Red Sox Rumors - Just Kidding

walt in maryland

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
223
Woodbine, MD
Even Belichick feels the pressure to go and "win the offseason" every once in awhile, such as 2021. Bloom and the Sox leadership seems to have no such urges, god bless them if it works, but to make your singular big move spending $100 million on an unknown as your biggest move is a big yikes. Remember Story came to them relatively late last offseason and even in the moment the signing seemed more about saving money in the long run (anticipating Xander bolting) than a pro-active move to make a big splash.

One other problem developing is there is no hierarchy to the team, because everyone expects Devers to have one foot out the door this coming season even if he is an ultimate professional on the field. Is Alex Verdugo going to be the "leader" of the everyday players with his very lengthy Red Sox tenure?

What I am talking myself into is Chaim Bloom is operating this team exactly like Billy Beane would have if he came to the Sox, in that he spends substantial money but not on the prototypical "franchise" guys. And Bloom like Beane would have, is just viewing the roster as totally fungible. This is contrary to a guy like Epstein who espoused similar beliefs to Beane but still could get stars in his eyes for the right player, or maybe it was Lucchino who helped Theo get there. I tend to agree with this in the NFL where a steady coaching staff can control the game plan like the Pats, Ravens, 49ers present day, etc. But in baseball I feel like you need those high end leaders, and unfortunately their high-priced guy is a fragile lefty going out there every 5-6 days (to be clear/fair, no fault of Bloom for this)...
Not agreeing or disagreeing, but a general observation. Acquiring top-tier talent via the free agent market has to be the most inefficient way to do so.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,348
As we learned with Xs extension, the nuance to locking the players up matters. Devers 10/300 may look good, but what about opt outs? Not to relive the “opt outs hurt the team” but giving Devers opt out in 3 years or 4 years may be the hangup
He likely will insist on that and he’d also, like X, be at the perfect age to either decline it for another 10 year. What’s the issue? He’d be crazy to have an extension that took him to age 33!
 

TimScribble

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
1,474
If this is true...I don't necessarily think it means that it's a lock he's coming here, but it can't possibly be a total coincidence, right? As in , there is interest and recent contact has been made?

Does he nave any other recent follows (Jose Abreu, Zack Eflin, Kenley Jansen, etc.)?
I can’t get the image to pos but Jansen and Martin were recent follows. Can’t tell if he followed before or after signings.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,753
Twin Cities
As we learned with Xs extension, the nuance to locking the players up matters. Devers 10/300 may look good, but what about opt outs? Not to relive the “opt outs hurt the team” but giving Devers opt out in 3 years or 4 years may be the hangup
IF Heyman is right about Devers’ asking price, and if the Sox are willing to go near that level (and I’m not sure they are, priority or not), then something like 11/$300 (Turner’s deal) with an opt out after year 4 might split the benefits down the middle. Sox get Devers’ prime, at an AAV below $30m. Devers gets security, a top 10 or so MLB contract, and a chance to do even better if his performance and the market warrant it.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,348
IF Heyman is right about Devers’ asking price, and if the Sox are willing to go near that level (and I’m not sure they are, priority or not), then something like 11/$300 with an opt out after year 4 might split the benefits down the middle. Sox get Devers’ prime, at an AAV below $30m. Devers gets security, a top 10 or so MLB contract, and a chance to do even better if his performance and the market warrant it.
This really is perfect but I’m skeptical if Devers accepts that even.
 

Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat

has big, douchey shoulders
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
This really is perfect but I’m skeptical if Devers accepts that even.
I love Raffy, and I really want him to stay. But one year from free agency, that seems like a very fair, pretty damn compelling offer to me. I'd even do 10/300 with the same opt out.
If he doesn't take that, I'm not sure where to go from there.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,091
I'd be perfectly fine with a deal that has an opt-out after 3-4 years. Having Devers on this team for 3-4 years is better than 1. Sure, the situation could play out just like Bogaerts but I'll deal with 2026 when it gets here. So much could change by then. Worst case, you lose him at age 29/30 and don't have to assume the back end risk that many are a little wary of anyways.
 

