Henry & Bloom booed at Winter Weekend

Minneapolis Millers

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,753
Twin Cities
What does cheering accomplish? It's fucking sports, nobody is accomplishing anything.
Well THAT’s an interesting question, perhaps worth a different thread. Players routinely talk about how great “home field advantage” is. I watched the Tennessee-Georgia game where TN had something like 15 straight illegal movement/false start penalties late in the game. They looked pretty freakin’ rattled by the crowd noise to me. Similarly, I remember Cardinals players talking about how disturbingly loud the Metrodome was in the ‘87 World Series. But I’ve rarely (never?) heard players talk about how getting booed motivated them to do better, especially in the moment. Behavioral science tends to focus on the long term benefits of positive supports and the lack of benefits (beyond the very short term) of negative supports. So…Discuss!
 
Last edited:

Minneapolis Millers

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,753
Twin Cities
I mean, I would guess the people booing him (and Henry) would say that it's as much about process/plan as it is about results, and so is a lot more comparable to booing a player for bad approach than bad results. Like if a guy comes on with 1 out and guys on and takes HR swings on 3 straight in the dirt, he's more likely to get booed than the guy who pops out on a tough 3-2 pitch.

They see him trading or letting walk all their favorite players to save money, but not putting that to use in putting out a title contender, which is their expectation for the Red Sox..... which isn't that unreasonable honestly, MLB isn't the NFL, it's much more like EPL where the revenue teams have built in advantages and a 5 year reset would be considered a big disappointment.

So they are booing him not just for poor results, but for a process and mindset they feel is bad. I don't have much of an issue with that thinking (even if I think booing is a bit much as a reaction), I think there is a lot in the last 4 years that indicates Bloom either doesn't have a great plan, or his plan is based more on cutting costs and maybe competing than on winning World Series. So apportioning can be tough, because if Bloom's mandate from ownership is "compete if you can, but we want to drastically reduce spending long term above all", well he's on track. If the goal is winning WS... less so.

Part of it also is... fans care about winning titles, they don't care about good financial stewardship, or sacrificing better title odds in the short term to avoid a bad contract long term. You don't get cheered for "best bang for your buck" or "didn't take on risk", nobody cheers accountants and actuaries.
You might be right about the process piece, although the approach in a time-limited at bat is harder to gauge than the approach of managing payroll and building a 40 man roster over years. But the bolded part doesn’t seem to matter much here, unless people are thinking they should be winning titles not just once every 30 years (proportional), or once every 5 years (actual, this millenium), but, well, every year. Which would make them MFY fans. And THAT’S the entitlement we’re talking about.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,460
You might be right about the process piece, although the approach in a time-limited at bat is harder to gauge than the approach of managing payroll and building a 40 man roster over years. But the bolded part doesn’t seem to matter much here, unless people are thinking they should be winning titles not just once every 30 years (proportional), or once every 5 years (actual, this millenium), but, well, every year. Which would make them MFY fans.
I would guess they would say.... once every 5 years would be nice, but a realistic threat most years is the goal, which isn't ridiculous at all given that they are one of two teams in the AL with a massive revenue advantage over their peers. I think they look at the last 4 years and don't see any of those teams are realistic threats, and look at this offseason and don't see a team that is better than those last 4. Treating the Red Sox as if they are just one of 30 teams is somewhat silly, the top teams have huge advantages, and as such expectations should be higher.
 

Deweys New Stance

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 8, 2001
2,888
Here to Eternity
I would guess they would say.... once every 5 years would be nice, but a realistic threat most years is the goal, which isn't ridiculous at all given that they are one of two teams in the AL with a massive revenue advantage over their peers. I think they look at the last 4 years and don't see any of those teams are realistic threats, and look at this offseason and don't see a team that is better than those last 4. Treating the Red Sox as if they are just one of 30 teams is somewhat silly, the top teams have huge advantages, and as such expectations should be higher.
They weren’t a realistic title contender the year they won two games in the ALCS?
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,660
I agree that 1/3 shot at the playoffs isn't great. But it's far from nothing.

The 2021 Braves had a 17% chance at the postseason at the trade deadline, had lost their best player, and won the World Series.
The 2006 Cardinals won 83 games and won the World Series
The 1987 Twins won 85 games, had a negative run differential, and won the World Series.

"But they wouldn't have done anything even if they made the playoffs" doesn't hold up.

If someone had offered them two top 50 MLB prospects for Nate Eovladi, then yes, by all means trade him and get under the cap. But that wasn't on the table. The trade market was so tough that Willson Contreras and Carlos Rodon -- who signed for a combined 249.5 million this offseason -- were not dealt, despite being on teams in far worse situations than the Red Sox.

