The Members Only Red Sox Discussion Thread

absintheofmalaise

too many flowers
Dope
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2005
23,925
The gran facenda
'Tis the season of giving and in that spirit we are creating a thread where members will have a place to discuss all things Red Sox. With the events, or lack thereof, of this off-season and the large influx of lurker folks here. We wanted to have a place where the lurkers will be able to see discussions that are driven by evidence are. The various threads on the main board have included some great discussion, by both members and lurkers, and we've made lurkers members based on their main board posts. There have also been quite a few game thread type posts by both members and lurkers in those threads that have made them a bit of a chore to follow.

This will not be a place for game thread type posts, one liners, etc.. We'd like to use this thread as an example of what made SoSH the place that even lowly MFY fans wanted to join to discuss baseball.

Have at it member type folks!
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
71,345
So if you're a member who has been complaining about the quality of the main board, either publicly or just grumbling to yourself, here's your chance to help raise our collective level. As I've said before recently, we all could do a better job, myself included, and here's a thread where we can hopefully demonstrate that.
 

SouthernBoSox

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2005
12,121
Ken gives a scathing review of the Red Sox offseason, Bloom, and ownership.
View: https://twitter.com/ken_rosenthal/status/1604831798785105921?s=46&t=mz2u-z53Na_e0I1qJg1xpw
And its warranted. The 2022 trade deadline remains one of the more buzzling times I can remember, and it showed real foundation level cracking.

You cannot implement a strategy without conviction. Selling while buying, but not buying enough to be competitive while staying above the tax threshold was simply unacceptable. If you aren't going all in on 2023 you HAVE to trade Xander, JDM, and Eovaldi. You CANNOT stay above the tax. Getting no return for those players, staying above the tax, and fielding a non competitive team is malpractice that was done to make them look better with fans for half a season.

It's the first time with Bloom and ownership I just started to feel they have no idea what they want and lack a coherent plan all together,
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
71,345

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
8,049
Boston, MA
Ken gives a scathing review of the Red Sox offseason, Bloom, and ownership.
View: https://twitter.com/ken_rosenthal/status/1604831798785105921?s=46&t=mz2u-z53Na_e0I1qJg1xpw
He thinks the Red Sox should have kept Christian Vazquez and Jake fucking Diekman at the deadline to remain competitive? McGuire was an upgrade over second half Vazquez and I was just happy never to see Diekman try to throw strikes again. I have zero problems with who they traded away at the deadline.

The team collapsed in August because the entire starting rotation got hurt at once and Devers forgot how to hit. No deadline deal or non-deal was going to fix that.
 

Yaz4Ever

MemBer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2004
11,294
MA-CA-RI-AZ-NC
Trade him ... Give the kid a chance to contend this year and get the best possible package in return. I've been a defender of the front office all along, but it's obvious to me now that I've given them too much credit. I think they may have had a plan, but no one else agreed with it.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,680
Not sure I remember Rosenthal being so harsh, this is brutal:

"If the Sox were a fast-burning candle under Bloom’s predecessor, Dave Dombrowski, they are now a slow-burning candle, and at times the candle does not even appear lit."
Yeah, this is ridiculous. Rosenthal is obviously top-notch at news-gathering; not always so at analysis. But I’m sure their analytics say there’s certainly a readership appetite for this kind of thing.

The Sox have spent, what, the seventh-most guaranteed money in free agency this offseason? (SFG, SDP, PHI, NYY, NYM, CHC.) Not saying they’ll be great as currently constructed, but this is overblown.

It’s only Dec. 19. Bloom told The Athletic’s Chad Jennings that the Red Sox are “very, very actively exploring trades.” But as so often is the case with the Sox, most vividly demonstrated by their “pursuit” of Bogaerts, a disconnect exists between their words and their actions.

Like, what? Is he saying that not having offered a $280M deal is tantamount to not pursuing Bogaerts at all?
 

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
1,218
And its warranted. The 2022 trade deadline remains one of the more buzzling times I can remember, and it showed real foundation level cracking.

You cannot implement a strategy without conviction. Selling while buying, but not buying enough to be competitive while staying above the tax threshold was simply unacceptable. If you aren't going all in on 2023 you HAVE to trade Xander, JDM, and Eovaldi. You CANNOT stay above the tax. Getting no return for those players, staying above the tax, and fielding a non competitive team is malpractice that was done to make them look better with fans for half a season.

It's the first time with Bloom and ownership I just started to feel they have no idea what they want and lack a coherent plan all together,
I agree with this part completely. He should have looked at an 0-11-1 mark against teams in your division, all of whom you'd have to overtake somehow to make the playoffs and say "this team isn't good" and sell. To not get under the tax / acquire whatever prospects you could was mind-bogglingly short sighted. I think we certainly could have gotten "Valdez or Seabold" level prospects for guys like Eovaldi, Wacha, Martinez and possibly even Strahm, and I believe that gets you under the tax.

To be fair, we couldn't trade Bogaerts (I didn't know this @SouthernBoSox, so hopefully my bringing up his NTC is helpful to you and others like it was to me). He wanted to be here, and made that very clear. Bloom is the one whom didn't want him, not the other way around.

