What does 2023 look like?

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
36,224
Deep inside Muppet Labs
I never said it was "all bad luck". So why don't we start with an accurate framing of the conversation, eh?
You said the poor divisional record was random. Answer the question please.

From what I'm reading, either you believe that this team was put together well and that bad luck destroyed it, or you believe that it wasn't put together well and needs to be restructured. And if it's the latter, what the heck are we arguing about?
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
25,437
It's certainly a mix of both randomness and talent. Replay the season 20 times with the exact same rosters, and the Sox probably end up a more even distribution between AL East and the rest of the league, although overall win total is still probably in the mid-to-high 70's.

But a big part of the team's struggles against AL East opponents is reflective of the talent. Yankees, Blue Jays, and Rays all have better substantially lineups, pitching rotations, and bullpens than the Red Sox, and in some cases the talent gap is quite large. Fix the talent gap and the AL East record would undoubtedly improve.
Right. I fully agree. Those teams were better than Boston this year. No question about it. So the solution: build a better team.

It's not like there's anything to "figure out" though, like there's some secret spell that the AL East has over Boston, and if only the Sox could decode things, they'd be AL East champs. They had a worse team that suffered some of the worst injury luck in the league, and came up small in some big moments against those teams. Yet amazingly, they played GREAT against the other three AL playoff teams.

Of course there's some "luck" or "randomness" or whatever similar term we want to use, involved here, contra SJH.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
25,437
You said the poor divisional record was random. Answer the question please.
I've said:

It's not totally random because these aren't fair dice. These are people playing a sport. But it's more random than you think
Of course they failed against the AL East. That's not in dispute. But they kicked ass against the other top AL teams, including the best team in the AL, Houston.

It's fine if you don't accept that there's some randomness to it, but you haven't remotely demonstrated (a) why it's not more random than you think, and (b) what, if anything, the Sox can ACTUALLY do about it, other than by putting together a better team.
Right. I fully agree. Those teams were better than Boston this year. No question about it. So the solution: build a better team.
...
Of course there's some "luck" or "randomness" or whatever similar term we want to use, involved here, contra SJH.
I never said it was all random. So until you properly frame the conversation, I'm not answering anything.
 

jezza1918

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
2,997
South Dartmouth, MA
You weren't answering anything anyway. You're playing semantics.

I'm all done here. This is pointless.
For the record (if you were indeed trying to make a point), I view pretty much everything sports related as a spectrum - and in this case the spectrum was "random crappy play vs al east" to "terrible team prep, scouting, etc vs al east." At start of the discussion I was closer to the random side of the spectrum. While you havent convinced me its all the way to the other side, I have moved closer to that side as a result of this discussion. So it hasnt been pointless on my end.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
@BaseballJones, let me ask you this:

If this divisional record is all bad luck, do you think that the Sox should run it back in 2023 with what they have now and see if the results change?
A team can have bad luck and also be bad. I'd guess if you ran this season in a simulator over and over, the team would usually end up around 74-78 wins, but their divisional record wouldn't be as terrible.

Bad luck isn't exclusive to good baseball teams. Do people really think if we played this season over 10 times, the Red Sox would finish 25-8 against the AL west every time? By far the best record against that division? Do we think the Sox true winning % vs the AL West is 123-39 over 162 games? Were the Sox really well prepared against the West?

Or is 33 games not enough of a sample size to conclude anything at all while 76 is enough to make concrete conclusions?

If you think the Red Sox did something so drastically wrong against the AL East and it's not just bad luck and sample size, will you also admit that you think they did something incredibly right against the AL West? Or does it not work like that because reasons?
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
13,244
Of course they failed against the AL East. That's not in dispute. But they kicked ass against the other top AL teams, including the best team in the AL, Houston.

It's fine if you don't accept that there's some randomness to it, but you haven't remotely demonstrated (a) why it's not more random than you think, and (b) what, if anything, the Sox can ACTUALLY do about it, other than by putting together a better team.
The Mariners and Indians were pretty much mediocre teams when the Sox played them, though, weren’t they? They ended up being good (in the opposite of how the Sox looked good then but ended up being bad).

