It’s also pretty clear that Chaim is capable of building up the farm while competing at the MLB level since he literally just did it 2 years ago. Nobody expects ALCS every year but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect better than the 2022-2023 results while maintaining the integrity of the farm development. We don’t have to live in such a binary world.
But THIS is the year they have been out of the top six, dropping from 6 to 15 from roughly 207 mill last year to 173 mill this year. And why? If the goal is to stay under the luxury tax which was increased to $230 mill this year, shouldn't the payroll have gone up? If the goal is to build through the farm system, WHERE THE COST OF ACQUIRING PLAYERS THROUGH THE DRAFT AND IFA HAS NOW BEEN EFFECTIVELY CONTROLLED BY MLB, why must the major league payroll be slashed?
What do you not understand that Eovaldi turned down a reasonable offer from the Sox? He. Turned. It. Down. So rather than sitting with their thumbs up their asses, they pivoted to spending on Yoshida, Jansen, and Martin. When Eovaldi's agent sheepishly returned to accept the offer, money had already been committed to those three players AND there were ongoing negotiations with Devers for an extension. They moved on, which any good front office would have done.
And so what? What does this have to do with any? You’re going to penalize Chaim and take away that year because Kiké got on a hot streak?
Regarding Wacha, we don't know that they didn't offer a contract. For all we know, they made him a "reasonable" offer just like they did with Eovaldi. And for all we know, he turned it down or decided to shop around first.
Which was exactly my point to the OP. Players have the final say on where they sign and choose to be employed.
If being "competitive" means competing for a playoff spot you are correct Bloom has largely done that.
I guess the question then is: why can't the Red Sox, one of the most historically vaunted organizations in baseball (and one of the richest), identify and hire one of those GMs?
Money doesn't matter as you can only have one GM at a time.
2022 ended bad, but was fun up until the trade deadline when the wheels fell off. And this year's team was fun to watch until the West Coast trip when the bats fell asleep. That's what all the complaining about this year's team really comes down to. The pitching and defense haven't been great, but over the last month they've been a tick better than average at preventing runs. It's the offense that was scoring under 3 per game that's the problem. When a team goes down by 3 and the deficit seems insurmountable, it's not fun to watch. When they have a 1 run lead in the middle innings and the bullpen has to be perfect, it's not fun to watch. But if they start hitting again, they'll be more entertaining even if they don't win a ton more games.
And the thing is, being competitive for a playoff spot can be good enough to compete for a championship. The Sox squeaked into the playoffs in 2021 and got within two games of the World Series. The Phillies squeaked into the playoffs last year and came within two games of winning a title. It's not even limited to baseball (see the Panthers and the Heat making the finals from the 8 seed). Not every championship contending team is built to dominate from the jump. It certainly helps most of the time, but getting into the dance is step one.
Doesn't it stand to reason that if those GMs exist, they're gainfully employed in that role elsewhere because of their skill set? Wouldn't guys with that proven skill set be the ones who have been in their jobs the longest? I mean, being able to build/maintain a bountiful farm system, maintain payroll at a reasonable level (some ups, some downs), and consistently compete would tend to create job security, no? Is there a way to identify such a GM before he actually does it? Isn't the idea to try and find the next Brian Cashman or the next Andrew Friedman because those guys can't be had?
Wait what?
I have no problem with well supported Chaim Chate, but when someone claims that 40% is a majority I have to start asking questions about math scholarship in this country.
It’s a bit like the “Cheap, Fast, Good—pick two” axiom.
Competitive and being at or above .500 are not necessarily the same thing. Last year they were still at or above .500 for most of July while they were going 7-19.
I was merely commenting on the win/loss records for each season, with 2023 obviously still being in progress. I wholeheartedly agree that the offense has been the recent problem and I sure am glad that Yoshida has been on the "good" side of the ledger. But even with his success, we don't have enough there. This lineup is very vulnerable whenever Devers slumps. We really need some more consistent power hitting. Realistically, that is going to have to come from Casas, Duvall, and hopefully Story whenever he returns. I feel like we're fine with the Verdugo/Yoshida/Turner table setting. But someone has to drive them in.
With extra wild cards, yes, I think a team is still competitive at a few games above .500
On the other end. look at the dodgers last year. Had an all time great regular season. But got bounced early in the playoffs. So nobody really cares about that all time great regular season.
They were in a playoff position all season, so yes.
It's tough because I see that argument (in that they werent playing good baseball by then), but at the same time I define "competitive" during the course of the regular season as "is this game meaningful?" And Id say that yes, at 4 games back with 44 games to go is meaningful baseball.
Well yeah, isn't that a big reason MLB added the extra wild card, to keep more teams "in it" through the majority of the season?
