Red Sox Rumors - Just Kidding

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
1,254
Sure, but if Eovaldi gets his $60M hell have been well worth it. The guarantee is only $34M and he onlgy gets the $60M if he's thrown 320 innings in the first two years of the deal. Its pretty well built to protect the team.

It didnt have to be Eovalid either - some other starter who isnt Kluber would have worked as well. $25M on two bullpen pieces made no sense unless they were willing to blow up their LT thresholds.

Edit: Ill be really clear - spending $25M on two relievers and then having budgetary problems finding a decent starter when there's only one guy who;s both decent and likely to be available for 150 innings in your rotation is a really poor allocation of resources.
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.

FWIW, I absolutely would not have signed Martin (or Barnes), Rodriguez, or tendered Brasier or Taylor. I do like the Jansen add though.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
21,590
Maine
Edit: Ill be really clear - spending $25M on two relievers and then having budgetary problems finding a decent starter when there's only one guy who;s both decent and likely to be available for 150 innings in your rotation is a really poor allocation of resources.
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.

Seems like there's been an awful lot of whining and moaning around here (in general, not necessarily you) that the Sox haven't been proactive enough as big name after big name came off the board. Now we're upset that they didn't wait around for Eovaldi to come back hat in hand to take the offer he didn't want a month ago. Seems like damned if they do and damned if they don't.
 

mikcou

Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2007
936
Boston
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.

FWIW, I absolutely would not have signed Martin (or Barnes), Rodriguez, or tendered Brasier or Taylor. I do like the Jansen add though.
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.

If he hits those incentives, it is almost certainly an awesome deal for Texas. He probably wont, but then the deal is a pretty reasonable 2/34.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
6,385
The Rangers deal is already more than I'd like to have committed to Eo; even if he's as injured as he usually is, he's still getting 17m a year guaranteed, on a time line that coincides with Sale's contract. If the Sox's offer was more generous than that, I'm pretty glad he passed.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
12,354
around the way
Boston didn't do anything wrong, but I'm glad things worked out this way. I think Eovaldi is more likely to have a better year than Kluber. Maybe by a good margin.

84 vs 109 ERA+ and I think Eovaldi is more likely to improve on that and approach the 125 and 129 from his two previous years.
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.
 

mikcou

Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2007
936
Boston
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.

Seems like there's been an awful lot of whining and moaning around here (in general, not necessarily you) that the Sox haven't been proactive enough as big name after big name came off the board. Now we're upset that they didn't wait around for Eovaldi to come back hat in hand to take the offer he didn't want a month ago. Seems like damned if they do and damned if they don't.
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.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
43,975
AZ
This Eovaldi stuff is very silly.

In negotiations you can not, at any point, let an offer be a back up to the market.

You make your fair offer, they accept or reject it, once it’s rejected. Good luck, we will talk later once you test the maket. You don’t get to have the benefit of testing the market and saying “we were good on that offer a month ago right?”

You lose all leverage and will never had free agents take your offer when presented because they have no opportunity cost of waiting.

They played it right.
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.

Eovaldi at those numbers still very well might have made sense even after the other things the Sox had done. He is a known quantity and that is a reasonable deal. At least at this point in time given what else is out there. We will have to see what else they do with the money.
 

jmanny24

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2003
664
Seems like there's been an awful lot of whining and moaning around here (in general, not necessarily you) that the Sox haven't been proactive enough as big name after big name came off the board. Now we're upset that they didn't wait around for Eovaldi to come back hat in hand to take the offer he didn't want a month ago. Seems like damned if they do and damned if they don't.
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.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,986
Seems like there's been an awful lot of whining and moaning around here (in general, not necessarily you) that the Sox haven't been proactive enough as big name after big name came off the board. Now we're upset that they didn't wait around for Eovaldi to come back hat in hand to take the offer he didn't want a month ago. Seems like damned if they do and damned if they don't.
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.

So you can say, “Well, what were the Sox to do? The better players were already signed.” But if you knew that you were going to move on relatively early in the off-season, the argument is that the team should have used those funds for a better starter.

Unfortunately the way the two transactions were announced, it looks as if the Sox are essentially trading Eovaldi for Kluber, which isn’t the case. But perception is what matters and if Eovaldi lights it up in Texas and Kluber gets lit up here*, it’s going to look like another whiff for Bloom.

