Sox sign Wacha

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
1,305
Chicago, IL
When you only want to sign guys for short term deals, you are choosing from a pool of players that includes guys like Wacha, Perez, and Richards. Maybe it works out- and then you have to resign the guy or find someone else like him- but, the upside is you aren’t locked into a bad deal, I guess. This seems to be how Bloom approaches free agency.
I will be highly disappointed if Bloom sticks exclusively to this approach. If they don't put up the money for some significant players it starts becoming legitimate to question ticket prices. I still think Bloom et all will sign some bigger ticket items, but color me concerned that both ERod and Matz could have been signed at reasonable deals and the Red Sox weren't able to land either.

Of course gorging on FAs isn't they way to go either, but I hope Bloom can strike a good balance. If it's all nickel and dime diamonds in the rough and bargain basement, I'll be both flummoxed and frustrated ...his approach so far has been parsimonious (with both trades and FA). I've been assuming that was to duck under the tax threshold and rebuild the farm. That is - that it was an interstitial approach, and not a modus operandi. Beginning to worry I was wrong.
 
Last edited:

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
2,495
I think we are reading way too much into this. Every time the Sox sign a guy like this we try to reverse engineer an explanation.

The Sox wanted a starter who would accept a one-year deal, and they reportedly made a competitive offer to Heaney, who went to LA. So they moved on and found a match with Wacha. Naturally there will be overlap in these kinds of guys with Tampa, who also sign lots of pitchers to one year deals.

Since he became GM, Bloom’s FA P signings have been Perez, Richards, Andriese, McHugh, and Wacha. All one year deals. As a fan it’s not really exciting but you can probably make a case that approaching the market this way is the best way to do it.

Like, is there that much do a difference between Steven Matz and Michael Wacha?
The Sox will probably have signed 2 or 3 free agents to multi-year deals by the end of the offseason, 4 if you count a Devers extension.

The FO evaluates every player differently. We can’t look at Iglesias and Arroyo and conclude that the Sox philosophy going forward is that the 2B position should only be filled by waiver claims. Every team signs several one-year deals with free agents every year, whether they’re the Rays or the Dodgers. There is no universal strategy to sign players to one-year deals.

In fact the inverse may be true. The Sox have an extremely low number of dollars and players under contract in 2024 relative to other big-market teams (Sale, assuming Bogaerts opts out), and none in 2025.

NYY - $84 (4 players with guaranteed contracts in 2024)
SDP - $79.5 (4)
LAA - $75.7 (3)
STL - $67.5 (3)
NYM - $65 (3)
HOU - $60.3 (3)
TOR - $43.7 (2)
ATL - $32.7 (3)
BOS - $25.6 (1)
LAD - $25.4 (1)
TBR - $20.5 (2)
SEA - $11.5 (2)

If anything, they need players! The Sox would jump at the chance to sign Stroman to a 4-year contract and may be able to pull it off. We’ll be in great shape if they do, because then they can trade from a position of depth. But regardless, they’ll have no problems signing position players once teams turn their focus to that market. In the end, my bet is that they end up with Schwarber, a pricey middle infielder and a starter under multi-year contract that they get via trade.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
13,016
Like, is there that much do a difference between Steven Matz and Michael Wacha?
I would say that, generally, the difference between a 4/48 guy and a 1/7 guy is that you expect the former to start 25-30 games and probably a playoff game in each series if you get there, and it will be an actual moderate problem if you’re wrong. With a 1/7 guy you think you might have a workable plan to get lucky and maybe get the same as above, but if you don’t you can live with it.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
2,615
I would say that, generally, the difference between a 4/48 guy and a 1/7 guy is that you expect the former to start 25-30 games and probably a playoff game in each series if you get there, and it will be an actual moderate problem if you’re wrong. With a 1/7 guy you think you might have a workable plan to get lucky and maybe get the same as above, but if you don’t you can live with it.
Matz is 30 with a career FIP of 4.34, 3 seasons of 150+ innings. Wacha is 30 with a career FIP of 4.07, 2 seasons of 150+ innings. Granted, Matz was quite a bit better last year but I’m not sure these guys are all that different and frankly I think that’s how the Sox are approaching the market. Matz, Heaney, Wacha, Richards, etc…these guys are fairly similar so the smaller commitment you can make, the better.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
I will be highly disappointed if Bloom sticks exclusively to this approach. If they don't put up the money for some significant players it starts becoming legitimate to question ticket prices. I still think Bloom et all will sign some bigger ticket items, but color me concerned that both ERod and Matz could have been signed at reasonable deals and the Red Sox weren't able to land either.

