It might be that, and it might also be that some organizations no longer see the penalties for exceeding the LT to be that much of a hindrance. We quite honestly be entering even more of a tiered system in MLB in terms of spending than what currently exists.
The Members Only Red Sox Discussion Thread
- Thread starter absintheofmalaise
- Start date
As I remember it, things looked a bit different at the deadline, and while the Sox hadn’t won in their division at all, they still had a puncher’s chance and seemed to be trying to balance the trade return with the veterans on the team looking to keep the band together and make a playoff push (you could argue that not stripping everything just to nakedly get under the CBT line was a sign of respect to the players, but in retrospect, that likely wasn’t what they wanted after dealing Vaz).
They went for a half and half approach, but I think it’s too convenient a shorthand to just say you keep the veterans and trade prospects in such a situation; the FO hasn’t seemed to like Vaz for awhile, and replaced him with a catcher who was better and under control for longer. Eovaldi seemed like a piece they should’ve been able to get something for, but I was fine with keeping him, and the Sox liked him enough to give him a QO.
Where I was less thrilled was keeping JDM; he really seemed to be in decline after a hot start and he looked to be a candidate for addition by subtraction. Correct me if I’m wrong, but dumping him should’ve been enough to get the Sox under the LT, so that didn’t work out. However, if I’m being fair, I wasn’t that upset about it, and I was willing to trust the FO’s assessment and see if they could make a run at the wild card. Now I find the whole “inexcusable to not get under” criticism a bit overblown since the difference in draft picks is not going to be incredibly meaningful. I’m not thrilled with other decisions following the deadline, but this one at least was mostly reasonable at the time (if it looks much worse in hindsight).
There’s a fine line between thoughtful and indecisive, especially in a fast moving business. The Bloom regime has been characterized by the team being interested in all kinds of players and always looking to extract value; that’s not necessarily a bad thing but I have wondered how focused they are; there’s no way last off-season and the trade deadline went as planned. They often seem so involved in so many things that they end up not accomplishing anything; or that their plans seem incomplete. It’s a remarkable departure from his predecessor who was laser focused and accomplished his goals with rapid precision- to the extent that he was often accused of overpaying.
I'm not sure JDM alone would have gotten the Sox under the LT. Spotrac shows the Sox as roughly $15M over the luxury tax for 2022. Cot's has it as roughly $11M. ~60 games of JDM, assuming the receiving team took all his remaining salary, only clears about $8M of his $22M LT allocation.
I certainly agree that the need top of the roster talent to compete for titles, and it's definitely fair to question allocation of resources. I think the last 14 months have gone very poorly for the Sox FO, both from a results and a process standpoint. I do think that ownership is as leery of long-term contracts as the FO, because they've had such terrible history with them.
- David Price - 7/$217M; At the time the highest salaried pitcher contract in MLB history. The Sox got 9.8 bWAR over 4 seasons before trading him to LA. Opted out of 2020, then put up 0.6/0.7 for the remainder of the contract
- Adrian Gonzalez - 7/$154M; extension started 2nd season in Boston. 3.0 bWAR over 123 games in his first season post-extension, traded that same August to LA, put up 0.7/3.8/4.4/4.6/1.9/-1.0 bWAR with the Dodgers. Released with 1 year remaining.
- Chris Sale - 5/$145M; extended a year before FA. Injuries have limited him to 1.0 bWAR in 48 1/3 IP over 3 seasons. In progress
- Carl Crawford - 7/$142M; 0.9 bWAR in 161 games over 2 seasons, traded to LA with Gonzalez where he went 1.5/2.4/-0.2/-1.0 and was out of baseball with a year and half remaining on the deal.
- Trevor Story - 6/$140M; 2.5 bWAR in 94 games his first season. In progress
- Xander Bogaerts - 6/$120M; below market at signing. 1.6 bWAR in 2020 (4.3 bWAR projected to 162 game season), then 4.9/5.8 and predictably opted out. 12.3 bWAR total (15 bWAR extrapolating 2020)
- Dustin Pedroia - 8/$110M; another below market extension. 14.5 bWAR over 4 seasons pre-Machado, 9 games -0.6 bWAR post-Machado. F Manny Machado.
