Will the real Red Sox please stand up? I repeat, will the real Red Sox please stand up?

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
39,781
I posted this in the The Red Sox ARE good. So now what? thread at the end of July, but given the arguments here on SOSH (some are arguing that Bloom's inaction at the trade deadline caused the sox to START playing bad..) others have said the sox were only had a few holes to fix etc)

below are team and individual stats broken down by Month.



The Red Sox went 13-12 in July

Team offensive stats by month

Team pitching stats by month


Individual offensive stats by month

Offense
View: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aodyA-6FZE8cfCPBQKwuxRZdcOUbfGRriseMmPffi40/edit?usp=sharing


Pitching
View: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1P5Mn69_on6QlTE5D_N85yJMSS8tWi7gtiLCiPaul8u4/edit?usp=sharing



so yah, While the Sox were in 1st for a good majority of the first half of the season, its almost as if the sox did it with smoke and mirrors as the stats above show, there were major issues both on the pitching side and on the hitting side as early as the beginning of June.

As of 8/1 Nathan Eovaldi is the only sox pitcher to have an ERA under 4 in both June and July


as of 8/1 the only Red sox batter with an OBP over .350 in June and July is Rafael Devers... thats it..

So, I think thats where the problem is. When literally only 1 of your SP and only 1 of your starting hitters are performing well in two month sample, its insane the sox were able to stay competitive for so long.

So which is the real Red Sox? the team that somehow was able to win games despite only having one "good" SP and one "good" hitter? or the team who's cracks are showing as evident today?


View: https://twitter.com/alexspeier/status/1423817304010334210
 

WheresDewey

lurker
Nov 18, 2007
77
Taiwan
This is most likely regression to the mean after outplaying their Pythag and expected outcomes in 1 run games in the first half. However, I'm hoping we see a regression to the regression soon. I'm having a hard time watching...
 

j44thor

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
9,623
Perhaps leading the league in come from behind victories and runs scored with 2 outs isn't sustainable after all.
Who knew?
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
39,781
View: https://twitter.com/SmittyOnMLB/status/1423822368150020103


And Eovaldi, who was our only consistent SP in June and July has had two horrendous starts to start the Month of August
Red Sox' Nathan Eovaldi couldn’t hold a 3-0 lead against the Rays in Tampa last Saturday and failed to hold a 2-0 lead Friday vs. the Blue Jays. He has allowed 12 earned runs in 10 innings over his past two starts as his ERA has increased from 3.49 to 4.07.
 

voidfunkt

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 14, 2006
532
/dev/null
Most of us started this season thinking this team was a mid-80s game winner with maybe wildcard aspirations. We got tremendously lucky early on and looked more like a 90-95 game winner. It was obvious in the winter and spring this team had major flaws. Here we are now, back where we originally expected to be.
 

StuckOnYouk

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
3,264
CT
In one week we will have houck, sale, and perhaps schwarber all on the major league roster. Hopefully that will give us a jolt because this collection is dead man walking.
 

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
701
Chicago, IL
I have been very critical of Bloom's deadline decisions (and lump into that sending Houck down for a start during a crucial stretch when pitching sucks, etc). I don't think Bloom's level of action, or inaction, CAUSED the team to play badly. I do think the cracks were clearly evident at the deadline and begged for reinforcements. And he didn't make them. If he made bolder decisions (and gave up more to get, say, Bryant) would the W/L results have been the same? Maybe. But it felt like he didn't try when the team clearly needed a boost entering the most crucial stretch of head-to-head division play of the year.

Might the team have experienced a little bit of a psychological let down with no one being brought in to help the cause, ready to go 7/31? Maybe. Or, conversely, might the team have been catalyzed a bit with the injection of a quality player or two? Maybe. I know this seems like voodoo thinking to some, but players are human beings, and psychological factors do have an influence on performance.

Of course it's all conjecture. We can't know. And the farm is thin.

But I've found the discussion sometimes gets framed in binary terms: either torch the farm and future to GFIN or, basically, do as much as Bloom did (flotsam relievers, and an injured slugger who's return is TBD). But there may well have been a middle ground, and I guess I wish he had pursued it. That is - this all exists on a continuum rather than a binary.

He was very conservative. And his roster decisions certainly didn't seem to help. The team remarkably had THE BEST RECORD IN THE AL on 7/29 ... that was cause, perhaps, to adjust his plan a bit, which perhaps anticipated a .500 team this year.

Interesting to think, if the team is in a similar position in July of 2022 what he will do. Because the farm will not be THAT much better a year from now. So will it be the same drill? Shit, the team won't have a surplus of minor league talent for a few years. Perhaps, then, we wait for a few years to contend again? Okay. In that case, maybe next year he either sacrifices some prospects, or becomes a seller to really add assets for future yield.

