Red Sox Rumors - Just Kidding
- Thread starter jcormjmac
- Start date
I wasn't around for 78 or 86, but I was around for 03. That season was not disheartening at all. Devastating, sure. But that was a team built to win, trying to win and end up losing to their historical nemesis after a slug fest and that Yankees team was arguably so spent they lost to the Marlins. And I distinctly remember the morning after the final ALCS game, thinking that the Sox were going to be mad and out for blood. And they were! They went and got Schilling like immediately and the rest is history. That is a far cry from the last few years of last place finishes with scrap heap players around Devers And X, then watching X leave when they could have likely had them if they had not lowballed him.
Devastating stuff happens unexpectedly. Disheartening stuff happens when easily predicted catastrophes are allowed to happen. This team is the latter.
Hey we’re stuck in shit, but it’s human shit. Quit whining, last time I was stuck in pig shit. That was really bad. Human shit is actually kinda nice if you think about it, you pampered ingrates.
Fortunately, we have astute posters here who know the difference between overpaying for established talent and overpaying for guys who literally haven’t hit a single MLB pitch. If we’re going to quote gross dollars as support for “doing something”, it’s probably a good idea to acknowledge that a huge portion of what they spent was on a guy who we have zero idea about.
Unless you're just choosing to ignore projections because of reasons they are currently very much in the mix
Even Belichick feels the pressure to go and "win the offseason" every once in awhile, such as 2021. Bloom and the Sox leadership seems to have no such urges, god bless them if it works, but to make your singular big move spending $100 million on an unknown as your biggest move is a big yikes. Remember Story came to them relatively late last offseason and even in the moment the signing seemed more about saving money in the long run (anticipating Xander bolting) than a pro-active move to make a big splash.
One other problem developing is there is no hierarchy to the team, because everyone expects Devers to have one foot out the door this coming season even if he is an ultimate professional on the field. Is Alex Verdugo going to be the "leader" of the everyday players with his very lengthy Red Sox tenure?
What I am talking myself into is Chaim Bloom is operating this team exactly like Billy Beane would have if he came to the Sox, in that he spends substantial money but not on the prototypical "franchise" guys. And Bloom like Beane would have, is just viewing the roster as totally fungible. This is contrary to a guy like Epstein who espoused similar beliefs to Beane but still could get stars in his eyes for the right player, or maybe it was Lucchino who helped Theo get there. I tend to agree with this in the NFL where a steady coaching staff can control the game plan like the Pats, Ravens, 49ers present day, etc. But in baseball I feel like you need those high end leaders, and unfortunately their high-priced guy is a fragile lefty going out there every 5-6 days (to be clear/fair, no fault of Bloom for this)...
One other problem developing is there is no hierarchy to the team, because everyone expects Devers to have one foot out the door this coming season even if he is an ultimate professional on the field. Is Alex Verdugo going to be the "leader" of the everyday players with his very lengthy Red Sox tenure?
What I am talking myself into is Chaim Bloom is operating this team exactly like Billy Beane would have if he came to the Sox, in that he spends substantial money but not on the prototypical "franchise" guys. And Bloom like Beane would have, is just viewing the roster as totally fungible. This is contrary to a guy like Epstein who espoused similar beliefs to Beane but still could get stars in his eyes for the right player, or maybe it was Lucchino who helped Theo get there. I tend to agree with this in the NFL where a steady coaching staff can control the game plan like the Pats, Ravens, 49ers present day, etc. But in baseball I feel like you need those high end leaders, and unfortunately their high-priced guy is a fragile lefty going out there every 5-6 days (to be clear/fair, no fault of Bloom for this)...
I'd be pretty bummed if the Sox had signed that contract. Rondon is 30 and never been healthy.
I've been disappointed in this Red Sox offseason so far, but I'm actually more disappointed in seeing the main board of SOSH turn into a sports talk radio show. There's actually more whining on here now than there was in 2003, when we had much better reasons for whining.
Uh-oh, I guess some lurker is going to call me a "shill" now because I"m not throwing a tantrum on here. I better try to fit in: it's been over year since we were in the ALCS, and I refuse to accept this failure! We are the victims! How much more of this abuse are we supposed to endure?
We’ve entered into the “follow the follows” part of rumor season.
View: https://twitter.com/dom_frederic/status/1603597405886316544?s=46&t=v3-pzdeCde7X05jWql4MeA
View: https://twitter.com/dom_frederic/status/1603597405886316544?s=46&t=v3-pzdeCde7X05jWql4MeA
The mixed message thing is really what's grating here. Get close to doing a luxury tax reset, then don't do it. Start a rebuild by trading Vazquez but then don't move JD, Eovaldi, Wacha or Bogaerts. Act like you're going for it by investing heavily in the bullpen and then shop at the dollar store for the lineup.
I will say that I'm often mystified how Tampa remains competitive year after year with a lineup that doesn't impress. Perhaps Chaim has that secret... I doubt it, but perhaps he does.