* Craig Calcaterra had a good thought on this transaction the other day; I’m paraphrasing here, but basically he said a franchise that usually gets good results from pitching reclamations (TB) gota 4.50+ ERA from Kluber last year. Now he’s a year older and going to a franchise that doesn’t have a good rep with pitching reclamations, he doesn’t think it bodes well for the Red Sox.

And I tend to agree. I’m not saying the Kluber was a bad signing per se, but when he’s your biggest off-season** starting pitching acquisition, that leaves a lot to be desired.

** And yes, I know it’s not even January yet but the clock is ticking Bloom.
 

BringBackMo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,398
It didnt have to be Eovalid either - some other starter who isnt Kluber would have worked as well. $25M on two bullpen pieces made no sense unless they were willing to blow up their LT thresholds.

Edit: Ill be really clear - spending $25M on two relievers and then having budgetary problems finding a decent starter when there's only one guy who;s both decent and likely to be available for 150 innings in your rotation is a really poor allocation of resources.
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.
 

mikcou

Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2007
936
Boston
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.

If they are truly serious about negotiating with Devers on an extension (I truly hope they are) they need almost everything left to get that done as his arb estimate is ~16M and any extension is going to add over $10M and probably closer to $12-$13M to that number.
 

HangingW/ScottCooper

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
2,522
Scituate, MA
I don’t find SI to be as reputable as they once were, but they’re quoting MLB’s Ian Browne reporting Boston may have pulled their offer on Eovaldi after spending elsewhere:

https://www.si.com/mlb/red-sox/prospects/red-sox-reportedly-pulled-offer-for-nathan-eovaldi-after-spending-elsewhere-scott7

“"It sounds like they made him what was a good offer earlier in the offseason and (his agents) weren't ready to take it, they were like: 'this market could blow up.' The market never did blow up.

"It sounds like from some of what I've heard, Eovaldi's camp came back to the Red Sox and said 'okay, can we still get that offer back?' (The Red Sox) said no. That was after they got Masataka Yoshida, Kenley Jansen and Chris Martin."”
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.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,694
Sure, but if Eovaldi gets his $60M hell have been well worth it. The guarantee is only $34M and he onlgy gets the $60M if he's thrown 320 innings in the first two years of the deal. Its pretty well built to protect the team.

It didnt have to be Eovalid either - some other starter who isnt Kluber would have worked as well. $25M on two bullpen pieces made no sense unless they were willing to blow up their LT thresholds.

Edit: Ill be really clear - spending $25M on two relievers and then having budgetary problems finding a decent starter when there's only one guy who;s both decent and likely to be available for 150 innings in your rotation is a really poor allocation of resources.
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.

But this is an interesting premise. I wonder what other kind of pairing we could have made had we signed Eovaldi to his Texas deal.

Combine Kluber, Martin and Jansen, and here's the 2022 package we get for $39.25M in 2023 AAV (factoring Martin's bonuses):

284 IP, 3.21 FIP, 3.87 ERA, 25.4 K%, 4.1 BB%, 21.3 K-BB%, 1.08 HR/9, 37.3 GB%, 37.2 O-Swing%, 11.8 SwStr%, 5.7 fWAR

With the caveat that 2022 production is no guarantee of 2023 production, that's roughly one-and-a-half aces' worth of pitching. A 3.21 FIP is a shade worse than Corbin Burnes and a shade better than Yu Darvish and Alex Manoah. The 2023 cost is $36.75, which I think is reasonable, but the total cost is $59.5M over two years (covering Jansen and Martin), with a club option on Kluber that could make it $70.5M.

If you swap in Eovaldi, you're looking at this:

229.1 IP, 3.48 FIP, 3.53 ERA, 27.7 K%, 5.0 BB%, 22.8 K-BB%, 1.37 HR/9, 43.4 GB%, 35.6 O-Swing%, 12.4 SwStr%, 3.7 fWAR

The 2023 total cost here is $46.25M, or $83M over two years, and a potential for $100M over three if Eovaldi hits his incentives.

This is all quick and dirty, and uses 2022 numbers instead of 2023 projections. From what I can tell, if the Red Sox plan to go bananas in the 2025 free agent market, then Eovaldi's third-year player option may ultimately be a big factor.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
I didnt say anything about not improving the pen. Jensen is an obvious upgrade.