But this neutral shit sure if frustrating as fan. Downright Ainge-esque.
 

Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat

has big, douchey shoulders
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
But I've found the discussion sometimes gets framed in binary terms: either torch the farm and future to GFIN or, basically, do as much as Bloom did (flotsam relievers, and an injured slugger who's return is TBD). But there may well have been a middle ground, and I guess I wish he had pursued it. That is - this all exists on a continuum rather than a binary.
It is way more likely than not that he did pursue it. And in the end, he decided that the prices were too high, and he decided against it. That's a very likely scenario, and a totally defensible change of direction, like it or not.

Might the team have experienced a little bit of a psychological let down with no one being brought in to help the cause, ready to go 7/31? Maybe. Or, conversely, might the team have been catalyzed a bit with the injection of a quality player or two? Maybe. I know this seems like voodoo thinking to some, but players are human beings, and psychological factors do have an influence on performance.
If you're going to go with the psychological aspect, the converse actually is that there might have been a let down if some of their buddies, whom they fought with and stayed in first place with for the first half, were suddenly gone or demoted. These guys establish personal relationships, and trades can cut both ways psychologically. Players are human beings, and psychological factors do have an influence on performance.
 

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
701
Chicago, IL
It is way more likely than not that he did pursue it. And in the end, he decided that the prices were too high, and he decided against it. That's a very likely scenario, and a totally defensible change of direction, like it or not.


If you're going to go with the psychological aspect, the converse actually is that there might have been a let down if some of their buddies, whom they fought with and stayed in first place with for the first half, were suddenly gone or demoted. These guys establish personal relationships, and trades can cut both ways psychologically. Players are human beings, and psychological factors do have an influence on performance.
Yeah, you may be right there that it can cut both ways (no need to repeat my line for emphasis, really, I get your point, seems like a gratuitous dig, I come in peace, brother). Though who would have been demoted? And if so, what player would have been so upset if a new player was acquired in exchange for whoever was demoted, and that new player would pretty decisively make them a better team ...?

But yes, players are not computers.

And, yep, the fact that Bloom decided that the prices were too high is the issue isn't it? Our assessment (albeit conjecture) of his assessment of the prices. What were the prices? SF gave 2 prospects not ranked in the top 100 for Bryant. Would Bloom consider that too high? And if so, why? Sending two prospects not in the top 100 would not have decimated his long term plan. And Bryant was healthy and plays a position at which we've been at the bottom of the league, plus brings athleticism and versatility ...

Mind you, I like Bloom, very glad he's running the show in general. Just don't like his work this deadline, but I certainly get it was awfully tricky given the organization is betwixt and between in many ways. And I know he has all sorts of info I don't have! One thing we might be able to comment on, though, is our sense of if people making decisions have become too dogmatic or ideological. That's something that sometimes easier to notice when you're outside the room where it happens.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
14,906
Maine
Yeah, you may be right there that it can cut both ways (no need to repeat my line for emphasis, really, I get your point, seems like a gratuitous dig, I come in peace, brother). Though who would have been demoted? And if so, what player would have been so upset if a new player was acquired in exchange for whoever was demoted, and that new player would pretty decisively make them a better team ...?

But yes, players are not computers.

And, yep, the fact that Bloom decided that the prices were too high is the issue isn't it? Our assessment (albeit conjecture) of his assessment of the prices. What were the prices? SF gave 2 prospects not ranked in the top 100 for Bryant. Would Bloom consider that too high? And if so, why? Sending two prospects not in the top 100 would not have decimated his long term plan. And Bryant was healthy and plays a position at which we've been at the bottom of the league, plus brings athleticism and versatility ...

Mind you, I like Bloom, very glad he's running the show in general. Just don't like his work this deadline, but I certainly get it was awfully tricky given the organization is betwixt and between in many ways. And I know he has all sorts of info I don't have! One thing we might be able to comment on, though, is our sense of if people making decisions have become too dogmatic or ideological. That's something that sometimes easier to notice when you're outside the room where it happens.
Bryant seems to get cited as the trade that got away because of what the Giants traded to get him. I think that assumes that he was a target for Bloom. He may have been, but getting Schwarber may have cooled his interest in getting Bryant. Specifically, why trade two more prospects for Bryant when you've already gotten Schwarber for a steal and the two would likely be competing for playing time? Bryant is more flexible positionally, but it's not like the positions he plays, other than 1B, are undermanned on the current roster. He's not taking time from Devers (maybe once a week). The outfield is fairly crowded splitting time among Verdugo, Duran, Hernandez, and Renfroe (with some Schwarber thrown in too).