The notion that the Sox screwed up the 2022 deadline is nothing more than a myth.
I don’t “boo” my team. However, I do complain about things out loud: “Take him out, he’s done!” “Stay inbounds!” “Call time out!” All of that is critical, and it all sounds like booing in the stands, so I certainly can’t claim choir boy status.

But imo it’s one thing to criticize effort, lack thereof, or lack or attention. It’s another to boo lack of success. Guys strike out. They miss field goals. They miss free throws (ok, full admission, that bugs me, too.). But it’s not for lack of trying.

Do people here really think Bloom is just sitting on his ass doing nothing? That he’s not running out his ground balls?? If so, I call bull sh!t. There’s no evidence of that. And in that context, booing him for interim/incomplete results, is petulant. You’re not 12 years old (apologies to posters here who are, in fact, 12 years old.).

THAT’s the perspective and nuance many here are asking for. It’s not a black-and-white world, and too many posters here are treating it as such. (I could go into the trade deadline last year, and the fact that Bloom tried to take a “balanced” approach and to thread the eye of a small needle, but that nuance, too, would whoosh right by some posters.)
Exactly. We keep going around and about on this stuff, bemoaning the lost opportunity that Bloom just couldn’t see cuz he’s clearly incompetent, without looking at what actually transpired.

They needed OF help and got a mediocre corner OF bat who did nothing. They brought in a C that didn’t even play every day and was ok but isn’t great. They shipped out a pitcher and brought in a pitcher who didn’t do much. And they were contending!

Oh, by the way, I’m talking about the Astros. I can’t believe they didn’t go full in to compete for a title. Really, they should have punted, if that’s all they were going to do.

The point? You can second guess everyone, and it’s particularly fun to do so when your team isn’t ultimately successful. But there wasn’t much activity last deadline, and rather than give players away, Bloom decided to cross his fingers and hope that injuries would abate and his $200M team would play like, you know, a $200M team. It didn’t happen. Live with it. It doesn’t make the decision-making at the time wrong or indefensible.
Great posts here. Totally agree.

I'm sure you've heard the expression, never let a crisis go to waste. 2022 was a bad year. You can argue all you want that they had a chance at the playoffs, but they would have had to do far more than McGuire, Pham and Hosmer for that to be a realistic goal, let alone go deep in the playoffs. The 2022 deadline was a missed opportunity to reset the cap.
The Sox didn't need to reset the cap in 2022, because they didn't exceed it in 2021 or 2020. Imagine how people would howl if we didn't exceed the cap in 2022, the third year in a row.

The penalties for exceeding it in 2022 aren't that harsh, as @moondog80 said above, and given the circumstances, it's always the correct choice to go for it in a 1 in 3 chance. YMMV of course but considering the circumstances, it seems like an odd thing to be mad at.

We'll reset this year or next and load up for the big 2025 offseason. It's likely we'll reset this one. We might be able to QO Kiké or Paxton if they have strong years. Or if we hang on to Verdugo, we might want to be under if we give him a QO the following year.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,090
Oh come on, he's only had two top five MVP finishes in the three years since he left Boston. He's clearly not the player he once was!

I can't speak for others, and I know this is not what our brain trust would say they are shooting for, but given the choice between watching last year's non-competitive team featuring JBJ Mark 2, Franchy, Duran and Tommy Pham and watching a non-competitive team featuring Mookie Betts, I'd choose the latter every time.
He hasn’t even regressed unless you’re comparing him to his ridiculous 2018 10+ WAR season. He was a 6+ WAR player last year. His BABIP was .289, .276, and .272 last 3 years so he may have been unlucky as well. Clearly, the back end of his deal won’t be good but that’s the same for basically every one of these monster deals. But what’s done is done.
 

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
1,176
Great posts here. Totally agree.



The Sox didn't need to reset the cap in 2022, because they didn't exceed it in 2021 or 2020. Imagine how people would howl if we didn't exceed the cap in 2022, the third year in a row.

The penalties for exceeding it in 2022 aren't that harsh, as @moondog80 said above, and given the circumstances, it's always the correct choice to go for it in a 1 in 3 chance. YMMV of course but considering the circumstances, it seems like an odd thing to be mad at.

We'll reset this year or next and load up for the big 2025 offseason. It's likely we'll reset this one. We might be able to QO Kiké or Paxton if they have strong years. Or if we hang on to Verdugo, we might want to be under if we give him a QO the following year.
I'd have understood the decision a lot more if we did in fact go for it with the 1/3 chance. It was the "not making a call" aspect that really still gets to me.

