How long will Chaim last?

When will FSG see the light and fire this guy?


  • Total voters
    438
Status
Not open for further replies.

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
25,927
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Except they refer to us as Bloomers and it is meant derogatorily. Furthermore referring to the current plan as whatever that is, is in and of itself dismissive. More to the point, I don't think Rovine is attacking anyone personally. He is saying their arguments are a form of wish casting and between that, the bad faith arguments and the arguments that make no sense, this board has become a very angry and unstable place.
He knows that.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,753
Twin Cities
Ok, I’ll be the screamer at clouds guy. I hate this type of off-season thread. Sky is falling, everything sucks, nobody on the Sox knows anything thread. If Bloom had 5 straight second division finishes, ok. But this thread is downright ghoulish. Oh, you don’t know what “the plan” is? Hey, guess what. You‘re a fan. They don’t have to tell you what “the plan” is (put aside the reality that the map on the wall is likely multi-dimensional and not linear, which is too much for us to comprehend anyway. What does that mean? It means they might think about Joey Wendle now even if he isn’t their #2 choice!).

Bloom might end up underperforming and getting canned. Frankly, this ownership isn't the most patient group. But anyone calling for his head now apparently didn’t live through the back end of the Haywood Sullivan years (who was friends with my dad, full disclosure, and who helped get my brother a gig as bat boy.). We’ve experienced worse times as Sox fans.
 

Hatcher Steals Home

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
218
I voted “Bloom Forever” with the understanding that his contract as far as I can tell right now takes him through the end of ‘24 essentially giving him this season to really prove it and not be on a lame duck contract. Thus, my rationale for voting “beyond 2025” is essentially betting the field and taking an optimistic view on the remainder of the current offseason moves and indeed wishcasting that some combination of the roster as constructed and the moves to come indeed establish the Red Sox as competitive for a playoff spot this coming season. From there, as others have noted, that would create a path for Bloom to stay and, presumably, get extended.

The problem with my thinking (and my vote) is, as also has been discussed, it’s indeed based on assuming positive impact of Yoshida, Jansen et al, where “et al” also covers unknown future moves to round out the current roster.

My overall bias here is optimistic on the team yet somehow I’m cold to agnostic at best on Bloom, meaning is he the 20th best GM? He’s not the best. He could be the worst, but I’d argue his moves do have logic and sometimes restraint is effective.

That’s a long way to say what many here have stated: performance (or at least a strong upward trajectory factoring in MiLB players and the MLB roster) this year is the key.
 

sodenj5

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
6,630
CT
I don’t understand why people think Chaim doesn’t have ownership’s approval. Chaim isn’t cutting these 300 million dollar checks for players in their 30s. That is a decision that ownership has said they aren’t comfortable with.

Watching free agents like Mookie and Xander walk always stings, but Boston has undoubtedly seen the best years of both of those guys and a lot of people will be relieved when Boston isn’t paying a 37 year old Xander or a 38 year old Mookie when they’re on the sharp decline.

It sucks that the team feels non-competitive this year, but I’m also in the camp that thinks they shouldn’t have matched that Xander deal, and couldn’t do much more with Mookie if he was dead-set on testing free agency.

I guess I’m saying that these long term deals almost never work out and the Red Sox don’t need to become the Angels. They need a few prospects to hit in the next few years to form a nucleus, and build around that. That’s how they’ve had success in the last 20 years and it’s what they want to do moving forward.
 
Last edited:

Tony Pena's Gas Cloud

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 12, 2019
411
Ok, I’ll be the screamer at clouds guy. I hate this type of off-season thread. Sky is falling, everything sucks, nobody on the Sox knows anything thread. If Bloom had 5 straight second division finishes, ok. But this thread is downright ghoulish. Oh, you don’t know what “the plan” is? Hey, guess what. You‘re a fan. They don’t have to tell you what “the plan” is (put aside the reality that the map on the wall is likely multi-dimensional and not linear, which is too much for us to comprehend anyway. What does that mean? It means they might think about Joey Wendle now even if he isn’t their #2 choice!).

Bloom might end up underperforming and getting canned. Frankly, this ownership isn't the most patient group. But anyone calling for his head now apparently didn’t live through the back end of the Haywood Sullivan years (who was friends with my dad, full disclosure, and who helped get my brother a gig as bat boy.). We’ve experienced worse times as Sox fans.
Well said. You stated much more eloquently what I tried to a few posts ago. Creating a poll after one middle-of-the-pack season smacks of an "Eddie from Revere" talk show hot take.
 

GrandSlamPozo

New Member
May 16, 2017
112
If Joey Wendle is the starting shortstop on opening day, X is hitting .300 for the Padres on Memorial Day, and the Sox are 10 games under on July 4th, he’s done.

The Sox need to be relevant for lots of other things to make money, too.
So if Bloom had spent $280 million to re-sign Bogaerts and he was hitting .300 for them instead of the Padres, and the Sox were 6 games under on July 4th instead of 10 games under due to X being worth approximately 2 more wins and 2 fewer losses over half a season than Wendle, would Bloom's job be safe?
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,428
I don’t understand why people don’t think Chaim doesn’t have ownership’s approval. Chaim isn’t cutting these 300 million dollar checks for players in their 30s. That is a decision that ownership has said they aren’t comfortable with.
I think this is right, though I'm not sure it comes from an ownership edict or just their approval. I think it's more like Chaim has said "I lean towards not doing this kind of deal and here's why. But with a player like X, I'm not going to follow through on that if you're not comfortable with it, because there *is* a number that would get it done."