In a vacuum, offered at the exact same time, choosing between the Schwarber trade or a Bryant trade (giving up equivalent talent to the Giants), it's a really healthy debate to have. But this isn't a vacuum. The Schwarber trade had been made. That can't be overlooked and we can't assume that the Bryant trade, as it happened, was available on the 29th when the Schwarber trade was done. So it may not be a case of being dogmatic or ideological. It could be a simple case of timing.
 

RobertS975

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
87
Most of us started this season thinking this team was a mid-80s game winner with maybe wildcard aspirations. We got tremendously lucky early on and looked more like a 90-95 game winner. It was obvious in the winter and spring this team had major flaws. Here we are now, back where we originally expected to be.
Hey, for one brief moment, the Red Sox were on pace to 100+ wins with the expectation that Sale would be coming aboard at some point. The future was so bright that I had to put on my sunglasses !

In the NFL, I have always felt that a team was better off signing a proven free agent or another team's salary cap casualty than trying to find players via the draft. So many draft picks, even in lower rounds, don't make it. (Yes, I realize that there are cap reasons at work as well.) I feel similarly about baseball. Being where the Sox were in late July (best record in the AL) doesn't happen very frequently. I would have happily given up some future lottery ticket players for a Bryant or other impact players. What they really needed was a Berrios!
 
Last edited:

Papo The Snow Tiger

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 18, 2010
917
Connecticut
Hey, for one brief moment, the Red Sox were on pace to 100+ wins with the expectation that Sale would be coming aboard at some point. The future was so bright that I had to put on my sunglasses !

In the NFL, I have always felt that a team was better off signing a proven free agent or another team's salary cap casualty than trying to find players via the draft. So many draft picks, even in lower rounds, don't make it. (Yes, I realize that there are cap reasons at work as well.) I feel similarly about baseball. Being where the Sox were in late July (best record in the AL) doesn't happen very frequently. I would have happily given up some future lottery ticket players for a Bryant or other impact players. What they really needed was a Berrios!
I remember some wailing and grinding of teeth when the Red Sox traded Anderson Espinosa for Drew Pomeranz in 2016. There was even some comparisons of Espinosa to Pedro Martinez. Pomeranz won 17 games for the Red Sox in 2017. Espinosa went on to have a couple of Tommy John surgeries and has yet to throw a pitch in the major leagues. I'll always trade a pony for a horse.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/09/05/could-anderson-espinoza-next-pedro-martinez/egFsvFH5382TfcmBW1V3FO/story.html
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
57,290
Now do Fernando Tatis Jr for a cooked James Shields, clearly it works both ways.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
49,695
deep inside Guido territory
If I had to guess, Bloom's deadline moves(or lack thereof) did not exactly go over well in the locker room. These guys played their tails off to this point in the year and deserved more action from the front office to help plug some holes and make the team better. Sure, not giving up some prospects a defensible outcome but for who? For the front office or for the guys in the locker room? If I'm a player, I'd be pissed. They could care less about some A or AA player right now. The AL is wide open this year and there were players out there that could have put the team in a better position to win a World Series. You're telling me that Bloom couldn't have given up more for Anthony Rizzo or Kris Bryant or a starting pitcher? The Schwarber move is fine and all, but he's not getting on the field for a couple of weeks so how does he help right away? If the Schwarber trade was part of a bigger series of moves, that would have made more sense. But, to be really the only move of any substance is kind of a slap in the face to the people in that clubhouse. Rizzo was literally the perfect fit for this team and to see him go to someone else but let alone a team you're competing with in the division had to be really hard to swallow for the players and coaches.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
39,227
If I had to guess, Bloom's deadline moves(or lack thereof) did not exactly go over well in the locker room. These guys played their tails off to this point in the year and deserved more action from the front office to help plug some holes and make the team better. Sure, not giving up some prospects a defensible outcome but for who? For the front office or for the guys in the locker room? If I'm a player, I'd be pissed. They could care less about some A or AA player right now. The AL is wide open this year and there were players out there that could have put the team in a better position to win a World Series. You're telling me that Bloom couldn't have given up more for Anthony Rizzo or Kris Bryant or a starting pitcher? The Schwarber move is fine and all, but he's not getting on the field for a couple of weeks so how does he help right away? If the Schwarber trade was part of a bigger series of moves, that would have made more sense. But, to be really the only move of any substance is kind of a slap in the face to the people in that clubhouse. Rizzo was literally the perfect fit for this team and to see him go to someone else but let alone a team you're competing with in the division had to be really hard to swallow for the players and coaches.
What would have been the Red Sox prospect equivalent to landing Rizzo? He would have been so perfect.
 