I think the point about the Sox starting a lot of mediocre pitchers in that poor stretch has merit - but their one consistently healthy pitcher, Pivetta was 1-8 against the AL East.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,764
Over the course of 162 game season, there will be an element of randomness to a team's record against specific opponents, and there is a chance of clustering as well, as divisional alignments are essentially arbitrary.

Bloom should look first to improving the talent on this 78-win team rather than worry about how to improve against specific opponents.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
You said the poor divisional record was random. Answer the question please.

From what I'm reading, either you believe that this team was put together well and that bad luck destroyed it, or you believe that it wasn't put together well and needs to be restructured. And if it's the latter, what the heck are we arguing about?
You pick 2 extreme choices on the spectrum and tell him to pick one, even though neither one represents his position. Then you accuse him of being ridiculous and playing semantics because he doesn't want to pick one of your 2 extreme stances.

Good message boarding.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
17,368
Solution:

1) Get better/healthier players.
2) Play 24 less games against the AL East.
3) Trade Nick Pivetta.
4) ???
5) Profit.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
25,437
For the record (if you were indeed trying to make a point), I view pretty much everything sports related as a spectrum - and in this case the spectrum was "random crappy play vs al east" to "terrible team prep, scouting, etc vs al east." At start of the discussion I was closer to the random side of the spectrum. While you havent convinced me its all the way to the other side, I have moved closer to that side as a result of this discussion. So it hasnt been pointless on my end.
In 2021 the Sox were 28-29 (.491) against Tor/TB/NY.
In 2022 the Sox were 16-41 (.281) against Tor/TB/NY.

In 2021 the Sox were 10-10 (.500) against Cle/Sea/Hou.
In 2022 the Sox were 15-5 (.750) against Cle/Sea/Hou. (and Cle/Sea/Hou were *ALL* better in 2022 than 2021, while Boston was *worse* in 2022 compared to 2021!)

The question isn't whether Boston is a worse team than Tor/TB/NY. It's how to explain this specific phenomenon - that they got absolutely crushed by those three teams, while playing great against the other top 3 teams in the AL, and also while playing a LOT better against the 3 AL East teams in 2021.

SJH and I agree that the Sox weren't good this year. He also thinks (apparently) that there's some secret that the Sox haven't figured out that's preventing them from playing well against these AL East teams, whereas I think it's mainly that (a) they're a worse team, and (b) there's a certain amount of randomness, that explains not only their record against these AL East teams, but also against the other 3 top AL teams over the past couple of years.

And so for me, the solution is building a much better baseball team. For SJH it appears to be that PLUS some other secret that they need to figure out. I'm saying that the "secret" idea (not his word, but when he says that the Sox need to figure out why they suck against the AL East and then suggests scouting, etc., it seems to indicate that they just don't understand what it takes to beat these teams other than just being BETTER) has little merit, and that SJH has not remotely demonstrated his case.

But hey, YMMV.
 

Archer1979

shazowies
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,202
Right Here
Sox had a 4 - 2 record against Houston this year... and were outscored. Granted its a small sample size but the pythagorean theorem would suggest that Houston would have had a better record against the Sox based on run differential. So, I would suggest that the Sox were beneficiaries of either a small sample size or luck. In other words, hardly an ass-kicking. Taken a step further, if they played Houston as many times as they played NY, Balt, Toronto, or TB, I would be stunned if the Sox were .500, much less .667 against Houston.

With many more games against the AL East, small sample size is somewhat muted. Granted I haven't done the math on the run differential against the AL East, but they got shellacked simply because the Sox were generally poor against good teams.

Lost in this is that their AL East record could have been three games worse if TB wasn't getting ready for the playoffs.

To kind of quote Tuna... their record is what it says they were.
 

jezza1918

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
2,997
South Dartmouth, MA
In 2021 the Sox were 28-29 (.491) against Tor/TB/NY.
In 2022 the Sox were 16-41 (.281) against Tor/TB/NY.