Personally, I'd have sold and I've said this multiple times. However, if you were looking at it as saying "it's always the correct choice to go for it in a 1 in 3 chance" then the team should have made more moves to bolster the squad, especially if they ostensibly knew it was their last year with Bogaerts in the middle of the line up (or they horribly misread the market, so I'm going to assume they KNEW he was gone and aren't incapable of reading the market).

I'm not saying they should have paid for Soto, obviously, but there were plenty of pieces that could have helped that went for very little.

Gallo for Clayton Beeter.

R Iglesias for Jesse Chavez and Tucker Davidson.

Merrifield for Samad Taylor and Max Castillo.

David Robertson for Ben Brown.

Michael Fulmer for Sawyer Gipson-Long.

Jorge Lopez for four guys I've never heard of.

I stopped looking with the end of transactions on 8/2 so I'm not even looking at anyone before then. None of the prospects mentioned are exactly needing to shell out Mayer or Casas. If they really believed in the team last year, there were plenty of moves they could have made to bolster the giant list of holes in the team. If they didn't believe in the team enough to make those type of deals, then they should have sold - which again, is what I would have done.
 

BornToRun

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 4, 2011
17,312
I don’t “boo” my team. However, I do complain about things out loud: “Take him out, he’s done!” “Stay inbounds!” “Call time out!” All of that is critical, and it all sounds like booing in the stands, so I certainly can’t claim choir boy status.

But imo it’s one thing to criticize effort, lack thereof, or lack or attention. It’s another to boo lack of success. Guys strike out. They miss field goals. They miss free throws (ok, full admission, that bugs me, too.). But it’s not for lack of trying.

Do people here really think Bloom is just sitting on his ass doing nothing? That he’s not running out his ground balls?? If so, I call bull sh!t. There’s no evidence of that. And in that context, booing him for interim/incomplete results, is petulant. You’re not 12 years old (apologies to posters here who are, in fact, 12 years old.).

THAT’s the perspective and nuance many here are asking for. It’s not a black-and-white world, and too many posters here are treating it as such. (I could go into the trade deadline last year, and the fact that Bloom tried to take a “balanced” approach and to thread the eye of a small needle, but that nuance, too, would whoosh right by some posters.)
That’s how I look at it and I should’ve been clearer in my initial post. Booing guys for a lack of effort or being a jerk/bad person off the field is fine in my book. But you don’t boo guys for failing. No one tries to go 0-4 with 4 strikeouts and they don’t need their own crowd telling them they suck.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,093
I'd have understood the decision a lot more if we did in fact go for it with the 1/3 chance. It was the "not making a call" aspect that really still gets to me.
There are levels of going for it. Given that a 33% chance of the postseason still means a 66% of not making it, they opted for "since the market for selling FA-to-be is so low, we will hold onto our guys (except when we can trade a guy who we won't miss, like Vazquez) and improve the team as much as we can without sacrificing the future".
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,347
What does cheering accomplish? It's fucking sports, nobody is accomplishing anything.
Are you being serious? As a former athlete… being cheered on by your home crowd actually can help you find a bit of extra energy you didn’t think you had. It helps….
Booing? It’s just shitty.
I’m assuming yoU know these and I’m behind daft but not sure…
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,479
Rogers Park
The return was the problem.
I'm a broken record about this, but do you have an example of a recent, comparable trade that received an unambiguously better return?

We traded one year of Betts at $20m, so optimistically $50m in surplus value, and David Price and $48m (call it $0 surplus value), and got a so so outfielder, a stud middle infield prospect (who then fell apart, but had just finished a great season where he reached AA at the end), and a catching prospect who still looks pretty useful.

Teams that get better returns for a star player are generally trading more than one season of control of their star player. Compare to what the Orioles got for Machado, or what the Diamondbacks got for Goldschmidt.
 

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
16,722
Mookie + 2020 + 2022 + Xander + few major FA signings + few 2023-MLB-ready noteworthy prospects = today

I'm assuming you meant this hyperbolically, but everyone should know where the "vitriol" is coming from. You don't have to agree. but you should know.
The year we went to the playoffs and knocked out the Yankees and Devil Rays literally doesn't even enter the equation.
This vitriol has selective memory.
 

BornToRun

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 4, 2011
17,312
The year we went to the playoffs and knocked out the Yankees and Devil Rays literally doesn't even enter the equation.
This vitriol has selective memory.
That season was as good as it gets short of actually winning it all. Unexpectedly competitive team that knocks off its two biggest rivals and gives Houston a run for its money? That’s an awesome year.
 

jteders1

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 5, 2022
117
I'd have understood the decision a lot more if we did in fact go for it with the 1/3 chance. It was the "not making a call" aspect that really still gets to me.