There was always going to be a lot of work to make this team even decent - an amount that I think most here underestimated with all the discussions about how much space there was under the luxury tax threshold. IF that is a cap (and I honestly dont know that it is, but they appear as if it is), then there were always going to be places where they were going to need to be light and take risks.

I'd rather it be the bullpen than any place else where performance volatility is at it highest. Signing both Jensen and Martin went the other way and locked them into taking a lot of underperformance risk in the rotation and lineup where performance tends to be more steady.
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.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
13,336
So, they wouldn’t have signed Jansen and Martin had Eovaldi accepted the offer- is that the argument? Even though they still have a good amount left under the threshold, and even though the difference in AAV between Nate and Kluber is only $7M?

If so, what did they end up doing with the money they planned to give to Xander?
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
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.
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.
 

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
17,260
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.
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.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
21,590
Maine
So, they wouldn’t have signed Jansen and Martin had Eovaldi accepted the offer- is that the argument? Even though they still have a good amount left under the threshold, and even though the difference in AAV between Nate and Kluber is only $7M?

If so, what did they end up doing with the money they planned to give to Xander?

 

BeantownIdaho

New Member
Dec 5, 2005
486
Nampa, Idaho
Boston didn't do anything wrong, but I'm glad things worked out this way. I think Eovaldi is more likely to have a better year than Kluber. Maybe by a good margin.

84 vs 109 ERA+ and I think Eovaldi is more likely to improve on that and approach the 125 and 129 from his two previous years.
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.
 
@John Marzano Olympic Hero -- Sure, and if Evo spends most of the next two seasons on the IL or is ineffective with decreased velocity and Kluber puts in an acceptable or better performance for the Sox Bloom will look good. So it goes with any move a GM/CBO makes.

Regarding your comments about perception, I agree with you that it's an accurate description of the reality of the situation. However, as a fan who roots for the laundry, I wish it wasn't so. Do we actually want our GM/CBO making baseball decisions based on what he thinks the media will like or what will play well to calm down the fan base rather than what he thinks is the most likely to result in sustained success on the field?

I absolutely believe that Bloom shouldn't have an infinite leash, but I do think he should have enough time to implement his plan. So far he has had some real successes and some real failures, no doubt about it. Is there any reason to think that whomever will replace him will do better though? Firing Bloom isn't going to get X or Mookie back, and by the times it happens it will likely be too late to extend Devers.

The way I see it there is very little upside to Bloom getting prematurely fired due to an axe grinding media and angry fans. If anything, it will only exacerbate any problems the team has in attracting talent (be it on field or front office). All things being equal, who wants to come play in a city where the media and fanbase have an extremely low tolerance for mistakes, will target people and hound them out of town?

So again, I get that this is the reality of the situation but I really don't get the people who are actively rooting it on. Seems to me like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,453
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.

If he hits those incentives, it is almost certainly an awesome deal for Texas. He probably wont, but then the deal is a pretty reasonable 2/34.
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.
 

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
1,254
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.

If he hits those incentives, it is almost certainly an awesome deal for Texas. He probably wont, but then the deal is a pretty reasonable 2/34.
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!

I do think Eovaldi and Kluber carry similar levels of risk (both over 30, both with TJS on their ledger, both with a heck of a lot of blue on their Baseball Savant page), but Kluber has less risk AND the team option, so it’s at worst a better deal to bet on.

Plenty of things I ”sports hate” what Bloom has done / is doing, but this choice is not one of them.


I absolutely believe that Bloom shouldn't have an infinite leash, but I do think he should have enough time to implement his plan. So far he has had some real successes and some real failures, no doubt about it. Is there any reason to think that whomever will replace him will do better though? Firing Bloom isn't going to get X or Mookie back, and by the times it happens it will likely be too late to extend Devers.

The way I see it there is very little upside to Bloom getting prematurely fired due to an axe grinding media and angry fans. If anything, it will only exacerbate any problems the team has in attracting talent (be it on field or front office). All things being equal, who wants to come play in a city where the media and fanbase have an extremely low tolerance for mistakes, will target people and hound them out of town?

So again, I get that this is the reality of the situation but I really don't get the people who are actively rooting it on. Seems to me like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
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.

