think our next multiple WS window is in 2-3 years.” It seems like the unstated direction and treading water makes everyone antsy that today’s troubles might well be next year’s and the years’ after.
 

Manramsclan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
3,353
RE: Correa
If I recall correctly often there is language added to the contract usually related to whatever it is they found during the physical. Such as, if the player loses 175 games to Achilles injury over the first 4 years of the contract then the rest is voided or reduced. If anything, those limits and penalties end up creating a whole new avenue for negotiations so perhaps the press conference will be delayed but I doubt that it will be voided.
RE: Drury
At that money, the Red Sox not being involved is terrible. A RHB with power who can play 2B/3B/1B would have been perfect for this team.
This aged poorly on both counts.

Sox involved but Drury took less money to reunite with Phil Nevin and play in SoCal.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
65,763
It's been 22 years since Manny Ramirez signed an 8 year/160 million contract. 20 million per year 22 years ago is worth 40 million today for star players. The prices and years on contracts for star players will not be going down. They are getting what the market will pay. And the Red Sox as a whole have decided they won't pay these prices. Not sure whose fault that is, but they won't pay it and thus we've lost Betts, Bogaerts, Benintendi, and Vazquez.
Agree in spirit but Vasquez/Benintendi aren't in the same ballpark as Betts/Manny
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
5,888
Benintendi was not a loss.
JBJ was not a loss.
Vazquez. Not a loss.
Betts? Yeah… that sucks but sorry… not getting into the why/how/what ifs.
X? On the fence… I think the Sox got his best years and people here will be glad in less than two years he’s not here.
Devers? Hope he’s here for at least 4 more seasons.
 

jbupstate

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2022
313
New York, USA
Damnit, why can’t Bloom sign an MVP with a super wealthy spouse?!

Has ownership/does ownership ever give a timeline for the turnaround? I think fans would be ok if they heard, “we will always be competitive, but we think our next multiple WS window is in 2-3 years.” It seems like the unstated direction and treading water makes everyone antsy that today’s troubles might well be next year’s and the years’ after.
I strongly disagree. Let’s face it - Boston sports fans these days days are a “what have you done for me lately” group. (Belichick is a bum, Sweeney/Neely incompetent, etc).

Once the Betts trade went down a great majority of Sox fans went straight negative on FSG and Bloom. JWH is cheap? Liverpool? Tampa Bay North? Uncaring, incompetent? It goes on an on.

Every Bloom decision and comment is picked apart and nothing is right. (Ex: Schwarber - Wtf is Bloom doing? they acquired a fat, injured guy who can’t play a position and we already have a DH. Wtf is Bloom doing? Schwarber is a stud, cornerstone, FSG too cheap)

It seems pretty clear to me - the the firing of Dombrowski and the hiring of Bloom was a complete change in the team building philosophy. Management want to remove the peaks (banners) and valleys (out of playoffs) from their tremendous investment.

Of course FSG wanted it both ways. Remain competitive and feather in a rebuild. No easy way to accelerate the rebuild of a weak farm system unles. Maybe trade away your current stars? I don’t know if Bloom can make it happen but hope FSG gives him the 5-6 years required. Bloom doesn’t write the checks. I do think he signed up for an incredibly tough task. I think he deserves hazard play from FSG and admire his commitment.
 
Last edited:

jbupstate

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2022
313
New York, USA
It's been 22 years since Manny Ramirez signed an 8 year/160 million contract. 20 million per year 22 years ago is worth 40 million today for star players. The prices and years on contracts for star players will not be going down. They are getting what the market will pay. And the Red Sox as a whole have decided they won't pay these prices. Not sure whose fault that is, but they won't pay it and thus we've lost Betts, Bogaerts, Benintendi, and Vazquez.
Don’t leave out we acquired/paid AGon, Hanley, Rusney, Crawford, Panda and Price. A great contract extension on Pedroia that didn’t work out. A market extension on Sale that didn’t work out.

Or not retaining Pedro, Manny, Damon or Ellsbury at market prices.
 