- JD Martinez - 5/$110M; 6.7/3.5/-0.7 (2020)/3.0/1.1. 13.6 bWAR (12.4 bWAR extrapolating 2020) over 5 seasons
Honestly, I expected the results to be even more lopsided before I started pulling the data. The only unconditional success was X's discount deal, and Pedroia's injury highlights the risk with even a no-brainer contract. The market rate deal for JDM worked about as well as could be hoped. The rest of the deals are either disasters or equal value with multiple dead years on the end. To your point that title teams need top tier talent getting paid top tier rates, I would suggest that the FO sees only the first 3-4 years of a long term deal as likely to produce top tier results. It's one thing to be willing to eat 2-3 years of a deal on the backend when the baseline team is a playoff competitor, eating 7-8 years of deadweight is potentially crippling, especially if you don't compete in the first few years.
If we added Eovaldi and Drury, I think this offseason would be okay. Certainly not ideal, but we'd have filled the biggest holes with viable candidates and should be able to contend for a wild card spot, without doing anything to hurt our youth development.
If you just get into the playoffs, anything can happen, even a fun and exciting playoff run like we had way back in 2021.
If you just get into the playoffs, anything can happen, even a fun and exciting playoff run like we had way back in 2021.
I don't think they have any concern about luxury space for next year. There isn't much on the books $109m before arbitration, so just napkin rounding let's say $150m booked. They could give Devers whatever they want and be under for 2024.
Eovaldi was also injured and his return seemed to be perpetually being pushed back. A team could've traded for him only to have him never make an appearance. That he didn't generate any trade interest isn't the least bit stunning.
The deadline last year was a difficult one... as with the entire season, it was filled with "Big IF's"... Sale was about to return.... Eovaldi about to return... Wacha about to return.... Whitlock about to return.... Houck about to return...... Devers wasn't quite in his slump yet. The two biggest drags on the offense were addressed and possibly the biggest drag on everyone having their heads in the game (Vaz) was traded away. There was a few days to be optimistic right around then.
This is a bit my ignorance on how the contracts work. Just using arbitrary numbers, Devers is gonna make roughly $18M this year. If Devers agrees to a 10/$300M deal. Does that start in 2023 and add on an additional $12M to his 2023 salary or does it start in 2024. I guess it’s all in the wording right?
It all depends on the contract. If Devers agreed tomorrow to a 10/300 that was 9 additional years, he could keep his $18m this year and the AAV (average value for tax purposes) would be divided over the full 10 years.
It is definitely all in the wording. And the timing. He currently doesn't have a contract for 2023. So if he signs a 10/300 deal tomorrow, that's going to begin immediately and cover him for 2023 through 2032. If the extension doesn't come until after he's signed a one year deal for 2023, then it is down to whether the contract replaces that or adds on to the end of it.
To be clear though, what Devers actually gets paid is different than how his salary is allocated for luxury tax calculations. So regardless of what his actual 2023 salary turns out to be ($18M, $20M, $30M, $35M, whatever), the luxury tax number is going to be the average annual value of the whole thing. If the total deal is 10/300, then his luxury tax hit is $30M for each year the deal covers.
I agree with your point, and if they have determined that these decade-long $300-ishMillion plus contracts are "beyond reason" that is at least presumably part of a plan. (Although I have no idea how they will otherwise spend their money). What bothers me - and looks like indecisiveness or lack of awareness to me - is their approach. The market is the market, and either you are going to participate or you are not. We will see what happens with Devers, but it is perfectly reasonable for him to want a 10+ year/$300Million+ contract. The Red Sox can give it to him or not; it seems to me this should take part of a day to figure out which. It took Hal Steinbrenner a tenth of a second to decide if he wanted to give Judge $360Million.
But what the Sox cannot do is try to negotiate at 2021 prices, pretend they are actively trying to sign him, not trade him while they miss the playoffs, and then act all surprised when he leaves next November. They should instead surprise me and either sign him or trade him, pretty much now.