Thats why I dont think his seat is even warm today. (Or at least no warmer than the Sox GM seat always is)
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Ok, I’ll be the screamer at clouds guy. I hate this type of off-season thread. Sky is falling, everything sucks, nobody on the Sox knows anything thread. If Bloom had 5 straight second division finishes, ok. But this thread is downright ghoulish. Oh, you don’t know what “the plan” is? Hey, guess what. You‘re a fan. They don’t have to tell you what “the plan” is (put aside the reality that the map on the wall is likely multi-dimensional and not linear, which is too much for us to comprehend anyway. What does that mean? It means they might think about Joey Wendle now even if he isn’t their #2 choice!).

Bloom might end up underperforming and getting canned. Frankly, this ownership isn't the most patient group. But anyone calling for his head now apparently didn’t live through the back end of the Haywood Sullivan years (who was friends with my dad, full disclosure, and who helped get my brother a gig as bat boy.). We’ve experienced worse times as Sox fans.
Yeah, but polls are fun. Maybe we should also start a poll asking how many weeks into the coming season will someone start a thread asking if the Sox should be sellers. Seriously MM, thanks for this. As for the claims of and objections to the use of the word entitlement... Entitlement, expectations due to past performance, customer dissatisfaction, frame it how you will, but for me it runs deeper than this. It's not enough for some to be disappointed or unhappy anymore, outrage has become all the rage and quite honestly the anonymity or "cover" of social media fuels it to the point that some people no longer have any sort of filter.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
23,351
I think this is right, though I'm not sure it comes from an ownership edict or just their approval. I think it's more like Chaim has said "I lean towards not doing this kind of deal and here's why. But with a player like X, I'm not going to follow through on that if you're not comfortable with it, because there *is* a number that would get it done."

Thats why I dont think his seat is even warm today. (Or at least no warmer than the Sox GM seat always is)
Feels like the reporting I've seen has said that ownership is fine paying the big bucks for players if the GM feels that is the best way to win. The example given in The Athletic was that ownership trusted Dombrowski to be aggressive and go all in on spending, and now ownership trusts Bloom's approach to more sustainable team building or however you want to put it.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
16,146
Bloom might end up underperforming and getting canned. Frankly, this ownership isn't the most patient group. But anyone calling for his head now apparently didn’t live through the back end of the Haywood Sullivan years (who was friends with my dad, full disclosure, and who helped get my brother a gig as bat boy.). We’ve experienced worse times as Sox fans.
I can’t believe Sullivan lasted as long as he did. I don’t remember being very patient about that either.
 

pinkhatfan

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2011
135
"When will FSG see the light and fire this guy?"

There's a pretty big assumption built into that question. Do we have any reason to believe that ownership isn't in agreement with Bloom about strategy? FSG hired him, and I'm going to assume they discussed the direction they were looking for.

It seems pretty clear that the objective was for Bloom to revamp the farm system, bring up young cost-controlled players, and avoid long, expensive contracts. That's not a short-term plan. I'm also going to assume that Bloom and ownership think this will result in a competitive team at some point.

I'd reframe the question: How long does FSG expect this rebuild to take, and what would cause them to change course? Changing strategy might mean firing Bloom, of course, but it could also mean opening the purse strings and going after expensive free agents.

For what it's worth, I voted 2024 off-season. I'd expect a course change then if the team isn't competitive.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,847
Feels like the reporting I've seen has said that ownership is fine paying the big bucks for players if the GM feels that is the best way to win. The example given in The Athletic was that ownership trusted Dombrowski to be aggressive and go all in on spending, and now ownership trusts Bloom's approach to more sustainable team building or however you want to put it.
They used to operate this way and the Sale extension by DD made them downshift. Henry is looking elsewhere to bring in money or sees spending X amount doesn’t create more revenue than spending Y
 

RG33

Certain Class of Poster
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2005
7,371
CA
I voted Bloom forevah.

I’m perplexed at how many folks here think that Bloom is off and running things on his own and making these calls without ownership knowing exactly what he is doing and what the “plan” is. This ownership group fired a WS winning GM a year later — almost specifically because he gave away the farm and spent huge money on FAs that didn’t pan out. They wanted someone to come in, build the farm system, create some sustainability in talent, and then be tactical with how they use their FA dollars going forward.

I don’t think anyone can argue that our farm system is in much better shape. 14 months ago this team, in a bridge year, was 2 games away from the pennant (and likely another WS title). As another poster noted, looking back on the Story signing — that is incredible value based on what happened this offseason.

I don’t think Chaim is going anywhere — he’ll be running the Red Sox in 2028, nevermind next offseason.
 

catsooey

New Member
Jun 27, 2019
161
As long as ignorant fans keep spending $200+ a seat for the sideways facing bleacher seats to watch this trash, they will continue to bargain manage the team this way. Regardless if they spend or don't spend, fans continue to flock to this place, they have truly no incentive anymore to produce a quality lineup. Clearly the ownership base i think has lost interest and have moved on to other ventures, and this is the old toy now, sitting in the closet collecting dust!
Couldn’t have said it better. Ownership has checked out and JH wants to show he’s now “the smartest guy in the NBA”. I’m grateful for the championships, but I love baseball. I still want to see a team that can contend every year. Championships are amazing, but fielding a team that can win is enough. Other franchises are interested in that and have found a way to do it consistently.

I realize now that the problem is in ownership’s priorities. When the team was still suffering under “the curse”, winning was a coup for someone like JH, as well as a means to increase the dollar value of the team. But he’s not really a “baseball guy” imo, and winning another championship at this point has very little meaning to him. He’s not interested in running a team simply to try win every year. There has to be some other incentive. I think he gets annoyed at the increased payroll and fan expectations when they win. So in my opinion, it’s really no longer in his or the fans interest to continue to run the team, and I believe that things won’t change until we get new ownership. I think things will continue to get worse until then.

