Whether, in some sort of objective reality, one is a contender or not is besides the point. The real point is what is the GM telling ownership.
Why the Red Sox may be missing a chance to accelerate their build (Speier Article)
- Thread starter SouthernBoSox
- Start date
The 3 WC team era has only been two years though right? And in 2023 the Diamondbacks were a game or so out of the 3rd WC around the trade deadline, and a week before the 2022 deadline the Phillies were a couple games out (I think Ive mentioned it before but a few phillies fans in my life wanted DD fired around that time). So I do wonder if longer term we do see a bit of a shift in team building given the 3rd wild car slot. I do agree there is a case by case approach to be made- the 2022 phillies were an average team but with a pair of frontline starters in Nola and Wheeler; as were the Dbacks with Gallen and Kelley. Whereas the red sox were an average team around the trade deadline with no duo nearly as "frontline" as the two pairs I just mentioned.
Right. I can understand Bloom thinking the team was a contender (personally I didn't but they were close enough to the Wild Card to be a playoff contender).
The issue is that, in reality, the team didn't end up close to contention and that probably was a big reason why Bloom is no longer working for the Red Sox.
BUT...... again, it's an assesment situation, rather than a "3 games out of last WC spot and you're not competitive" situation.... the Sox had Chris Sale returning. That's something that any team in competition would have been pretty hopeful about. Paxton was looking really good. Bello was looking good. The bullpen was solid with the way Pivetta was contributing. Houck and Whitlock were both on their way back. The shitty middle infield defense was getting plugged by Story returning. There was plenty to be optimistic about and I know for 100% that a lot of posters here felt that IF the Sox could get in, they were actually built to be a playoff team more than a regular season team. So if Bloom dealt for Montgomery that would have provided them with a rotation absolutely capable of going toe to toe against anyone. I was cautiously optimistic and would have pushed for adding Montgomery rather than selling..... or doing nothing. But even doing nothing, as pointed out above... the team had so many key players returning and were THREE games out... AND had a playoff roster IMO. Everyone claiming that they knew the team was garbage is seriously revisionist.
I still think the biggest flop was '22, not last season.
And again... I also think that ownership had contraints on how they wanted the team to be built/cost post Mookie which was sort of a conservative luck/hope based contention. I was expecting to see that change and for them to get two major new starters which would put them as a 90-92 win team. They're just one damn Montgomery/Snell away from that and it seems so obvious I can't understand what the issue is other than Henry is being a cheap PoS
Assuming you mean this in the colloquial term of revisionist history, this just isn't fair to say.
I can't speak for "everyone" claiming it, but I can speak for myself. I spent last off-season saying the pitching wasn't good enough (I also said the same about the middle of the order) and the way they were going about building the rotation wasn't good enough. My prediction for the season reflected those beliefs.
Once the idea of trade deadline approach came up, I continued to say that they didn't have enough pitching, and they should (in order) 1) trade really good prospects for top half starting pitchers with term, and if they couldn't / wouldn't do that they should b) trade "meh" prospects for rentals of starting pitching and if they couldn't / wouldn't do that then they should c) sell and sell hard because what they had wasn't good enough and wouldn't be close to good enough once teams close to them started adding.
I said that all off-season, and all summer.
Feel free to say I got lucky, or that "a broken clock is right twice a day" or whatever else, but to say it's revisionist (or wasn't brought up as a criticism in real time without any benefit of hindsight) isn't fair.
*I'm saying the exact same thing about this year's pitching, and I expect a similar outcome in terms of wins and losses. But that's for a later thread.
What do you mean they had a playoff roster? The Red Sox did not have the top end pitching to seriously be considered a contender last year.
That said I think the board was pretty mixed about either going for it or trade the assets. The only revisionists were the hardcore Bloomers who then say staying the course was the right move.
"However, if they're not willing or able to do at least that, then I'd certainly change my vote to "sell, sell, sell."
The Yankees and Houston both have more "coming back" than the Sox do, so what the Sox have in-house isn't enough, at least in my opinion."
I don't want to get into name calling, but fwiw, this was my post the day this went up (see above).