It's hard to imagine Devers staying here long term after this offseason. He will turn 27 during the playoffs next year. Correa's deal covers age 28-41. Bogaerts 30-41, Turner 30-41. I can't see Devers signing for fewer than 12 years to take him to 39. I think its more likely he's asking for 14 years based on what happened in the last month. I can't imagine this ownership group signing off on that kind of expenditure. I think we can all understand why they wouldn't want to sign something like that because there is almost no way it returns surplus value long term.
If that's the case, they have to trade him right? I'm not sure the Red Sox can remain competitive if they won't pay market rate for free agents on long term deals. They will consistently have to settle for middle tier guys like Story and rely on their farm system. That's do-able but its an extremely difficult way to compete.
If that's the case, they have to trade him right? I'm not sure the Red Sox can remain competitive if they won't pay market rate for free agents on long term deals. They will consistently have to settle for middle tier guys like Story and rely on their farm system. That's do-able but its an extremely difficult way to compete.
Honestly, I don't think it's ownership talking out of both sides of their mouth, per se. Look at the Speier comments on the podcast with Keith Law that someone posted earlier this week. He seemed to say, or at least strongly implied, that the front office in essence gives it's Chief Baseball Officer a budget of around $Luxury Tax Threshold each season, and lets them decide how to spend it. Again, I think this is what good sports owners tend to do, not bad ones. They write the checks - and hire people who know the game to decide whom they should be written to.
FSG does not seem opposed to going over if their CBO is able to sell them on the plan (ie Dombrowski) but they hold the CBO accountable - as a good leader should. Dombrowski convinced them to re-sign Sale and Eovaldi after the 2018 World Series and then Sale was bad (4.40ERA) and ultimately injured. Eovaldi started out awfully with a 6.00ERA in 4 starts to open the year, then promptly got injured. When he came back, he continued to be terrible. Price started the season well, then started trending down in June, was awful in July and then got injured. So you were looking at 3/5 of Dombrowski's rotation being both terrible AND injured and with massive commitments to those players.
Last year, they allowed Bloom to be over the tax threshold (not like they told him no on Story, for instance) and by and large he went over that with short term commitments to a bunch of short term players as opposed to big deals on elite talent (Story was an elite talent - he paid him $25m for 2.4 fWAR), but he also elected to spend $53.125M on what ended up being a combined 1.8 fWAR from Matt Barnes, Jackie Bradley Jr, Michael Wacha, Rich Hill, Matt Strahm, James Paxton, Jake Diekman, Kevin Plawecki and Hansel Robles.
It wasn't JUST the injuries that sunk the 2022 Red Sox. It was spending $53.125M on 9 players that combined for less value than Trevor Story (whom had a down year and was STILL the third most valuable player on the team). This doesn't even take into account the fact that he gave away a 2.8 fWAR player (Benintendi) for two guys whom combined for a -.2 fWAR (Winckowski and Cordero). Payroll flexibility is great and all - but it does you no good if your evaluation of what to do with that money sucks.
This year we're following a similar path - honestly, I think Yoshida and Jansen will be pretty solid contributors, and though I would have preferred targeting a younger player via trade, I get the Turner signing. "The off-season isn't over yet" is a common refrain, and I get it, so lets say we'll still spend about $25m on a middle infielder of some kind and a starting pitcher of some kind and based on whomever is left in the FA market, I don't feel nearly as good about the approximately $62m Bloom elected to commit to Hernandez, Barnes, Martin, Paxton, Rodriguez, Refsnyder, Brasier and lets say "SegurAndrus" at MI and a Corey Klueber. (If we don't want to blame Bloom for Sale, which I don't and is fair, I think we also have to hold him accountable for mistakes he makes on contracts that stick around to bite us like Barnes and Paxton).
This number would be about $108m if you want to add guys so far whom I think are worthwhile investments as they're likely to be good players in Yoshida, Jansen and Turner, I don't really think the players mentioned in the paragraph above this are good bets to be valuable players. To be clear, I'd be singing a different tune if this off-season were those three deals and then $62m spent between Bogaerts, Chris Bassitt and one of Tallion or Senga.
