That’s not what he said.No sense that he was available?
Yes, he was available. But he cost more than the Sox wanted to pay.
That’s not what he said.No sense that he was available?
My point, obviously, is that the Sox should have offered more and done it earlier to short cut the Yankees. The Red Sox need at 1st base, in both fielding AND hitting, was so glaring that two pairs of UV sunglasses could not shield our eyes from the shine.That’s not what he said.
Yes, he was available. But he cost more than the Sox wanted to pay.
So the right thing for the Sox to do is to tell the public which players in their organization they tried to trade for Rizzo. So fans would feel better that the FO really tried.If the Sox made a fair offer, and the Yankees simply outbid them, it would be nice to know what that offer was. Lack of transparency dulls my sense of empathy for the front office.
Guess we need to try a new analogy. Yes, he was available. Available like Porsches are available when you need a car. Doesn't mean you can afford to buy the Porsche though. Sometimes, what you can afford is the used Celica that needs a little bit of repair before it's road-ready.No sense that he was available? Every baseball man in America knew Rizzo was available. Numerous baseball experts were touting him as a logical fit for the Sox, so clearly, he was available.
On the other hand, since I do not know what the Cubs wanted from the Sox in exchange, I can't contest the second part of your argument. The Yankees gave up two prospects for a rental, but he is a rental they may sign if they decide to trade away Voit, to say, the Marlins, for some pitching. What I am saying is that we may come to regret the fact that we did not get him and the Yankees did.
"We were going to trade Bob to the Cubs for Rizzo, but they wanted Joey as well, so we didn't want to do it. Bob we would trade, and we'd throw in Chuck, no one wants Chuck ... but we wanted to keep Joey. We'll just have to hope Bob helps us somehow down the road."That literally never happens and it would be terrible business if it did.
I'm guessing you also remember the Sox trading away Sparky Lyle for Danny Cater. Seems to be in line with what you're Ok doing to address the team's perceived shortcomings.I am older than many of you. I remember 1974 and 1978
@ChrisCotillo
Confirmed: Red Sox have acquired outfielder Delino DeShields from the Rangers in a minor trade. He goes to the WooSox. Appears the return is cash.
Good to see the WooSox have a replacement for Marcus Wilson.
What some of us tend to forget at times or perhaps didn't realize is that The Cubs are paying the remainder of Rizzo's salary for the year and on the surface that sounds pretty sweet. The reality is that in order for Chicago to do that, the cost of prospects heading back from New York are way above what the Sox (or any other team for that matter) would or could comfortably offer. The Yankees had a very deep system and also a numbers crunch that put them in the position of both having quality players to move as well as NEEDING to move them or risk losing them.No sense that he was available? Every baseball man in America knew Rizzo was available. Numerous baseball experts were touting him as a logical fit for the Sox, so clearly, he was available.
On the other hand, since I do not know what the Cubs wanted from the Sox in exchange, I can't contest the second part of your argument. The Yankees gave up two prospects for a rental, but he is a rental they may sign if they decide to trade away Voit, to say, the Marlins, for some pitching. What I am saying is that we may come to regret the fact that we did not get him and the Yankees did.
I am older than many of you. I remember 1974 and 1978, years in which the Sox coughed up large leads to the Yankees (and the O's in '74), so the contentment with mediocrity at a few key positions does not sit well with me. The solutions, if you call them that, don't either.
Not exactly. At the time we traded Lyle, he was already a known commodity at the Major League level. At the time of that trade, the fans knew it was a bad trade. It turned out worse, even, than they knew. Cater turned into a dud, and Lyle, well, taking out Willoughby might not have been a problem in 1975 if we had Lyle coming in for that save, but my point is that the Lyle Situation is not comparable. However, your point is well taken.I'm guessing you also remember the Sox trading away Sparky Lyle for Danny Cater. Seems to be in line with what you're Ok doing to address the team's perceived shortcomings.
So you're disappointed that they didn't risk an outcome that you didn't want repeated? Also you state that it's a bad idea for Bloom to reveal exactly who he offered in trade, but you want hints for what reason? So people can then further speculate on what they don't know? Of course we know what the Yankees gave up, they made the deal. What sort of BS logic justifies this as reason for needing to know what the Sox offered?Not exactly. At the time we traded Lyle, he was already a known commodity at the Major League level. At the time of that trade, the fans knew it was a bad trade. It turned out worse, even, than they knew. Cater turned into a dud, and Lyle, well, taking out Willoughby might not have been a problem in 1975 if we had Lyle coming in for that save, but my point is that the Lyle Situation is not comparable. However, your point is well taken.
Even worse, we traded Jeff Bagwell for one month of Larry Anderson. I don't want that either. Was the Yankees' farm system so much better than ours that they could give up so much and we couldn't? Or was this Chaim Bloom simply applying his Tampa Bay mentality to the Sox?