Based on his failure (or lack of desire) to extend Bogaerts AND his decision to hold players last trade deadline, I infer Bloom will neither extend Devers NOR trade him, rather to hold him and lose him for nothing. Also, based on his “scouting”:eek: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’m also very skeptical due to his lack of extending for core type of players, whether that is financial or in terms of moving prospects to acquire them. Personally, I tend to think he would do a very good job in a small market; he seems quite good at identifying how to get “average“ production for garbage prices to go from terrible to decent. I also feel that just as the As and Rays constantly lose in the playoffs, that is how he’s building the Red Sox. Plenty of “average” to get to October, nowhere near the top of the roster talent to hoist the only trophy that matters.
 
If John Henry cares more about perception than reality, I hope he gets in his favorite yacht and goes away.
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.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
6,385
based on his “scouting” of other team’s minor league systems (Downs over Graterol;
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?
 

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
1,254
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.

Its quintessential Bloom - the decision is defensible at the time (which I think is true of all his moves, but it’s also true of basically all moves made by heads of baseball OPS for the Red Sox of the past 20 years and most MLB teams) - it turns out poorly yet we’re supposed to overlook it. Why? Because he’s rebuilding a barren farm system and it takes time.

Fair to say - but it should also be fair to them say when pieces of this youth movement he’s chosen have provided nothing and the players he decided to not bet on have been far more valuable pieces. These all point to questions of his evaluation.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,453
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.

Its quintessential Bloom - the decision is defensible at the time (which I think is true of all his moves, but it’s also true of basically all moves made by heads of baseball OPS for the Red Sox of the past 20 years and most MLB teams) - it turns out poorly yet we’re supposed to overlook it. Why? Because he’s rebuilding a barren farm system and it takes time.

Fair to say - but it should also be fair to them say when pieces of this youth movement he’s chosen have provided nothing and the players he decided to not bet on have been far more valuable pieces. These all point to questions of his evaluation.
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?
 

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
1,254
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.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,453
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.
Barnes was replaced? Did I miss a memo?
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
6,385
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.

Its quintessential Bloom - the decision is defensible at the time (which I think is true of all his moves, but it’s also true of basically all moves made by heads of baseball OPS for the Red Sox of the past 20 years and most MLB teams) - it turns out poorly yet we’re supposed to overlook it. Why? Because he’s rebuilding a barren farm system and it takes time.

Fair to say - but it should also be fair to them say when pieces of this youth movement he’s chosen have provided nothing and the players he decided to not bet on have been far more valuable pieces. These all point to questions of his evaluation.
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.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,694
Brusdar Graterol is a useful MLB pitcher but he’s injury prone and doesn’t miss bats. He’s a solid 7th inning guy, not a vital bullpen piece. I don’t think that the alternate reality in which we acquired him would have precluded Barnes’ extension, since Graterol was on the shelf at the time and he couldn’t get lefties out to save his life last year.

The only thing I’m genuinely mad at Bloom about is not (yet) making a transaction that can drown out the echoes of the Mookie deal.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,453
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
 

Sad Sam Jones

Member
SoSH Member
May 5, 2017
2,695
I do think Eovaldi and Kluber carry similar levels of risk (both over 30, both with TJS on their ledger, both with a heck of a lot of blue on their Baseball Savant page), but Kluber has less risk AND the team option, so it’s at worst a better deal to bet on.
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.
 

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
1,254
Thanks, I saw “elbow“ on a quick check of my recollection and assumed (wrongly) for the nature of the injury, thanks and noted.

Overall point of both Kluber and Eovaldi having (poor) injury track records, so I’ve got plenty of Bloom decisions that I “sports hate”, but I’m not against him taking the cheaper bet of the two.

@scottyno, unfortunately no, you did not. Nobody has traded for Barnes. He’s still here. Replaced as the closer, and replaced (ostensibly) as the primary set up man. Unfortunately no, not replaced as in the sense of “a useful allocation of $9.375m against the luxury tax.”
 
Last edited:

mikcou

Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2007
936
Boston
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.
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.

Whats the realistic worst case where the option vests? He's Nick Pivetta for two years? Because Nick Pivetta is a ~2 win guy. So basically a 17-20m a year pitcher. Basic point - its really hard these days to put up 300 innings over two years and not be worth 17m a year.

The real downside is he just cant physically perform and you've flushed the $34M; I just have a really hard time seeing a scenario where the options and bonuses vest, but he's somehow not been worth the first two years. Kluber got $10M after throwing 160 innings at a well below average rate. Sub $10M a year starters are guys who have either been awful or chronically injured.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,453
@scottyno, unfortunately no, you did not. Nobody has traded for Barnes. He’s still here. Replaced as the closer, and replaced (ostensibly) as the primary set up man. Unfortunately no, not replaced as in the sense of “a useful allocation of $9.375m against the luxury tax.”
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.
 