Daniel_Son

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2021
1,569
San Diego
Don’t leave out we acquired/paid AGon, Hanley, Rusney, Crawford, Panda and Price. A great contract extension on Pedroia that didn’t work out. A market extension on Sale that didn’t work out.

Or not retaining Pedro, Manny, Damon or Ellsbury at market prices.
Hell, add Yoshida to the list. A 5 year contract isn't anything to sneeze at. A lot of people were saying it was overpay - to me, that indicates that Bloom is more than capable of opening up the checkbook once he identifies his guy.
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
31,819
Once the Betts trade went down a great majority of Sox fans went straight negative on FSG and Bloom. JWH is cheap? Liverpool? Tampa Bay North? Uncaring, incompetent? It goes on an on.
I'm pretty sure most of us were very on board with 2021, when they gelled enough to nearly win the pennant.

It just seems like Xander could have been had for a (especially now very) reasonable ~6/160, maybe 6/175, and continuity with a player proven to handle Boston well is a pretty big intangible. Instead, this FO and/or ownership gave the insulting 4/90 offer, and there were rumors/worries then Xander was done with Boston after that... and that is exactly how it panned out.

Also, a stealthy 5-6 year plan to build up the pipeline might well be the goal, but the botching of the trade deadline this year runs pretty counter to that now that Xander is gone. The comp draft pick is 60 picks lower and comes with a loss of $400k in draft pool. That is far from nothing.

These two things above are where the negatives are pouring in now. If Devers is traded or leaves for nothing / comp pick, is FSG OK with an anonymous bottom-feeder for 3-4+ years? Maybe they are.
 

Alex Cole's Rec Specs

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
Aug 31, 2006
111
South Acton, Mass.
Trevor Story? Kiké Hernández? Joey Wendle? Red Sox still weighing shortstop possibilities

One name that’s come up in trade talks, persons involved in the discussions told The Athletic, is Marlins infielder Joey Wendle. The asking price has been high up to this point, but the Red Sox feel that a left-handed middle infielder would be a good fit, and the smaller-market Marlins should have reason to move a 32-year-old who’s owed a projected $5.4 million in his final year of arbitration. The Red Sox don’t necessarily see Wendle as an everyday solution shortstop, but they do see him as potentially another piece of among a revolving and evolving list of shortstop possibilities.
If that more substantial addition is a center fielder or second baseman — Bryan Reynolds from the Pirates, to offer a prominent example — the Red Sox would almost certainly have to choose between Story and Hernández at short. As recently as 2020, Story was considered one of the best all-around shortstops in the league, but he hurt his elbow in 2021 and his arm strength dipped. It was down again last season, though there’s an argument that he simply didn’t have to put as much on the ball since he was throwing from second base. Some in the Red Sox organization remain concerned that Story’s arm strength would be an issue if he moved back to shortstop full-time, and they prefer not to lose his elite defense at second base. Others argue that Story does other things well enough — lateral range, charging the ball — to provide adequate defense even without a strong arm. Like Story at second base, Hernández has been a strong defender in center field, and the Red Sox would prefer not to give that up, either. Hence the ongoing debate about which direction to go should the Red Sox be forced to make a decision.
Rumor-filled piece this morning from Chad Jennings at The Athletic. It sounds like the Red Sox Front Office has no clear plan at shortstop and there is no consensus about whether or not Trevor Story still has the arm strength to play the position at a high level.

I have so many thoughts about this, but it's extremely disappointing to read. Letting Bogaerts walk was bad. Passing on Correa and Swanson was also bad. Passing on all three players and then shrugging your shoulders and saying, "maybe Joey Wendle, some days, but not every day, or maybe Story, unless he can't" sounds like incompetence.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
3,352
Trevor Story? Kiké Hernández? Joey Wendle? Red Sox still weighing shortstop possibilities





Rumor-filled piece this morning from Chad Jennings at The Athletic. It sounds like the Red Sox Front Office has no clear plan at shortstop and there is no consensus about whether or not Trevor Story still has the arm strength to play the position at a high level.