Of course gorging on FAs isn't they way to go either, but I hope Bloom can strike a good balance. If it's all nickel and dime diamonds in the rough and bargain basement, I'll be both flummoxed and frustrated ...his approach so far has been parsimonious (with both trades and FA). I've been assuming that was to duck under the tax threshold and rebuild the farm. That is - that it was an interstitial approach, and not a modus operandi. Beginning to worry I was wrong.
I don't understand the hand wringing over the fear that Boston is going to spend like a small market team. There is a lot to be said for the Tampa model that was born of necessity and if that model can ENHANCE the long term plan of extending and retaining certain players as well as bringing in FAs then so be it. With each signing the FA landscape is ever changing. Remember how the Nationals backed up the Brinks truck for Jason Werth after the 2010 season? $126 M for seven years, setting the market and "forcing" the Sox in to the huge overpay of $142 M for seven years for Carl Crawford. Then they topped that by going $154 for seven years with Adrian Gonzales. They got extremely lucky with the Punto trade where LA took the majority of that financial burden off their hands. Do we want to revisit those days? Do we want to go back to paying the Pablo Sandovals of the world to play for other teams? IMO the one game changing FA out there for the Sox would be Max Scherzer. I think they need that top of the rotation guy because I'm not 100% sure about how Sale bounces back. Scherzer, Sale, Eovaldi, Pivetta, Houck/Whitlock get's me excited, but here's the thing, I don't expect that the Sox will or should be in on Scherzer. There has to be a balanced approach to this that takes into consideration the teams future plans for existing players (ML and MiL), needs that can be filled via FA and trade as well as the capital (financial and personnel) that they deem acceptable as payment.
 

Bosoxian

lurker
Aug 17, 2021
45
I think the flyer on Wacha is similar to the one on Richards last year. Worth a shot.
Might be able to get both of them for what they paid Richards last year
 

Delicious Sponge

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
1,198
Boston
I will be highly disappointed if Bloom sticks exclusively to this approach. If they don't put up the money for some significant players it starts becoming legitimate to question ticket prices. I still think Bloom et all will sign some bigger ticket items, but color me concerned that both ERod and Matz could have been signed at reasonable deals and the Red Sox weren't able to land either.

Of course gorging on FAs isn't they way to go either, but I hope Bloom can strike a good balance. If it's all nickel and dime diamonds in the rough and bargain basement, I'll be both flummoxed and frustrated ...his approach so far has been parsimonious (with both trades and FA). I've been assuming that was to duck under the tax threshold and rebuild the farm. That is - that it was an interstitial approach, and not a modus operandi. Beginning to worry I was wrong.
They just went to the ALCS and are 3 years removed from their 4th championship under this ownership group.

What possible evidence is there that they are trying to do anything other than win championships?