Personally, I'd have sold and I've said this multiple times. However, if you were looking at it as saying "it's always the correct choice to go for it in a 1 in 3 chance" then the team should have made more moves to bolster the squad, especially if they ostensibly knew it was their last year with Bogaerts in the middle of the line up (or they horribly misread the market, so I'm going to assume they KNEW he was gone and aren't incapable of reading the market).

I'm not saying they should have paid for Soto, obviously, but there were plenty of pieces that could have helped that went for very little.

Gallo for Clayton Beeter.

R Iglesias for Jesse Chavez and Tucker Davidson.

Merrifield for Samad Taylor and Max Castillo.

David Robertson for Ben Brown.

Michael Fulmer for Sawyer Gipson-Long.

Jorge Lopez for four guys I've never heard of.

I stopped looking with the end of transactions on 8/2 so I'm not even looking at anyone before then. None of the prospects mentioned are exactly needing to shell out Mayer or Casas. If they really believed in the team last year, there were plenty of moves they could have made to bolster the giant list of holes in the team. If they didn't believe in the team enough to make those type of deals, then they should have sold - which again, is what I would have done.
Exactly, like acquiring Hosmer and Pham indicates that you’re going for it. Bloom tried to thread the needle of trading enough salary away to get under the threshold and getting minor “improvements” that may put us in playoff contention. He failed at both.
 

jteders1

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 5, 2022
117
The 2021 team was lucky!
The 2022 team was all because Bloom controls everything but sucks at it
Unfortunately there are stats that back this up. The Sox Pythtag under Bloom have been 74(stretched out to 162 game season for COVID year), 88, and 76. The only time we were way off on our Pythag was 6 games in 21 where we over achieved. It’s not nothing, but for a site that really leans heavily on stats, this seems ignored every time people tall about 2021.
 

HangingW/ScottCooper

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
2,493
Scituate, MA
I agree that 1/3 shot at the playoffs isn't great. But it's far from nothing.

The 2021 Braves had a 17% chance at the postseason at the trade deadline, had lost their best player, and won the World Series.
The 2006 Cardinals won 83 games and won the World Series
The 1987 Twins won 85 games, had a negative run differential, and won the World Series.

"But they wouldn't have done anything even if they made the playoffs" doesn't hold up.

If someone had offered them two top 50 MLB prospects for Nate Eovladi, then yes, by all means trade him and get under the cap. But that wasn't on the table. The trade market was so tough that Willson Contreras and Carlos Rodon -- who signed for a combined 249.5 million this offseason -- were not dealt, despite being on teams in far worse situations than the Red Sox.

The notion that the Sox screwed up the 2022 deadline is nothing more than a myth.
Different playoff systems not withstanding, did anyone on here legitimately feel that this team was a playoff team? They may have statistically had a 33% chance, but my read of the room had them as a team going nowhere and a team that shouldn't waste future resources to try and salvage the season.

That being said, unless there were no trades where other teams would take on salary you're going to have a hard time convincing me that they couldn't have gotten under the cap simply because the Cubs and Rodon weren't traded. We are not the only team capable of making bad decisions. Furthermore, Contreras and Rodon were both offered qualifying offers, no? If the offers weren't there to offset the compensatory picks then I certainly understand not trading either player (or Eovaldi or Bogaerts). But not trading JD, Wacha or Hill is confusing. Admittedly I don't now exactly how close they were, but it is my understanding that Vazquez and JD would have done as would have Vazquez, Wacha and Hill.

What does cheering accomplish? It's fucking sports, nobody is accomplishing anything.
I'll refer to the 2021 Wild Card game where fan cheering helped the Sox win that game. That crowd was amazing to be a part of.
 

A Bad Man

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2016
1,050
I'm a broken record about this, but do you have an example of a recent, comparable trade that received an unambiguously better return?

We traded one year of Betts at $20m, so optimistically $50m in surplus value, and David Price and $48m (call it $0 surplus value), and got a so so outfielder, a stud middle infield prospect (who then fell apart, but had just finished a great season where he reached AA at the end), and a catching prospect who still looks pretty useful.

Teams that get better returns for a star player are generally trading more than one season of control of their star player. Compare to what the Orioles got for Machado, or what the Diamondbacks got for Goldschmidt.
I love a good Betts relitigation. See below:
The Betts trade was a stroke of genius.