>>So the right thing for the Sox to do is to tell the public which players in their organization they tried to trade for Rizzo. So fans would feel better that the FO really tried.
That literally never happens and it would be terrible business if it did.<<
I agree that making public exactly who the Sox were offering is a bad idea. However, knowing whether it was two top ten prospects in our system or maybe a minor leaguer with MLB experience would help. We know exactly what the Yankees gave up, and they got an all star first baseman whose salary is being picked up by Chicago.
I guess the anger I am hearing from everybody about my reasoning means that they are content with a good first half and the strong possibility of a total collapse, because that is what is happening. Hang on tight to those unproven prospects, because we are going to be in fourth place by the time Sale pitches or Schwarber, our second DH, hits. Meanwhile, the Porsche and Mazaratti the Yankees bought are going to lead them into the playoffs.
Yes, yes it was. Still is. Glad we could clear that up.Was the Yankees' farm system so much better than ours that they could give up so much and we couldn't?
I think that was two lousy pitchers.It’s an F. They traded for a lousy pitcher and and injured guy. They’re playing themselves out of the playoff picture and have added no one to help stop it.
It’s an F. Bloom’s first real failure.
If blowing prospects was mistake, why blow even a single one? They gave up two pitchers who have put in quality innings in the minors, and one former first round pick ... I keep hearing that the team is not good enough to GFIN. They are certainly less talented on paper than the top 3-4 teams ... but, of course, anything can happen in the playoffs.I like to wait a bit, and in retrospect. Blowing prospects for this team would have been a big mistake. No trade was going to bring 2 starting pitchers.
Now Marcus will blow up.Good to see the WooSox have a replacement for Marcus Wilson.
<iframe src="https://giphy.com/embed/hS2tguWYRStJ6" width="480" height="371" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="If blowing prospects was mistake, why blow even a single one? They gave up two pitchers who have put in quality innings in the minors, and one former first round pick ... I keep hearing that the team is not good enough to GFIN. They are certainly less talented on paper than the top 3-4 teams ... but, of course, anything can happen in the playoffs.
So, if it was Bloom's contention that this team can't do it ... why not just stand pat. Or even sell a bit. Or even, radically, sell a lot. But at minimum why give up a single asset then?
The argument was never that the team wasn't good enough to GFIN. The argument was and is that the team isn't in a position to be able to GFIN, at least in the way you seem to want where they trade highly rated prospects for short-term gains (rental players). They're contending ahead of schedule. That doesn't mean this is their only or best chance in the next 2-3 years.If blowing prospects was mistake, why blow even a single one? They gave up two pitchers who have put in quality innings in the minors, and one former first round pick ... I keep hearing that the team is not good enough to GFIN. They are certainly less talented on paper than the top 3-4 teams ... but, of course, anything can happen in the playoffs.
So, if it was Bloom's contention that this team can't do it ... why not just stand pat. Or even sell a bit. Or even, radically, sell a lot. But at minimum why give up a single asset then?
I want evidence that there was some effort on their part to get a player who could help them. I have always thought of Schwarber as one dimensional, and he is injured; Rizzo can hit AND play good defense at a position at which the Sox are ranked 32nd in the majors. Moreover, what message did it send to the rest of the team that every other team in our division got one or two prime stars and we got what we got? It either tells them that the front office thinks they are good enough to win it all as they are or that they aren't good enough to win so why bother making the effort to shore up the weaknesses. Frankly, I think it sent the latter message, and the rest of the team is playing like it.So you're disappointed that they didn't risk an outcome that you didn't want repeated? Also you state that it's a bad idea for Bloom to reveal exactly who he offered in trade, but you want hints for what reason? So people can then further speculate on what they don't know? Of course we know what the Yankees gave up, they made the deal. What sort of BS logic justifies this as reason for needing to know what the Sox offered?
Exactly. Except I don't think it was Bloom's first failure. Santana and Gonzalez have done very little to help this team. I am so sick of watching Gonzalez watch a fat strike and then swing at a ball in the dirt. I can forgive Dalbec for that; he's a rookie who we put in a tough position. Gonzalez has been a major disappointment.It’s an F. They traded for a lousy pitcher and and injured guy. They’re playing themselves out of the playoff picture and have added no one to help stop it.
It’s an F. Bloom’s first real failure.
I'm not going to swap sides on the topic of this thread, but are we now going to cherry pick a seven game stretch and make Dalbec comps in defense for not making deals? Bloom felt that the team wasn't in a position to out bid New York for Rizzo's services, period.Rizzo started like a ball of fire, but in the last 7 games, he has come down to earth at .185/.258/.295 with 1 HR. Almost Dalbecian...