I’m a NY Giants fan and this team feels like it’s in the same place the Giants were for the past 5 years (2017-2021). That’s not a nice place to be. And the problems both in both cases are systemic, rooted at the top in ownership culture. In 2022 NY stopped hiring in-house and let qualified outside leadership take the reins, and it’s been great to see the results. For us Sox fans, I think we need an even bigger housecleaning.
 

Tony Pena's Gas Cloud

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 12, 2019
411
Couldn’t have said it better. Ownership has checked out and JH wants to show he’s now “the smartest guy in the NBA”. I’m grateful for the championships, but I love baseball. I still want to see a team that can contend every year. Championships are amazing, but fielding a team that can win is enough. Other franchises are interested in that and have found a way to do it consistently.

I realize now that the problem is in ownership’s priorities. When the team was still suffering under “the curse”, winning was a coup for someone like JH, as well as a means to increase the dollar value of the team. But he’s not really a “baseball guy” imo, and winning another championship at this point has very little meaning to him. He’s not interested in running a team simply to try win every year. There has to be some other incentive. I think he gets annoyed at the increased payroll and fan expectations when they win. So in my opinion, it’s really no longer in his or the fans interest to continue to run the team, and I believe that things won’t change until we get new ownership. I think things will continue to get worse until then.

I’m a NY Giants fan and this team feels like it’s in the same place the Giants were for the past 5 years (2017-2021). That’s not a nice place to be. And the problems both in both cases are systemic, rooted at the top in ownership culture. In 2022 NY stopped hiring in-house and let qualified outside leadership take the reins, and it’s been great to see the results. For us Sox fans, I think we need an even bigger housecleaning.
Disagree with almost everything you say, but your avatar is the best one in this group so you get a pass.
Smooth up in ya!!!!!!!
 

CoolPapaBellhorn

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
1,122
Medfield
Kennedy wouldn’t say that unless he was sure he was going to deliver on it because if he didn’t he would look like an ass.
It wouldn’t be the first time.

This is a worthwhile question if only because of how abruptly Henry hired and then fired Dombrowski. FSG no doubt has a larger strategy, but they’ve shown they can change course at a moment’s notice.

I voted next off-season because I have extremely low expectations for this season, but this team has surprised us plenty of times in the last 20 years, on the field and off.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jun 22, 2008
36,517
I think this is right, though I'm not sure it comes from an ownership edict or just their approval. I think it's more like Chaim has said "I lean towards not doing this kind of deal and here's why. But with a player like X, I'm not going to follow through on that if you're not comfortable with it, because there *is* a number that would get it done."

Thats why I dont think his seat is even warm today. (Or at least no warmer than the Sox GM seat always is)
Fangraphs estimates the Sox payroll is currently $44M below last year’s. That includes a $17M arb figure for Devers, so even if they extend him, they’ve got a lot of dry powder. More than you’d expect at this point in the offseason. I doubt this was the plan.

https://www.fangraphs.com/roster-resource/payroll/red-sox

I’ve consistently said that (a) Bloom will be judged in large part by this offseason, and (b) I’ll wait until the offseason is over to judge it. I’m sticking to that and therefore didn’t vote in the poll. But if they roll into 2023 with the current roster, with or without a Devers extension (which is probably going to be a lot more expensive than it would’ve been a year ago), I think Bloom’s seat will be warm indeed, to the point where Yoshida might need to be an instant success to buy him another year.
 

MyDaughterLovesTomGordon

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
14,675
So if Bloom had spent $280 million to re-sign Bogaerts and he was hitting .300 for them instead of the Padres, and the Sox were 6 games under on July 4th instead of 10 games under due to X being worth approximately 2 more wins and 2 fewer losses over half a season than Wendle, would Bloom's job be safe?
I do think that's a significantly different scenario, yes.

I don't disagree with others that Bloom has ownership's support, but it's support based on their belief that Bloom can replace X's production (and win in general) without spending in the way other teams are spending. He has to actually deliver on that. If he can't, and the team is both losing AND filled with players no one is paying to watch, the ownership has to eventually decide they don't want to squander their golden goose.

If Joey Wendle is playing short and they're a .500 team, with wild card aspirations still sitting there, sure, that's fine. But they can't be in the basement on July 4 with a bunch of nobodies. At some point, the indelible brand isn't indelible anymore.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,428
Fangraphs estimates the Sox payroll is currently $44M below last year’s. That includes a $17M arb figure for Devers, so even if they extend him, they’ve got a lot of dry powder. More than you’d expect at this point in the offseason. I doubt this was the plan.

https://www.fangraphs.com/roster-resource/payroll/red-sox
I think that's a by-product of Bloom's approach (with which ownership agrees) and the current progress/trajectory of his longer term approach. I do not think that ownership has told Bloom to "spend less money" just for the sake of spending less money. If Bloom's approach is effective, they'll be spending with the best of 'em. (probably not the Mets, though).
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
25,927
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Fangraphs estimates the Sox payroll is currently $44M below last year’s. That includes a $17M arb figure for Devers, so even if they extend him, they’ve got a lot of dry powder. More than you’d expect at this point in the offseason. I doubt this was the plan.

https://www.fangraphs.com/roster-resource/payroll/red-sox

I’ve consistently said that (a) Bloom will be judged in large part by this offseason, and (b) I’ll wait until the offseason is over to judge it. I’m sticking to that and therefore didn’t vote in the poll. But if they roll into 2023 with the current roster, with or without a Devers extension (which is probably going to be a lot more expensive than it would’ve been a year ago), I think Bloom’s seat will be warm indeed, to the point where Yoshida might need to be an instant success to buy him another year.
They may want to keep a bit of a buffer to do a JBJ type trade toward the end of the off-season, and/or a mid-season acquisition of the same kind.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jun 22, 2008
36,517
They may want to keep a bit of a buffer to do a JBJ type trade toward the end of the off-season, and/or a mid-season acquisition of the same kind.
I think they’re holding more buffer than they need for that, especially if they’re willing to go modestly over the CBT threshold again for a Devers extension. (If they are unwilling, then it was a colossal error not to get under the threshold last season at the trade deadline.)