In other words, I don't think FSG necessarily asks their front office to align with them (at least since Lucchino took on a different role). They let them run the money how they see fit. I hope they hold Bloom accountable the same way they did Cherington (to replace him with Dombrowski after a horrid 2014 season and a bad 2015 up to August); Dombrowski didn't even get that long. Bloom hasn't won a World Series, so I'm upset that he's gotten nearly the same amount of rope that Cherington got, and more than Dombrowski.
Personally I would have fired Bloom after seeing how he handled attempts to extend Bogaerts in March. I would have fired him again after last season's trade deadline. I would have fired him a third time when he couldn't alter his approach to the market to keep Bogaerts AFTER the Turner deal was signed. I would have fired him a 4th time seeing how he's building his rotation for this off-season. If he's really "galaxies" apart on Devers, I'd fire him now, a 5th time and hopefully have someone else come in and find a way to keep Devers because I really don't believe his idea of "spread money all across the roster" is a good plan.
As @moondog80 has pointed out, I understand his plan. He's trying to be the 2014 Royals, and I think it's more likely to end up like the Rays or As without a title. Again, I understand his plan, I don't think it's the best plan they could follow, or even a good plan (honestly, it's not even following the 2010-2020 Red Sox, nor the Braves nor the Astros, all of whom allowed themselves to bottom out to recoup better picks and re-set spending) AND I don't think he's the right guy to execute a plan in a big market.
I'm not saying he's cheap. I'm not saying he has no plan. I'm saying I don't think he spends money well AND I don't think his plan is even that similar to Houston or Atlanta that so many want to believe. Hopefully FSG makes a move sooner than later. They've fired far more accomplished CBOs than Bloom, and I trust they'll make a move when next October rolls around - but I hope it's before that.
*Salaries for 2022 and 2023 are based on Luxury Tax AAV calculations (https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/boston-red-sox/payroll/2022/) and here is the FG page for player values (https://www.fangraphs.com/teams/red-sox).
Your last point is what scares me. The Carl Crawford Experience (trademark and copyright pending) scarred me in that Theo admitted that there was pressure from above to “do something.” The way the trade deadline played out last year gave me flashbacks in that it felt like Bloom wanted to sell more pieces but couldn’t because of ownership. I will readily admit though that that interpretation should come with a 2 ton block of salt as I don’t know if any statements, rumblings, or otherwise that point there. It’s the only interpretation where all actions make any kind of sense though.
Many have already expressed how statements made this offseason read like PR driven damage control in the “hey, we tried” vein. The problem with so much concern over PR is that it results in half-measures. If you think a long term commitment to Devers is a bad idea because of body type, swing type or some other reason, just own it, trade him for a reasonable haul, and let’s move on. Add me to those here who have been saying that there seems to be a disjoint between Bloom and ownership.
Two questions/topics for folks here:
1. If they were to trade Devers now, what’s the expected/required return? Say the Sox were trading for him; what/who would you’ve willing to give up? And do you take the best offer you can get, or do you draw a line, wait for the trading deadline, and hold on to him if you have to to avoid giving him up for what some will deem peanuts?
2. People who want us to go the Braves’ route: Do you sign Bello and/or Casas this year? When - now, during season, after? And what do you expect those deals to look like?
1. If they were to trade Devers now, what’s the expected/required return? Say the Sox were trading for him; what/who would you’ve willing to give up? And do you take the best offer you can get, or do you draw a line, wait for the trading deadline, and hold on to him if you have to to avoid giving him up for what some will deem peanuts?
2. People who want us to go the Braves’ route: Do you sign Bello and/or Casas this year? When - now, during season, after? And what do you expect those deals to look like?
I'll take a stab at answering this question, which has become a kind of existential one for the fan base. I'm not trying to argue with you as much as I'm working through a possibly underrepresented view that is nonetheless genuine.