Don't misunderstand...I would have done anything within reason to have gotten Rizzo. But it may not have made that huge a difference.I'm not going to swap sides on the topic of this thread, but are we now going to cherry pick a seven game stretch and make Dalbec comps in defense for not making deals? Bloom felt that the team wasn't in a position to out bid New York for Rizzo's services, period.
It just got worse...Rizzo started like a ball of fire, but in the last 7 games, he has come down to earth at .185/.258/.295 with 1 HR. Almost Dalbecian...
How many Red Sox or Yankees had to be tested for Covid symptoms since visiting Florida last weekend? IIRC there's JD, Duran and Carlos Febles for the Sox and Sanchez, Cole, Montgomery and now Rizzo for the Yankees.
I think all the Sox have been tested this weekend because of entering Canada, which is how Febles was found (he's reportedly asymptomatic). The players may have caught a non-COVID bug as they've had a few players ill but testing negative this week.How many Red Sox or Yankees had to be tested for Covid symptoms since visiting Florida last weekend? IIRC there's JD, Duran and Carlos Febles for the Sox and Sanchez, Cole, Montgomery and now Rizzo for the Yankees.
Edit: JD and Duran are back in the lineup today, so it looks like their tests were negative.
Rizzo, despite being a cancer survivor, reportedly has NOT been vaccinated.How many Red Sox or Yankees had to be tested for Covid symptoms since visiting Florida last weekend? IIRC there's JD, Duran and Carlos Febles for the Sox and Sanchez, Cole, Montgomery and now Rizzo for the Yankees.
Edit: JD and Duran are back in the lineup today, so it looks like their tests were negative.
And not everyone comes back as fresh as a daisy in 10-14 days.The Rizzo vaccination status was discussed extensively leading up to the trade deadline. This was the risk for a 2 month rental.
And it turns out: yes, it is relevant to a players value.The Rizzo vaccination status was discussed extensively leading up to the trade deadline. This was the risk for a 2 month rental.
Absolutely. And unvaccinated Delta might not be a picnic.And it turns out: yes, it is relevant to a players value.
Exactly. If these new acquisitions were useful, they would have pitched. Instead, we used the overtired closer and set up man. The real issue was walking the #9 hitter.A big part of today's disaster is on Bloom. Cora has overworked Taylor, Sawamura, Ottavino and Barnes, in part because Bloom's two acquisitions are awful.
C'mon - if Cora did that and had the same result, he would have been crucified for not bringing in his best relievers.Frankly, they should have used either Rios or the better of the two acquisitions (the righty) for the eighth inning. Overworking Barnes and Ottavino is a little like Gene Mauch Pitching Short and Bunning twice on two day's rest in 1964 as they laughed up a 6 1/2 game lead in the last twelve days of the season.
I agree. He would have. In hindsight, after using Barnes twice yesterday and Ottavino yesterday, pitching them as longs as he did was problematic. He expected more out of Taylor and more out of Sawamura. Their failure meant that the others had to come in earlier.C'mon - if Cora did that and had the same result, he would have been crucified for not bringing in his best relievers.
His curveball has been much more hittable since the sticky stuff was eliminated. He is not the same pitcher that he was early in the season, but he could have just been pitching over his actual ability and now we are seeing the real Barnes again.Barnes overworked perhaps, but IMO, another guy who was not the same shutdown guy after the sticky stuff rules took effect!
Gant had a 5.12 FIP and a 6.6 BB/9 this year. There’s a reason he was traded for so little. He’s another Richards/Perez.Could we not have used a pitcher like Gant? That's who I wanted. Not a star. Not Scherzer. A #3 or #4 starter. Controllable for 2022. Making 2 million a year. A guy like him would NOT have raided the farm. He was gotten for a 5 + ERA 38 year old. Sigh.
Agreed. At this point, the trades they did make are a negative. Unless Schwarber has another June-like run if he can get healthy, giving up a legit asset for him is a significant mistake by Bloom. Even if Aldo Ramirez doesn’t turn into anything, he could have been off loaded in another deal in the future.Given the way things are going, I’m glad the Red Sox held most of their cards.
For a different play who might not work outEven if Aldo Ramirez doesn’t turn into anything, he could have been off loaded in another deal in the future.
June 21 was the day MLB started going after the sticky stuff.His curveball has been much more hittable since the sticky stuff was eliminated. He is not the same pitcher that he was early in the season, but he could have just been pitching over his actual ability and now we are seeing the real Barnes again.
But maybe one with a healthy hamstring at the start?For a different play who might not work out
I guess the real question is are things the way they are BECAUSE we held most of our cards?Given the way things are going, I’m glad the Red Sox held most of their cards.