In 2021 the Sox were 10-10 (.500) against Cle/Sea/Hou.
In 2022 the Sox were 15-5 (.750) against Cle/Sea/Hou. (and Cle/Sea/Hou were *ALL* better in 2022 than 2021, while Boston was *worse* in 2022 compared to 2021!)

The question isn't whether Boston is a worse team than Tor/TB/NY. It's how to explain this specific phenomenon - that they got absolutely crushed by those three teams, while playing great against the other top 3 teams in the AL, and also while playing a LOT better against the 3 AL East teams in 2021.

SJH and I agree that the Sox weren't good this year. He also thinks (apparently) that there's some secret that the Sox haven't figured out that's preventing them from playing well against these AL East teams, whereas I think it's mainly that (a) they're a worse team, and (b) there's a certain amount of randomness, that explains not only their record against these AL East teams, but also against the other 3 top AL teams over the past couple of years.

And so for me, the solution is building a much better baseball team. For SJH it appears to be that PLUS some other secret that they need to figure out. I'm saying that the "secret" idea (not his word, but when he says that the Sox need to figure out why they suck against the AL East and then suggests scouting, etc., it seems to indicate that they just don't understand what it takes to beat these teams other than just being BETTER) has little merit, and that SJH has not remotely demonstrated his case.

But hey, YMMV.
I mean if I was hypothetically forced to pick a your side or SJH side on this particular debate, Id pick your side. As I think my previous posts indicate. So you don't need to convince me of anything. The fact that his posts caused me to ponder a bit and move myself a little along my made up spectrum doesnt change the fact that I completely agree that your bolded is really the only thing that matters...especially in a thread about 2023.
 

ponch73

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jun 14, 2006
880
Stumptown via Chelmsford
Well then how did they play so well against the three other AL playoff teams:

Houston (106-56): 4-2
Cleveland (92-70): 5-2
Seattle (90-72): 6-1

Those three teams went a combined 288-198 (.593) and the Sox beat up on them to the tune of 15-5.



I mean, do you think they just happened to scout those other three top AL teams really well but fail to scout the three leading AL East teams?



You sure about that?

I mean, last year compared to this year against those six teams:

Opp: 2021 / 2022
NY: 10-9 / 6-13
Tor: 10-9 / 3-16
TB: 8-11 / 7-12
Hou: 2-5 / 4-2
Sea: 4-3 / 6-1
Cle: 4-2 / 5-2

Did the Sox' scouting department do pretty well last year against NY and Tor but just decided not to show up this year? Did the Sox' scouting department do poorly last year against Houston but really stepped it up this year against them? What is Boston's secret against Seattle?

Just saying it wasn't random isn't an argument. You might be right that it's not random, but you aren't exactly convincing here. You haven't shown WHY it's not random.
Why is the Red Sox record against the AL East somewhat random whereas their record in a smaller sample size against the other three AL playoff teams meaningful?

Isn't it more likely that the Red Sox record against the AL East represents a significant talent gap (compounded by injuries) whereas the 15-5 record against HOU/CLE/SEA represents some luck? Or, perhaps, the CLE/SEA portion of the non-AL East playoff trifecta benefited mightily from weak divisional competition, and therefore, isn't a good benchmark for assessing the Red Sox.
 
Last edited:

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
47,048
Why is the Red Sox record against the AL East somewhat random whereas their record in a smaller sample size against the other three AL playoff teams insightful?

Isn't it more likely that the Red Sox record against the AL East represents a significant talent gap (compounded by injuries) whereas the 15-5 record against HOU/CLE/SEA represents some luck?
On the other side of the coin, the other divisions have been dogshit save for one or two teams, and (I am looking at you AL central) then when the Playoffs begin they get destroyed by whatever team they are facing...

So many of those teams that ran away with the AL central did so with many terrible teams within the AL central for example..

With the new balanced schedule thats not the case anymore (thankfully)
 
Last edited:

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
25,437
Why is the Red Sox record against the AL East somewhat random whereas their record in a smaller sample size against the other three AL playoff teams insightful?
It's not. There's an element of randomness to all this. Scheduling, injuries, getting the key hit with guys in scoring position at key moments, etc.