My wild-ass guess is they were in on a mid-market guy like Brandon Nimmo and bailed when the money got stupid. But who knows?
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
20,920
St. Louis, MO
I think they’re holding more buffer than they need for that, especially if they’re willing to go modestly over the CBT threshold again for a Devers extension. (If they are unwilling, then it was a colossal error not to get under the threshold last season at the trade deadline.)

My wild-ass guess is they were in on a mid-market guy like Brandon Nimmo and bailed when the money got stupid. But who knows?
Or they had it earmarked for Xander and didn’t really have a backup plan.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,415
Or they had it earmarked for Xander and didn’t really have a backup plan.
I am 100% certain that they considered the possibility that Xander would leave how they would handle it.

The simplest explanation as to why they have so much money under the cap is that it's only December and they still plan on bringing in a starting pitcher and a SS.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
25,927
Miami (oh, Miami!)
I think they’re holding more buffer than they need for that, especially if they’re willing to go modestly over the CBT threshold again for a Devers extension. (If they are unwilling, then it was a colossal error not to get under the threshold last season at the trade deadline.)

My wild-ass guess is they were in on a mid-market guy like Brandon Nimmo and bailed when the money got stupid. But who knows?
I should clarify and say that I don't think they had the contract acquisition plan from the get go. My guess is that they probably had a range they were willing to spend on Xander (perhaps Devers) and complimentary pieces. If X (or D) didn't sign (or extend) they'd transfer their money to acquiring a piece that would replace their production elsewhere - SS/2B/OF. And there my guessing dove-tails with yours - when the market blew up, they didn't want to grab the replacement production for insane commitments, and they've simply gotten outbid so far on the more modest comp pieces like Drury.

Now they're sitting on some cash and weighing options for how to best spend it. And so the salary-eating acquisition plus sweetener comes to mind.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jun 22, 2008
36,517
The simplest explanation as to why they have so much money under the cap is that it's only December and they still plan on bringing in a starting pitcher and a SS.
But who?

As I said, I’m reserving judgment, but I don’t think things have gone in accordance with whatever the plan was entering this offseason. There aren’t any clear paths left to make big upgrades — the free agent market is largely played out, and the lack of trades (or even rumors of trades) suggests no one is desperate to dump salary.
 

Fishercat

Svelte and sexy!
SoSH Member
May 18, 2007
8,521
Manchester, N.H.
Signing super star 10 year contracts to young players, how the Braves have done it is smart. Signing 31 year old players already showing signs of decline is not.
You definitely need to have some "stars". The way the Braves are going about it looks right (at this point in time), but you're still going to have "stars" walk (Astros, Dodgers).
What I find interesting is the perception on the Braves, because I feel like mass perception of the Braves approach is a result of a very unique environment that stemmed from a couple players getting terrible advice and taking severely under market deals and that there are some things that the Braves do that the Red Sox get absolutely killed for. For instance, Dansby Swanson vs. Xander Bogaerts. Both of them are one-team short stops - X has a stronger record but Swanson as just as good last year (or at least close), both were in that elite tier of SS going into FA. X received an extension offer equivalent to 4/90 before the season, the Braves offered Swanson a lower AAV at 6/100. The Braves also had, reportedly, poor communication with their FA SS to be in the process. The Braves fans seem to be of a similar mind of "we'd love to keep him on a reasonable deal but he's gonna get something absurd for what we see him as". The Braves also let their home-grown, mega-star 1B go last year in free agency who seemed as loved by Braves fans as Betts was by Boston fans. These are different players across the board of course, but the Braves model also involves stars walking. I presume it's one of those "winning is the panacea for all ails" scenarios but unless ownership has a Cohen esque budget (and they still let Jacob Degrom go this offseason), most of these admired models are going to involve beloved, homegrown players walking if their budgetary wants don't meet the team's.

Edit: and to the larger point, I hate this poll too and fully agree with @Minneapolis Millers on the overall viewpoint of the Bloom situation. I find a lot of fans are giving some deeply inconsistent and dishonest arguments that have standards they don't apply to anyone else.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
13,223
It’s easier to let good players walk when you have other good players who remain; and a track record of developing good players from within, or replacing them.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,415
But who?

As I said, I’m reserving judgment, but I don’t think things have gone in accordance with whatever the plan was entering this offseason. There aren’t any clear paths left to make big upgrades — the free agent market is largely played out, and the lack of trades (or even rumors of trades) suggests no one is desperate to dump salary.
Eovaldi, Kluber, Segura, Andrus...sign two of those guys and that's 25 to 30 mil right there. And then there's the trade market.

I think it's fair to say they didn't anticipate Xander getting 280 million. Who did? They probably liked their chances of re-signing him. But I'm sure they they thought about what things might look like if they didn't, and it was probably similar to what they've done (so far).
 

Wallball Tingle

union soap
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
2,518
Ok, I’ll be the screamer at clouds guy. I hate this type of off-season thread. Sky is falling, everything sucks, nobody on the Sox knows anything thread. If Bloom had 5 straight second division finishes, ok. But this thread is downright ghoulish. Oh, you don’t know what “the plan” is? Hey, guess what. You‘re a fan. They don’t have to tell you what “the plan” is (put aside the reality that the map on the wall is likely multi-dimensional and not linear, which is too much for us to comprehend anyway. What does that mean? It means they might think about Joey Wendle now even if he isn’t their #2 choice!).