I'm not going to lie, I also put the blame 99% on Bloom. I trust Speier A LOT more than Rosenthal or anyone else. He basically said (in the KLaw Podcast someone else posted for us recently) that ownership gives its front office $Luxury Tax Threshold budget each year, and then gets out of the way, and honestly, it's seemed to be that way a great deal since Lucchino took on different roles in the organization. Sure, the front office has to convince FSG of the validity of it's plan, but they hire a baseball operations department and let them run it. They also hold said front office accountable - and I trust they'll do the same with Bloom.

If someone wants to blame them for not completely ignoring the luxury tax and allowing the front office to spend it's way out of any mess it creates fine, that's their choice. But I really do have a hard time pinning any significant portion of blame on an ownership group that is willing to shell out $Luxury Tax Threshold money each year (and go above when the team looks poised to contend) and expects someone to succeed with that. It's Bloom's choice how to use that budget, and I think he's using it in a terrible manner.

There is a difference between being cheap and disagreeing with how someone spends their money. Neither FSG nor Bloom are cheap. I absolutely disagree with how Bloom is electing to allocate his $233m in budget. As an example, Bogaerts received an AAV of (I believe) $25.5m. Bloom elected to spend the same amount (roughly speaking) to have Chris Martin, Joely Rodriguez, Justin Turner, Rob Refsnyder and Christian Arroyo. I'd FAR rather have Bogaerts (yes, at 11 years and I understand that) for $25.5m and then having about $24m left to fill those roles. But it's the same amount of money - not cheap - but strongly disagreeing on how money is spent.

I think you're more likely to win titles with top of the roster talent paid like top of the roster talent and cycling in and out MLB minimum guys for the "non closer" relievers and "bench / platoon players" as opposed to having 25 guys whom are "good value." Bloom obviously disagrees, the scoreboard will show if he's right or wrong. But our 4 titles have been largely based on having star players and finding guys like Turner for dirt cheap. Bloom is trying the Tampa Bay / Oakland approach. We'll see if it ever wins a title, but I'm do not believe Bloom's model will win a title in Boston.


Just to add a "rumor" (https://marlinmaniac.com/2022/12/17/miami-marlins-rejected-bostons-trade-offer/) SI / Fansided mentioned that the Marlins turned down a Hosmer for Miguel Rojas trade from the Sox. Ties in with the "interest" in Rojas mentioned earlier in the thread.
 
Last edited:

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,569
Trade him ... Give the kid a chance to contend this year and get the best possible package in return. I've been a defender of the front office all along, but it's obvious to me now that I've given them too much credit. I think they may have had a plan, but no one else agreed with it.
Also what is "galaxy's apart?" is he now looking for 300+ million?
Galaxy's apart would mean different in that case than if he was looking for a contract with a total value less than that.
 
Last edited:

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
71,345
Just to add a "rumor" (https://marlinmaniac.com/2022/12/17/miami-marlins-rejected-bostons-trade-offer/) SI / Fansided mentioned that the Marlins turned down a Hosmer for Miguel Rojas trade from the Sox. Ties in with the "interest" in Rojas mentioned earlier in the thread.
It's bad reporting though, that's not what the linked article from Rosenthal actually says. That article says:

"Before getting Kyle Farmer from the Reds, the Twins expressed interest in acquiring shortstop Miguel Rojas from the Marlins. The Red Sox asked about Rojas more recently, but the Marlins value their pitching and defense. Rojas ranked second at short last season in defensive runs saved and was tied for sixth in outs above average."

The Rosenthal piece never even mentions Hosmer.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
25,051
Unreal America
One thing is it knocks your first round draft pick back ten spots, with the corresponding loss of pool money.
Note: The phrase ‘Rule 4 draft’ is a technical term for the annual amateur draft.

https://www.mlb.com/glossary/transactions/competitive-balance-tax
Thank you both. So the Sox now have to pay a 20% surcharge on their 2022 season-ending salary? Since we reset the year prior, right? But we weren't $40 million over so the draft penalty didn't occur?
 

Murderer's Crow

Dragon Wangler 216
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
23,648
Garden City
Steamer thinks very highly of Casas for 2023 and if anyone is going to defend Bloom's offensive construction, it would appear his blame for this year or celebration is going to lie on just how much trust he placed on the kid(s).

2023 Steamer wRC+
Devers 134
Story 103
Casas 124
Verdugo 113
Turner 115

Behind this isn't much. If Devers or Story go down for any period of time, it's going to anemic.
 

Yo La Tengo

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
931
One thing is it knocks your first round draft pick back ten spots, with the corresponding loss of pool money.
I posted a bit ago in a different thread about trying to track the impacts of potential, early deals for Xander and Devers. If the Sox paid those two in 2020, would the team have lost the chance to draft Marcelo Mayer the following year?
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,569
If this is the extent of the penalty then it doesn't bother me at all. Henry can afford a few million bucks. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems that the Yankees must be perpetually in the 50% surcharge territory, and it doesn't seem like they care.
@Petagine in a Bottle is wrong... Infact the sox were one of two teams since this has been implement to be over the top tax bracket
our 2019 pick was dropped 10 spots for going over the CBT (the dodgers have been the only other team to exceed it so far)
The Red Sox don’t have a first-round pick in this year’s MLB Draft, instead making their first selection with the No. 43 overall pick in the second round Monday night. It’s the lowest first pick Boston has ever had in the draft.