Otis Foster

rex ryan's podiatrist
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
1,707
This really is perfect but I’m skeptical if Devers accepts that even.
This may have been answered elsewhere, so if its repetitious, my apologies. It is tangential to rumors, so if it belongs elsewhere, please let me know.

The opt out device has taken hold on the player side, and it injects a note of uncertainty into team planning. Has any team countered with a yes on the opt out so long as it's paired with a team option to retain the player at an adjusted salary of (say) X+20%, where X = base salary for the player if he didn't opt out?

Just wondering - in an overheated marketplace for top tier talent, like we've just seen, the team option could be a deal killer, but the concept -that the team can retain the player if its willing to reset the salary at a presumably market level - makes some sense.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
The thing is, when they hit 30, the decline years begin. I’d be perfectly happy with a 10 year 300 million dollar deal with an opt out after four years, meaning that 30 year old Raffy essentially can become a free agent again.

By then some of the prospects will be ready and the Sox won’t be paying for Raffy’s decline years. This is why the Bogaerts deal was ok with me. But to lose Raffy as a 26 or 27 year old is very different.
 

PrometheusWakefield

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2009
10,441
Boston, MA
They're not done, or even close. Patience
My frustration is that when it comes to high impact free agents they absolutely are done, because there are none left (other than Swanson who is clearly just a downgrade from what they got from Bogaerts last year). That's the significance of the Rodon signing - he was the last guy on the board the Red Sox could sign that would give us a meaningful upgrade from what we had in 2022, and not only did we not get him - he went to the Yankees. We went into the offseason with a ton of cap room and we decided to do almost nothing with it.

If we were in the NL Central sure we might be competitive with our current roster but in this division this team needed additional impact players to compete in 2023 and the only route left to acquire those players is trading away our top prospects, which I don't want to do.

At this point, IMO, it's time to trade Raffy and build for the future.
 

Green Monster

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2000
2,277
CT
This may have been answered elsewhere, so if its repetitious, my apologies. It is tangential to rumors, so if it belongs elsewhere, please let me know.

The opt out device has taken hold on the player side, and it injects a note of uncertainty into team planning. Has any team countered with a yes on the opt out so long as it's paired with a team option to retain the player at an adjusted salary of (say) X+20%, where X = base salary for the player if he didn't opt out?

Just wondering - in an overheated marketplace for top tier talent, like we've just seen, the team option could be a deal killer, but the concept -that the team can retain the player if its willing to reset the salary at a presumably market level - makes some sense.
Interesting concept....to apply this to the recent Xander scenario. He has a 6/$120M deal with opt out after year 3. He opts out and that triggers an option for the sox to revise the remaining three years to 3/$72M (24 AAV). I think everyone would be thrilled with that right now (except perhaps Xander)
 

NYCSox

chris hansen of goats
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 19, 2004
10,446
Some fancy town in CT
The thing is, when they hit 30, the decline years begin. I’d be perfectly happy with a 10 year 300 million dollar deal with an opt out after four years, meaning that 30 year old Raffy essentially can become a free agent again.

By then some of the prospects will be ready and the Sox won’t be paying for Raffy’s decline years. This is why the Bogaerts deal was ok with me. But to lose Raffy as a 26 or 27 year old is very different.
I've always thought this was the caveat to the argument regarding opt-outs and who they benefit. I'm perfectly fine with taking the chance that someone else will pay for age 31+ seasons.
 

Pablo's TB Lover

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 10, 2017
5,959
Not agreeing or disagreeing, but a general observation. Acquiring top-tier talent via the free agent market has to be the most inefficient way to do so.
I agree with your observation for sure. But unfortunately the FA market is the most certain way to add this talent (albeit likely overpaid talent). The pros for the other methods are if the team hits on draft picks, you can wind up with young stars on affordable contracts. And if the team hits on trades, you can get a star on a 2018-2019 market level contract or below-market contract rather than a 2022 market level contract. The mitigating factors for each are: 1) you don't know whether a particular draft pick will be productive for the major league club until years after the draft. And 2) you need two willing partners to make a trade and be willing to part with prospects who may become those below-market young stars in the future.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,091
My frustration is that when it comes to high impact free agents they absolutely are done, because there are none left (other than Swanson who is clearly just a downgrade from what they got from Bogaerts last year). That's the significance of the Rodon signing - he was the last guy on the board the Red Sox could sign that would give us a meaningful upgrade from what we had in 2022, and not only did we not get him - he went to the Yankees. We went into the offseason with a ton of cap room and we decided to do almost nothing with it.