Bloom might end up underperforming and getting canned. Frankly, this ownership isn't the most patient group. But anyone calling for his head now apparently didn’t live through the back end of the Haywood Sullivan years (who was friends with my dad, full disclosure, and who helped get my brother a gig as bat boy.). We’ve experienced worse times as Sox fans.
Just adding to the mini-chorus of support here. Thanks.
 

Beomoose

is insoxicated
SoSH Member
May 28, 2006
21,656
Exiled
My question to the Bloom 4 Evah voters is how the team sells 2024 if 2023 is as bad as 20 or 22. Sure, with a solid playoff run Bloom looks secure-ish. If they're at all in the playoffs, even a 2-and-out of the Wildcard round, I guess they can claim year-over-year improvement. But if they finish under .500 again and the team's playing golf on 10/7/22, even if FSG's been 100% onboard with his moves how do they not make him the sacrificial "listen, we hear what you're saying" lamb? Or do you think they've convinced themselves that people are just going to put their butts in the seats (and dollars in the other revenue streams) come what may?
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,415
My question to the Bloom 4 Evah voters is how the team sells 2024 if 2023 is as bad as 20 or 22. Sure, with a solid playoff run Bloom looks secure-ish. If they're at all in the playoffs, even a 2-and-out of the Wildcard round, I guess they can claim year-over-year improvement. But if they finish under .500 again and the team's playing golf on 10/7/22, even if FSG's been 100% onboard with his moves how do they not make him the sacrificial "listen, we hear what you're saying" lamb? Or do you think they've convinced themselves that people are just going to put their butts in the seats (and dollars in the other revenue streams) come what may?
The same way they'd sell it if they signed Xander, he had an OK-ish season that made it clear the age decline was beginning, and they won 76 games. They'd try and improve the team, balancing the short and long term.
 

astrozombie

New Member
Sep 12, 2022
521
My question to the Bloom 4 Evah voters is how the team sells 2024 if 2023 is as bad as 20 or 22. Sure, with a solid playoff run Bloom looks secure-ish. If they're at all in the playoffs, even a 2-and-out of the Wildcard round, I guess they can claim year-over-year improvement. But if they finish under .500 again and the team's playing golf on 10/7/22, even if FSG's been 100% onboard with his moves how do they not make him the sacrificial "listen, we hear what you're saying" lamb? Or do you think they've convinced themselves that people are just going to put their butts in the seats (and dollars in the other revenue streams) come what may?
The latter. Boston is a big enough market and there are enough fans still riding the 20 year high that there will still be people in seats and watching the games. FSG is counting on that and they are not wrong. If the team is awful again it gets spun as "we're building towards the future!" again. Which would be fine if that's what was happening, but I don't have confidence that Bloom can do it. Committing to a farm system is a good first step, but then you actually need to do steps 2 and 3 (acquire talented players and develop them) and ultimately step 4 (have that talent translate to talent for the big team, through promotion or trades) I don't have faith in Bloom for that.
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
22,832
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
Bloom will last as long as he keeps making ownership money...unless the team loses so much it becomes impossible due to PR fallout. If the team finishes under 84-85 wins or so again (which is very likely), he will be on a very short leash.
 

Fishercat

Svelte and sexy!
SoSH Member
May 18, 2007
8,521
Manchester, N.H.
It’s easier to let good players walk when you have other good players who remain; and a track record of developing good players from within, or replacing them.
I totally get that, but people are acting like the Braves or Astros or Dodgers aren't having to make these kinds of decisions. If you want to destroy the Sox on the whole for not developing good players from the farm in the past 5 years or so...I totally agree and blame can fall all across the spectrum there, I'd argue mainly with the last regime but a bit with this one for sure too), but I consider them somewhat separate things unless we think the Sox should be compensating for that failure by committing huge advance dollars to players on the wrong-side of 30 (many people do think that and it's fine of coursE.

My question to the Bloom 4 Evah voters is how the team sells 2024 if 2023 is as bad as 20 or 22. Sure, with a solid playoff run Bloom looks secure-ish. If they're at all in the playoffs, even a 2-and-out of the Wildcard round, I guess they can claim year-over-year improvement. But if they finish under .500 again and the team's playing golf on 10/7/22, even if FSG's been 100% onboard with his moves how do they not make him the sacrificial "listen, we hear what you're saying" lamb? Or do you think they've convinced themselves that people are just going to put their butts in the seats (and dollars in the other revenue streams) come what may?
I think we are starting to inch to the point where Bloom's acquisitions do need to have a good rate of success. At this point there isn't nearly as much useless salary on the books and a lot of the team are Bloom acquisitions. Let's say in 2024 that the team has two additional 70-75 win seasons with mixed or negative results from players he is putting in positions to have 300, 400, 500 PAs a year - I would probably expect the Sox to move on. I personally think they give him '23 and probably '24 regardless, but if we get to a point where Yoshida is a 1 WAR OF and Jansen had a 4 WAR and Turner collapses and Devers walks and doesn't get 400m from someone etc...I think they'll have to fold. And I say this as someone who still believes in this direction. I'd think he needs a playoff appearance in the next two years.
 