The Sox don’t have a first-round pick because they were penalized for exceeding the luxury tax threshold by more than $40 million. In addition to paying a tax of nearly $12 million, Boston had its first pick dropped 10 spots as part of the penalty.
https://www.masslive.com/redsox/2019/05/mlb-draft-2019-why-dont-boston-red-sox-have-a-first-round-pick.html
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,604
deep inside Guido territory
From the Lee article....

"It gets frustrating and irritating when you hear [questions] about your commitment to winning," Kennedy said. "All of our decisions we make are geared towards trying to win a World Series championship. We don't get those questions when we're winning."

This quote from Sam Kennedy is so incredibly tone deal. So the decision to trade Mookie Betts and attach a portion of David Price's contract to it so you can get under the luxury tax and for what reason? Presumably it is so that you can reset the tax penalties and have enough wiggle room to retain the balance of the young core, correct? So then you go and trade Andrew Benintendi, let Xander Bogaerts go, and trade Christian Vazquez. What was the point of the Betts trade then? Just another indicator that there is no clear-cut plan.

To me, this is the money quote of the article.

"As the team builds the roster for 2023, some within the Red Sox front office have questioned Bloom's decision-making process, team sources told ESPN. One front-office official said Bloom's deliberate process toward making moves -- asking many people for their input before making a decision -- can put the Red Sox in a position to fall behind, reacting to other teams versus setting the market."
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
I have largely, but not blindly supported Bloom since his arrival in Boston. My response to this newest revelation is to wonder exactly what "beyond reason" and "limitations" means. I would like to see Devers remain and based on this latest report I think the team should offer it's limited, beyond reason offer ASAP. If it's not accepted I think that they should pursue all current, pot committed, prospect rich contenders and hold a pre-season trade deadline type sweepstakes that will afford the winner a full season of Devers services and maximize the return.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
25,051
Unreal America
@Petagine in a Bottle is wrong... Infact the sox were one of two teams since this has been implement to be over the top tax bracket
our 2019 pick was dropped 10 spots for going over the CBT (the dodgers have been the only other team to exceed it so far)
The Red Sox don’t have a first-round pick in this year’s MLB Draft, instead making their first selection with the No. 43 overall pick in the second round Monday night. It’s the lowest first pick Boston has ever had in the draft.




https://www.masslive.com/redsox/2019/05/mlb-draft-2019-why-dont-boston-red-sox-have-a-first-round-pick.html
Sorry, the formatting was messed up so I don't follow. The Sox draft penalty was in 2019? That's not about the trade deadline this past season?
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,528
Steamer thinks very highly of Casas for 2023 and if anyone is going to defend Bloom's offensive construction, it would appear his blame for this year or celebration is going to lie on just how much trust he placed on the kid(s).

2023 Steamer wRC+
Devers 134
Story 103
Casas 124
Verdugo 113
Turner 115

Behind this isn't much. If Devers or Story go down for any period of time, it's going to anemic.
Will Cora let Casas swing against LHP? I was a bit miffed that after he was called up, he already seemed to decide that his career was decided and he needed a platoon bat. What was the point in not letting him see tough ML LH pitching?
My question here is; is that wRC+ (which I admittedly don't understand) taking into account a platoon with Turner or Dalbec taking the AB's against lefties? And if its Dalbec platoon wouldn't that produce a drop in Casas wRC+ or just increase Dalbec's? Or Turners....
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
54,267
You know how we talk about it being dumb to assign grades to NFL draft classes before they even show up for training camp? This seems similar to me.

Has it been underwhelming? Sure, but it's also not over.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
71,345
If this is the extent of the penalty then it doesn't bother me at all. Henry can afford a few million bucks. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems that the Yankees must be perpetually in the 50% surcharge territory, and it doesn't seem like they care.
The Yankees reset their tax rate after 2018 and 2021, they carried freaking Rougned Odor all of 2021 because TEX was paying his full salary and that’s how close they were to the line. The Dodgers are trying to reset this year, the only team who doesn’t seem to care are the Steve Cohen Mets.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
25,051
Unreal America
The Yankees reset their tax rate after 2018 and 2021, they carried freaking Rougned Odor all of 2021 because TEX was paying his full salary and that’s how close they were to the line. The Dodgers are trying to reset this year, the only team who doesn’t seem to care are the Steve Cohen Mets.
Got it, thanks.

I don't blame Bloom for not punting the season at the deadline last summer. And it's a dynamic we all need to get used to, because with almost half the league making the playoffs, the system is designed to keep teams from purposefully making their last 2 months irrelevant.
 

mikeford

woolwich!
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2006
29,752
St John's, NL
He thinks the Red Sox should have kept Christian Vazquez and Jake fucking Diekman at the deadline to remain competitive? McGuire was an upgrade over second half Vazquez and I was just happy never to see Diekman try to throw strikes again. I have zero problems with who they traded away at the deadline.

The team collapsed in August because the entire starting rotation got hurt at once and Devers forgot how to hit. No deadline deal or non-deal was going to fix that.
Yeah if anything they didn't move ENOUGH guys at the deadline.

We could have theoretically moved JD, X, Eovaldi, etc too and probably should've. No way to really know how aggressively they tried to move those guys and at least X had a NTC but certainly KEEPING more guys was not the better option here.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,303
And its warranted. The 2022 trade deadline remains one of the more buzzling times I can remember, and it showed real foundation level cracking.
I'll take a stab at a counter to this view that seems to be shared by many.