We traded one year of Mookie (27m) for half of David Price's remaining contract (3/96m total, or 3/48m), Verdugo, Downs, and Wong. 2020 contracts paid out at 37%; Betts earned 9.99m and was worth 2.8 fWAR. Price did not pitch in 2020; in '21 and '22 combined, Price was worth 0.8 fWAR total. The Sox went from paying 75.84m for 0.8 fWAR to 37.92m for 0.8 fWAR. Verdugo has earned 4.42m from '20 to '22; he has produced 6.1fWAR.

The Sox went from paying 85.83m for 3.6 fWAR (from '20-'22) to paying 42.35m for 6.9 fWAR, while also adding Downs and Wong.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
24,829
Unreal America
The year we went to the playoffs and knocked out the Yankees and Devil Rays literally doesn't even enter the equation.
This vitriol has selective memory.
All of the goodwill that was generated from that season was squandered when the team collapsed in 2022 and then lost Xander.

Some of you do realize we're talking about people's emotions here, right? Like, most fans outside of SoSH don't use a spreadsheet to calculate and calibrate their feelings about Red Sox ownership based on WAR?

Again, none of you have to like it. But this is what is transpiring.
 

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
16,722
All of the goodwill that was generated from that season was squandered when the team collapsed in 2022 and then lost Xander.

Some of you do realize we're talking about people's emotions here, right? Like, most fans outside of SoSH don't use a spreadsheet to calculate and calibrate their feelings about Red Sox ownership based on WAR?

Again, none of you have to like it. But this is what is transpiring.
Sure, goodwill lasts 6 months, and rage lasts forever.
Good seasons get forgotten about quickly and don't count the second things go bad. Unpopular trades can never be forgotten or gotten over, for some fans.
The rage-fueled fans have their right to boo and whine all they want. And I have every right to consider them to be ungrateful little babies for doing it. We're all exercising our legal rights! Freedom!
A lot of Boston sports fans grew up last century with the mindset that our teams were cursed, and the Red Sox were ripping us off because they were stupid and cheap. That was kind of true for a long time. But now it's not, and it hasn't been true for a long time. But apparently some folks can't view sports any other way, no matter how many titles their teams win.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,660
All of the goodwill that was generated from that season was squandered when the team collapsed in 2022 and then lost Xander.

Some of you do realize we're talking about people's emotions here, right? Like, most fans outside of SoSH don't use a spreadsheet to calculate and calibrate their feelings about Red Sox ownership based on WAR?

Again, none of you have to like it. But this is what is transpiring.
There are a ton of V&N-caliber real world examples why using this kind of lens can have disastrous results.

Following the Red Sox is much lower stakes than those, but I think you’re right that affective reporting has had more of an impact lately. (See Bradford’s admission in the Bloom interview after the Plawecki thing that they are all instructed to cover the Sox “like a soap opera” now.)

Carrabis, the WEEI guys and other reactionary media figures understand that anger drives social media engagement more than anything. They drift in and out of lanes of traditional journalism but they’re not reporters, they’re entertainers. Conveying good, sound information and analysis to the public doesn’t help them. What helps is stoking these kinds of “feelings” — ramping up the grievance narratives, sprinkling in the occasional “things were better then” nostalgia post and drowning out the rest.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,017
Oregon
Some of you do realize we're talking about people's emotions here, right? Like, most fans outside of SoSH don't use a spreadsheet to calculate and calibrate their feelings about Red Sox ownership based on WAR?
There's a "VORP of my anus" joke in here somewhere
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,304
All of the goodwill that was generated from that season was squandered when the team collapsed in 2022 and then lost Xander.

Some of you do realize we're talking about people's emotions here, right? Like, most fans outside of SoSH don't use a spreadsheet to calculate and calibrate their feelings about Red Sox ownership based on WAR?