It’s November and they’ve got lots of payroll flexibility and a commitment to winning. Let’s judge the Wacha signing in the context of everything that happens between now and when the opening day roster is set. He’s not the centerpiece of the off-season plan.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
15,579
Maine
I don't understand the hand wringing over the fear that Boston is going to spend like a small market team. There is a lot to be said for the Tampa model that was born of necessity and if that model can ENHANCE the long term plan of extending and retaining certain players as well as bringing in FAs then so be it. With each signing the FA landscape is ever changing. Remember how the Nationals backed up the Brinks truck for Jason Werth after the 2010 season? $126 M for seven years, setting the market and "forcing" the Sox in to the huge overpay of $142 M for seven years for Carl Crawford. Then they topped that by going $154 for seven years with Adrian Gonzales. They got extremely lucky with the Punto trade where LA took the majority of that financial burden off their hands. Do we want to revisit those days? Do we want to go back to paying the Pablo Sandovals of the world to play for other teams? IMO the one game changing FA out there for the Sox would be Max Scherzer. I think they need that top of the rotation guy because I'm not 100% sure about how Sale bounces back. Scherzer, Sale, Eovaldi, Pivetta, Houck/Whitlock get's me excited, but here's the thing, I don't expect that the Sox will or should be in on Scherzer. There has to be a balanced approach to this that takes into consideration the teams future plans for existing players (ML and MiL), needs that can be filled via FA and trade as well as the capital (financial and personnel) that they deem acceptable as payment.
I'll grow concerned over the Red Sox pinching pennies and not spending enough money when their payroll drops out of the top 10 in the league just once, which is something that hasn't happened in over 20 years. Just because they don't have a ton of money committed past 2023, doesn't mean they should be spending that money now. They've still got two years to figure out how to spend their 2024 payroll.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
I'll grow concerned over the Red Sox pinching pennies and not spending enough money when their payroll drops out of the top 10 in the league just once, which is something that hasn't happened in over 20 years. Just because they don't have a ton of money committed past 2023, doesn't mean they should be spending that money now. They've still got two years to figure out how to spend their 2024 payroll.
100% Look at the six teams that outspent them last season. Those six teams (Yankees, Dodgers, Padres, White Sox, Mets and Phillies) combined have won just as many World Series as The Red Sox have since 2004. There has to be a plan in place that allows for a bit of flexibility, BUT there's got to be a balanced approach. We can't be questioning ticket prices if the Sox don't spend a particular way in any given season.
 

sean1562

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 17, 2011
3,424
The Rays have had one of the best team ERAs in baseball over the last few seasons with guys that I had never heard of before. I imagine Bloom is also looking to construct a pitching staff with a similar strategy but he also has the cash to sign a few "established aces" every few years. The staff going into next season has Chris Sale and Nathan Eovaldi as their premier guys. Wacha will probably be the first or second pitcher out of the pen when Houck and/or Whitlock start games.

edit: They have several players who will probably need to have their workloads managed over the course of the season in Sale, Whitlock, and Houck. I wouldn't be surprised to see them sign a few other 4/5/6 starters to help manage the workload over the course of the season and be able to come out and throw 3 innings or so once Houck gets to the third time through a lineup.
 

allmanbro

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
286
Portland, Maine
I don't understand the hand wringing over the fear that Boston is going to spend like a small market team. There is a lot to be said for the Tampa model that was born of necessity and if that model can ENHANCE the long term plan of extending and retaining certain players as well as bringing in FAs then so be it. With each signing the FA landscape is ever changing. Remember how the Nationals backed up the Brinks truck for Jason Werth after the 2010 season? $126 M for seven years, setting the market and "forcing" the Sox in to the huge overpay of $142 M for seven years for Carl Crawford. Then they topped that by going $154 for seven years with Adrian Gonzales. They got extremely lucky with the Punto trade where LA took the majority of that financial burden off their hands. Do we want to revisit those days? Do we want to go back to paying the Pablo Sandovals of the world to play for other teams? IMO the one game changing FA out there for the Sox would be Max Scherzer. I think they need that top of the rotation guy because I'm not 100% sure about how Sale bounces back. Scherzer, Sale, Eovaldi, Pivetta, Houck/Whitlock get's me excited, but here's the thing, I don't expect that the Sox will or should be in on Scherzer. There has to be a balanced approach to this that takes into consideration the teams future plans for existing players (ML and MiL), needs that can be filled via FA and trade as well as the capital (financial and personnel) that they deem acceptable as payment.