The "at least that" was in regards to getting at minimum some back of the rotation help and a good middle infielder because, what they had in house and coming back wasn't in my opinion good enough. It's not revisionist, it's not the benefit of hindsight. Nothing like that, that is how I felt about the team on 7/24/2023. I said they needed to make additions and if not, they needed to "sell, sell, sell." They didn't do either of those things, and what they had wasn't close to good enough - which wasn't a surprise to me at all, it's exactly what I expected to happen.
Add me to the list of people who thought the Sox were going nowhere last year. At no point did I think the roster was even close to contending for a World Series, even at their high point in July. The pitching and defense were just not nearly good enough... it felt highly obvious to me, and certainly many others. I might have voted "stand pat" on that poll, not because I thought they were in good shape, but because I didn't think there was much of value to sell. I do not think 267 people here thought the team was good enough to make a deep playoff run, even if they voted for "stand pat."
Does FanDuel have the option to bet on a team "not to make the playoffs." Not that I bet or endorse it, but if I did, I'd say the only things I'd seen on DraftKings were win totals on over/under basis and not on making it to the playoffs or not.
Using the 2024 Red Sox and their current Vegas O/U of 80.5 wins, I'm not nearly confident enough in saying the difference between them winning 79 games or 82. I'd be VERY confident in betting on them missing the playoffs, however. Though I'm firmly in the camp of 76 wins or 82 wins doesn't matter a single iota to me, but I guess I'd personally prefer to be at like 70 wins to make selling so painfully obvious that they'd have to do it.
DK has it. Right now the Sox are -310 to not make the playoffs…so basically a 75% chance they don’t make it.
Not that I endorse gambling, but if I did, thanks for that @6-5 Sadler, I didn't think there were odds like that.
In layman's terms that would hypothetically mean a $75 bet to not make the playoffs would pay out $100. Or so I've heard.
In layman's terms that would hypothetically mean a $75 bet to not make the playoffs would pay out $100. Or so I've heard.
Why would any Red Sox fan bet against his own team?
I think that's the thing that a lot of people miss when you read folks (like me, I suppose) write about how the Red Sox aren't good. It doesn't make me happy to write that the Sox are going to be bad this year. I'm not hoping for that. Actually I'm hoping that I'm wrong--though I don't think I'm going to be. But at the same time I have a hard time looking at a team that's full of a lot of holes (most of them starting pitcher sized) and saying, "Yeah, they're going to be awesome this year!"
I haven't been 10-years-old in a long time.
Insurance bets @John Marzano Olympic Hero. Might as well get "something" for the continual punch to the nuts that is the Red Sox approach to rotation building circa 2020 - present.
Or, put another way, if I punt $75 for myself to be incredibly wrong and the Sox to go out an sign Jordan Montgomery tomorrow (and have a pretty good chance to make the playoffs, I'd be VERY happy to punt $75 for that).
FWIW, I really don't have any issue with people saying "I don't think they should have sold because X, Y, Z." Totally valid and it's not like we can sit here and say someone's opinion is wrong. What I bristle at is saying that it's impossible to have seen any other outcome or predicted any other outcome so what could they have done? Especially if one was citing those exact flaws with the team (starting pitching, core middle of the order RH bat) all along.
Im pretty bad at finding posts from a year ago but the team had a winning record against other playoff teams. They’d lose focus (Cora!) and drop a deuce against bad teams. They had Sale returning. Houck and Whitlock. Story. It’s taking a chance on Sale being healthy and hoping that things turn out right but like I said lots of posters here looked at the team and said…. “This is a team built to compete in the playoffs- a healthy Sale, Paxton, Bello compares to any other rotation… we have Houck and Whitlock coming in to shut down the pen… the offense, while streaky is top notch. IF they can squeeze into the playoffs, they’re more dangerous than they seem”.
They weren’t built for the long season but short playoffs…. And damnit!….. this was the opinion of over half the board here!
The returning players barely contributed or were terrible and the guys that were playing well collapsed.
Or, more realistically, what ownership is telling the GM. It's certainly well within the realm of possibility that Bloom told Henry that they aren't serious contenders and ownership told him he can't sell because they didn't want to lose ticket sales or TV ratings (among other possibilities). And it may have been at least part of the reason Bloom is gone, that difference of opinion.
You'd have to bet $310 to win $100 on a -310.