RobertS975

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
87
It's not just prospects that should be traded for proven players, but often there are so-called untradeable players on the major league roster that just fizzle... Donnie Sadler, Craig Hansen, Trey Ball, Henry Owens, Wilton Veras, Casey Fossum, Lars Anderson....all were thought of as so potentially valuable that they couldn't be traded away.
 

Danny_Darwin

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
2,045
I didn’t read either post-deadline thread, but I don’t really think we can just sit here and say “why didn’t they trade for (whoever)?” in this case. It’d be different if some details of specific offers that Bloom or the other team turned down, but I haven’t seen any such reports.

It takes two to trade, first of all, and if a team isn’t interested in your prospects, it doesn’t really matter how much you want to trade them - you usually can’t actually do the video game thing where you keep adding players until the AI accepts your offer. It’s also usually not as tidy as saying “Well Team X got Prospects Y and Z for Veteran A, so surely they would have accepted prospects B and C from Boston!”

Maybe the reason Bloom didn’t pull off whatever deal you were hoping for is that nobody was buying what he was selling - maybe everyone was asking only for Casas or Duran. Or maybe he really does value his guys more than others. We don’t know! That’s my point.

EDIT: the thing I will note is that, to an outsider at least, it seems like Bloom doesn’t value or prioritize starting pitching the way that many fans do. He hasn’t really acquired many starters from the “middle class” of starters for lack of a better term. He’s gotten cheap guys and other teams’ discards, but he didn’t go after (to cite two examples of freely available players last offseason) Odorizzi or Quintana, as far as we know. Not to say he was right or wrong to, just observing it.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
14,912
Miami (oh, Miami!)
So far, with the exception of the Rockies, the Sox have used the fewest number of position players (40) in the major leagues.

They're in the upper third in terms of fewest pitchers (27 total). But they've consistently run some pretty crappy pitchers out there, hoping for improvement.

If I had to come up with a theme, it would be the Sox are unwilling/unable to admit they're wrong about a player, and/or to move on, even if a struggling player may have some more potential to be unlocked, somewhere, by someone.
 

ookami7m

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,993
Mobile, AL
It's not just prospects that should be traded for proven players, but often there are so-called untradeable players on the major league roster that just fizzle... Donnie Sadler, Craig Hansen, Trey Ball, Henry Owens, Wilton Veras, Casey Fossum, Lars Anderson....all were thought of as so potentially valuable that they couldn't be traded away.
The Blake Swihart All Stars
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
5,161
Boston, MA
Or they've had good luck health-wise, but their players aren't performing. You can't just send vets to the minors unless they're hurt, so trying out another player requires you to release the first. And if the replacement is no better, you've lost organizational depth for nothing.

I get it, Christian Vazquez sucks. But you can't just release him halfway through the season to find out if a guy with no experience is any better.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
21,014
where I was last at
The tough thing to balance or calculate as fans is short-term gain which is tangible versus carrying out a long-term plan, which is mostly speculation. Chaim has a long-term plan which seems to carry a cost that we may not win a WS this year. And he's ok with that as It wasn't in the plan. And to be fair, none of us expected that either, but watching him pass on Anthony Rizzo, who is thriving for the MFY and who would have been a nice fit here, for "Ratso Rizzo" shitting his pants on a bus to Florida is tough to watch.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
70,898
Oregon
And to be fair, none of us expected that either, but watching him pass on Anthony Rizzo, who is thriving for the MFY and who would have been a nice fit here, for "Ratso Rizzo" shitting his pants on a bus to Florida is tough to watch.
There were worse things he could do
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
The Red Sox have been outscored 44-21 in their 7 games since the deadline, and that’s excluding the 13-1 drubbing by Toronto on 7/29.

If anything, Chaim’s decision not to invest in this year’s team looks better now, not worse.
 

GlucoDoc

lurker
Dec 19, 2005
40
Agree. Chaim probably knew exactly what this team was while we were all getting excited by the first half of playing above their real level and some luck with the come-backs. He realized that just replacing Dalbec with Rizzo (obtained at a high price to boot) would not likely get us a WS win and staying the course for an improving trend over a couple of years made the most sense. And years down the line, if he had made a "Larry Andersen for Jeff Bagwell" trade only to have this year's team fall short, we would have been moaning about it for decades. I am accepting of the current situation and satisfied with the course Chaim has taken...so far.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
7,949
The Red Sox have been outscored 44-21 in their 7 games since the deadline, and that’s excluding the 13-1 drubbing by Toronto on 7/29.