Why didn't they sell at the deadline? For one thing, they were trying to get to the playoffs. They were 2 games out of the last WC at the trade deadline, and at the time there was a decent chance that Chris Sale would be coming back. That said, I do think there is a world where they would have become sellers, but the market just wasn't there. The Cubs were 41-60 and did not trade Willson Contreras, despite putting him on the market. The Giants were 51-52 and did not trade Carlos Rodon, despite putting him on the market. What does that tell you? Rentals of FA-to-be simply weren't brining back much value. The Red Sox decided, correctly so IMO, that keeping their guys and going for the postseason was a better play than the middling return they would have gotten for JD Martinez and Nate Eovaldi. Once that decision was made, they made low-cost deals for Hosmer and Pham.

But then why did they trade Christian Vazquez? Because they thought well enough of Reese McGuire that they did not think trading Vazquez would hurt the team's playoff chances. And whether is was lightning-in-a-bottle-luck or solid scouting, they were right -- McGuire hit 337/377/500 in 108 PA with very good defense. They improved the team in the short term, got 3.5 years of an interesting player at small money, and a couple of lottery ticket prospects from Houston. That's why they traded Christian Vazquez (and Jake Dikeman, a reliever who everyone hated).

So why didn't they go all in as buyers and try for Juan Soto? Because while they had a decent shot at the postseason, the shot at not being in the postseason was still considerably higher, even if they added Soto and Hader like the Padres did. The situation called for modest aggression, not all-out.

And the cap? Why didn't they get under that? Because again, they had a shot at the postseason, and that was worth more than the marginal impact of being above the cap. And it's not even clear how easy it would have been to do that. Would someone have taken all of JDM's deal? I'm not sure.
 
Last edited:

Marbleheader

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2004
11,749
One of the biggest failings of this organization in recent years has been in the failure to sign top international prospects. If you look across the league and at the top prospects in baseball, a significant number of players come from this pool. We are just weeks away from January 15th when the signing period begins. The Yankees, Padres and Blue Jays have been linked to the best players available. I haven't seen anything about the Red Sox.
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
8,469
New York City
I agree with this part completely. He should have looked at an 0-11-1 mark against teams in your division, all of whom you'd have to overtake somehow to make the playoffs and say "this team isn't good" and sell. To not get under the tax / acquire whatever prospects you could was mind-bogglingly short sighted. I think we certainly could have gotten "Valdez or Seabold" level prospects for guys like Eovaldi, Wacha, Martinez and possibly even Strahm, and I believe that gets you under the tax.

To be fair, we couldn't trade Bogaerts (I didn't know this @SouthernBoSox, so hopefully my bringing up his NTC is helpful to you and others like it was to me). He wanted to be here, and made that very clear. Bloom is the one whom didn't want him, not the other way around.

I'm not going to lie, I also put the blame 99% on Bloom. I trust Speier A LOT more than Rosenthal or anyone else. He basically said (in the KLaw Podcast someone else posted for us recently) that ownership gives its front office $Luxury Tax Threshold budget each year, and then gets out of the way, and honestly, it's seemed to be that way a great deal since Lucchino took on different roles in the organization. Sure, the front office has to convince FSG of the validity of it's plan, but they hire a baseball operations department and let them run it. They also hold said front office accountable - and I trust they'll do the same with Bloom.

If someone wants to blame them for not completely ignoring the luxury tax and allowing the front office to spend it's way out of any mess it creates fine, that's their choice. But I really do have a hard time pinning any significant portion of blame on an ownership group that is willing to shell out $Luxury Tax Threshold money each year (and go above when the team looks poised to contend) and expects someone to succeed with that. It's Bloom's choice how to use that budget, and I think he's using it in a terrible manner.

There is a difference between being cheap and disagreeing with how someone spends their money. Neither FSG nor Bloom are cheap. I absolutely disagree with how Bloom is electing to allocate his $233m in budget. As an example, Bogaerts received an AAV of (I believe) $25.5m. Bloom elected to spend the same amount (roughly speaking) to have Chris Martin, Joely Rodriguez, Justin Turner, Rob Refsnyder and Christian Arroyo. I'd FAR rather have Bogaerts (yes, at 11 years and I understand that) for $25.5m and then having about $24m left to fill those roles. But it's the same amount of money - not cheap - but strongly disagreeing on how money is spent.

I think you're more likely to win titles with top of the roster talent paid like top of the roster talent and cycling in and out MLB minimum guys for the "non closer" relievers and "bench / platoon players" as opposed to having 25 guys whom are "good value." Bloom obviously disagrees, the scoreboard will show if he's right or wrong. But our 4 titles have been largely based on having star players and finding guys like Turner for dirt cheap. Bloom is trying the Tampa Bay / Oakland approach. We'll see if it ever wins a title, but I'm do not believe Bloom's model will win a title in Boston.