Isn't it more likely that the Red Sox record against the AL East represents a significant talent gap (compounded by injuries) whereas the 15-5 record against HOU/CLE/SEA represents some luck?
Yes.

But in NO way is the talent gap between NY/TB/Tor and Boston THAT big. A winning percentage of .281 against those three teams cannot be explained simply by the talent gap, not in the major leagues.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
25,437
A team can have bad luck and also be bad. I'd guess if you ran this season in a simulator over and over, the team would usually end up around 74-78 wins, but their divisional record wouldn't be as terrible.
I agree, unless you ran a simulator and there weren't the massive number of injuries. They weren't very good this year. We all agree on that.

Bad luck isn't exclusive to good baseball teams. Do people really think if we played this season over 10 times, the Red Sox would finish 25-8 against the AL west every time? By far the best record against that division? Do we think the Sox true winning % vs the AL West is 123-39 over 162 games? Were the Sox really well prepared against the West?
No. There's some randomness to the Sox' good record against the AL West too. Maybe more, given that it's a smaller sample size.

Or is 33 games not enough of a sample size to conclude anything at all while 76 is enough to make concrete conclusions?
Well, the more games, the better conclusions you can draw.

If you think the Red Sox did something so drastically wrong against the AL East and it's not just bad luck and sample size, will you also admit that you think they did something incredibly right against the AL West? Or does it not work like that because reasons?
That's a good question meant for someone else, I think.
 

ponch73

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jun 14, 2006
880
Stumptown via Chelmsford
But in NO way is the talent gap between NY/TB/Tor and Boston THAT big. A winning percentage of .281 against those three teams cannot be explained simply by the talent gap, not in the major leagues.
[/QUOTE]

Just out of curiosity here (not trying to be argumentative, but respectfully provocative) why can't the winning percentage be explained simply by the talent gap and injuries?

Boston's pitching staff gave up 787 runs (2nd worst in the AL behind KC and 6th worst in MLB behind KC, CIN, PIT, WAS, and COL). No one else in the AL East gave up 700 runs. The Yankees and Toronto scored the most runs in the AL. As a result, we had the worst run differential in the division.

I could see a point that our record against TB and BAL might not be explained simply by the talent gap, but it seems pretty clear that the Yankees and Jays were a class above us.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
It's not. There's an element of randomness to all this. Scheduling, injuries, getting the key hit with guys in scoring position at key moments, etc.



Yes.

But in NO way is the talent gap between NY/TB/Tor and Boston THAT big. A winning percentage of .281 against those three teams cannot be explained simply by the talent gap, not in the major leagues.
Right, just like there's no way the Sox have a 75.8% winning percentage vs the AL West.

Yes, it's more like a sample size of 76 is more meaningful than 33, but neither one is really all that meaningful. The Red Sox were a bad baseball team that got lucky against the AL West and unlucky against the AL East. All in all, it evened out to a team that's a handful of games below .500. That's what the team is. It's not good, but they aren't 117 loss bad just as they aren't 123 win good. They were a mediocre team with little upside.

edit: Just saw your other post as I was making this. We are in agreement.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Just out of curiosity here (not trying to be argumentative, but respectfully provocative) why can't the winning percentage be explained simply by the talent gap and injuries?

Boston's pitching staff gave up 787 runs (2nd worst in the AL behind KC and 6th worst in MLB behind KC, CIN, PIT, WAS, and COL). No one else in the AL East gave up 700 runs. The Yankees and Toronto scored the most runs in the AL. As a result, we had the worst run differential in the division.

I could see a point that our record against TB and BAL might not be explained simply by the talent gap, but it seems pretty clear that the Yankees and Jays were a class above us.
Do you really think this Red Sox team was one of the worst teams in the history of baseball? That's what a .281 winning percentage. If you think that is true, then it can be explained by the winning percentage. I don't think that's true.

There is a big talent gap. Injuries did play a part. But their talent level was probably closer to Baltimore's 34-42 than the 26-50 they actually posted. Bad, not historically bad.