If anything, Chaim’s decision not to invest in this year’s team looks better now, not worse.
Yeah, the more I see this team, the more I'm starting to believe that the FO looked at the same metrics posted by the OP and concluded that this smoke & mirrors team isn't worth overpaying for mid-season upgrades, other than a team-favorable deal like Schwarber for Aldo Ramirez and picking up a few fringe relievers. Certainly not worth a crazy overpay like Jordan and Bello for two months of Anthony Rizzo - I can just picture the 'Rizzo shines in another Sox loss' headlines.
 

Salem's Lot

Andy Moog! Andy God Damn Moog!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,187
Gallows Hill
I remember some wailing and grinding of teeth when the Red Sox traded Anderson Espinosa for Drew Pomeranz in 2016. There was even some comparisons of Espinosa to Pedro Martinez. Pomeranz won 17 games for the Red Sox in 2017. Espinosa went on to have a couple of Tommy John surgeries and has yet to throw a pitch in the major leagues. I'll always trade a pony for a horse.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/09/05/could-anderson-espinoza-next-pedro-martinez/egFsvFH5382TfcmBW1V3FO/story.html
What prospect do the Red Sox have in the organization currently that is the equivalent of 2015 Anderson Espinoza in terms of value? I don’t believe that player exists.

People seem to believe that there was a deal that Bloom just didn’t make, when maybe the problem is that nobody likes the Red Sox prospects as much as they like prospects in other organizations. Not all “Team x’s number 5 prospects” are equal.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
39,781
What prospect do the Red Sox have in the organization currently that is the equivalent of 2015 Anderson Espinoza in terms of value? I don’t believe that player exists.

People seem to believe that there was a deal that Bloom just didn’t make, when maybe the problem is that nobody likes the Red Sox prospects as much as they like prospects in other organizations. Not all “Team x’s number 5 prospects” are equal.
That’s probably exactly what it was. It’s not like he just sat on his ass and didn’t do anything. It takes two to tango. And the players that the Sox may be offering may not be ones that other teams like (or they do like them but not as much as what an other team is offering)
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
70,898
Oregon
People seem to believe that there was a deal that Bloom just didn’t make, when maybe the problem is that nobody likes the Red Sox prospects as much as they like prospects in other organizations. Not all “Team x’s number 5 prospects” are equal.
Injecting reality into this discussion is a losing proposition.

We have posters speaking as though they know the Red Sox could have made such a deal. We have posters speaking as though they know Bloom failed to do anything and/or is in over his head. We have posters speaking as though they know how the players reacted to the trade deadline in the clubhouse. We have posters speaking as though they know Rizzo's hot start will last for the next eight weeks.

How dare you win against the tide?
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
49,695
deep inside Guido territory
I didn’t read either post-deadline thread, but I don’t really think we can just sit here and say “why didn’t they trade for (whoever)?” in this case. It’d be different if some details of specific offers that Bloom or the other team turned down, but I haven’t seen any such reports.

It takes two to trade, first of all, and if a team isn’t interested in your prospects, it doesn’t really matter how much you want to trade them - you usually can’t actually do the video game thing where you keep adding players until the AI accepts your offer. It’s also usually not as tidy as saying “Well Team X got Prospects Y and Z for Veteran A, so surely they would have accepted prospects B and C from Boston!”

Maybe the reason Bloom didn’t pull off whatever deal you were hoping for is that nobody was buying what he was selling - maybe everyone was asking only for Casas or Duran. Or maybe he really does value his guys more than others. We don’t know! That’s my point.

EDIT: the thing I will note is that, to an outsider at least, it seems like Bloom doesn’t value or prioritize starting pitching the way that many fans do. He hasn’t really acquired many starters from the “middle class” of starters for lack of a better term. He’s gotten cheap guys and other teams’ discards, but he didn’t go after (to cite two examples of freely available players last offseason) Odorizzi or Quintana, as far as we know. Not to say he was right or wrong to, just observing it.
The Yankees decided to give the Cubs and Rangers better prospect capital in exchange for not having to take on the players' salaries. If the Red Sox were willing to take on the prorated portion of Rizzo's salary, they would be in a better position to offer less of a prospect return. Bloom himself said that the luxury tax is a factor. What factor does it play if there is no penalties associated with it? They wouldn't lose draft pick position unless they were $40 million or more over.

You're correct in that we definitively don't know what went down at the deadline, but I'll tell you what we do know and that is they did not get the pieces needed to fortify the team. There is a human element to consider and Bloom not extending himself to give the team more help sent a message that the FO doesn't really believe in the teams' chances.

Injecting reality into this discussion is a losing proposition.