Just to add a "rumor" (https://marlinmaniac.com/2022/12/17/miami-marlins-rejected-bostons-trade-offer/) SI / Fansided mentioned that the Marlins turned down a Hosmer for Miguel Rojas trade from the Sox. Ties in with the "interest" in Rojas mentioned earlier in the thread.
Very much agree with this. Andrew Friedman pioneered the Rays analytic approach, but when he went to LA he was smart enough to realize that if you have all this money you might as well spend it on top-line talent. He also drafted quite well, of course, which allowed them to make trades for additional players like Mookie, etc.

Bloom on the other hand doesn’t seem to have really taken to the “big-market” lifestyle (yet?). I wonder if this is due to the fact that he spent literally his entire career in the Rays organization - it may be that mindset is so ingrained that it’s hard for him to shift to being willing to shell out a few big contracts here and there even where that might mean the contract is technically an “overpay,” etc. It almost seems at times like he is trying to prove that a team can win without any star players - which might make sense in Tampa when you may not be able to afford any stars, but makes no sense in Boston.

Not sure there is much to be done about it at this point, but whenever the Sox move on from Bloom I’d like them to target someone who has some experience on a big-market team.
 

Ganthem

a ray of sunshine
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2022
914
It was a calculated risk. The Sox were two games out of the wildcard. It wouldn't have made sense to try to upgrade using prime prospects, but rolling the dice on draft position isn't a high crime imho. At the end of the day Bloom probably can't win. If he had traded X, JDM etc people would probably be complaining that Bloom cost us a shot at the World Series.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,528
I'll take a stab at a counter to this view that seems to be shared by many.

Why didn't they sell at the deadline? For one thing, they were trying to get to the playoffs. They were 2 games out of the last WC at the trade deadline, and at the time there was a decent chance that Chris Sale would be coming back. That said, I do think there is a world where they would have become sellers, but the market just wasn't there. The Cubs were 41-60 and did not trade Willson Contreras, despite putting him on the market. The Giants were 51-52 and did not trade Carlos Rodon, despite putting him on the market. What does that tell you? Rentals of FA-to-be simply weren't brining back much value. The Red Sox decided, correctly so IMO, that keeping their guys and going for the postseason was a better play than the middling return they would have gotten for JD Martinez and Nate Eovaldi. Once that decision was made, they made low-cost deals for Hosmer and Pham.

But then why did they trade Christian Vazquez? Because they thought well enough of Reese McGuire that they did not think trading Vazquez would hurt the team's playoff chances. And whether is was lightning-in-a-bottle-luck or solid scouting, they were right -- McGuire hit 337/377/500 in 108 PA with very good defense.

So why didn't they go all in as buyers and try for Juan Soto? Because while they had a decent shot at the postseason, the shot at not being in the postseason was still considerably higher, even if they added Soto and Hader like the Padres did. The situation called for modest aggression, not all-out.

And the cap? Why didn't they get under that? Because again, they had a shot at the postseason, and that was worth more than the marginal impact of being above the cap.
100% agree with this, sadly.
I was all for dumping Vazquez despite his good offensive season last year. No way to truly know, but I think he was a terrible de-facto captain and prone to dumb mistakes and that seemed to trickle down from him.
 

TimScribble

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
1,477
I do feel as if ownership is most likely speaking outside of both sides of the mouth. Bloom has said time and time again that there is not a mandate to get under the threshold. The Joon Lee article says something similar:

“According to multiple sources, Boston's ownership group did not mandate that Bloom trade Betts to get under the luxury tax. But that is what Bloom ultimately decided to do, with an eye toward increasing the Red Sox's options in the future. The team traded Betts and Price to Los Angeles for Alex Verdugo, Jeter Downs and Connor Wong. And Betts eventually signed a 12-year, $365 million contract with the Dodgers -- a deal he told ESPN in August that he would have accepted in Boston.”

But the majorly of the Bloom moves appear to act as if this is a mandate. Are Bloom and ownership not aligned? So much of this is just “media” speak and the answer is most likely in the middle. But overall, they just continue to provide what feels like an hesitant and unsure direction.
 

Ganthem

a ray of sunshine
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2022
914
Very much agree with this. Andrew Friedman pioneered the Rays analytic approach, but when he went to LA he was smart enough to realize that if you have all this money you might as well spend it on top-line talent. He also drafted quite well, of course, which allowed them to make trades for additional players like Mookie, etc.

Bloom on the other hand doesn’t seem to have really taken to the “big-market” lifestyle (yet?). I wonder if this is due to the fact that he spent literally his entire career in the Rays organization - it may be that mindset is so ingrained that it’s hard for him to shift to being willing to shell out a few big contracts here and there even where that might mean the contract is technically an “overpay,” etc. It almost seems at times like he is trying to prove that a team can win without any star players - which might make sense in Tampa when you may not be able to afford any stars, but makes no sense in Boston.

Not sure there is much to be done about it at this point, but whenever the Sox move on from Bloom I’d like them to target someone who has some experience on a big-market team.
By the time 2026 rolls around the Dodgers will only have three commitments on their payroll. The only player they have decided to give a massive contract to was Betts. Freeman's contract has more in common with Trevor Story's contract then it does Betts. So I am kind of wondering what you mean by big-market lifestyle? Friedman seems to be willing to spend, but he also seems aversed to overly long, expensive contracts.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
71,345
One of the biggest failings of this organization in recent years has been in the failure to sign top international prospects. If you look across the league and at the top prospects in baseball, a significant number of players come from this pool. We are just weeks away from January 15th when the signing period begins. The Yankees, Padres and Blue Jays have been linked to the best players available. I haven't seen anything about the Red Sox.
Coincidentally Fangraphs did their update on Friday for the upcoming January 15th signings, BOS has their #18 and #31 guys.