Exactly. And the Heat were out of the playoff picture and did ok. While there was a team in Boston that was a buzzsaw all year and then bombed out in the first round.
Agreed that almost anything can happen in a playoff but as Tims4Wins mentions, I think most of us would make a distinction between a .500 team that is "competing" for the last wild card and a championship caliber team. Not saying that a team can't be both - particularly if they suffer injuries - but there also can be a distinction.
Yes to "Cheap / Fast / Good"; the one I like to use (not as applicable) is "low interest rates / full employment / low debt levels".
Agreed, but it seemed like this particular digression was about how much competitive baseball the sox have played under Bloom. The MLB has made it easier to be competitive and for more games to be meaningful...so I think this is a case where two things can be true: A lot of Red Sox baseball under Bloom hasn't been fun or good to watch, but a lot of it is still competitive/meaningful.
I get what you're saying, but let's not forget that the 2022 team was a hideous 11-20 before getting hot for a little bit. And that team played the same dumb baseball with poor defense and mediocre pitching that we're seeing this year. There have been flashes when things have come together, but I'd push back pretty hard on anyone saying the last 1.5 seasons have been fun to watch.
When were the heat out of the playoff picture? The last date they didn't lead their division outright was December 27, when they were 17-17 and tied for the lead. The last time they were more than a game back of the division lead was December 11.
It feels like Bloom and/or the ownership have used the 3rd WC as a way to promote the team as being competitive, instead of truly trying to compete by virtue of having a legitimate contender.
Exactly. They were unwatchable in 2020. They were fun in 2021. They were unwatchable for the first month+ last year, then fun for about 6 weeks, and then a trainwreck for the rest of the year.
Yeah I dont disagree, but the fact remains that by virtue of that 3rd WC it keeps them (and other middling teams) competitive for longer. Again, maybe not fun or actually good, but a large majority of the games remain meaningful.
Technically meaningful, but was anyone really watching in mid-August last year because they were only 4 games back of the 3rd WC?
I was. I typically start tuning out of any sport once the team is firmly out of the playoff race. And will tune back in for certain events - eg if they are out of it on Sept 1 this year, but Mayer gets called up Ill try to watch his at bats.
The digression was about what we think Chaim's job description was/is. In my view, Chaim's first priority was to slash payroll. Check. He was also hired to rebuild the farm system and hopefully start a sustainable pipeline of talent. Jury is still out on this but he has certainly focused a lot of his efforts on this and I don't think anyone can yet say unequivocally that he's failed at this.
Got it on the digression...guess I didnt read far enough back. Appreciate the explanation and fwiw 100% agree with your post.
I was looking at NBA East standings in total and saw them hovering between 8th and 11th position, didn't realize they were leading that division. Not a fun team just over .500 but fair point that they were in the picture all along. Panthers were pretty exciting fighting for that last playoff spot, though, weren't they?
Every game until we hit the road out to here, then followed as much as I could considering games weren't on TV and we were in a short term furnished rental.
I would be shocked if Bloom and Henry (et al) didn't realize that BAL was going to be really good by this point in the near future. I mean they had just picked up Rodriguez, Rutchman, and Henderson in back-to-back drafts and everyone knew they were going to tank for as long as it took these premium talent guys to force their way to the majors.
"We are 'competitive'" is marketing. The "legitimate contender" thing (assuming there's a difference, given how playoffs go) is the intended result of the on-going rebuild-on-the-fly. "We are 'competitive,' but we won't be 'legitimate contenders' this year" is anti-marketing. The Astros and Orioles, by contrast, said for years, "We suck and are definitely *not* competitive, but we're trying to rebuild." I (and others) believe that ownership (rightly or wrongly) won't allow that approach.
Crap I was ready to stop posting in this thread but do you truly believe that the FO truly believes that the 2022 and 2023 Red Sox had a legitimate chance at a title?? As in, more than the 3% chance that every team has going into each season if all teams were equal? I find that really hard to believe.
I mean, I don't think anyone thought BAL would be a serious contender in 2023, no one even thought that this winter when they got flak from every direction for not spending any money when their window was starting to open. I think in 2019 everyone knew that BAL was aiming for this, but no one had much idea of how successful they'd be at it.
No worries. I don't really a horse in this discussion but I think anyone expecting a team with the 15th highest payroll and no recent top of the draft players or international FAs on the major league roster to have a team capable of winning 90+ games is pretty unrealistic. I mean it certainly can happen but it's pretty unlikely and not at all sustainable.
It's not just you, it's all of us. Asking who Bloom should have gotten in the winter of 2019 instead of Player X without speculation is just arguing in as bad of faith as saying that Bloom had Mayer fall in his lap.
If they think/thought the team could make the playoffs then yes. (And I do think they thought the team could make the playoffs.)