LogansDad

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
30,699
Alamogordo
It’s easier to let good players walk when you have other good players who remain; and a track record of developing good players from within, or replacing them.
Agreed. And the Red Sox aren't there, yet (and might not be able to get there.... it is difficult to do and takes a lot of patience). One thing I have brought up before in another thread is that the Braves have not only developed a lot of solid players that they have chosen to retain, but the organization has been very, very stable over that time as well. We talk here about, "Devers is really close to Cora" as a selling point for Devers signing, but it feels like Cora is constantly on the hot seat. Dombrowski was fired a year after winning the World Series. The Sox change front offices (and plans) seemingly whimsically at times, and I can absolutely see why a player would have doubts about signing a long term deal here, while the Braves have kind of always had the same mindset throughout multiple long term front offices, and have a real value for the stability of their organization.

I can absolutely see that being a factor in being able to lock up home grown players to long term contracts. The Boston market is stressful, and to be honest, if I was a top .001% athlete in my field and I had the opportunity to play anywhere else, I would probably take that opportunity.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,847
What I find interesting is the perception on the Braves, because I feel like mass perception of the Braves approach is a result of a very unique environment that stemmed from a couple players getting terrible advice and taking severely under market deals and that there are some things that the Braves do that the Red Sox get absolutely killed for. For instance, Dansby Swanson vs. Xander Bogaerts. Both of them are one-team short stops - X has a stronger record but Swanson as just as good last year (or at least close), both were in that elite tier of SS going into FA. X received an extension offer equivalent to 4/90 before the season, the Braves offered Swanson a lower AAV at 6/100. The Braves also had, reportedly, poor communication with their FA SS to be in the process. The Braves fans seem to be of a similar mind of "we'd love to keep him on a reasonable deal but he's gonna get something absurd for what we see him as". The Braves also let their home-grown, mega-star 1B go last year in free agency who seemed as loved by Braves fans as Betts was by Boston fans. These are different players across the board of course, but the Braves model also involves stars walking. I presume it's one of those "winning is the panacea for all ails" scenarios but unless ownership has a Cohen esque budget (and they still let Jacob Degrom go this offseason), most of these admired models are going to involve beloved, homegrown players walking if their budgetary wants don't meet the team's.

Edit: and to the larger point, I hate this poll too and fully agree with @Minneapolis Millers on the overall viewpoint of the Bloom situation. I find a lot of fans are giving some deeply inconsistent and dishonest arguments that have standards they don't apply to anyone else.
The contract extensions that were offered to X and Dansby would have brought them up to an age that they couldn't get another contract to take them to age 40-ish. There's no way a player in that upper eschelon (not even "elite") will sign those any longer. Teams for the most part don't really want players on the other side of 34 and those seasons between 31 and 33 are probably nail biting for any team regardless of the length of the contract.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,847
Agreed. And the Red Sox aren't there, yet (and might not be able to get there.... it is difficult to do and takes a lot of patience). One thing I have brought up before in another thread is that the Braves have not only developed a lot of solid players that they have chosen to retain, but the organization has been very, very stable over that time as well. We talk here about, "Devers is really close to Cora" as a selling point for Devers signing, but it feels like Cora is constantly on the hot seat. Dombrowski was fired a year after winning the World Series. The Sox change front offices (and plans) seemingly whimsically at times, and I can absolutely see why a player would have doubts about signing a long term deal here, while the Braves have kind of always had the same mindset throughout multiple long term front offices, and have a real value for the stability of their organization.

I can absolutely see that being a factor in being able to lock up home grown players to long term contracts. The Boston market is stressful, and to be honest, if I was a top .001% athlete in my field and I had the opportunity to play anywhere else, I would probably take that opportunity.
I also wonder if the Sox brand is pretty maxed out. They're not the Yankees. Traveling around the world, you don't see Boston hats on people who have no idea that there's a team behind that B. I'm sure there can be some more expansion somewhere but perhaps Henry after '18 it was clear that for every dollar spent over X it was returning less and less. Never-ending growth is an illusion, clearly, and Henry is smart enough in that department to know those sorts of things but also knows that you have at least to look like you're trying to compete. Maybe the Houston model wouldn't work from his determination.
 

Fishercat

Svelte and sexy!
SoSH Member
May 18, 2007
8,521
Manchester, N.H.
The contract extensions that were offered to X and Dansby would have brought them up to an age that they couldn't get another contract to take them to age 40-ish. There's no way a player in that upper eschelon (not even "elite") will sign those any longer. Teams for the most part don't really want players on the other side of 34 and those seasons between 31 and 33 are probably nail biting for any team regardless of the length of the contract.
This definitely seems like the market, - my main point would be that if we want to use the Braves as a model...we shouldn't expect this element to change in terms of losing long term fan favorites to FA when other teams are making Godfather offers into their 40s. I'd say the same for the Astros. To Petagine's point, the model requires a constant influx of cost-controlled or easily extendable talent mostly from the farm and allowing players who bet on themselves and win to win elsewhere. I think Bloom, like AA, would be a-ok giving
 

mikcou

Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2007
932
Boston
This definitely seems like the market, - my main point would be that if we want to use the Braves as a model...we shouldn't expect this element to change in terms of losing long term fan favorites to FA when other teams are making Godfather offers into their 40s. I'd say the same for the Astros. To Petagine's point, the model requires a constant influx of cost-controlled or easily extendable talent mostly from the farm and allowing players who bet on themselves and win to win elsewhere. I think Bloom, like AA, would be a-ok giving
If they were the Braves, I dont think all three of Mookie, Xander and Devers would be gone. One would. We're left discussing if we're going to have any left.

Let's backtrack because I think people are harping on Swanson, but Swanson is the first guy who has left after his initial six years as a Brave. Thats a remarkable run for a team that has developed as much talent as they have. They lock guys up to really long deals early and then may decide whether to give another deal to the player (e.g., Freeman). I think they would agree they screwed that one up on not giving him a second large deal.