If we were in the NL Central sure we might be competitive with our current roster but in this division this team needed additional impact players to compete in 2023 and the only route left to acquire those players is trading away our top prospects, which I don't want to do.

At this point, IMO, it's time to trade Raffy and build for the future.
This is where I land. I've read stuff like, "hey, it's only mid-December - not done yet". While factually true, who are the impact guys remaining? There are some decent supporting cast type guys available but the true impact guys are now long gone outside of maybe Swanson who I don't want at the current market rates anyways. What's left? Benintendi (ha...)? JD? Eovaldi? Conforto? Mancini? None of those guys are even remotely exciting. So, then you're left with the trade market. Our top prospects are all rumored to be off the table. What impact guys are you landing with a package of pre-AA lottery tickets? Feels like anything Chaim does from here on out until the spring will be on the margins.
 

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
1,176
This may have been answered elsewhere, so if its repetitious, my apologies. It is tangential to rumors, so if it belongs elsewhere, please let me know.

The opt out device has taken hold on the player side, and it injects a note of uncertainty into team planning. Has any team countered with a yes on the opt out so long as it's paired with a team option to retain the player at an adjusted salary of (say) X+20%, where X = base salary for the player if he didn't opt out?

Just wondering - in an overheated marketplace for top tier talent, like we've just seen, the team option could be a deal killer, but the concept -that the team can retain the player if its willing to reset the salary at a presumably market level - makes some sense.

Story has something like this. It's not exactly like you suggested (which if allowed would be really smart for a team to negotiate in too!), but he can opt out after 2025 but the Red Sox can trigger a 7th year on the deal for $25m to "negate" his opt out.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,017
Oregon
This is where I land. I've read stuff like, "hey, it's only mid-December - not done yet". While factually true, who are the impact guys remaining? There are some decent supporting cast type guys available but the true impact guys are now long gone outside of maybe Swanson who I don't want at the current market rates anyways. What's left? Benintendi (ha...)? JD? Eovaldi? Conforto? Mancini? None of those guys are even remotely exciting. So, then you're left with the trade market. Our top prospects are all rumored to be off the table. What impact guys are you landing with a package of pre-AA lottery tickets? Feels like anything Chaim does from here on out until the spring will be on the margins.
Along with this, outside of signing Story for what now seems like a below market deal, what has this management team done to convince anyone that they will be pulling rabbits out of their hats between now and Spring Training? Sure, there's plenty of time to do something unexpected that will have an impact ... but that would be as likely as my going out an shooting a round under 80. In some alternate universe it happens, but it's not this one.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,667
I hope they offer Devers 10/300 and somehow compromise on 11/330. We will see. I do not see the benefit in making any offer where the total dollar amount does not start with a 3.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,091
Along with this, outside of signing Story for what now seems like a below market deal, what has this management team done to convince anyone that they will be pulling rabbits out of their hats between now and Spring Training? Sure, there's plenty of time to do something unexpected that will have an impact ... but that would be as likely as my going out an shooting a round under 80. In some alternate universe it happens, but it's not this one.
Agreed. There have been some successes along the way. Whitlock, Pivetta trade, etc. but it's not like Chaim has a great track record with the Sox on trades. We need a GM trade WAR stat.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,715
Agreed. There have been some successes along the way. Whitlock, Pivetta trade, etc. but it's not like Chaim has a great track record with the Sox on trades. We need a GM trade WAR stat.
Chad Jennings dug into this in The Athletic today, it's not pretty.

