You can feel however you'd like about Mookie Betts.
So they should have shown a commitment to all out winning by signing who?
I don't have an answer to your question.
Losing out on Yamamoto has now spilled over into "we must pay whatever it takes to land Snell or Montgomery."
Sox needed and still need two top of the rotation starting pitchers, a second baseman, right handed thump, improved defense and an upgrade at catcher. I see a Criswell and a lot of rhetoric.
Then why fire the guy who brought in Mayer, Anthony, and Teel, the likely core of this new strategy? And I say this as someone who was far from a Bloom defender.
NEED an upgrade at C? Maybe.... really low priority though. Improved defense has already happened with Story and presumably Rafaela in CF, Duran in LF.
Maybe but Rafaela might also be a big drag on the offense and we don’t really know what Duran is either. If both of those guys stick around and prove to be at least decent hitters, we are definitely in much better shape. I don’t really trust Rafaela’s hitting profile at all though.
I don't know, but there are lots of reasons to fire someone that have nothing to do with whether he did a good job bringing in those guys. The fact that they hired Breslow -- who so far seems to be doing the same kinds of things -- suggests to me that this isn't a change in direction just a change in leadership.
Whatever Henry's plan, It seems a lot of the top executives that were interviewed to take the helm were not thrilled with it and decided not to move forward.
With the rebuild that was required, they thought that he’d be great when they weren’t good and in decline when they were again. I can explain it, even if I don’t agree with it. Fred Lynn is my favorite Sox player ever, and this franchise should never lose homegrown superstars for financial reasons.
I don't recall seeing reporting that suggested Henry's plan -- whatever it may be -- was the problem for those candidates.
They've dropped enough nuggets out there via the media that his indecisiveness around trades was a problem, and there's plenty of rumormongering about other GMs being pissed at him. I doubt we will ever get a better explanation than that. I do like your earlier post, Sponge. Collecting star players has some success on the positional side but less so on the pitching side, where the top guys one year were nothing like who you expected, for a variety of reasons. I'm still in favor of signing Montgomery as a solid innings-eater but won't just throw away 50 years of fanhood if they don't.
"Look Sam Kennedy figured it out. These stupid fans, internally here at Fenway Sports Group, pay pigs or PPs for short, will keep buying enough slop we actually make money when we lose. Just pretend to be involved in big deal free agents and garbage bin the rest like Tampa or Miami. Last guy just don't pull the trigger to trade away his bag of misfit toys for more lottery tickets we can use the Globe to pump up. You do this enough and eventually you end up in the playoffs, as is the law of averages."
This is a talk radio meme and contains very little truth. Do you seriously think that they pivoted to giving Devers $313m because John Henry got his feelings hurt? Do you know what it takes to negotiate that sort of deal? Weeks of effort, by all actual reporting on the subject.
I do. I think it was a close call for them and didn’t want to go to 300+. The near fan revolt got them to go over their budget a bit to get it done.
That is what I remember hearing. That said, maybe they didn't interview any top guys and are approaching the GM position the same as the roster. I think the Bloom strategy is still in play. Either way, the path forward is pretty clear right now. Endure the pain for a while until the top prospects arrive, then move for pitching.
The strategic weirdness with this is that they would rather spend the money on 15-20 million a year players like Yoshida, and Jansen, and Story, and then throw 10 million dollar lottery tickets at guys like Garrett Richards and Paxton, rather than spend what is necessary to compete for $300 million players. it's not like Henry isn't spending the money. They are. It just seems like there's a risk management policy that prefers nickels and dimes over quarters, in a sport that seems to be moving towards the quarters.
Not to just "whataboutDevers" you, but it seems like they *will* go big, for the right guy. Presumably that's someone who is unusually young for a signable (free agent or late-arb extension) guy. They aren't taking on huge back-of-the-contract risk, anywhere, in the form of $30m to a guy hitting 40. The Bogaerts offer was supposedly 6 or 7 years for 160m or 180ish, not entirely sure, but that's another data point for how deep into the aging curve they are willing to sign up for -- mid/late 30s. If that's the risk they want to avoid, then they will keep losing out on big name free agents to less risk-averse teams, who may look pretty foolish in the 2030s and perhaps the Sox brass will get their victory lap.