In my lifetime

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
960
Connecticut
If John Henry cares more about perception than reality, I hope he gets in his favorite yacht and goes away.
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.
 

Tony Pena's Gas Cloud

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 12, 2019
417
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.

FWIW, I absolutely would not have signed Martin (or Barnes), Rodriguez, or tendered Brasier or Taylor. I do like the Jansen add though.
Then who do you suggest pitches in relief, under your scenario?
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,518
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.
That's my point. (Which I obviously expressed not well). REALITY.
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
21,823
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.
Would you pay Matt Barnes that salary again if given the chance?
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,453
Would you pay Matt Barnes that salary again if given the chance?
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.
 

HangingW/ScottCooper

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
2,522
Scituate, MA
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.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
21,590
Maine
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?

Sticky ban went into effect on June 21, 2021. The Barnes extension was announced 19 days later (July 11). During the interim when Barnes was presumably clean, he had 8 appearances for 7.2 IP, 1.17 ERA, 3.43 FIP, 1.17 WHIP, 10 K, and was 4 for 5 in save opportunities. His season line up until the sticky ban: 29 games, 29.1 IP, 3.07 ERA, 1.67 FIP, 0.78 WHIP, 52 K, and was 15 for 18 in save opportunities. Hardly a significant downturn that might have tossed up a red flag before they finalized a deal that was surely in the works for weeks.

I think there's legitimate discussion about his extension based on his somewhat inconsistent track record, but I think suggesting that a) his success was all sticky-stuff based and b) the Sox brass should have known that and made decisions based on that is spurious at best. I think such an argument is clouded by the knowledge that we've gained since the deal happened. Knowledge that it isn't that realistic to think the team should have known in advance.

And I think scottyno is correct. At the time, the general consensus here was that it was a good deal.
 

Tony Pena's Gas Cloud

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 12, 2019
417
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.
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.
 

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
1,254
Then who do you suggest pitches in relief, under your scenario?
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.

If you want to spend on arms there as luxury items when you have the core like Houston or Atlanta, go nuts. When you have no established core to speak of, I’d rather spend the combined value of ~ $25m being spent on Barnes, Martin, Rodriguez, Brasier and Taylor on a core middle of the order bat or a core starting pitcher than bulk, middle, or set up relief pitchers.

I wasn’t posting when Barnes was extended (though I was against the deal), so that’s why I’m taking the time to explain why I dislike paying Martin, Rodriguez, etc. As in say why I dislike similar”deals or anything for “middle relief pitchers” and not just cherry picking a deal that at present hasn’t worked. I’m against the idea of paying literally anyone for bulk, middle and set up relief, or in other words, I don’t like the “closer by committee” style approach. Especially when the team is so deficient in top of the roster talent.

Whether it works or not, I’m fully on board with signing Jansen (would have been for Diaz too, or identifying a Kimbrel style trade target), hence putting everyone else (rather set up, middle, bulk, openers, whatever) under the “middle relief pitcher” umbrella.

If you identify someone you like enough to buy out arb years with team options at early FA (Whitlock; tried to do with Papelbon), go for it. Literally everyone else, cycle on the minor league deals / major league minimum / prospect style pieces. If you hit on guys and another team values them, move them almost immediately (case in point, BB Trade Values says Schreiber for Kim is a fair deal - I think in the real there is no chance SD makes that deal, but if you can improve other areas - including the farm - by moving those type of pieces do it).

Put another way I think a ’pen of Touki Toussaint, Josh James, Delois Guerra, Jared Koenig, Guillermo Heredia, and Alan Rangel (I just started with the top of the alphabet of teams for non-tendered FAs) is pretty much equally likely to be good or suck as Martin, Barnes, Rodriguez, Taylor, Brasier and Schrieber. But one costs you ~ $25m against the Luxury Tax threshold. The other costs you ~ $4.2m AND allows you to sign a player like Bassitt, Senga, Tallion or Eovaldi if you want another starter or to have retained Bogaerts or have gone after Turner, Correa, etc instead.

Choice here would have been Bogaerts, but literally any of them over spending on the middle and bottom of the bullpen.