This whole system is so shady, it has kids committing at 12 or 13 and signing at 16, so it takes a few years to catch up if you're behind as an organization (BAL famously ignored this market for many years until recently, and they are still not linked to anyone on this list):

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/board-update-2023-international-amateur-prospects/
 

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
16,935
One of the biggest failings of this organization in recent years has been in the failure to sign top international prospects. If you look across the league and at the top prospects in baseball, a significant number of players come from this pool. We are just weeks away from January 15th when the signing period begins. The Yankees, Padres and Blue Jays have been linked to the best players available. I haven't seen anything about the Red Sox.
The Red Sox will have a budget of $4.6 million to spend this year on international free agents-- half a million less than NY and most other teams, because we signed Story.

Unless we suddenly sign a player who rejected a QO, then next year we will have a million more to spend than NY, SD, and others who lost that much due to their signings this offseason.

The base signing pool for the Astros, Blue Jays, Braves, Cardinals, Cubs, Giants, Mets, Nationals, White Sox and Yankees is $5,284,000. The Angels, Phillies and Red Sox each forfeited $500,000 from their pools for signing players who had rejected qualifying offers -- Noah Syndergaard, Nick Castellanos and Trevor Story, respectively -- last offseason, so each has a pool of $4,644,000. The Dodgers and Rangers each forfeited $1,000,000 from their pools for signing players who had rejected qualifying offers to lower their pool to $4,144,000.
The Dodgers surpassed the luxury tax threshold the previous season and had to forfeit $1,000,000 for Freddie Freeman. The Rangers forfeit $500,000 each for Corey Seager and Marcus Semien.
I agree that these signings are really important, at least as important as the draft, possibly moreso. They don't pay off as soon as even the draft, as most of the signings are younger than draftees, and most will crater before they are even 20, but this is a huge potential talent pool and the better a team does at these signings, the better off their entire organization will be about 5 years down the road.
 

AlNipper49

Huge Member
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 3, 2001
44,961
Mtigawi
If this is the extent of the penalty then it doesn't bother me at all. Henry can afford a few million bucks. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems that the Yankees must be perpetually in the 50% surcharge territory, and it doesn't seem like they care.
For year one. It escalates to 50% after three years.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,569
He thinks the Red Sox should have kept Christian Vazquez and Jake fucking Diekman at the deadline to remain competitive? McGuire was an upgrade over second half Vazquez and I was just happy never to see Diekman try to throw strikes again. I have zero problems with who they traded away at the deadline.

The team collapsed in August because the entire starting rotation got hurt at once and Devers forgot how to hit. No deadline deal or non-deal was going to fix that.
This article + the Joon Lee one are missing context like the example's you stated above (for the Rosenthal article) . For the Joon Lee article "galaxy's apart" can mean something entirely different depending on the side the source is from (and when they spoke). Especially if Devers now is shooting for an even higher contract after seeing the absurd contracts signed this offseason.

galaxy's apart when one side is looking for a contract worth more than 300 million can mean something different than if its less than that...


Also I recall (someone can correct me if I am wrong) that Xander was mad that the sox didn't do more to improve the team at the deadline (last season) despite the fact that most likely would have meant more players from the MLB roster getting traded as a result..

And for those that wanted to to sell everyone, that would have pissed Xander off even more I bet. Since Vazquez would not have been the only player on the MLB roster to get moved
 
Last edited:

LogansDad

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
29,997
Alamogordo
One thing is it knocks your first round draft pick back ten spots, with the corresponding loss of pool money.
This is only if they go $40M over, though, and picks in the top 6 are protected, according to MLB.com. There were changes to it this season, I think, with the new CBT.

Clubs that are $40 million or more above the threshold shall have their highest selection in the next Rule 4 Draft moved back 10 places unless the pick falls in the top six. In that case, the team will have its second-highest selection moved back 10 places instead.
One other thing that going over the tax did affect this season, though, was how Qualifying Offers for the Sox are handled, both signing players and losing players: reference.

1) Because the Sox were over the tax limit, they got a pick after the 4th round as compensation for losing Bogaerts, instead of after "Competitive Balance Round B", which follows the 2nd round of the draft.

2) Additionally, since they were over the limit, if they sign a player who declined a QO, they will lose their 2nd and 5th highest picks in next year's draft, and $1M in International Bonus Pool money. If they had gotten under the threshold, they would be subject to $500K loss and their 2nd highest pick. Either case is not a HUGE loss, but it is significant, in my opinion, especially for a team aiming to move to an organization that builds from within.

Which brings me to my point: I have been largely supportive of "The Plan (TM)" going forward. I enjoy following prospects through the minors and watching them succeed for my favorite team (the Red Sox, obviously), and I would love to see them get somewhere in the vicinity of the Braves model at some point in the not so distant future. Not finding a way to get under the tax threshold this is season is, to me, the biggest mistake Bloom has made, but I am not sure it was actually possible for him to do it.