We have posters speaking as though they know the Red Sox could have made such a deal. We have posters speaking as though they know Bloom failed to do anything and/or is in over his head. We have posters speaking as though they know how the players reacted to the trade deadline in the clubhouse. We have posters speaking as though they know Rizzo's hot start will last for the next eight weeks.

How dare you win against the tide?
Speaking for myself, I don't believe Bloom is over his head. I think he's doing a good job. I just am being very critical of his deadline dealings.
 

jmanny24

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2003
465
I'm sure it has been mentioned elsewhere, but the difference between the teams that made big moves and the Sox is that those teams have the system depth to make those moves and still sustain good depth. Bloom isn't there yet, but he's getting there. If he paid the prices people wanted him to make, the team would've maybe taken 1 or 2 steps forward, but could've also taken 3-5 steps back by depleting what system depth they have. I am more than happy letting this team stabilize when they get their reinforcements back knowing that it may not be this year but they are likely ahead of the internal schedule they have, and that is largely thanks to Bloom.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
70,898
Oregon
I just am being very critical of his deadline dealings.
And I would say that that's an impossible stance to take without complete knowledge of what those dealings were. You can certainly be disappointed in the results; but without knowing what he tried to do, what offers were extended, what demands were made from other teams, being critical of what he did has no foundation of evidence.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
14,912
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Or they've had good luck health-wise, but their players aren't performing. You can't just send vets to the minors unless they're hurt, so trying out another player requires you to release the first. And if the replacement is no better, you've lost organizational depth for nothing.

I get it, Christian Vazquez sucks. But you can't just release him halfway through the season to find out if a guy with no experience is any better.
When the club acquires someone like a Santana or a Franchy or even a Marwin, they should have a reasonable expectation as to what their upside is, and if they're sub-standard, how long they want to pay that player to "rehab" in ML games. That second factor is tied to what the team is currently doing, and how much control they have over the player.

So, for example, Santana is on a one year 1.7 mil contract. The money's gone. If he's not here to help them this year, he serves no purpose.

His upside is based on his age 28 career year in 2019 (112 OPS+). With the exception of his rookie year in 2014 (130 OPS+) he has been injured, or a part time player, and has never cracked a OPS+ of 65.

This year, in 105 at bats, his OPS+ is 48.

So the calculation should have been: Do we keep putting this black hole into the lineup, in hopes of him maybe reclaiming something he never fully established in the last few weeks?

What "organizational depth" would have been lost? An option on a ML? Those are there to be used. (If you've got a potential rule 5 guy, no matter what they do, it seems a better option than Santana.)

If it was one player it'd be noise. But it's not.
 

RobertsSteal

lurker
Jul 15, 2005
32
Northampon, MA
When the club acquires someone like a Santana or a Franchy or even a Marwin, they should have a reasonable expectation as to what their upside is, and if they're sub-standard, how long they want to pay that player to "rehab" in ML games. That second factor is tied to what the team is currently doing, and how much control they have over the player.
… snip …
If it was one player it'd be noise. But it's not.
@Rovin Romine has bingo.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
49,695
deep inside Guido territory
And I would say that that's an impossible stance to take without complete knowledge of what those dealings were. You can certainly be disappointed in the results; but without knowing what he tried to do, what offers were extended, what demands were made from other teams, being critical of what he did has no foundation of evidence.
On the outside, having complete knowledge of dealings between the teams is very rare but it doesn't stop people from talking about what they think happened based on what was done or wasn't done. If there's issues with my argument, those arguing on the other side deserve criticism for having no foundation of evidence as well.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
70,898
Oregon
On the outside, having complete knowledge of dealings between the teams is very rare but it doesn't stop people from talking about what they think happened based on what was done or wasn't done. If there's issues with my argument, those arguing on the other side deserve criticism for having no foundation of evidence as well.
We can be disappointed in the tangible results without being critical of Bloom's dealings at the deadline. I wish they could have gotten Rizzo. They didn't, but that doesn't mean blame must naturally be assessed onto Bloom.

It's a semantic argument, I guess. I just don't hold very highly argumentative points that only have supposition as their foundation.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
39,227
We can be disappointed in the tangible results without being critical of Bloom's dealings at the deadline. I wish they could have gotten Rizzo. They didn't, but that doesn't mean blame must naturally be assessed onto Bloom.

It's a semantic argument, I guess. I just don't hold very highly argumentative points that only have supposition as their foundation.
I think Red’s point is that the lack of data about offers doesn’t absolve Chaim from potential blame either. It’s not unrealistic to think that he could have received a reasonable offer for Rizzo and just decided not to do it, for whatever reason. The dude is very smart but he’s not infallible.