First, I disagree with the premise that all these guys exist on the same plane. Andrew Benintendi wasn't a very good baseball player. He was a useful outfielder with a decent floor. He probably should not have been traded at the nadir of his value, but he was overrated, and still is! One of the reasons he was overrated is that his breakout season happened when there was a disproportionately low number of left-handed pitchers in the AL East in 2018, which concealed the fact that he was essentially a platoon player. I'll buy that Christian Vázquez was a popular guy in the clubhouse, but he is being wildly overrated here as the fan base looks for heavy objects to throw at Bloom. He was the 30th most-valuable catcher over 2021-22 despite playing more games than all but four of the 29 catchers ahead of him. His 2019 power burst is a total aberration, and there was no point to signing him to a market-rate contract starting with his age 32 season. I'm very glad he was traded! Valdez and Abreu are interesting.
Letting Bogaerts go is very sad, but the inconvenient truth is that he's not a good defensive shortstop, and his bat is diminishing. What he is is one of our guys, and an immensely likable one. The irony is that the place it makes sense for him to move is one occupied by our other immensely likable homegrown star. I don't think the FO handled this particularly well either, because they should have anticipated both the backlash that they're getting hit with now, and the explosion of the free agency market with this many Boras clients in the first offseason after a new CBA/CBT. But that doesn't mean they were wrong for valuing Bogaerts how they did — not yet, anyway.
As for Betts, there are things we're never going to know about that set of decisions. I believe that he wanted to be in a different place than Boston, for ultimately personal reasons, but it benefits neither party to say so. The same way this Rosenthal article tries to hammer Bloom for saying he had regrets in the Bogaerts deal, then hammer him again that he won't give them up because they're "more private." That's not immediately damning to me. That's what a conscientious team official does, he refuses to betray information that was told to him in confidence, even when the player is out the door. Our previous team officials routinely failed to do that, so it's puzzling to me why this article frames that piece of information as though Bloom is a fool.
That's just one of the reasons why so much of the reporting around this seems disingenuous. It completely ignores the possibility that there are real coherent reasons for going in a different direction, let alone make a good-faith attempt to understand what those reasons are and translate them for the public. Some of that is probably proprietary information that the Sox FO won't give up, but there are some terrific baseball analysts who have been content just to string them up. It's affective reporting, not qualitative. It's concerned with how everyone feels about what's happening, not what's actually happening. It lets the question of "what is the plan?" linger in the ether, partly because it's more buzzworthy to do so. The real journalistic impulse should be to make a good faith assumption that there is a plan. You don't have to agree with it, but someone should attempt to make sense of it.
Lastly, I think we might consider a missing element in this. To what extent did the Red Sox stealing signs in 2018 contribute to the FO's long-term evaluation of these players? Is it none at all? Do we know for sure? Betts, Benintendi and Bogaerts all had career years in 2018 (by expected wOBA, though Xander had a better power year with the juiced ball in 2019), and they were much much better with runners on base. Is it possible that the institutional knowledge of what happened that year created a gap between the FO evaluations and ours? I don't know.
Last edited:
First, I’ll note that this list seems to support both seemingly contrary arguments: that you have to be willing to sign top FAs or offer significant extensions to your star players if you want to win, and also that these long term deals too often turn out badly. Both can be true. Price and JDM made important contributions to the ‘18 WS team. Other big dollar contracts that either weren’t great overall or ended badly (Lackey, Manny) also helped win titles.
Second, if I’m being honest, I approved of most of these deals at the time even though they went south. For the record:
- Price: Didn’t like the deal, but that was mostly cuz I thought Price was an ass. But also, he was older and the deal was top of the market. Truthfully, if it had been 7/$198, I probably would have praised them for keeping it under $200.
- A-Gon: Loved the trade and extension. Didn’t like giving up Rizzo but would have if I were GM. Thought he was better than Teixeira, and the deal was less.
- Sale: Liked the extension. Knew it was risky. We were talking about that arm/body when we traded for him. But you bet on talent, and the deal was shorter than Price’s for a lower AAV.