A .342 (26-50) winning percentage is a 55-107 pace. 34-42 is a 72-90 pace. The team finished 78-84.

Those teams are a class above us, but i'ts because they have better players. It's not because the Sox don't know how to win against AL East teams. The actual product they are fielding is superior to the Red Sox product.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
25,437
Just out of curiosity here (not trying to be argumentative, but respectfully provocative) why can't the winning percentage be explained simply by the talent gap and injuries?
Well, I said that it wasn't explained by the talent gap. If you add injuries, as I know was mentioned but *I* didn't add them in when I said that this poor record couldn't be explained by the talent gap. Injuries are partly random and partly not. Like if a guy has a history of hamstring issues and goes on the IL with...a hamstring issue, then that's kind of predictable. A guy coming off TJ surgery getting drilled in the pitching hand by a line drive comebacker is not something that's predictable and is really pretty random.

So if we say that injuries were the main difference between the Sox' 2021 and 2022 seasons, then you have to ask more about what kinds of injuries happened to which players, and can that be prevented more than it was in 2022. Some might be. Others might not at all be.

Boston's pitching staff gave up 787 runs (2nd worst in the AL behind KC and 6th worst in MLB behind KC, CIN, PIT, WAS, and COL). No one else in the AL East gave up 700 runs. The Yankees and Toronto scored the most runs in the AL. As a result, we had the worst run differential in the division.

I could see a point that our record against TB and BAL might not be explained simply by the talent gap, but it seems pretty clear that the Yankees and Jays were a class above us.
[/QUOTE]

Because in baseball, the worst teams in the sport aren't THAT much worse than the best teams. Usually (not always, but usually) the best teams only beat the worst teams 2/3 of the time. I mean, Oakland, Texas, KC, LAA, and Detroit were the worst 5 teams in the AL. The Yankees did this against them this year:

Oak: 5-2
Tex: 4-3
KC: 6-1
LAA: 4-2
Det: 5-1
TOT: 24-9 (.727) - which means they played .273 against NY

Which is roughly similar to what Boston played against TB/NY/Tor. But... (1) Boston was better than those five teams, and (2) Tor and TB were worse than the Yankees, so the numbers for Boston against those teams should be much better than these five teams against NY alone.

In all honesty, the big weirdness in this year's schedule was against the Blue Jays. 3-16 against Toronto.

That's inexplicable by any sort of talent gap. That's a .158 win percentage by the Sox against Toronto.
 

Sin Duda

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
960
(B)Austin Texas
@BaseballJones, let me ask you this:

If this divisional record is all bad luck, do you think that the Sox should run it back in 2023 with what they have now and see if the results change?
I don't see anyone speaking in absolutes but you SJH. You insist it's not random, show us your work please. I know a little about statistics (for work) and there is, in fact, a tail on each end of the Gaussian / Normal /Bell Curve. Extreme non-average events do occur a small percentage of the time.

However, I also agree it needs to be investigated and fixed if possible. I just don't agree that it is definitely causal not casual.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,832
Michigan
Home run anemia aside, offense wasn’t the Red Sox’s problem this year. They scored the fourth-most highest runs/game in the AL.

NYY 4.98
TOR 4.78
HOU 4.55
BOS 4.54

The problem this year was pitching. Coincidentally, 4.54 ERA. In the AL, only KC, 4.72, was worse.
[
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Home run anemia aside, offense wasn’t the Red Sox’s problem this year. They scored the fourth-most highest runs/game in the AL.

NYY 4.98
TOR 4.78
HOU 4.55
BOS 4.54

The problem this year was pitching. Coincidentally, 4.54 ERA. In the AL, only KC, 4.72, was worse.
[
OPS+ of 102, ERA+ of 93.

league average hitting after a brutal start and below average pitching.
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
20,954
St. Louis, MO
Home run anemia aside, offense wasn’t the Red Sox’s problem this year. They scored the fourth-most highest runs/game in the AL.