Totally agree. There was a line of thinking a few years ago that the way you really kill your financial flexibility is by paying FA prices for mediocre/average production, even when it is "the best" currently on the market. I haven't heard it put quite that way with the current incarnations of fiscal prudence (the Rays down-line), but I think that gloss is helpful here. Contracts like Sandoval's or Erod's add up really quickly. Spend big money on stars like Devers (or Scherzer as you mention), and try to fill the rest with short term fliers and pre-FA players as much as possible. If you are smart, this doesn't have to make it a starts and scrubs roster. The point of flexibility is that it allows you to adjust on the fly as things work and don't work, and end up with better overall production.
 

scottyno

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
8,974
Kluber just signed a 1 year $8 million deal with the Rays. Will be interesting to see how he performs vs Wacha.
He's thrown 115 total innings in the last 3 years, if they're looking for a depth/insurance signing like Wacha was he wouldn't make much sense for the Sox.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
15,579
Maine
Kluber just signed a 1 year $8 million deal with the Rays. Will be interesting to see how he performs vs Wacha.
Kluber is also 36 and coming off a long stretch of injuries (he has thrown fewer innings in three years than Wacha threw just last year). Sure, Kluber at his best might be better than Wacha at his best, but the odds of getting either at their best are long enough that you go with the better bet to give you something rather than nothing. That, IMO, is the 30 year old who hasn't missed time recently.

I don't think how they compare will matter one iota other than in how it impacts the AL East standings.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
2,615
If relievers like Hector Neris are getting $8.5M per, doesn’t it make sense to load up on guys who can start instead? If the Sox can add another from the Smyly/Duffy/Cobb/Hill:Bundy group, then you’ve suddenly got one of them, Wacha, Houck, and Whitlock all as potential starters or swing men. Allows you to manage workload and be flexible going forward, and you don’t tie up money long term.

Hell a rotation of Sale, Eovaldi, Pivetta, Wacha, and Smyly/Duffy/Cobb/Hill/Bundy is not horrible - and allows you to keep Whitlock and Houck in the pen, at least to start, where they can be weapons. There’s nobody blocking either of the kids, but also no pressure on them to start if it’s not what is best for the team.

You don’t have to sign anyone for more than a year, and can use your $$$ for long term pieces like extending Devers / X, and bringing in someone like Baez or Semien or whatever.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
2,495
He's thrown 115 total innings in the last 3 years, if they're looking for a depth/insurance signing like Wacha was he wouldn't make much sense for the Sox.
I think this, his relatively low injury risk, is a big factor behind the Wacha signing. The Sox need to replace roughly 600 innings from last year In E-Rod, Richards, Pérez, Ottavino, Robles, Workman, Rios, Andriese and other retreads, and that assumes Barnes and everyone else has a healthy and effective 2022.

You can pencil Sale in for around 100 of those, maybe 125, over what he threw in 2021. And maybe 100-125 extra combined in increased workloads for Houck and Whitlock. There’s still a ton of innings left to account for, and it’s pretty valuable to spend $7m to fill 125 of them at a league average rate with upside.

It seems like Scherzer, Ray, Gausman, Stroman and maybe Kershaw will all fall into place in the next 48 hours. I’d still be surprised if Scherzer goes anywhere but LAD, but maybe the Angels and Mets are making real plays there.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
74,076
Oregon
He's thrown 115 total innings in the last 3 years, if they're looking for a depth/insurance signing like Wacha was he wouldn't make much sense for the Sox.
Kluber is also 36 and coming off a long stretch of injuries (he has thrown fewer innings in three years than Wacha threw just last year).
Kluber also was given incentives that could make his deal worth $13M
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
6,439
around the way
Totally agree. There was a line of thinking a few years ago that the way you really kill your financial flexibility is by paying FA prices for mediocre/average production, even when it is "the best" currently on the market. I haven't heard it put quite that way with the current incarnations of fiscal prudence (the Rays down-line), but I think that gloss is helpful here. Contracts like Sandoval's or Erod's add up really quickly. Spend big money on stars like Devers (or Scherzer as you mention), and try to fill the rest with short term fliers and pre-FA players as much as possible. If you are smart, this doesn't have to make it a starts and scrubs roster. The point of flexibility is that it allows you to adjust on the fly as things work and don't work, and end up with better overall production.
This is correct.