Do you honestly believe the Sox would have gone out and successfully recruited Devers if he was another team's FA? I don't know the answer but I think they would do what they've been doing which is to inquire, figure out if there is any sort of angle and then dip out once the price tag gets too high.
When people tell you who they are it is best to believe them. Ownership has almost certainly concluded there is limited economic incentive to spend more in order to compete.
And what happens if Bello/Casas are seeing the mistakes that guys like Acuna/Albies made and aren’t receptive to contract extensions that push back FA 2+ years? I think most of us would love to get them extended but it takes two to tango. Will ownership do what it takes to lock them up? Do they have a similar red line that they won’t cross? Hard for any of us to know.
In 2023 the Red Sox were the second most expensive team for a family of 4 to see ($215 a game) with only the Dodgers at $219 a game costing more.
Michael Wacha is on his sixth team in six years and Renfroe is on his seventh. I don’t really think Bloom was fired because he preferred pre-arb Houck in the rotation over Wacha.
I don’t think this is the case, and I don’t think there’s evidence for it. Their unwillingness to match Bogaerts’ deal doesn’t indicate so, and neither do the Ohtani or Yamamoto negotiations. But next winter’s Soto sweepstakes should be pretty telling. There’s no reason they shouldn’t be all in, at his age, and his stated interest in the East Coast (and Red Sox specifically).
They can prove it by actually landing a star in FA. That means you pay full freight and deal with elevated risk. It’s the cost of doing business. They punted on Mookie, a guy who fit the exact profile of a guy you invest in. I know most here are tired of discussing that situation but I’m not. I think they absolutely blew it there and they’re still dealing with the ramifications of doing so.
They signed Price in free agency. That led to the trade of Mookie.
Show me where I called them “cheap”. Maybe, maybe start by responding to what people actually write.
The flip side of this is how many teams have surplus-valued their way to postseason success in recent memory? The Rays did make the 2020 World Series, true, and you could maybe argue that the Braves took a 2013-Red-Sox-esque approach to replacing Acuna in 2021. But looking at pennant winners, most of the ones since 2013 have been either big spenders (Dodgers, Phillies, Nationals, Rangers, Red Sox) or teams coming off of a rebuild more aggressive than the one the Red Sox undertook in recent years (Cubs, Astros, DBacks, Royals, those same Braves).
I'm actually responding to the 'sign the FA and deal with the elevated risk" part. Because you clearly didn't seem to appreciate the way the Red Sox dealt with the elevated risk.
Price wasn't a good signing and ownership did eventually use Mookie in part to get off the contract.
Again, did I call them “cheap”? You attributed words to me that I did not write and now feel compelled to insult my ability to analyze how they operated. So, I can tell this won’t be a meaningful interaction and will move on.
This is essential - they team is not that good. So, I guess the organization is winning on principle - not overpaying players in their 30s, while simultaneously losing actual baseball games. Talk about a Pyrrhic victory.
It's hard to tell, I admit. Trevor Story being a signing that seemed to be made. Devers being signed.
If something annoys you more than entertains you, don't do it.
Ugh, this feels about right. Underestimated the explosion in top-level salaries, then?
The latest rumors have them maybe in on Montgomery but also looking at Giolito and Imanaga rather seriously. The connective tissue is no QO protection, so apparently they value that. I'm all for the former but if they can get the most out of the other two for less money, great. As has been said a number of times, they were league average last year even with all the injuries, it won't take all that much.
At the very least it is market signaling. They havent been good (and really have been bad) with both Story and Devers on the team. Not adding a significant piece after the last two years despite a number available tends to signal that they dont care that much.
Market signaling... to whom? Free agents? Or the fanbase?