NYY 4.98
TOR 4.78
HOU 4.55
BOS 4.54

The problem this year was pitching. Coincidentally, 4.54 ERA. In the AL, only KC, 4.72, was worse.
[
Sale really sunk the staff. No #1 starter will do this.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
22,117
Rogers Park
Home run anemia aside, offense wasn’t the Red Sox’s problem this year. They scored the fourth-most highest runs/game in the AL.

NYY 4.98
TOR 4.78
HOU 4.55
BOS 4.54

The problem this year was pitching. Coincidentally, 4.54 ERA. In the AL, only KC, 4.72, was worse.
It's a bit more nuanced than this, though. Here's the team's pitching splits by month:

March/April .652 OPSa, 3.32 ERA — pretty great! But a 9-13 record that reflects 7 losses from the bullpen.
May .715 OPSa, 4.44 OPSa — not as good, but a 14-14 record despite 6 more bullpen Ls.
June .666 OPSa, 3.02 ERA — elite! coincidentally, we went 20-6 this month.
July .839 OPSa, 6.30 ERA — we find out what it looks like when you pitch a AAA rotation (plus Pivetta) in the majors.
August .778 OPSa, 5.36 ERA — more of the same.
September/October .787 OPSa, 4.48 ERA.

There are a lot of factors here: the mid-season simultaneous rotation injuries took us pretty far down our depth chart for starters; the explosion-prone bullpen lost a bunch of games even in the months when the pitching staff as a whole pitched well; and we obviously faced different teams in different ballparks in different months. We probably wouldn't have put up quite the numbers we did in June if we'd had a ton of games against Toronto and New York; then again, if we had seen those teams while we actually had a functional pitching staff, we might not have had such a terrible record against them.

We had 13 bullpen losses in our first 50 games despite perfectly ordinary bullpen stats and peripherals; if the timing of HRa and strand rates had gone differently, those same stat lines could easily have produced a much better W/L record.

We clearly needed more depth in the second half, and the plan for Sale and Paxton to be the arriving cavalry didn't pan out as hoped. During the real nightmarish period in July and August, here's who started games for the Red Sox:

Pivetta (10)
Crawford (10)
Winckowski (9)
Eovaldi (6)
Bello (5)
Hill (5)
Wacha (4)
Seabold (2)
Davis (2)
Sale (2)

Brayan Bello and Kutter Crawford actually pitched pretty well from the AAA rotation, all things considered, while Winckowski and Seabold did less well. But starting 10 different pitchers in a two-month span probably isn't a great sign.
 

teddywingman

Looks like Zach Galifianakis
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2009
11,586
a basement on the hill
Brutal pitching in part because of bad luck with injuries, but also because the bullpen--which has become increasingly important in today's game--was poorly constructed. Seeing Brasier, Strahm, Sawamura, Familia, and Danish every other day?

That's just piss poor roster construction. Bloom (and his scouting) is a joke if he can't do better than that.

I'm not even including Barnes.

Someone needs to find another job.

I'm not even mentioning some of the other garbage that pitched fewer innings.

Even Kaleb Ort pitched like 30 innings this year, with an ERA (guessing) around 9.

There is a terrible inefficiency in this front office.
 
Last edited:

sean1562

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 17, 2011
3,674
What would we need to see from Casas early next season to hope for a long term extension? Is he the type of prospect we would like to see Bloom approach with a long term deal shortly after he goes on a good run? What would an early extension for Casas look like that would be a "good deal" for the Red Sox? Would we want to see a whole season of great play or could we take the risk early on next season?

edit: The same could be said for Bello. How early is too early for these guys? Do we need to see elite production before looking at extensions?
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Early next season? IMO there is nothing that Casas does early next season that would warrant a long term extension. With less than 100 MLB PAs, I don't think it's asking too much to see the 2023 season come to a close before making such decisions.
 

sean1562

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 17, 2011
3,674
Early next season? IMO there is nothing that Casas does early next season that would warrant a long term extension. With less than 100 MLB PAs, I don't think it's asking too much to see the 2023 season come to a close before making such decisions.

