While I agree totally regarding spending on (bulk, middle and set up) relief pitching, I’ve gotta know. Why do you think Eovaldi is a good bet to go 150ip? He’s done that only 3x in a 10 year career (discounting his rookie year and the 2020 tournament) and only once in the last 6 seasons.
I don't understand this. They were supposed to wait around for Eovaldi, who had turned down their offer initially, instead of moving on and signing other players? I mean, it doesn't really matter who they signed in the meantime, be it relievers, an outfielder, a DH, whatever. The money they'd offered to Eovaldi, that he didn't want, was re-allocated. That's business.
I dont think he's a good bet to go 150 innings. I was responding to a post that said Eovaldi's contract could be worth up to 63M. He only gets that if he throws 160 innings both of the next two seasons ($20M vesting player option for 2025 if he throws 300 innings in 22-23 and $3M a year for throwing 160 innings). Otherwise the deal is 2/34.
Better than Kluber, I can't fault that take. But Nate's fastball velo drop is no joke. And I think that limits the likelihood of a ~130 materially.
The post you quoted literally said it didnt need to be Eovaldi. It could have been any other starter (or hell a position player). Its an allocation of budget point; not necessarily an Eovaldi point. Spending 25% of your available cash on two relievers when you have a bad lineup and bad rotation is not only not ideal; its pretty poor and its one of the reasons the teams mid range projection is still like 75-80 wins.
This is right but I also think that if the player comes back it’s a brand new question and you evaluate it on its merits without regard to what happened before.
Exactly this. They played the Eovaldi thing right. This whole narrative about him being treated badly is hogwash. There's an awful lot of "This team needs upgrades" and at the same time "why didn't they keep the band together?" We can't have it both ways here, and I for one, am perfectly fine with how they played this. Now I am interested to see how (or if) they address the OF and SS the rest of the offseason.
I think that the “whining” ( your word choice not mine) is that if the Sox were going to move on from Eovaldi (which is fine) the idea is that they should have signed someone better. Kluber probably isn’t that guy.
Is there any room in your ongoing frustrations to acknowledge even the possibility that Bloom is involved in negotiations to bring in additional players to help the team? And that doing so could at least possibly necessitate using some of the salary that you are pointing out could have been used on Eovaldi or the theoretical other good pitcher instead of Kluber? In other words, is it even possible that payroll dollars that right now appear to be sitting there going to waste are actually already allocated to free agent signing or, perhaps more likely, trades? I’m not asking you whether you think Bloom is competent enough or decisive enough to have these moves lined up. I’m simply asking you whether it’s possible that he does. Because of it is possible, there are still three full months of the offseason remaining for him to execute such moves, which means it’s at least theoretically possible that it is too early to draw any conclusions about the course of events that have followed Eovaldi declining the Sox’ offer.
I think you misconstrue - I dont think there's a whole lot of dollars left at all. The beginning of this discussion (my post inserted below) was a response to OCD that the budget was likely the first LT threshold . If you are asking if it is possible that they exceed it; id answer that of course its possible. I don't view that as likely or Bloom's decision. My and I guess at least OCD's suspicion is that the $233M line is effectively a cap. They're at ~$215M now.
The tone of this article is very anti-Bloom. I've been anti-Bloom but I'm going to defend him here. I've previously stated he has misread the market and talent evaluation, but it sounds like he had Eovaldi assessed correctly. Ultimately if decisions aren't made by both parties, one party is allowed to move on, and that's what the Sox did here. It remains to be seen whether or not this was the right choice, but I'm not going to blame Bloom for this one.
Kluber had the lowest BB percentage among MLB starters last year, and Martin had the lowest among relievers. I don't see many glaring reasons why both can't be equally effective next year, provided we've got a solid defense behind them.
No you didn't, but you mentioned massive deficiencies in the roster and rotation. IMO there were also massive deficiencies in the bullpen and with the declined offer to Eovaldi, Bloom pivoted toward putting out another fire. Risk in the rotation...you betcha as for the lineup I'm not sure we're quite there yet.
They also have two in house options in Whitlock and Houck that they are willing to roll with. Some people might not like that as an option, but it exists and if either is projected as a starter there's only one way to find out if it's a viable option.
If he didn't already know, then Bloom will find out that a Red Sox front office that doesn't leak at all will bring out the knives from the local sports media.
I don't think we signed Kluber to take Eovaldi's place in the rotation per se. I view Kluber as the back end. Eovaldi was forced to be our #1 last year, but realistically he is a 3. There is definitely a rearranging that will take place in who starts where, but I would expect Eovaldi to put up better numbers.
He should start thinking about it because it could get him fired (assuming Henry gives a shit.)
Or he could throw 150+ innings a year in a diminished state because of his injuries, in which case the option kicks in, he gets his bonuses, and he isn't very good.