"Under Bloom, the Red Sox have executed 24 trades. In all but eight, prospects were a key piece of the return. Twelve of the trades involved giving up at least one experienced big league player or taking on the salary dump of an opposing big league player. Nine or so — depending on where you draw the prospect line — brought back notable prospects with perceived big-league upside. All told, the Red Sox acquired 25 minor leaguers via trade, and the return has been minimal so far. Of those 25 minor leaguers:

  • Five have since reached the Major Leagues.
  • Four have been designated for assignment.
  • Six currently rank among the system’s top 30 prospects according to SoxProspects.com.
  • None rank in Baseball America’s Top 10.
  • Twelve have been exposed to the Rule 5 draft or else released into minor league free agency.
Those numbers do not include major league trade additions Jackie Bradley Jr., Hoy Park, Franchy Cordero, Austin Davis, Austin Brice and Matt Hall, all of whom were also designated for assignment after underwhelming — or, in the case of Park, nonexistent — stints on the Red Sox roster. According to FanGraphs, the only Red Sox trade additions worth at least 2 WAR the past three years were Alex Verdugo (5.1) and Nick Pivetta (3.9). Next highest on the list were Reese McGuire (1.3), Kyle Schwarber (1.2) and Adam Ottavino (0.6).

Of the 25 minor league additions, only Connor Wong, Franklin German and Josh Winckowski seem to have even modest opportunities to make the big league team this spring. Enmanuel Valdez, at No. 16, is the only one who currently ranks as a top 20 organizational prospect on SoxProspects.com, which calls him a “potential up-and-down, platoon bat.”"

https://theathletic.com/4006950/2022/12/16/red-sox-poor-trade-record/
 

Nacl

New Member
Jan 23, 2012
8
he will be a 4-5 bWAR player (maybe more) for the next 5-6 seasons. Then he will drop down into the 3-5 range for about 3 more seasons, then be a 2-3 bWAR player those last couple

The narrative that players after age 30-32 and are going to be decreasingly useful is flat incorrect. The low end if the above estimation of Devers out-year value from age 30 on is about 17 WAR. This kind of post age 29 value happens infrequently. Of Devers 10 most similar per BBRef the only person who had this kind of value was Scott Rolen. Others who had some value include Longoria and Santo who were both OK (but not $30/year okay) and Zimmerman wasn't useless but also wasn't good. The jury is out for Arenado, everyone else was dreck. So - one good value, two guys who were a little worse than Albert Pujols from age 33 on, a sub-replacement MLB'er, 4 Walmart greeters and one guy who is still playing well and will be 32..

Of Devers most similar players at age 25

Eric Chavez put up 2.8 and 2.1 WAR at 28 and 29 and never broke 2 WAR again, he was functionally useless at 31.
Ryan Zimmerman put up 3.4 WAR at age 28, then had high water marks of 2.6 WAR year at 32, 1.6 WAR at 33 and 1.2 at 36
Bob Horner was out of baseball at age 31 and put up his last 2+ WAR season at 25
David Wright was great until 30, put up 2.1 at 31 and was washed up at 32
Scott Rolen was great until 29, was up and down after that but did have four seasons of over 3.4 WAR including a 5.9 at age 31, and 5 additional seasons with WAR values of under 2, but he did put up over 20 WAR after age 29....this would be great outcome.
Evan Longoria was solid until 31, putting up 3.1 WAR, and put up a little over 8 WAR the last 5 years of his career, also not too bad.
Troy Glaus was uneven but generally good until 31, and then sucked and was out of baseball at 34
Old timer Harlond Clift was decent until 29, had a 2.2 WAR year at 32 and was done at 33
Nolan Arenado turns 32 next year and is still excellent
Ron Santo Was good through 32, put up 2.3 WAR at 33, seemingly forgot how to play at 34 and was done at 35
 

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
1,176
he will be a 4-5 bWAR player (maybe more) for the next 5-6 seasons. Then he will drop down into the 3-5 range for about 3 more seasons, then be a 2-3 bWAR player those last couple

The narrative that players after age 30-32 and are going to be decreasingly useful is flat incorrect. The low end if the above estimation of Devers out-year value from age 30 on is about 17 WAR. This kind of post age 29 value happens infrequently. Of Devers 10 most similar per BBRef the only person who had this kind of value was Scott Rolen. Others who had some value include Longoria and Santo who were both OK (but not $30/year okay) and Zimmerman wasn't useless but also wasn't good. The jury is out for Arenado, everyone else was dreck. So - one good value, two guys who were a little worse than Albert Pujols from age 33 on, a sub-replacement MLB'er, 4 Walmart greeters and one guy who is still playing well and will be 32..