Yea, I think I would be hesitation to offer a 1B an early extension over a player that played good defense at a key position. Depending on what an extension for a player like Bello would look like, I think offering pitchers those kinds of early extension is also fairly risky. Albies, Acuna, Franco etc were all elite prospects with good defense in key positions which raises their floor quite a bit. Just curious to hear what you all thought about offering extensions to this new crop of prospects as they hit the majors.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
21,537
Maine
What would we need to see from Casas early next season to hope for a long term extension? Is he the type of prospect we would like to see Bloom approach with a long term deal shortly after he goes on a good run? What would an early extension for Casas look like that would be a "good deal" for the Red Sox? Would we want to see a whole season of great play or could we take the risk early on next season?

edit: The same could be said for Bello. How early is too early for these guys? Do we need to see elite production before looking at extensions?
My guess is that if either player does an extension in the next year or so, it will be of a length that takes them to age 29-30 but not much beyond. So if they signed next spring, that would be in the neighborhood of a 7-8 year deal. I imagine the minimum that buys out a year or two of free agency is probably something like 7/85 (starting in 2024).

Determining how early is too early really comes down to how long the deal would be for. I don't think there's as much risk in a 6-7 year deal now so long as it's more or less in line with what they'd probably pay on a year-to-year basis anyway.
 

absintheofmalaise

too many flowers
Dope
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2005
24,773
The gran facenda
My guess is that if either player does an extension in the next year or so, it will be of a length that takes them to age 29-30 but not much beyond. So if they signed next spring, that would be in the neighborhood of a 7-8 year deal. I imagine the minimum that buys out a year or two of free agency is probably something like 7/85 (starting in 2024).

Determining how early is too early really comes down to how long the deal would be for. I don't think there's as much risk in a 6-7 year deal now so long as it's more or less in line with what they'd probably pay on a year-to-year basis anyway.
That's similar to what the Braves extended Michael Harris for this season. He's 21 and signed an 8 year/$72 million extension with team options for 2031 and 2032. He signed that deal in August after being called up in Late May.
I'm not advocating for signing Bello and Casas, just pointing where a team did that in a players first season.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,832
Michigan
That's similar to what the Braves extended Michael Harris for this season. He's 21 and signed an 8 year/$72 million extension with team options for 2031 and 2032. He signed that deal in August after being called up in Late May.
I'm not advocating for signing Bello and Casas, just pointing where a team did that in a players first season.
If Casas is a Rookie of the Year contender next year, by all means extend him.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
21,537
Maine
That's similar to what the Braves extended Michael Harris for this season. He's 21 and signed an 8 year/$72 million extension with team options for 2031 and 2032. He signed that deal in August after being called up in Late May.
I'm not advocating for signing Bello and Casas, just pointing where a team did that in a players first season.
Yeah, all I did was make a rough projection of successful pre-arb and arb years (800K, 900K, 5M, 11M, 18M), plus ~$50M for the first two years of free agency. Anything less than that and the player is more likely to just go year-to-year until free agency.

Looking at those numbers, it's kinda incredible what Bloom was able to do to get Whitlock signed up: 4/18.75M buying out his controllable years, then options that total 2/19M for a whole package of 6/38M. Of course, there are incentives that will boost those figures if Whitlock is successful, but that could be one hell of a steal by Bloom if Whitlock is what we all hope he can be.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,422
Those long term deals for young guys aren't automatically slam dunks for the team. Agents aren't stupid, they aren't just going to give years of FA away without the team taking on some risk. What would long term deals for Cody Bellinger or Jason Heyward have ended up like? Or any number of pitchers like Chris Paddack who have a great first year and then fall apart. The 7th biggest deal on the dirt-poor Rays' book this year was 5 mil toward Evan Longoria. Do we think the Padres are already a little worried about Tatis? Which is not to say I don't want Casas or Bello signed up, but...the price has to be right. Because giving up the ability to have them on the books the next 3 years at 700K is a pretty big deal.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
Just out of curiosity here (not trying to be argumentative, but respectfully provocative) why can't the winning percentage be explained simply by the talent gap and injuries?
It can!
- They had 34 starts go to Winckowski, Crawford, Davis and Seabold. In July, when it all fell apart, their only original SP still available was Nick Pivetta.
- They played 54 different guys at some point.
- They played Franchy Cordero at five different actual fielding positions, not including the one to which he is best suited (DH). He picked up his glove and walked on the field intending to use it in 80 games.
- They gave 90 innings to Taylor Danish, Philips Valdez, Hansel Robles and Jeurys Familia. After "bullpen ace" Josh Schreiber, their next two most-used guys were Ryan Brasier and Austin Davis, with a cumulative ERA+ of 75.