Do-somethingism is bad. Handwringing over "missing out" on signing a long-term deal with a 96 ERA+ 4.3 FIP guy is also bad.

When meh is what's out there, grabbing some meh at low dollars and commitment is smart. Locking up years of meh is not smart.
 

Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat

has big, douchey shoulders
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I will be highly disappointed if Bloom sticks exclusively to this approach. If they don't put up the money for some significant players it starts becoming legitimate to question ticket prices. I still think Bloom et all will sign some bigger ticket items, but color me concerned that both ERod and Matz could have been signed at reasonable deals and the Red Sox weren't able to land either.

Of course gorging on FAs isn't they way to go either, but I hope Bloom can strike a good balance. If it's all nickel and dime diamonds in the rough and bargain basement, I'll be both flummoxed and frustrated ...his approach so far has been parsimonious (with both trades and FA). I've been assuming that was to duck under the tax threshold and rebuild the farm. That is - that it was an interstitial approach, and not a modus operandi. Beginning to worry I was wrong.
"Weren't able to" implies that they tried and failed. There really is no evidence that they had much interest in signing either at anything close to what they eventually got.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
15,579
Maine
"Weren't able to" implies that they tried and failed. There really is no evidence that they had much interest in signing either at anything close to what they eventually got.
The other possibility is that they had interest in one or both but the feeling wasn't mutual. Not every player wants to come to/stay in Boston, at least not without extracting a premium that the Sox are probably wise not to pay. (frankly, that is usually how they end up with David Price/Carl Crawford type deals)

Bottom line, really, is that every player that goes elsewhere doesn't do so because Red Sox management fucked up, even when we (and they) think he'd be a good fit.
 

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
1,305
Chicago, IL
They just went to the ALCS and are 3 years removed from their 4th championship under this ownership group.

What possible evidence is there that they are trying to do anything other than win championships?

It’s November and they’ve got lots of payroll flexibility and a commitment to winning. Let’s judge the Wacha signing in the context of everything that happens between now and when the opening day roster is set. He’s not the centerpiece of the off-season plan.
Did I say they weren't trying to win championships? You doth infer too much, kind sir (cuz I didn't say that). The Rays are trying to win championships and so are the As. My fear is Bloom will be averse to signing any big ticket FA, preferring to build a winning team a la the Tampa Bay way.

Also, I said, specifically, that "I worry I am wrong" .... I didn't make any declarative/conclusive statements ... gosh, folks are so ready to fight around here. I come in peace, it's the holidays and all that ....
 

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
1,305
Chicago, IL
This is correct.

Do-somethingism is bad. Handwringing over "missing out" on signing a long-term deal with a 96 ERA+ 4.3 FIP guy is also bad.

When meh is what's out there, grabbing some meh at low dollars and commitment is smart. Locking up years of meh is not smart.
This makes sense, but there's a distance between Matz and Wacha ....
 

BringBackMo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
226
Like, is there that much do a difference between Steven Matz and Michael Wacha?
Matz is 30 with a career FIP of 4.34, 3 seasons of 150+ innings. Wacha is 30 with a career FIP of 4.07, 2 seasons of 150+ innings. Granted, Matz was quite a bit better last year but I’m not sure these guys are all that different and frankly I think that’s how the Sox are approaching the market. Matz, Heaney, Wacha, Richards, etc…these guys are fairly similar so the smaller commitment you can make, the better.
Very well said. Wacha is at least a decent bet to approximate Matz’s production at a fraction of the overall cost, which seems like a smart approach when it comes to what will probably end up as one of the lower-tier pitching acquisitions the Sox make this off-season.
 

Delicious Sponge

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
1,198
Boston
Did I say they weren't trying to win championships? You doth infer too much, kind sir (cuz I didn't say that). The Rays are trying to win championships and so are the As. My fear is Bloom will be averse to signing any big ticket FA, preferring to build a winning team a la the Tampa Bay way.