Both sides of this argument are using speculation as the basis so I don’t really see the distinction being made here. If people want to assume Chaim navigated this deadline perfectly, that’s fine. But there is always room for criticism or questioning. People just seem to disagree about what classifies as reasonable criticism. And there is obviously plenty of room for prospect valuation differences.

In either case, it doesn’t really matter at this point. This is our team now and we just have to hope things turn around. And I have complete confidence that Chaim is the right guy for the job.
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,302
I just go back to: If more established players on this team (Bogaerts, Martinez, Eovaldi, Rodriguez, Vazquez) were playing at their established talent level, the team would still be on track to win the division. A team like this is only going to be as good as its stars, and you can't just insist on bringing in more or different stars when they get hurt or play poorly.

Yeah, I think it's fair to criticize them for giving Santana too much rope, or for picking Richards over one of the other mid-tier options this off-season. But none of those decisions matter nearly as much as Martinez not being Martinez, just to name one example.

When people talk about Bloom importing the "Tampa approach," they usually mean "being cost-efficient." But I think it really is about a different ideological approach, one in which instead of building around a few stars you build enough depth that there's always a talented player available to step up when someone struggles and enough flexibility to incorporate new players into the roster framework.

That's what the Dodgers (also run by a Tampa alum) have done. They have more talent than they know what to do with, and enough money to get stars on top of them. I think it's the right approach, and I'm willing to forgive Bloom if occasionally he tilts more in the direction of building depth than I would like.

I guess I'll put it this way: You can't trade Keibert Ruiz and Josiah Grey for Max Scherzer and Trea Turner if you're always trading Brayan Bello and Blaze Jordan for Anthony Rizzo.
 

Coachster

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2009
7,049
New Hampshire
This is just speculation, but I wonder if Bloom's plans were messed up by our early-season success. If we had been a .500 (or worse) team, it would have been completely reasonable to trade off expiring contracts and players not in his long-term plans (JDM?). That would have further stocked the farm, and enabled him to maybe trade for better players at the '22 deadline using our terrific depth in the minors.

We failed by succeeding for a half season.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
70,898
Oregon
I think Red’s point is that the lack of data about offers doesn’t absolve Chaim from potential blame either.
Potential blame, sure .... but there's so much heated actual blame (not from Red necessarily) in this thread and others that it shouldn't go unchecked.
 

InsideTheParker

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
31,716
Pioneer Valley
When people talk about Bloom importing the "Tampa approach," they usually mean "being cost-efficient." But I think it really is about a different ideological approach, one in which instead of building around a few stars you build enough depth that there's always a talented player available to step up when someone struggles and enough flexibility to incorporate new players into the roster framework.

That's what the Dodgers (also run by a Tampa alum) have done. They have more talent than they know what to do with, and enough money to get stars on top of them. I think it's the right approach, and I'm willing to forgive Bloom if occasionally he tilts more in the direction of building depth than I would like.

I guess I'll put it this way: You can't trade Keibert Ruiz and Josiah Grey for Max Scherzer and Trea Turner if you're always trading Brayan Bello and Blaze Jordan for Anthony Rizzo.
Thanks, I found this very useful.
Adding that I think JDM, XB, RD, and others are beaten up and beaten down, so the offense can no longer rescue the starting pitchers as they and the bullpen did in the first half.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
39,227
This is just speculation, but I wonder if Bloom's plans were messed up by our early-season success. If we had been a .500 (or worse) team, it would have been completely reasonable to trade off expiring contracts and players not in his long-term plans (JDM?). That would have further stocked the farm, and enabled him to maybe trade for better players at the '22 deadline using our terrific depth in the minors.

We failed by succeeding for a half season.
This is an interesting point. This team exceeded expectations by considerable margin so Bloom was caught in no man’s land. He still needed to replenish the farm but he had Sale coming back and his team was 20 games over .500 so he couldn’t punt either.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
21,014
where I was last at
Re Chaim's responsibility

We will never have perfect information or near the quality data that GMs and their advisors have in assessing trades. But it is well within our rights to assess what was done and ask why and how will this improve the team relative to other teams and considering what actions they have taken.

It is fair to ask, how will a still injured Schwarber, who may or may not be able to play 1st, and two BP arms, help the Sox over the next 2 months?