Again, none of you have to like it. But this is what is transpiring.
And all that goodwill will come back the next time they have a very good team. Did people not care about the 2021 team because they sucked in 2020 and traded Betts? Or the previous world series that came not long after terrible seasons?
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
24,829
Unreal America
Sure, goodwill lasts 6 months, and rage lasts forever.
Good seasons get forgotten about quickly and don't count the second things go bad. Unpopular trades can never be forgotten or gotten over, for some fans.
The rage-fueled fans have their right to boo and whine all they want. And I have every right to consider them to be ungrateful little babies for doing it. We're all exercising our legal rights! Freedom!
A lot of Boston sports fans grew up last century with the mindset that our teams were cursed, and the Red Sox were ripping us off because they were stupid and cheap. That was kind of true for a long time. But now it's not, and it hasn't been true for a long time. But apparently some folks can't view sports any other way, no matter how many titles their teams win.
I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind. I do find the use of words like “ungrateful” to be kind of weird. I guess I have gratitude towards Ortiz and Pedro, Tito and Cora. But Bloom? Nope. Henry? Sure, but I’m gonna lose sleep if someone boos him. I doubt he does.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
24,829
Unreal America
And all that goodwill will come back the next time they have a very good team. Did people not care about the 2021 team because they sucked in 2020 and traded Betts? Or the previous world series that came not long after terrible seasons?
I agree. Like I said earlier, if you jettison popular players but win, people get over it. If you lose, they don’t. It’s not rocket science.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,304
I agree. Like I said earlier, if you jettison popular players but win, people get over it. If you lose, they don’t. It’s not rocket science.
And they did win. One year after trading Betts and being terrible. If your logic is that they need to win every season to keep goodwill that seems a tad unrealistic.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
24,829
Unreal America
There are a ton of V&N-caliber real world examples why using this kind of lens can have disastrous results.

Following the Red Sox is much lower stakes than those, but I think you’re right that affective reporting has had more of an impact lately. (See Bradford’s admission in the Bloom interview after the Plawecki thing that they are all instructed to cover the Sox “like a soap opera” now.)

Carrabis, the WEEI guys and other reactionary media figures understand that anger drives social media engagement more than anything. They drift in and out of lanes of traditional journalism but they’re not reporters, they’re entertainers. Conveying good, sound information and analysis to the public doesn’t help them. What helps is stoking these kinds of “feelings” — ramping up the grievance narratives, sprinkling in the occasional “things were better then” nostalgia post and drowning out the rest.
I think blaming the media implies that people can’t think for themselves. I don’t think it takes Felger & Mazz for people to be upset about Mookie and X.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
24,829
Unreal America
And they did win. One year after trading Betts and being terrible. If your logic is that they need every season to keep goodwill that seems a tad unrealistic.
How much “vitriol” was present in early October vs December when X walked? That ripped open the scab of Mookie’s exit.
 

pk1627

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 24, 2003
2,514
Boston
Would you disagree with the statement that they have been rebuilding since 2020, and that it will likely take at least another year or two until they are rebuilt?
I’d take exception with the start being 2020. That was a meaningless year and I thought tanking it was brilliant (and it resulted in Mayer).

2021-23 is indeed a rebuild. The Sox stated goal was to be competitive during this time. They succeeded in 2021 and I am pretty sure this year will be as fun. As Meatloaf says, 2/3 ain’t bad.

I understand last year was pretty poor. But we start 2023 with Casas, Bello, Whitlock in the rotation, an interesting rookie in Yoshida, a promising catching group, and some good young arms that might make this good pen great.
 

cornwalls@6

Less observant than others
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
6,247
from the wilds of western ma
I’d take exception with the start being 2020. That was a meaningless year and I thought tanking it was brilliant (and it resulted in Mayer).

2021-23 is indeed a rebuild. The Sox stated goal was to be competitive during this time. They succeeded in 2021 and I am pretty sure this year will be as fun. As Meatloaf says, 2/3 ain’t bad.

I understand last year was pretty poor. But we start 2023 with Casas, Bello, Whitlock in the rotation, an interesting rookie in Yoshida, a promising catching group, and some good young arms that might make this good pen great.
That’s a very good point about 2020. I find it hard to fathom that anyone was all that upset about punting a 60 game season, where nobody could go to the ballpark. Other than the brief distraction /relief of seeing baseball on tv late that summer, I hardly cared or remember it. It just has no credibility as a season anyone “suffered” through.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,093
That being said, unless there were no trades where other teams would take on salary you're going to have a hard time convincing me that they couldn't have gotten under the cap simply because the Cubs and Rodon weren't traded.
Sure, they could have gotten under the cap. What would have been very difficult was getting under the cap without significantly diminishing the shot they had at the postseason. They chose trying to win over what amounts to a lottery ticket prospect worth of value.
 

Kramerica Industries

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2006
1,031
nh
What I thought was very interesting was Bloom went into how Mookie didnt make sense to sign because of where the team was at and the timeline of young players coming didnt match up. All we have really heard is they tried to sign Mookie, they really wanted to keep him but he didnt want to be in Boston. Which Mookie himself said wasn't true.

Seems to me they should stop talking about Mookie. At least until 2029.
 