Also, I said, specifically, that "I worry I am wrong" .... I didn't make any declarative/conclusive statements ... gosh, folks are so ready to fight around here. I come in peace, it's the holidays and all that ....
Oh I’m definitely not trying to argue. You mentioned ticket prices, which sounded very much like you thought they were skimping on payroll in order to make more money. It’ll all turn out good, I’m psyched for what they’re going to put on the field in 2022.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Did I say they weren't trying to win championships? You doth infer too much, kind sir (cuz I didn't say that). The Rays are trying to win championships and so are the As. My fear is Bloom will be averse to signing any big ticket FA, preferring to build a winning team a la the Tampa Bay way.

Also, I said, specifically, that "I worry I am wrong" .... I didn't make any declarative/conclusive statements ... gosh, folks are so ready to fight around here. I come in peace, it's the holidays and all that ....
I will be highly disappointed if Bloom sticks exclusively to this approach. If they don't put up the money for some significant players it starts becoming legitimate to question ticket prices. I still think Bloom et all will sign some bigger ticket items, but color me concerned that both ERod and Matz could have been signed at reasonable deals and the Red Sox weren't able to land either.

Of course gorging on FAs isn't they way to go either, but I hope Bloom can strike a good balance. If it's all nickel and dime diamonds in the rough and bargain basement, I'll be both flummoxed and frustrated ...his approach so far has been parsimonious (with both trades and FA). I've been assuming that was to duck under the tax threshold and rebuild the farm. That is - that it was an interstitial approach, and not a modus operandi. Beginning to worry I was wrong.
 

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
1,305
Chicago, IL
oy yoy yoy ....
1. I said "IF THEY .." that ain't conclusive/declarative
2. My point was not they were conning the fans and not trying to win, but that if they didn't use everything in their arsenal to build a winning team and the player payroll kept going down, then maybe they shouldn't charge the highest ticket prices in baseball ... Of course I think they want to win, BUT --
3. So far - SO FAR - doesn't predict the future - but so far, Bloom has been gun-shy so to speak. Hasn't wanted to spend prospects or money. Not one of the big contracts on the team was given by Bloom. As I said, I've been assuming this has been an interstitial approach, but lately I've begun to worry that he's just super duper cautious. Maybe overly so. In a sense, Cherington was the same way, until (or so it seemed) he got the mandate from above to sign some guys (and he then promptly signed the wrong ones) ....
4. Even if Bloom is characterologically too cautious, it doesn't mean he doesn't want to build a winner ... he just wants to do it without spending money a la TB and Oakland. I believe he wants to win.
5. But we shall see about Bloom. I like him. He might hit the gas soon. Wasn't condemning him, just voicing my fan concerns ...
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
33,024
Southwestern CT
Until they begin awarding style points for spending like a drunken Mets owner, I'm not going to worry about Bloom missing out on the "big contracts." I'm worried about how the team on the field performs.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
2,495
We’ve been over Wacha’s nice little finish, but FWIW:
Gausman, last 8 games (46 IP): 3.39 FIP
Wacha, last 8 games (39.1 IP): 3.14 FIP