Chaim's trades may have been mostly for show, as standing still was not an option as 1) other AL teams were wheeling and dealing, and 2) the asked for prospects (for example for Rizzo) considered untouchable.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
If I had to guess, Bloom's deadline moves(or lack thereof) did not exactly go over well in the locker room. These guys played their tails off to this point in the year and deserved more action from the front office to help plug some holes and make the team better. Sure, not giving up some prospects a defensible outcome but for who? For the front office or for the guys in the locker room? If I'm a player, I'd be pissed. They could care less about some A or AA player right now. The AL is wide open this year and there were players out there that could have put the team in a better position to win a World Series. You're telling me that Bloom couldn't have given up more for Anthony Rizzo or Kris Bryant or a starting pitcher? The Schwarber move is fine and all, but he's not getting on the field for a couple of weeks so how does he help right away? If the Schwarber trade was part of a bigger series of moves, that would have made more sense. But, to be really the only move of any substance is kind of a slap in the face to the people in that clubhouse. Rizzo was literally the perfect fit for this team and to see him go to someone else but let alone a team you're competing with in the division had to be really hard to swallow for the players and coaches.
Let me preface this by saying this isn't specifically pointed to anyone in particular, but rather just my take on the idea of players being pissed or Chaim losing the clubhouse. I get that the delay of Sale, Houck and Schwarber isn't ideal, in fact it sucks. Like it or not it was a factor in all of this. I'm really not sure if guys were pissed about it. All things being equal with the Sox positioned in the standings as they were, the rotation in the state it was in, the first base abyss and having to give considerable ABs to Marwin Chavtana WITH NO Sale or Houck on the horizon, then sure I can imagine being being pissed off at a delayed Schwarber and bullpen additions that on the surface seem to not be any better than what was in house. On the flip side of this, whose going to be pissed? This has largely been a team failure since the return after the AS break. This offense as a whole has been miserable for over two weeks now. The pick up of Bryant, Rizzo or whoever else you might add to Schwarber isn't carrying this team on his own and an additional starter might be lining up for his second start this weekend while being backed by the same shitty offensive performance. Oh and let's not forget they brought up the whiz kid from Wooster, the in house solution that many of us had been calling for well before his arrival. IMO a good deal of us always knew this team was playing WAY above expectations despite the glaring wholes. And while some of us are having issues reconciling the team's self imposed limits as to what assets were available to move I think most of us are in the boat of understanding the team's position, but finding it a bitter pill to swallow. More so considering the team is playing it's worse baseball of the year at this point in the season.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
5,161
Boston, MA
When the club acquires someone like a Santana or a Franchy or even a Marwin, they should have a reasonable expectation as to what their upside is, and if they're sub-standard, how long they want to pay that player to "rehab" in ML games. That second factor is tied to what the team is currently doing, and how much control they have over the player.

So, for example, Santana is on a one year 1.7 mil contract. The money's gone. If he's not here to help them this year, he serves no purpose.

His upside is based on his age 28 career year in 2019 (112 OPS+). With the exception of his rookie year in 2014 (130 OPS+) he has been injured, or a part time player, and has never cracked a OPS+ of 65.

This year, in 105 at bats, his OPS+ is 48.

So the calculation should have been: Do we keep putting this black hole into the lineup, in hopes of him maybe reclaiming something he never fully established in the last few weeks?

What "organizational depth" would have been lost? An option on a ML? Those are there to be used. (If you've got a potential rule 5 guy, no matter what they do, it seems a better option than Santana.)

If it was one player it'd be noise. But it's not.
How many at bats are you willing to give a veteran to see if they can produce? 100 doesn't seem like a ridiculous number. They tried, he failed, and he's not in the lineup anymore. Same with Marwin. Franchy got sent down.
 

Philip Jeff Frye

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2001
8,150
How many at bats are you willing to give a veteran to see if they can produce? 100 doesn't seem like a ridiculous number. They tried, he failed, and he's not in the lineup anymore. Same with Marwin. Franchy got sent down.
Franchy is in another category because he's young and, for various reasons, had never really had a chance to prove himself at the major league level, but Gonzalez and Santana are both players on the wrong side of 30 who, outside of a fluke season or two, have never been productive everyday players, despite several years worth of chances to prove otherwise. It was entirely likely that they'd produce at the levels that they have this season.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
14,912
Miami (oh, Miami!)
How many at bats are you willing to give a veteran to see if they can produce? 100 doesn't seem like a ridiculous number. They tried, he failed, and he's not in the lineup anymore. Same with Marwin. Franchy got sent down.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.fcgi?id=santada01&t=b&year=2021

I don't know. He hit two homers, then spiraled into the toilet. He bobbed up toward the non-farscial line when the entire team teed off on the Royals.

So, I'd have been comfortable cutting him at 80. I mean, assuming I had real baseball skills like Cora does, and could have accurately predicted the next 20 AB of suck.

But he's still on the 40 man, and we're still scuffling along. Do we need another 20 AB into mid-August, just to be super-sure?