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
16,722
I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind. I do find the use of words like “ungrateful” to be kind of weird. I guess I have gratitude towards Ortiz and Pedro, Tito and Cora. But Bloom? Nope. Henry? Sure, but I’m gonna lose sleep if someone boos him. I doubt he does.
Gratitude doesn't have to be directed at anybody. When something good happens to you, you can feel grateful for it. Or you can choose not to.
View: https://youtu.be/ZdJ5e70Q8mw


I don't lose any sleep over John Henry's feelings either. I do get tired of the whining by a noisy element of a fanbase that has had a lot of really good things happen to it not that long ago. It comes off like a rich guy who is always complaining to everyone else about how bad he's got it.

It's poor form and unattractive in my opinion. I'd personally prefer not to read it or listen to it, but that's just, like, my opinion, man.

Every sports fan gets mad when bad things happen-- I sure as hell do! It's part of being a fan. But I think it's good to keep some perspective in mind too.

Getting really angry when the Red Sox fucked up before 2004 seems a lot more understandable than it does now, because the context has changed so much for the better. It felt like they would never win it even once in my entire life. Thank god that feeling is gone forever.

When people used to say "If they just win it ONE time before I die I'll never complain about them again" I figured that was just an exaggeration, but I didn't realize just how much bullshit that truly was until Bellhorn and Foulke were getting booed at Fenway by June 2005. "Thank you so much for forever changing my life for the better six months ago, but you aren't playing well now so YOU SUCK! BOOOOO!"

This team has won 3 MORE world championships since then. Seems like that should buy a lot of goodwill that lasts a while. But for some, it buys nothing. They are going to carry on like none of that ever happened. (Again, their legal right.)

Goodwill doesn't mean anyone is above criticism at all. To me, it means not automatically assuming the worst about everything they do, and maybe giving them a little rope when they do something that I don't agree with, because they've got a track record of success. And because the context has changed so much for the better in a real and lasting way.

So many people who are relatively well off complain publicly these days about their grievances and how they are the real victims. It's really tiresome and one of the major downsides of reading anything online. The main board of SOSH has generally been a great oasis that hasn't had too much of that. Seems different this offseason. There has always been loads of criticism and complaining about losses and moves/non-moves here-- lots of it by me. But lately it seems like there's a lot more general bitterness and game-thread-style anger at the ownership/GM here than before. And if it's like that here, then... yikes.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
24,829
Unreal America
Gratitude doesn't have to be directed at anybody. When something good happens to you, you can feel grateful for it. Or you can choose not to.
View: https://youtu.be/ZdJ5e70Q8mw


I don't lose any sleep over John Henry's feelings either. I do get tired of the whining by a noisy element of a fanbase that has had a lot of really good things happen to it not that long ago. It comes off like a rich guy who is always complaining to everyone else about how bad he's got it.

It's poor form and unattractive in my opinion. I'd personally prefer not to read it or listen to it, but that's just, like, my opinion, man.

Every sports fan gets mad when bad things happen-- I sure as hell do! It's part of being a fan. But I think it's good to keep some perspective in mind too.

Getting really angry when the Red Sox fucked up before 2004 seems a lot more understandable than it does now, because the context has changed so much for the better. It felt like they would never win it even once in my entire life. Thank god that feeling is gone forever.

When people used to say "If they just win it ONE time before I die I'll never complain about them again" I figured that was just an exaggeration, but I didn't realize just how much bullshit that truly was until Bellhorn and Foulke were getting booed at Fenway by June 2005. "Thank you so much for forever changing my life for the better six months ago, but you aren't playing well now so YOU SUCK! BOOOOO!"

This team has won 3 MORE world championships since then. Seems like that should buy a lot of goodwill that lasts a while. But for some, it buys nothing. They are going to carry on like none of that ever happened. (Again, their legal right.)

Goodwill doesn't mean anyone is above criticism at all. To me, it means not automatically assuming the worst about everything they do, and maybe giving them a little rope when they do something that I don't agree with, because they've got a track record of success. And because the context has changed so much for the better in a real and lasting way.