Of Devers most similar players at age 25

Eric Chavez put up 2.8 and 2.1 WAR at 28 and 29 and never broke 2 WAR again, he was functionally useless at 31.
Ryan Zimmerman put up 3.4 WAR at age 28, then had high water marks of 2.6 WAR year at 32, 1.6 WAR at 33 and 1.2 at 36
Bob Horner was out of baseball at age 31 and put up his last 2+ WAR season at 25
David Wright was great until 30, put up 2.1 at 31 and was washed up at 32
Scott Rolen was great until 29, was up and down after that but did have four seasons of over 3.4 WAR including a 5.9 at age 31, and 5 additional seasons with WAR values of under 2, but he did put up over 20 WAR after age 29....this would be great outcome.
Evan Longoria was solid until 31, putting up 3.1 WAR, and put up a little over 8 WAR the last 5 years of his career, also not too bad.
Troy Glaus was uneven but generally good until 31, and then sucked and was out of baseball at 34
Old timer Harlond Clift was decent until 29, had a 2.2 WAR year at 32 and was done at 33
Nolan Arenado turns 32 next year and is still excellent
Ron Santo Was good through 32, put up 2.3 WAR at 33, seemingly forgot how to play at 34 and was done at 35
None (excepting Arenado last season) of the bolded had the opportunity to have the bat play at DH, because there was no DH in the National League (moronically, I might add.)

Longoria was in SF by the time he started to hit the 30 mark. Arenado - the still excellent one - had between 15-20 starts at DH last year, which I tend to assume helped him and will continue to do as such, with more games at DH to keep his bat in the line up but give him more rest as he gets older. At least I assume StL to be smart enough to do this.

Give Devers whatever he wants in the next month or start looking to deal him. I prefer the former, the latter is acceptable. Letting him walk for nothing is more baseball malpractice.
 

HangingW/ScottCooper

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
2,493
Scituate, MA
Chad Jennings dug into this in The Athletic today, it's not pretty.

"Under Bloom, the Red Sox have executed 24 trades. In all but eight, prospects were a key piece of the return. Twelve of the trades involved giving up at least one experienced big league player or taking on the salary dump of an opposing big league player. Nine or so — depending on where you draw the prospect line — brought back notable prospects with perceived big-league upside. All told, the Red Sox acquired 25 minor leaguers via trade, and the return has been minimal so far. Of those 25 minor leaguers:

  • Five have since reached the Major Leagues.
  • Four have been designated for assignment.
  • Six currently rank among the system’s top 30 prospects according to SoxProspects.com.
  • None rank in Baseball America’s Top 10.
  • Twelve have been exposed to the Rule 5 draft or else released into minor league free agency.
Those numbers do not include major league trade additions Jackie Bradley Jr., Hoy Park, Franchy Cordero, Austin Davis, Austin Brice and Matt Hall, all of whom were also designated for assignment after underwhelming — or, in the case of Park, nonexistent — stints on the Red Sox roster. According to FanGraphs, the only Red Sox trade additions worth at least 2 WAR the past three years were Alex Verdugo (5.1) and Nick Pivetta (3.9). Next highest on the list were Reese McGuire (1.3), Kyle Schwarber (1.2) and Adam Ottavino (0.6).

Of the 25 minor league additions, only Connor Wong, Franklin German and Josh Winckowski seem to have even modest opportunities to make the big league team this spring. Enmanuel Valdez, at No. 16, is the only one who currently ranks as a top 20 organizational prospect on SoxProspects.com, which calls him a “potential up-and-down, platoon bat.”"

https://theathletic.com/4006950/2022/12/16/red-sox-poor-trade-record/
Further evidence of what I've been saying. Bloom loves fringe or even failed/damaged prospects.
 

Daniel_Son

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2021
1,684
San Diego
Chad Jennings dug into this in The Athletic today, it's not pretty.