There’s obviously much more to do but having the security and upside of Wacha at 1/$7 is looking increasingly good to me.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
oy yoy yoy ....
1. I said "IF THEY .." that ain't conclusive/declarative
2. My point was not they were conning the fans and not trying to win, but that if they didn't use everything in their arsenal to build a winning team and the player payroll kept going down, then maybe they shouldn't charge the highest ticket prices in baseball ... Of course I think they want to win, BUT --
3. So far - SO FAR - doesn't predict the future - but so far, Bloom has been gun-shy so to speak. Hasn't wanted to spend prospects or money. Not one of the big contracts on the team was given by Bloom. As I said, I've been assuming this has been an interstitial approach, but lately I've begun to worry that he's just super duper cautious. Maybe overly so. In a sense, Cherington was the same way, until (or so it seemed) he got the mandate from above to sign some guys (and he then promptly signed the wrong ones) ....
4. Even if Bloom is characterologically too cautious, it doesn't mean he doesn't want to build a winner ... he just wants to do it without spending money a la TB and Oakland. I believe he wants to win.
5. But we shall see about Bloom. I like him. He might hit the gas soon. Wasn't condemning him, just voicing my fan concerns ...
If they do or don't remains to be seen, but you have indeed concluded that IF THEY don't spend then it becomes legitimate to question ticket prices. While I may not agree with your entire post, this is the only part I chose to question because IMO it's just stupid. Also IMO you need to have a bit of faith in Bloom. You're all over the place when it comes to him. If you don't believe me, go back and read your posts leading up to and after the trade deadline.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
2,615
Isn’t the 8 game sample at the end of the season kind of silly, esp. since we are conveniently excluding the playoffs when Wacha got lit up? He’s a veteran pitcher who has been around a long time, he’s surely had really good and really bad 40 inning samples.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
True enough, but eventually you need to sign top talent ...
Yes eventually, but in the mean time Kike and Whitlock were two outstanding signings. Renfroe wasn't half bad either. Perhaps not what most see as top talent but three damn good signings. Another month of Schwarber would have been nice, but remind me again of what he cost? Robles... color me disappointed that he was the best arm that the Sox got at the deadline, but he had his moments. Iglesias anyone? Hell, even Garrett Richards had moments of brilliance when the Sox needed it most.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
22,498
Wacha has been rather candid in his interviews so far, and from those it sounds like one thing the Red Sox like about him is his coachability:



https://www.audacy.com/weei/sports/red-sox/why-the-red-sox-are-seeing-the-best-in-michael-wacha?fbclid=IwAR1JtzdRyKAB0xr3vTYpnNhTaDv9fD6_kA521VIccHiDWT8n8fVJdNWImU4

This is likely tied to his willingness to junk the cutter, but may speak to something broader about the team's effort to look for the kinds of players willing to adapt to the system.
Maybe this is why they valued Pivetta and why Pivetta worked out.

I will be highly disappointed if Bloom sticks exclusively to this approach. If they don't put up the money for some significant players it starts becoming legitimate to question ticket prices.
I'm not sure what you mean by "significant players," other than 8 or 9 figure contracts.
The ticket price/spending dichotomy makes people feel good. But prices are mostly a function of demand, not payroll. And demand is mostly a function of success.

Of course gorging on FAs isn't they way to go either, but I hope Bloom can strike a good balance. If it's all nickel and dime diamonds in the rough and bargain basement, I'll be both flummoxed and frustrated ...his approach so far has been parsimonious (with both trades and FA). I've been assuming that was to duck under the tax threshold and rebuild the farm. That is - that it was an interstitial approach, and not a modus operandi. Beginning to worry I was wrong.
Assuming this was actually "his approach" last year and not just your post hoc description of what happened, then it was a pretty good approach.

The premature concern is baffling. I hope Bloom isn't arrested for stealing from the Jimmy Fund. I will be disappointed if he is.
 
Last edited:

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
2,495
Isn’t the 8 game sample at the end of the season kind of silly, esp. since we are conveniently excluding the playoffs when Wacha got lit up? He’s a veteran pitcher who has been around a long time, he’s surely had really good and really bad 40 inning samples.
The 8-game sample is more relevant than other stretches because he revamped his arsenal and ditched a cutter that was getting lit up. There’s much written on him changing up his repertoire.

Yeah, Devers and Kiké ended up smoking him pretty good in that playoff game, but Wacha was fairly unlucky too, giving up an infield single to Verdugo and a Vaz groundball single while also striking out Bogaerts and Schwarber.
 
Last edited:

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
3,733
The 8-game sample is more relevant than other stretches because he revamped his arsenal and ditched a cutter that was getting lit up. There’s much written on him changing up his repertoire.