So many people who are relatively well off complain publicly these days about their grievances and how they are the real victims. It's really tiresome and one of the major downsides of reading anything online. The main board of SOSH has generally been a great oasis that hasn't had too much of that. Seems different this offseason. There has always been loads of criticism and complaining about losses and moves/non-moves here-- lots of it by me. But lately it seems like there's a lot more general bitterness and game-thread-style anger at the ownership/GM here than before. And if it's like that here, then... yikes.
I get it. We all have things that annoy us. Honestly, I’m fine reading missives about John Henry even when I don’t agree with them. But I can’t bear trying to gut through pages of bickering about bWAR or wRC+. Diff’rent strokes and all.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,096
I'm just going to add that it's still to his credit (I think) that they drafted Mayer. It's VERY easy to screw up the MLB draft. Teams get first round - even upper first round - picks wrong ALL THE TIME. If Mayer turns out to be the player he looks like he can be, then yes, of course it's to Bloom's credit that he actually drafted him when he had the chance. He had nothing whatsoever to do with Mayer being available when the Sox picked, but once there, yes, good job Chaim.
Bingo. I've seen too many "Chaim Bloom gets no credit for drafting Mayer", which is total nonsense. Yes, he was widely considered the best prospect available when the Sox drafted, but we know front offices have their own evaluation criteria and metrics that sometimes conflict with the consensus.
 

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
1,176
There are levels of going for it. Given that a 33% chance of the postseason still means a 66% of not making it, they opted for "since the market for selling FA-to-be is so low, we will hold onto our guys (except when we can trade a guy who we won't miss, like Vazquez) and improve the team as much as we can without sacrificing the future".
Yes, I understand that. Which is why I specifically said there was no reason to expect they should have gone after top of the market players (ie Soto). But there were other holes on the team beyond 1b and RF that would have needed to be addressed to have increased the shot at the post season. So if you’ve decided not to sell, and to expend the capital to fill those holes, do the same for the other worthless spots on the roster.

Sacrifice the future moving guys in the top 15/20 - clearly not. Move our version of Ben Brown, Jesse Chavez, Tucker Davidson and the like - if you’ve already decided to quasi buy (Hosmer, Pham), yes.


Sure, they could have gotten under the cap. What would have been very difficult was getting under the cap without significantly diminishing the shot they had at the postseason. They chose trying to win over what amounts to a lottery ticket prospect worth of value.
So why not give up our own “lottery ticket prospect worth of value” if that was the apparent going rate to buy FA to be types?

Or were the guys Bloom signed that were FAs THAT much more worthless than the average player FA to be players that were moved?
 

Steve Dillard

wishes drew noticed him instead of sweet & sour
SoSH Member
Oct 7, 2003
5,932
Bingo. I've seen too many "Chaim Bloom gets no credit for drafting Mayer", which is total nonsense. Yes, he was widely considered the best prospect available when the Sox drafted, but we know front offices have their own evaluation criteria and metrics that sometimes conflict with the consensus.
Like drafting Nick Yorke instead of the higher-rated Crow-Armstong (BA#25 prospect) (to pocket money for Blaze). If it works out fine, but these are the sort of unknowns working out that make or break teams' BA rankings.
Other than Mayer/Casas there are more unknowns (and no pitchers) that would make me think planning for them is a sound plan.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,096
Like drafting Nick Yorke instead of the higher-rated Crow-Armstong (BA#25 prospect) (to pocket money for Blaze). If it works out fine, but these are the sort of unknowns working out that make or break teams' BA rankings.
Other than Mayer/Casas there are more unknowns (and no pitchers) that would make me think planning for them is a sound plan.
The bottom half of the first round is a crapshoot. Far more prospects taken in that range bust out than people may think.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,304
Yes, I understand that. Which is why I specifically said there was no reason to expect they should have gone after top of the market players (ie Soto). But there were other holes on the team beyond 1b and RF that would have needed to be addressed to have increased the shot at the post season. So if you’ve decided not to sell, and to expend the capital to fill those holes, do the same for the other worthless spots on the roster.
They didn't sacrifice any capital for the upgrades they got. If they passed on pitching help for nothing it would be interesting to know though.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,678
Miami (oh, Miami!)
All of the goodwill that was generated from that season was squandered when the team collapsed in 2022 and then lost Xander.

Some of you do realize we're talking about people's emotions here, right? Like, most fans outside of SoSH don't use a spreadsheet to calculate and calibrate their feelings about Red Sox ownership based on WAR?

Again, none of you have to like it. But this is what is transpiring.
Not all emotions are well grounded or appropriate. Or so the kindergarten teachers say.
 

jbupstate

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2022
600
New York, USA
I think you're underestimating the power of negative media. Have you resided in this country for the past 6-8 years?
A large group don’t believe Mookie Betts would have gone to free agency if he’d been offered the same as what he received from the Dodgers. Ignoring that Betts looked forward to FA and was looking for Trout money. Same group doesn’t include the $50m Price saving in trade calculation that dropped prospects down a few rungs.

Guys on XM Radio this afternoon said Padres offered an insane amount for Xander and nobody else makes that signing. But within minutes call the loss of Xander unacceptable and toss out big market Sox could afford it.

Media is feeding the fire.