I don't really blame him for not moving JD or Eovaldi at the deadline, as I really think some on this board overestimate their market and whether other teams would even have been interested in them at all. Nate's velo was way down in July and JD was in the middle of being one of the worst hitters in the league at the time, putting up a miserable .599 OPS at the time and looking absolutely cooked. We have a tendency here to forget that other teams are involved in these deals, too, and that they also have (generally speaking) really fucking smart people working in their front offices who, like Bloom, have access to way more information than we do.

They also thought they still had a shot at the postseason at the time, and they might have. But then August came and the pitching staff lost all their bandaids, and JD and Devers (arguably their two most important hitters), put up OPS' of .601 and .515 respectively. August was an abject disaster for the team. July was even worse, for sure, but on August 2nd the team was 53-52, and 2 games out of the Wild Card. The signs of being non-competitive were there, but I can squint and see why completely giving up on the season at that point was a non-option.

Going forward: I don't expect them to sign a QO guy this offseason, as I think they are valuing draft capitol very highly right now. I fully expect them to stay under the CBT threshold this upcoming season, for better or worse.
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
33,756
As Ken points out, Kennedy is the mouthpiece of Henry/Werner who don't talk to the media at all... except they have to at spring training in February, I think.

Shaughnessy, Pete Abe etc. are chomping at the bit already for that day...
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,604
deep inside Guido territory
its all clickbait journalism right now. This article + the Joon Lee one have are making sox fans going into a rage despite it missing any context... (plus the fact we again, have no clue what "galaxy's apart" means contextually.)



Sox fans (with the Pats collapse yesterday) are an easy mark, and they are taking advantage of it for clicks
Seriously man? Missing context? Everything we've heard for months regarding Devers says they are very far apart in negotiations. What else do you need to hear? It is not clickbait journalism.
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
20,815
its all clickbait journalism right now. This article + the Joon Lee one have are making sox fans going into a rage despite it missing any context... (plus the fact we again, have no clue what "galaxy's apart" means contextually.)



Sox fans (with the Pats collapse yesterday) are an easy mark, and they are taking advantage of it for clicks
What evidence do you have that two respected journalists are simply trying to anger the fanbase? I mean, this isn't Incarcerated Bob throwing random guesses out on Twitter.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,604
deep inside Guido territory
He thinks the Red Sox should have kept Christian Vazquez and Jake fucking Diekman at the deadline to remain competitive? McGuire was an upgrade over second half Vazquez and I was just happy never to see Diekman try to throw strikes again. I have zero problems with who they traded away at the deadline.

The team collapsed in August because the entire starting rotation got hurt at once and Devers forgot how to hit. No deadline deal or non-deal was going to fix that.
What he means is that if their plan was to not to sell off and try to make the playoffs then they should have kept everyone and presumably try to add.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
12,375
The team flew down to meet with him over a month ago, and we’ve heard nothing about any kind of negotiations since, other than that the sides are far apart. Maybe all these different respected journalists are trying to get a rise out of us….or perhaps, like the Bogaerts rumors, it’s just how it is.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,677
its all clickbait journalism right now. This article + the Joon Lee one have are making sox fans going into a rage despite it missing any context... (plus the fact we again, have no clue what "galaxy's apart" means contextually.)



Sox fans (with the Pats collapse yesterday) are an easy mark, and they are taking advantage of it for clicks
Other than this not agreeing with what you see with the Front Office, how is this "click bait journalism"?
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
8,049
Boston, MA
What he means is that if their plan was to not to sell off and try to make the playoffs then they should have kept everyone and presumably try to add.
That's still ignoring the reality of the players involved and the return on them. The Red Sox decided to give the team they had a shot to make the playoffs with a couple minor additions and additions by subtraction. They were minor buyers at the deadline. It only looked like they were also selling if you believe Vazquez and Jake Diekman were more valuable on the Red Sox than somewhere else.
 

LogansDad

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
29,997
Alamogordo
And to finish my thought. FanGraphs shows the Luxury Tax number at ~$202M after signing Turner yesterday, which leaves them with right around $30M to stay under the first threshold. I am assuming the team would like to stay about $10M under that (this is just my brain working, I don't have a source for this) so that they can make moves throughout the season.

To me, filling holes (namely middle infield and OF) is the biggest issue right now, and I like the idea of signing David Peralta to play LF (estimated $8M or so on Spotrac). He's a guy with pretty good bat to ball skills, and is good enough in left field that we can slot Yoshida in to DH if he is as bad defensively as all the reports say. He also fits this offseason's "old but generally reliable and can likely be had for a short deal" mold.

That would leave them somewhere in the range of $10M to fill the middle infield hole. As much as I love the Adames hopes, I don't see any way Milwaukee moves him as he is relatively cheap and they don't have someone to slot in at SS. I really don't know what they do here, outside of bringing in one of Andrus or Iglesias. Both are guys who I enjoy rooting for, but I don't think either moves the needle all that much. If I had to pick, I would probably go with Andrus and hope he can coax Beltre out of retirement (kidding).

As it stands, I think that the current team, if healthy, can compete for a Wild Card. I know that probably seems overly optimistic, but they can't possibly have as much bad luck as they did last year.
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
33,756
I'm digging out and reposting something from the rumors thread I posted on Saturday:

In Sunday notes, Speier says Vaz was offered a (lowball?) mini extension like X last winter, no other negotiations occurred.