Yeah, Devers and Kiké ended up smoking him pretty good in that playoff game, but Wacha was fairly unlucky too, giving up an infield single to Verdugo and a Vaz groundball single while also striking out Bogaerts and Schwarber.
I generally don't see what the problem is with Wacha at $7m of not my money. But I get that there's a lot of discomfort with the "rotation" being Sale, Eovaldi and Pivetta... and then maybe or maybe not Whitlock, Houck, and Wacha. But combined, Sale and Eovaldi make almost $50m per season. Adding another likely $20M per season starter is frightening if it's a long term deal (more than 2 years).
As I've posted... I think it's more likely Bloom will look for someone around $15 that won't make the majority of SoSH happy.... like Kershaw. But I also suspect that Bloom will also add one of either Houck or Whitlock to the rotation and hope for the best. And I think I'll be okay with this.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
6,439
around the way
True enough, but eventually you need to sign top talent ...
Yes. And when top talent at a position of need is available, we can judge Bloom on the results. The "top talent available" isn't always top talent.

This is an ownership group that has signed huge contracts before and won four titles. The burden of proof that they're serious about contending is not really on them imo.
 
Last edited:

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
58,136
I would guess that with Scherzer gone, Kershaw will be a lock to go back to the Dodgers.
 

Jack Rabbit Slim

Member
SoSH Member
May 19, 2010
1,146
I generally don't see what the problem is with Wacha at $7m of not my money. But I get that there's a lot of discomfort with the "rotation" being Sale, Eovaldi and Pivetta... and then maybe or maybe not Whitlock, Houck, and Wacha. But combined, Sale and Eovaldi make almost $50m per season. Adding another likely $20M per season starter is frightening if it's a long term deal (more than 2 years).
As I've posted... I think it's more likely Bloom will look for someone around $15 that won't make the majority of SoSH happy.... like Kershaw. But I also suspect that Bloom will also add one of either Houck or Whitlock to the rotation and hope for the best. And I think I'll be okay with this.
Why? Eovaldi is in the last year of his deal so if they were to sign someone in the $20M AAV range, it would likely be as his eventual replacement moving forward. If Henry and Bloom are ok going over the luxury tax threshold for one year, why would any fan be "frightened" by it?
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
15,579
Maine
Why? Eovaldi is in the last year of his deal so if they were to sign someone in the $20M AAV range, it would likely be as his eventual replacement moving forward. If Henry and Bloom are ok going over the luxury tax threshold for one year, why would any fan be "frightened" by it?
Because it's not about the money spent, it's what/who it's spent on. Who's left in free agency that we and they (Henry and Bloom) should feel confident paying $20M+ a year for the next 3-4 years? I think the list begins and ends with Marcus Stroman, and given the way the market is going, he may just be looking at $25M+ AAV when it's all said and done. Carlos Rodon may be on the radar as well, but given his track record of health, I don't know how comfortable any one should feel about giving him a long term deal. My hope at the start of the winter was Rodon's market would be soft and they might be able to steal him for a lower rate, but the last five days have kinda disabused me of that.
 

Jack Rabbit Slim

Member
SoSH Member
May 19, 2010
1,146
Because it's not about the money spent, it's what/who it's spent on. Who's left in free agency that we and they (Henry and Bloom) should feel confident paying $20M+ a year for the next 3-4 years? I think the list begins and ends with Marcus Stroman, and given the way the market is going, he may just be looking at $25M+ AAV when it's all said and done. Carlos Rodon may be on the radar as well, but given his track record of health, I don't know how comfortable any one should feel about giving him a long term deal. My hope at the start of the winter was Rodon's market would be soft and they might be able to steal him for a lower rate, but the last five days have kinda disabused me of that.
No where in my post did I advocate for spending regardless of the player. The statement was that spending a combined $70M per on 3 pitchers would be frightening, which is probably true if it was locked in for 5 years but as I pointed out this would not be the case.

Signing Stroman and doing it for 1 year with the expectation of Eovaldi leaving after is a perfectly reasonable approach to the offseason. Rodon seems more like a Plan B if Stroman goes for more than like $110M.
 
Last edited:

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
2,615
I believe he meant that you’d only be spending $70M on three starters for a year because Eovaldi is a FA after next year and Sale can opt out.
 

Brianish

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2008
5,140
I took it to mean signing Stroman and [going over the luxury tax threshold] for one year.