"Under Bloom, the Red Sox have executed 24 trades. In all but eight, prospects were a key piece of the return. Twelve of the trades involved giving up at least one experienced big league player or taking on the salary dump of an opposing big league player. Nine or so — depending on where you draw the prospect line — brought back notable prospects with perceived big-league upside. All told, the Red Sox acquired 25 minor leaguers via trade, and the return has been minimal so far. Of those 25 minor leaguers:

  • Five have since reached the Major Leagues.
  • Four have been designated for assignment.
  • Six currently rank among the system’s top 30 prospects according to SoxProspects.com.
  • None rank in Baseball America’s Top 10.
  • Twelve have been exposed to the Rule 5 draft or else released into minor league free agency.
Those numbers do not include major league trade additions Jackie Bradley Jr., Hoy Park, Franchy Cordero, Austin Davis, Austin Brice and Matt Hall, all of whom were also designated for assignment after underwhelming — or, in the case of Park, nonexistent — stints on the Red Sox roster. According to FanGraphs, the only Red Sox trade additions worth at least 2 WAR the past three years were Alex Verdugo (5.1) and Nick Pivetta (3.9). Next highest on the list were Reese McGuire (1.3), Kyle Schwarber (1.2) and Adam Ottavino (0.6).

Of the 25 minor league additions, only Connor Wong, Franklin German and Josh Winckowski seem to have even modest opportunities to make the big league team this spring. Enmanuel Valdez, at No. 16, is the only one who currently ranks as a top 20 organizational prospect on SoxProspects.com, which calls him a “potential up-and-down, platoon bat.”"

https://theathletic.com/4006950/2022/12/16/red-sox-poor-trade-record/
So out of 25 prospects, 11 are still viable contributors to the big club. That's pretty good in the grand scheme of things, no?
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,480
Rogers Park
Which, for a barely 26 year old, isn't the worst thing they could do. 10 for 300 in this market for a player yet to enter his prime is fair, to me.
What about, following the trend this offseason, an outlandishly long 300m deal? Like, say, 15/$300?

Clearly there would be some DH years on the end of that, and maybe some years where he gets released at age 39 or something. But the AAV would be very manageable at at $20m per, and the top-line figure would be what he wants.

I'm not sure I think this is a good idea, but I was just wondering what y'all would think.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
14,283
Chad Jennings dug into this in The Athletic today, it's not pretty.

"Under Bloom, the Red Sox have executed 24 trades. In all but eight, prospects were a key piece of the return. Twelve of the trades involved giving up at least one experienced big league player or taking on the salary dump of an opposing big league player. Nine or so — depending on where you draw the prospect line — brought back notable prospects with perceived big-league upside. All told, the Red Sox acquired 25 minor leaguers via trade, and the return has been minimal so far. Of those 25 minor leaguers:

  • Five have since reached the Major Leagues.
  • Four have been designated for assignment.
  • Six currently rank among the system’s top 30 prospects according to SoxProspects.com.
  • None rank in Baseball America’s Top 10.
  • Twelve have been exposed to the Rule 5 draft or else released into minor league free agency.
Those numbers do not include major league trade additions Jackie Bradley Jr., Hoy Park, Franchy Cordero, Austin Davis, Austin Brice and Matt Hall, all of whom were also designated for assignment after underwhelming — or, in the case of Park, nonexistent — stints on the Red Sox roster. According to FanGraphs, the only Red Sox trade additions worth at least 2 WAR the past three years were Alex Verdugo (5.1) and Nick Pivetta (3.9). Next highest on the list were Reese McGuire (1.3), Kyle Schwarber (1.2) and Adam Ottavino (0.6).

Of the 25 minor league additions, only Connor Wong, Franklin German and Josh Winckowski seem to have even modest opportunities to make the big league team this spring. Enmanuel Valdez, at No. 16, is the only one who currently ranks as a top 20 organizational prospect on SoxProspects.com, which calls him a “potential up-and-down, platoon bat.”"

https://theathletic.com/4006950/2022/12/16/red-sox-poor-trade-record/
That seems like a fairly useless list without looking at what was actually given up in those trades.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,348
Just a little more than a year ago it seemed like the Yankees fans were complaining about Bloom having run circles around Cashman. Things change quickly.

Edit--- this is in response to actual posts here that suspected (half-jokingly) that Bloom was here just by kissing ass and is actively trying to dismantle the team he deep down actually hates.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
14,283
We signed Inmer Lobo for $10k as an IFA in January. Parlayed that into the immortal Hoy Park. & then parlayed that into idk something worth at least $10k? We should probably blame Bloom for not getting more.
 

adcasaletto

New Member
Dec 11, 2014
36
What about, following the trend this offseason, an outlandishly long 300m deal? Like, say, 15/$300?