I have so many thoughts about this, but it's extremely disappointing to read. Letting Bogaerts walk was bad. Passing on Correa and Swanson was also bad. Passing on all three players and then shrugging your shoulders and saying, "maybe Joey Wendle, some days, but not every day, or maybe Story, unless he can't" sounds like incompetence.
How does it sound like incompetence?
Once it became clear the contracts the big name shortstops were commanding didn't make sense for the FO's plan (and you can disagree with their plan and/or evaluations, that's fine), they shifted to explore the other available options, internal and external, because why wouldn't you? It would be incompetent not to. And it's not at all surprising to hear there are dissenting views about Story's health (it's not like we have consensus about him on SoSH); he's not a robot you can run a diagnostic on for an easy SS or no SS answer. They clearly think there are risks to moving him back, or he'd be locked in already.

It would be great if there was an ideal plan B candidate out there we could all agree on, but the talent pool is limited and there simply isn't. Personally I'd rather be where we are than having 12% of the team budget locked into an aging shortstop for the next decade plus, but short term there are clear drawbacks, of course.
 

Alex Cole's Rec Specs

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
Aug 31, 2006
111
South Acton, Mass.
It would be great if there was an ideal plan B candidate out there we could all agree on, but the talent pool is limited and there simply isn't. Personally I'd rather be where we are than having 12% of the team budget locked into an aging shortstop for the next decade plus, but short term there are clear drawbacks, of course.
My issue is that any casual observer of baseball could forsee a scenario where Bogaerts left for more money; that was something one could speculate happening more than 12 months ago. The fact that the Front Office didn't have a clear "Plan B" in place to make sure the 2023 Red Sox have a top shelf shortstop on the roster seems almost literally unbelievable.
 

SouthernBoSox

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2005
11,395
My issue is that any casual observer of baseball could forsee a scenario where Bogaerts left for more money; that was something one could speculate happening more than 12 months ago. The fact that the Front Office didn't have a clear "Plan B" in place to make sure the 2023 Red Sox have a top shelf shortstop on the roster seems almost literally unbelievable.
Some would argue the Plan B you are referencing almost perfectly describes Trevor Story.
 

Steve Dillard

wishes drew noticed him instead of sweet & sour
SoSH Member
Oct 7, 2003
5,829
as a possible first step in the plan, creating holes at 2B or CF. It would be far more reassuring that they have a specific plan B if they implemented it as soon as plan A failed two weeks ago. Not just in concept (although the article even casts doubt on that, but who knows), but also in implementation. Instead, it gives the appearance that they have many decision tree concepts, like at the deadline, or like signing Bogaerts for X, for Devers for Y, but are slow to pivot when they don't work out, leaving them a day late and a dollar short.

We only have appearances to interpret, and there's still til February to go, but I was sure last year that JBJ in right and Dalbec at 1B were trial plan As, and there was a plan B come June when we saw if they were working. Instead, there ended up not being a plan B for either. That gives me concern or lack of trust that they can implement the whole plan B for Story to short.
 

Sin Duda

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
662
(B)Austin Texas
Until they sign a middle infielder, no one from the Red Sox is going to comment on who is the starting SS in 2023. We fans will just have to be patient until that occurs, then I'm sure we'll get a rundown on the MI plan.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
34,305
Hingham, MA
Until they sign a middle infielder, no one from the Red Sox is going to comment on who is the starting SS in 2023. We fans will just have to be patient until that occurs, then I'm sure we'll get a rundown on the MI plan.
Yes, because the front office has been so transparent.

Also

 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
3,352
The fact that the Front Office didn't have a clear "Plan B" in place to make sure the 2023 Red Sox have a top shelf shortstop on the roster seems almost literally unbelievable.
This is kinda nonsense. How many "top shelf" shortstops have the Yankees had in the ~15 years since Jeter was actually good? Like Didi Gregorious's career year in 2018 and ???

"Plan B" being a specific name that you'd immediately pivot to if you can't get Bogaerts back doesn't even make sense, given that we know they were out on everything at his price point. Plan B is exactly what we're seeing now: test the trade market, weigh the free agents and internal options, figure out what works best for the team. It doesn't need to happen fast; it's not like Segura and Andrus and Iglesias have all flown off the market and we're gonna be left fielding the bat boy.