Christian Vázquez — who signed a three-year, $30 million deal with the Twins last week — never made any secret of his desire to remain with the Red Sox. But the only time the sides discussed an extension on top of the three-year deal (with an option) that he signed in the spring of 2019, talks went nowhere.

Before the Sox picked up Vázquez’s $7 million option for 2022, they proposed tacking on a year but at a lower average salary for 2022-23 than the option. Vázquez declined the proposed pay cut, and the sides never re-engaged.

Still, Vázquez loved Boston and wanted to explore every avenue for a return — even after the team traded him to Houston. He made that clear to the Sox this offseason, going so far as to reach out to the team before giving the Twins his final answer, but the Sox never showed interest in bringing back the player who is tied for the fifth-most games caught (651) in franchise history.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/12/17/sports/why-has-there-been-dizzying-level-money-term-free-agency-this-year/?event=event25
In a bubble this isn't a big deal, it was plenty defensible to not extend Vaz. But the X-like bullshit he'd never accept really stuck out to me. With the caveat we have to rely on reports, this is becoming a pattern with both this ownership group and this particular front office, no matter the caliber of the player.
 

TimScribble

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
1,477
And to finish my thought. FanGraphs shows the Luxury Tax number at ~$202M after signing Turner yesterday, which leaves them with right around $30M to stay under the first threshold. I am assuming the team would like to stay about $10M under that (this is just my brain working, I don't have a source for this) so that they can make moves throughout the season.
I love seeing how others are thinking the Red Sox will play things out. I really like the thoughts you outlined here. My thoughts are that they attempt to sign or trade to fill the holes and leave themselves enough space to basically make an offer to Devers that allows them to still remain under the threshold. I still think Devers turns it down at this point, but I could see this being how they approach the rest of the off-season.

I could see an Iglesias signing and a trade for an outfielder. Maybe an Eovaldi reunion? Then they offer Devers around $30M a year that will take on roughly $12-$13 AAV to his current contract (if I’m doing the numbers correctly).
 

E5 Yaz

polka king
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,767
Oregon
The most striking thing to me in the two linked stories is the reported in-house criticism of Bloom for being slow to act, apparently because he seeks multiple decisions before proceeding. I'm not quite sure what this means. Anyone making these type of decisions is going to gather opinions before deciding, for instance, to sign Kenley Jansen. Also, by all accounts, the Red Sox were extremely aggressive in signing Yoshida.
The criticism suggests to me a front office that isn't on the same-age in regards to its process. I wish an example had been provided as to where Bloom's approach cost them in trying to sign someone ... because it certainly wouldn't seem to have mattered with X.

Also, I think the moves they have made do indicate that they have "a plan" ... it's just not one that might appease the fanbase in general. Yoshida being the outlier, the primary offseason signings are short contracts to players 35-plus, suggesting that a two-year bridge until the full wave of potential impact players arrives. If they happen to compete for a playoff spot in those years, incremental adds could happen at the trade deadline ... but I don't see them going all-out, in current market terms, for anyone at this stage.

As for the Devers situation, the "beyond reason" comment would appear to be the Sox stance on the contracts that have been signed this offseason ... and, given that salaries to premier talent aren't likely to go down in the coming years, it should be a concern going forward. The "Braves model" works for the Braves in part because it occurred before this latest explosion in salaries. Trying to emulate it might not be as successful in the evolving environment.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,569
The most striking thing to me in the two linked stories is the reported in-house criticism of Bloom for being slow to act, apparently because he seeks multiple decisions before proceeding. I'm not quite sure what this means. Anyone making these type of decisions is going to gather opinions before deciding, for instance, to sign Kenley Jansen. Also, by all accounts, the Red Sox were extremely aggressive in signing Yoshida.
The criticism suggests to me a front office that isn't on the same-age in regards to its process. I wish an example had been provided as to where Bloom's approach cost them in trying to sign someone ... because it certainly wouldn't seem to have mattered with X.

Also, I think the moves they have made do indicate that they have "a plan" ... it's just not one that might appease the fanbase in general. Yoshida being the outlier, the primary offseason signings are short contracts to players 35-plus, suggesting that a two-year bridge until the full wave of potential impact players arrives. If they happen to compete for a playoff spot in those years, incremental adds could happen at the trade deadline ... but I don't see them going all-out, in current market terms, for anyone at this stage.

As for the Devers situation, the "beyond reason" comment would appear to be the Sox stance on the contracts that have been signed this offseason ... and, given that salaries to premier talent aren't likely to go down in the coming years, it should be a concern going forward. The "Braves model" works for the Braves in part because it occurred before this latest explosion in salaries. Trying to emulate it might not be as successful in the evolving environment.
I agree with the bolded , and don't understand how that can ever be seen as a criticism. That goes for any Job, not just in sports... Working in a collaboratively to make decisions is how things should be done. Having one person make all the decisions without taking any input from other people is how things go poorly.

I mean Steve Jobs had to be talked into making an iphone because he was against it at one point.... Can you Imagine a world in which Steve Jobs did not listen to anyone else and the iphone never existed?


the second bolded is also an interesting discussion... Outside of the NYM, will we see the same absurd spending next offseason? This was the first "full" offseason under the new CBA, and I wonder if this large amount of spending was partly due to the infusion of all the money owners got due to the CBA and media deals that were signed last year