If John Henry cares more about perception than reality, I hope he gets in his favorite yacht and goes away.
Ahhh, ok, you meant Pivetta asthe dependable 150ip projection, NOT that it was previously Eovaldi or that he was a more sure bet for it than Kluber, my misread!
For what it’s worth, the reason I would prefer so else sooner than later is to remove what I believe is the problem before it gets worse.
f other team’s minor league systems (Downs over Graterol; choosing Cordero and Winckowski, Binelas and Hamilton), I don‘t have a ton of faith in Bloom as some master player development guru.
I'd expect Henry cares about perception inasmuch as it affects profits. Poor performance is going to impact profits, and I've got no problem with that personally. Overtly hostile media attention is likely to drive public sentiment further, which will exacerbate any impacts on profits and further incentivize Henry to act in a way that will improve profits by pandering to perception.
They didn't choose Downs over Graterol in a vacuum, they chose Graterol to begin with, then they saw his medicals and reworked the deal. Being disappointed with Downs failing as a prospect is fine, I certainly am. But saying Bloom has somehow failed for not making a reliever with questionable medicals one of the centerpieces of the Betts deal is a bit disingenuous, no?
When the piece he chose was already DFA’ed; the piece he chose not to take has outperformed by total fWAR the past three seasons the guy he gave $9.375m AAV to in a similar role, AND for a team that is dependent on two starters whom haven’t pitched in 3 years and apparently have Christian Arroyo and his entire career of never appearing in 90games in a season as a starting middle infielder, no, I don’t think it’s disingenuous at all.
You're upset that he didn't take the guy who has been worth 1.5 fwar over 3 seasons for the Dodgers and is projected to be worth 0.6 fwar next year?
Since he’s decided to sink $9.375m AAV into a guy whom has been 1.3 fWAR over the same time frame, and has also thus had to bet $8.75m on a 37 year old reliever to replace the $9.375m guy, AND the player he chose instead his been DFA’ed, yes, I’m upset.
Again, pointing to the failure of Downs as a strike against Bloom is fine. Pointing to not taking Graterol as a strike against him implies that a GM should disregard their medical staff when their concerns will turn out not to manifest in career ending injury over the next three years.
The medial staff looks closer to being right than wrong too with as much time as he's missed over the last 2 seasons
Kluber has had two significant injuries. His arm was broken near the elbow by a line drive in 2019 and he tore his teres major muscle (back of the shoulder) in his first – and only – inning with the Rangers. He's never had Tommy John Surgery.
I suppose he could be completely average and put up 300 innings and his option would best. But the likelihood hes bad and puts up 300 innings seems so incredibly low as to not worry about it.
Barnes was very strong once he came back last year, much better than Graterol in fact, so I'd say it's pretty fortunate that he's still here and will likely be a big part of the bullpen this year.
Great and then we could bring back Sullivan and the Yawkey Trust. 20 years ago, the question was if the RS would ever win a world series. In the last 20 years, the RS have won 4 all under JH's ownership. During that time: SF won 3, Houston and the Cardinals won 2 each. No other team has more than 1. So Henry can go to his yacht, but I am fine with his continued ownership.
I think there's a good chance he's worth that salary in 2022. I'm also pretty sure that almost everyone was in favor of the extension at the time it happened.
Count me as someone who wasn't. He turned two good months into an extension and was hit hard by the sticky stuff ban. You've got to know your own players and that the ban was going to dramatically effect his efficacy. Only as MLB has dialed back their enforcement of the sticky stuff did Barnes start to become effective again.
Was the "sticky stuff" an open secret kind of thing where everyone in the clubhouse, and thus the coaching staff and the front office, knew who was using what and to what degree, or was it more a personal, on the down-low kind of deal (more like pitchers sharing trade secrets kind of thing)? I guess what I'm asking is was it really be possible for Bloom and his staff to distinguish what percentage of Barnes' (or any pitcher) production was skill/talent and what was sticky stuff-induced?
The downturn of his season coincided almost directly with him missing time due to Covid. That seems a much more likely reason for his struggles down the stretch. He was ill in early August and tested negative, but tested positive two weeks later and was quoted in the Hartford Courant in early September as saying "This is the best I've felt in a month". So clearly he had some health issues at the time that at least mirrored Covid symptoms. As someone who had Covid, you can have negative tests, but it affects you much longer than your "positive" time. I was out of breath just going up the stairs for weeks afterwards. I can't imagine how that would affect a professional athlete.
Literally anyone cheap. I mean, if we’re going to emulate Tampa and Oakland in terms of roster construction with short term deals, old players and platoons across the board, why not emulate where they actually do really well - paying nothing on the bullpen and cycling in and out as necessary all season.