Clearly there would be some DH years on the end of that, and maybe some years where he gets released at age 39 or something. But the AAV would be very manageable at at $20m per, and the top-line figure would be what he wants.

I'm not sure I think this is a good idea, but I was just wondering what y'all would think.
At that AAV, I'd be all in. If he'd take that, I'm almost sure that John Henry might say do it, just to save face.
 

Hee Sox Choi

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 27, 2006
6,133
According to Ken Rosenthal, the Cardinals offered the A's their choice of TWO of these guys for Sean Murphy:

Norman Gorman, Juan Yepez, Alec Burleson, Dylan Carlson

Instead, the Cardinals were willing to ship away some intriguing names. Rosenthal explains that St. Louis offered Oakland two of the following four players: Dylan Carlson, Nolan Gorman, Alec Burleson and Juan Yepez.

https://www.fanduel.com/theduel/posts/three-players-foiled-cardinals-plan-trade-sean-murphy-01gm5zmrhr1j

Would love to get Gorman or Yepez to DH.
 

pdub

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 2, 2007
516
Not that I was expecting anything from Hoy Park, anyway, but didn't we just sign him recently? I trust Bloom but I really don't get what direction this team is trying to head towards.

EDIT: I mean in the sense of being consistent and following a plan.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,348
Not that I was expecting anything from Hoy Park, anyway, but didn't we just sign him recently? I trust Bloom but I really don't get what direction this team is trying to head towards.

EDIT: I mean in the sense of being consistent and following a plan.
The plan is absolutely clear to me: It's we really need to cut back on spending while still trying to be competitive both short term and long term. We can't totally tank. How do people here not see it?!?!? And Bloom is actually doing a good job at doing that. I don't like that direction but it clearly is the direction no matter what Bloom or Henry or anyone actually says to the media. That means not signing X to a ridiculous long term contract. I wish Henry was exclusively focused on the Red Sox.. .but he's not and is clearly using Red Sox money to use in other business endeavors. As everyone says around here... "It's not my money". Exactly.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,094
The plan is absolutely clear to me: It's we really need to cut back on spending while still trying to be competitive both short term and long term. We can't totally tank. How do people here not see it?!?!? And Bloom is actually doing a good job at doing that. I don't like that direction but it clearly is the direction no matter what Bloom or Henry or anyone actually says to the media. That means not signing X to a ridiculous long term contract. I wish Henry was exclusively focused on the Red Sox.. .but he's not and is clearly using Red Sox money to use in other business endeavors. As everyone says around here... "It's not my money". Exactly.
This is mostly right, but they actually haven't really cut back on spending, not as of last season anyway. They've cut back on long term commitments.

They are still 40 mil below the tax for next year, but it's December 16. My guess is they end up right up near the tax one way or another, and if they don't, they will have some explaining to do IMO.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,348
This is mostly right, but they actually haven't really cut back on spending, not as of last season anyway. They've cut back on long term commitments.

They are still 40 mil below the tax for next year, but it's December 16. My guess is they end up right up near the tax one way or another, and if they don't, they will have some explaining to do IMO.
I also don't think Bloom is doing this perfectly to be honest. He's following orders but could have done a few things better. As Theo also could have too IMO. But there's posters here claiming that Bloom is actively deliberately trying to do a bad job or is so incompetent that he's basically been sleeping. If either of these were even close to being halfway correct, Henry would have fired him after last offseason. From my PoV, Bloom has the hardest job in all of MLB right now.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,094
I also don't think Bloom is doing this perfectly to be honest. He's following orders but could have done a few things better. As Theo also could have too IMO. But there's posters here claiming that Bloom is actively deliberately trying to do a bad job or is so incompetent that he's basically been sleeping. If either of these were even close to being halfway correct, Henry would have fired him after last offseason. From my PoV, Bloom has the hardest job in all of MLB right now.
Bloom hasn't been perfect. The Renfroe and Benentendi deals were pretty bad, both with and without hindsight. But he very clearly has a plan -- contend as best as you can but be very careful about long term deals, at least until we have a lot of cost-controlled talent.