I dont think you need to ignore them; you can just look at the history of projections v. reality for NPB batters or realistically just the history of NPB hitters in general - its been poor for the last decade. Seiya Suzuki was a better thought of talent and he (262/336/433) barely outperformed at the 10%ile case in the model (260/327/423). If thats the output, then you might as well throw it out because its clear that no front office believes it. If they actually bought into any of that Yoshida gets a lot more than what he did.
This all comes from someone who actually thinks its a solid deal, but the idea that they got some guy whos median case is a 3 win player in the first year seems... insane.
Edit: The 70th percentile projection is a top 10 or so hitter in MLB and a better hitter than Devers or Bogaerts have ever been. FO execs clearly arent buying into any of this.
The fact that Scott Boras agreed to the terms within 48 hours of the posting tells me they absolutely overpaid.
It is becoming increasingly evident that this front office does not have a grasp of the Free Agent or Trade Market.
Pitching
Pitching
Pitching
Rays has been top 5in team ERA every year since 2019. In 2018, they were 6th so it’s almost 5 straight years of top 5 finishes.
They were projected as an 82 win team before adding Jansen or Yoshida, so unless you ignore all projections and not just NPB guys they're very much in the playoff mix.
They've also found ways to use other teams castoffs like Jalen Beeks. I've been saying that a guy like Houck or even Whitlock seems very much like a Tampa player to me. If that's the model they're going for, fine. But why is it costing them twice as much?
They should take the 24 million they have and make Kyle Synder an offer he can't refuse.
Was Beeks a castoff? I thought he was the prize in the Eovaldi trade.
Ok, the projections I also saw had Paxton pitching close to 130 innings. Will any sportsbook give me that as an O/U line? I suspect not.
Just seems like a fetishization of suffering. It happened. It’s over. It doesn’t have to have meaning or provide “perspective.” From my perspective it seems to add a superstitious or entitled and emotional element to the analysis. As if we can’t just take an objective look at the roster at this point in time and realize it’s lacking, that there were alternatives, and that there are ways to do that, available to a big market team like this, i.e., do a better job of roster construction.
I've been disappointed in this Red Sox offseason so far, but I'm actually more disappointed in seeing the main board of SOSH turn into a sports talk radio show. There's actually more whining on here now than there was in 2003, when we had much better reasons for whining.
Uh-oh, I guess some lurker is going to call me a "shill" now because I"m not throwing a tantrum on here. I better try to fit in: it's been over year since we were in the ALCS, and I refuse to accept this failure! We are the victims! How much more of this abuse are we supposed to endure?
We’re both Anakin talking about the Jedi, but man from my side this stuff feels so entitled. Sorry I missed ‘78 and ‘86. Fuck every other franchise. Let’s win now and be the best, and if not let’s discuss what’s lacking.
I don’t care what’s happening in Minnesota any more than my mom cared what Johnny’s parents did.
Sure, the 2019 Yankees also won 103 games and made the ALCS. Due to the nature of playoff baseball I think winning a title can't be the sole parameter for a successful season.
Wow is that Harsh or what? The front office has no grasp? I hope this comment was born more out of frustration than how you really feel.
“Entitlement”.
In 2023 I’m going to buy MLB.tv, pay for subscriptions to BSJ and The Athletic, and attend at least a couple games at the most expensive ballpark in America.
The Boston Red Sox are in the entertainment business. Just like Marvel or Broadway or Taylor Swift.
I unapologetically feel entitled to be entertained for my dollar. In sports that largely entails winning. As of 12/16/22 the Sox don’t seem to be on a path to do a lot of winning in 2023
“Entitlement”
Ah yes, the "entertainment" argument. Except all these declarations about the quality of the 2023 product before this off-season is even half over are premature and overly dramatic. It's be like ripping on Marvel for making a shitty Guardians movie six months before it is finished and in theaters because they didn't get the right person to play Adam Warlock, and they're not paying enough to Chris Pratt so he'll be around to do Guardians 8.
At that time, was that trade perceived to be substantially different than the Pivetta trade where we gave up Workman and Hembree? At the time of the trade I don't think Beeks was valued internally at the same level as Houck or Whitlock, it seemed like he was a guy that we didn't know what to do with, a 6th starter of sorts.
This is a front office that was asking for the moon for JD Martinez at the trade deadline. Asked for a bag of balls for Mookie Betts and pointedly referenced how they messed up the Jon Lester situation in the context of how they were doing the exact same thing with Xander Bogaerts. Yes, the comment was made out of frustration but there's absolutely truth to it.
Yes, you're right, both the Eovaldi deal and the Steve Pearce deal that year looked like Dombrowski was bringing in adequate role players, not stars, but both ended up being amazing.
Yeah, also the 2013 team.
Will people please start a new thread if there are any actual rumors? You could call it Real Rumors or something like that so I would know it's not this thread. TIA, ITP.