There is a clear concern form Red Sox ownership on long deals - theyve done one 8 year guarantee in their entire ownership period (Pedroia) and only a few times gone to seven (Price, Gonzalez, Crawford). Arb extensions for guys like Lester and Buchholz were 4-5 year guarantees (as was the Whitlock deal last year).

Most of the Braves deals are at least 8 year guarantees if not more. Riley (10), Acuna (8), Olson (8), Harris (8). Albies was seven (I dont think anyone knows why Albies signed this other than agent malpractice) and Strider six (presumably want to keep pitchers on shorter deals). The Braves also gave Freeman an eight year arbitration extension that went through 2021. To put that into perspective, the Braves have given out almost as many 8+ year guarantees in the last calendar year (Riley, Olson, Harris) as the Sox ownership group has done 7+ year deals in their entire 20 year ownership (Pedrioa, Price, Gonzalez, Crawford). Its an entirely different model, which of course will have exceptions (not getting an extension done with Swanson) whether it be because the player is dead set on going all the way to FA or because there is too great a valuation difference between the player and the team. Comparatively, the Sox have chosen to keep the cheap one year deals and see what happens later for the past decade, probably at least partially due to the movement of pre-arb/arb deals becoming 7-10+ year deals rather than 4-5 year guarantees with an option or two.

Beyond having young players to sign, the FO/ownership group will have to get a lot more comfortable with giving out a bunch of long deals to do anything similar to what the Braves have.
 

Fishercat

Svelte and sexy!
SoSH Member
May 18, 2007
8,521
Manchester, N.H.
If they were the Braves, I dont think all three of Mookie, Xander and Devers would be gone. One would. We're left discussing if we're going to have any left.

Let's backtrack because I think people are harping on Swanson, but Swanson is the first guy who has left after his initial six years as a Brave. Thats a remarkable run for a team that has developed as much talent as they have. They lock guys up to really long deals early and then may decide whether to give another deal to the player (e.g., Freeman). I think they would agree they screwed that one up on not giving him a second large deal.

There is a clear concern form Red Sox ownership on long deals - theyve done one 8 year guarantee in their entire ownership period (Pedroia) and only a few times gone to seven (Price, Gonzalez, Crawford). Arb extensions for guys like Lester and Buchholz were 4-5 year guarantees (as was the Whitlock deal last year).

Most of the Braves deals are at least 8 year guarantees if not more. Riley (10), Acuna (8), Olson (8), Harris (8). Albies was seven (I dont think anyone knows why Albies signed this other than agent malpractice) and Strider six (presumably want to keep pitchers on shorter deals). The Braves also gave Freeman an eight year arbitration extension that went through 2021. To put that into perspective, the Braves have given out almost as many 8+ year guarantees in the last calendar year (Riley, Olson, Harris) as the Sox ownership group has done 7+ year deals in their entire 20 year ownership (Pedrioa, Price, Gonzalez, Crawford). Its an entirely different model, which of course will have exceptions (not getting an extension done with Swanson) whether it be because the player is dead set on going all the way to FA or because there is too great a valuation difference between the player and the team. Comparatively, the Sox have chosen to keep the cheap one year deals and see what happens later for the past decade, probably at least partially due to the movement of pre-arb/arb deals becoming 7-10+ year deals rather than 4-5 year guarantees with an option or two.

Beyond having young players to sign, the FO/ownership group will have to get a lot more comfortable with giving out a bunch of long deals to do anything similar to what the Braves have.
This is why I wanted to separate the topic really between how the Braves approach "Year 1 and 2" players and how they approach their impending free agents, and that this FO has not had that option yet with a legitimate Year 1 or 2 guy to see what they do - it would come down to whether Mookie Betts or Rafael Devers would have been willing to take one of those very team friendly extensions after Year 2 (Mookie) or Year 3 (Devers) where they had those breakout years. Maybe they would and maybe they wouldn't and I don't think you'll find many who don't want the Sox to at least try to do that at least early on (with some sensitivity as the Sox fans will absolutely trash FO for extension offers that frankly are better than what Albies and Acuna signed at least). The Sox haven't had a player anywhere as good as the Braves have extended since the current FO is here. I'm excited for when they do and hope they at least try to extend that player early and get some of those FA years in hand

But yeah, like let's take X and Freddie Freeman (I did X and Swanson - I think Betts is entirely different as the contract he'd have commanded likely exceeds anything the Braves have ever signed). Each had 10+ years with their first team including signing an extension to stay with the team - both were fan favorties and high level performers who were 3 WAR floor players with 5-6 potential in any given season. Both were consummate team players, consistently healthy and productive, and pretty much anything you would want. Both media segments (the Sox much louder than the Braves) started to question where the extensions were for these players as FA approached and both players claimed heartbreak as they took very expensive deals to play elsewhere. These are very similar scenarios - obviously not exact for several reasons except Freeman's deal took him to 37 and X's into his 40s.

I think we may need to consider this less in terms of the deal length and more in terms of how long it brings the overall tenure for the player on the team. Pre-arb long term extensions are a relatively new thing and the arbitration extensions that were shorter would get them to the same number of years as an Acuna or Olson or Harris given where those were signed. They just waited longer to do it. Obviously, the downside of that is that players prove their worth and you pay more, but these Braves extensions and Sox extensions are guaranteeing roughly the same amount of overall time, the Sox just used more of the guaranteed contract years.

I personally suspect that if Triston Casas puts up a 5 WAR season in 2024 or Marcelo Mayer is a legit RoY SS in his rookie season that the Sox would be willing to pay for 10+ seasons if 4-6 of those are buying our arbitration...but we'll see right? We'll see what happens if and when the Sox get a player who is putting up 4 or 5 WAR in their first season or two in this rapidly changing market and see if the approach changes. I hope it does, so we are on the same page in terms of where we want to see the Sox to go, but I think we should also be realistic that if a player chooses not to suppress their late 20s/early 30s value by signing a deal like this, the chance still exists and may even be enhanced that the team will let them go to a high bidder.
 