They finished 8 games out of the final wild card.
 

Yo La Tengo

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
985
Those long term deals for young guys aren't automatically slam dunks for the team. Agents aren't stupid, they aren't just going to give years of FA away without the team taking on some risk. What would long term deals for Cody Bellinger or Jason Heyward have ended up like? Or any number of pitchers like Chris Paddack who have a great first year and then fall apart. The 7th biggest deal on the dirt-poor Rays' book this year was 5 mil toward Evan Longoria. Do we think the Padres are already a little worried about Tatis? Which is not to say I don't want Casas or Bello signed up, but...the price has to be right. Because giving up the ability to have them on the books the next 3 years at 700K is a pretty big deal.
I'm pretty sure the Mariners are regretting the Evan White contract at this point. (FWIW, Casas and Bello have already had more MLB success than White, who signed his deal before making it to Seattle.)
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,607
Not here
28 blown saves (out of 65 opportunities.) Second worst in AL. Eight fewer blown saves and they’d have a wildcard spot.
I think in all the wailing and gnashing of teeth, we tend to forget how close this team is to being pretty good.

If we bring back Xander, find some bullpen help, and stay healthier next year, a wild card is not only reasonable, but probable.

Of course, we don't want to stop there.

Assuming we go into the season with Hosmer at DH, we're going to have an obvious position to upgrade and a subsidized player to send back.

Sale, Bello, and Pivetta is a decent start to a rotation. Houck, Schrieber, and Whitlock is a decent start to a really good bullpen. All those rookie pitchers we had to ask too much of will be well positioned to provide the spot starts and bullpen depth they're suited to. There's a lot of ifs and maybes built in, there, but there's reason to be optimistic.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
I'm pretty sure the Mariners are regretting the Evan White contract at this point. (FWIW, Casas and Bello have already had more MLB success than White, who signed his deal before making it to Seattle.)
Why did they even give White that deal? His minor league numbers were nothing great. It's not like it was a ton of money, but still.

6/24 with 3 club options at 10, 11 and 12.5.

I would give that to Casas right now. If he sucks, so be it. 6/24? That's not going to prevent the Sox from doing anything. Having Casas locked up for 9 years/47.5m is worth the risk imo.

Hell, give it to Mayer right now too. I'm serious. 6/24 is nothing... and then 3 cheap team options with 500k buyouts each year? All day, everyday. 100 times out of 100.

edit: well, not if the clock would start on Mayer before he reached the Majors. So I guess the day he debuts.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
I think in all the wailing and gnashing of teeth, we tend to forget how close this team is to being pretty good.

If we bring back Xander, find some bullpen help, and stay healthier next year, a wild card is not only reasonable, but probable.

Of course, we don't want to stop there.

Assuming we go into the season with Hosmer at DH, we're going to have an obvious position to upgrade and a subsidized player to send back.

Sale, Bello, and Pivetta is a decent start to a rotation. Houck, Schrieber, and Whitlock is a decent start to a really good bullpen. All those rookie pitchers we had to ask too much of will be well positioned to provide the spot starts and bullpen depth they're suited to. There's a lot of ifs and maybes built in, there, but there's reason to be optimistic.
Totally agree! I have been consistently wailing and gnashing... about injuries (and some depth), but mostly because this was more or less the team that made a plausible run a year ago. They aren't far off, and probably the worst thing you can say about them is that their division is full of rapidly improving young talent, so the bar keeps getting raised. Count me out of the "Chaim sucks!" and Pete-Abe "how dare they!" conversations. If they have enough health luck to actually play guys in their actual positions where they have a chance to succeed, a lot can fall into place.