I was devastated to lose Mookie. Almost equally devastated to lose Xander, but more than devasted, I was angry that they didn't extend him last spring. When Mookie was traded, it was told to the fan base that this wasn't popular, they hated losing Mookie, but this was what was necessary in order to have payroll flexibility to resign our other young stars. Well...that didn't happen.
Now, instead, we get mixed messages about the direction. We trade Vazquez, but don't trade other guys at the deadline so we don't get under the tax threshold. As a result, we don't get as much in return for losing Bogaerts. Now, this offseason, we say Bogaerts is our top priority, we "act" like we want to spend money but most of what we spent is on someone who hasn't played MLB and many scouts and "experts" think we overpayed. We aren't rebuilding, but are we really competing? We have holes in the OF, a gaping hole at SS, no top of the rotation guys, most of the rotation is either injury prone or young guys who will be on an innings limit. Now there are rumors on Swanson. So, we won't block Mayer by extending Bogaerts, but we might block Mayer by signing Swanson? Yeah, that will go over well with fans. And Swanson will forever be known as the guy who got Xander's money? (and I'm not talking Xander in SD money...I'm talking about the money we should have offered him last spring when he made it clear he wanted to be here long term) Not saying we are going to get Swanson because we seem to be "interested" in everyone but not really serious about anyone, but if we do, how will he do in Boston if he is boooed everytime he has a slump because he's not Xander?
What exactly is the plan?
Now, instead, we get mixed messages about the direction. We trade Vazquez, but don't trade other guys at the deadline so we don't get under the tax threshold. As a result, we don't get as much in return for losing Bogaerts. Now, this offseason, we say Bogaerts is our top priority, we "act" like we want to spend money but most of what we spent is on someone who hasn't played MLB and many scouts and "experts" think we overpayed. We aren't rebuilding, but are we really competing? We have holes in the OF, a gaping hole at SS, no top of the rotation guys, most of the rotation is either injury prone or young guys who will be on an innings limit. Now there are rumors on Swanson. So, we won't block Mayer by extending Bogaerts, but we might block Mayer by signing Swanson? Yeah, that will go over well with fans. And Swanson will forever be known as the guy who got Xander's money? (and I'm not talking Xander in SD money...I'm talking about the money we should have offered him last spring when he made it clear he wanted to be here long term) Not saying we are going to get Swanson because we seem to be "interested" in everyone but not really serious about anyone, but if we do, how will he do in Boston if he is boooed everytime he has a slump because he's not Xander?
What exactly is the plan?
I'm not "disheartened" and I surely don't feel worse than I did when they traded Betts, even though it kinda had to be done.
Rodon pitched well last season--he's also pitched as many innings the last 5 years as Chris Sale and never thrown more than 178 in a season. I get it, pitchers are risky, but half the posts this offseason are lamenting the Sale contract and now we want another one?
If the Sox signed Rodon to that deal and he spent a ton of time on the IL, all the media and 90% of the fan base that was calling for Boston to sign him would be whining that they made a stupid deal to sign an injury prone pitcher.
According to this report, Heyman says that $300 million is (still?) Devers' asking price.
Serious quesiton since I don't do Instagram.....Does he still follow Xander?
Which, for a barely 26 year old, isn't the worst thing they could do. 10 for 300 in this market for a player yet to enter his prime is fair, to me.
If this is true...I don't necessarily think it means that it's a lock he's coming here, but it can't possibly be a total coincidence, right? As in , there is interest and recent contact has been made?
Does he nave any other recent follows (Jose Abreu, Zack Eflin, Kenley Jansen, etc.)?
If Devers continues as he has, he will be a 4-5 bWAR player (maybe more) for the next 5-6 seasons. Then he will drop down into the 3-5 range for about 3 more seasons, then be a 2-3 bWAR player those last couple (of a 10-year deal). That means he should put up something in the neighborhood of 38-42 bWAR over the life of the contract, and at the end he should still be a useful player, not a guy putting up a 0.2 bWAR or something.
So....hell yes if "all" he wants is 10/300 right now, if I'm the GM, I do that in a heartbeat.
Completely agree - which is why I suspect that number is total BS. If you’re Devers looking at the deals that got thrown around this season, why the heck would you ever agree to a deal that was anything other than essentially market rate?
Since it’s pretty much a guarantee he will get a contract on the FA market worth more than $300m if he stays healthy, the only reason for him to sign now would be to avoid the tail risk of a catastrophic, essentially career-ending injury - which is always possible but it’s not like Devers is injury-prone.
It’s becoming increasingly clear that the time to extend players is basically right when they are on the cusp of stardom - when you know they’re going to be good, but before they get great and too close to free agency. The Sox missed that window with Devers (and Mookie, and X) so I think there’s virtually no way he gets extended unless they want to give him something more like 350m (which honestly, in this market, I probably would offer if I were the Sox).
They did extend X right up to the point where he’s likely to start regression
As we learned with Xs extension, the nuance to locking the players up matters. Devers 10/300 may look good, but what about opt outs? Not to relive the “opt outs hurt the team” but giving Devers opt out in 3 years or 4 years may be the hangup