Last edited:

Rich Garces Belly

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 14, 2009
340
I voted Chaim forever.

the reason is his contract goes through 2024 and I believe they will give him the 2023 season to either step up or get fired. I believe he is going to step up and be extended before next off-season. The off-season is far from over and I believe Chaim has a long-term view of what he wants the Red Sox to be and it is aligned with ownerships view.

Chaims job will come down to Yoshida. Personally, I also have an entirely optimistic viewpoint of Yoshida, if he is the contact machine I believe he will be then Chaim is safe. If he’s mediocre then Chaim deserves to be fired and hopefully they replace him with someone with a similar long term plan but with a better eye for talent.
 

SouthernBoSox

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2005
12,125
I voted Chaim forever.

the reason is his contract goes through 2024 and I believe they will give him the 2023 season to either step up or get fired. I believe he is going to step up and be extended before next off-season. The off-season is far from over and I believe Chaim has a long-term view of what he wants the Red Sox to be and it is aligned with ownerships view.

Chaims job will come down to Yoshida. Personally, I also have an entirely optimistic viewpoint of Yoshida, if he is the contact machine I believe he will be then Chaim is safe. If he’s mediocre then Chaim deserves to be fired and hopefully they replace him with someone with a similar long term plan but with a better eye for talent.
I don’t want to sound hyperbolic but this is ridiculous. Chaims job comes down to if the team is set up for sustained success. That was the entire reason he was hired. Have success through waves of in house talent.

If Casas, Bello, Whitlock are all awesome, Mata comes up and looks the part, and Rafaela contributes at the end of season, Chaim is safe. It’s the introduction of a new nucleus that matters. Nothing more. Nothing less.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
17,301
I don’t want to sound hyperbolic but this is ridiculous. Chaims job comes down to if the team is set up for sustained success. That was the entire reason he was hired. Have success through waves of in house talent.

If Casas, Bello, Whitlock are all awesome, Mata comes up and looks the part, and Rafaela contributes at the end of season, Chaim is safe. It’s the introduction of a new nucleus that matters. Nothing more. Nothing less.
While judging Bloom on only 1 signing seems wrong... giving him a pass if 5 guys are good, 4 of whom were already in the organization when Bloom got here, also seems wrong.

There will be plenty of people on the Red Sox roster in '23 that he actually acquired to judge him on, though, & plenty of prospects hopefully moving in the right direction in the minors to judge him on.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
16,146
I am on record as him making it into 2024.

But according to what I've read Sam Kennedy says they will be top 5 payroll, and I've read that right now they are $30M away from top 10 payroll.....well, if your boss gives you money to spend on the team, and you leave a bunch of it on the table, and then the team finishes fourth...you might get fired sooner rather than later.*

That being said, those things have not happened yet and it is still 2022.

*Especially if the media narrative is that ownership is cheap.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
6,188
I am on record as him making it into 2024.

But according to what I've read Sam Kennedy says they will be top 5 payroll, and I've read that right now they are $30M away from top 10 payroll.....well, if your boss gives you money to spend on the team, and you leave a bunch of it on the table, and then the team finishes fourth...you might get fired sooner rather than later.*

That being said, those things have not happened yet and it is still 2022.

*Especially if the media narrative is that ownership is cheap.
I think that Kennedy is straight up wrong in that quote, or maybe he was trying to mean yearly average over a long period or something, cause they clearly aren't trying to compete with NYM/SD/TEX/PHI/MFY this year, nor should they.

If they're serious about extending Devers, it seems pretty important to stay under the tax line in 2023, as they'll almost certainly be over in 2024 when you add his money to Sale's.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
31,952
My question to the Bloom 4 Evah voters is how the team sells 2024 if 2023 is as bad as 20 or 22. Sure, with a solid playoff run Bloom looks secure-ish. If they're at all in the playoffs, even a 2-and-out of the Wildcard round, I guess they can claim year-over-year improvement. But if they finish under .500 again and the team's playing golf on 10/7/22, even if FSG's been 100% onboard with his moves how do they not make him the sacrificial "listen, we hear what you're saying" lamb? Or do you think they've convinced themselves that people are just going to put their butts in the seats (and dollars in the other revenue streams) come what may?
If the Red Sox stink in 2023, the typical GM MO would be to make some splashy acquisitions in the offseason and sell those to the fans because if those don't work, it won't be the current GM's problem to solve.

Whether Bloom would do that remains to be seen but IMO he's not going to survive two more poor seasons.

While judging Bloom on only 1 signing seems wrong... giving him a pass if 5 guys are good, 4 of whom were already in the organization when Bloom got here, also seems wrong.

There will be plenty of people on the Red Sox roster in '23 that he actually acquired to judge him on, though, & plenty of prospects hopefully moving in the right direction in the minors to judge him on.
You raise a fair point but the reality of the situation is that if the Red Sox have a good team in 2023 (or perhaps 2024), Chaim will be safe. Even if the winning is because of guys who were already on the roster / in the system before Chaim got here.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
31,952
I think that Kennedy is straight up wrong in that quote, or maybe he was trying to mean yearly average over a long period or something, cause they clearly aren't trying to compete with NYM/SD/TEX/PHI/MFY this year, nor should they.

If they're serious about extending Devers, it seems pretty important to stay under the tax line in 2023, as they'll almost certainly be over in 2024 when you add his money to Sale's.
Top 5 in AL East. :cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.