- Crawford: Hated it. Hated the player fit (speed in Fenway’s LF?) and the length/money.
- Story: Really liked it. Thought it was a relative steal and a great example of a big market team flexing its financial muscles when the opportunity arose.
- X: Loved it. Under market for 3 years minimum was clearly worth the opt out.
- Pedey: Loved it. Franchise player set the 2B contract record days before everyone knew Cano would blow it away, turning it into a team friendly deal!
- JDM: Loved the fit, length, money; all except the yearly opt outs, which he never ended up exercising.
Last edited:
This excuse rings a bit hollow when the Yankees just laid out $360M for an elite talent who was using a juiced ball for a chunk of his homerun chase.
This is absolutely ridiculous. I don’t know of a single person who thought they were going to win the World Series. I mean look at this board around that time, most people wanted them to blow it up because they recognized that this team wasn’t good enough.
No, it was pretty much just the injuries. From 2021 -a post-season team- we lost Ottavino, Schwarber, and people no one was clamoring to get back - Martin Perez, Garret Richards, Yacksel Rios, Hansel Robles.
Then we had the lockout.
But apart from that, the plan for 2021 was:
Rotation Newbies:
Sale - came back in 2021 and started 9 games with a 3.16 ERA. There's no reason to believe he wouldn't have gotten somewhere north of 25 starts, in 2022.
Eovaldi - same
Pivetta - same
Wacha - supposedly an upgrade over 2021 Martin Perez. Check. Good signing.
Rich Hill - supposedly an upgrade over Garret Richards. Check. Good signing. Also, maybe only had to hold the fort until Paxton.
Paxton - maybe ready the second half, maybe not, but a good gamble.
Houck/Whitlock - possible depth if they could be transitioned.
So, we got:
Sale - 2 starts. Basically all the days on the IL.
Eovaldi - 20 starts, down from 32 in 2021. Injured. 75 days on the IL.
Pivetta - 33 starts, 4.56 ERA. Up from 33. Basically the only repeater.
"Thank God for Wacha" 23 starts, 3.32 ERA. Injured. 54 days on the IL.
Rich Hill - 26 starts, 4.27 ERA. 40 days on the IL.
Garret Whitlock - 9 starts. Yo-yoed. Injured. 50 days on IL.
Tanner Houck - 4 starts. Yo-yoed. Injured. 57 days on the IL.
plus:
Winckowski - 14 starts, 5.89 ERA
Crawford - 12 starts, 5.43 ERA (some good starts though). Injured in Sept. 32 days on IL.
Bello - 11 starts, 4,71 ERA (mostly in junktime, but has the raw stuff)
Seabold - 5 starts, 11.29 ERA. (Also injured.)
That's 42 starts from AAA starters.
Somebody else can do the rotation and the bullpen. But that alone will pretty much sink a season.
Regret IMO implies they think they could have done something different and kept Xander...
That's a pretty damning quote IMO. If your highest ranked baseball executive in the org is having regrets about something a week after it happened, there's something really really wrong with his ability to execute. Was it a low-ball offer to start that he regrets? Was it not matching or getting close to counter it? All of these imply something is strategically and tactically wrong with how the front office is approaching these player negotiations if Chaim is regretting the outcome because he thinks he could have done done something else differently in hindsight. You don't regret things you could not have changed.
I think you have to make an intellectual leap to conclude this, based on what was reported.
How about this: Can you think of something that Bloom could possibly say right now that wouldn’t get him lit up by the press? What’s a constructive, substantive thing that he could say about those negotiations that doesn’t betray privileged information that could be impact Bogaerts personally or professionally? Keep in mind he has to say something, because he’d otherwise be lit up all the same for not being accountable.
Maybe he shouldn't put himself in the position of setting the expectation that Xander is the team's number one priority in the first place if he had no reasonable expectation of resigning him after the Turner deal. Either he was stupidity lying (for some reason?) or DRASTICALLY misread the shortstop market. I'm not sure which is better. It opens the door to these questions about the team's plans when they clearly didn't have a read on the biggest market of the off-season.
Last edited:
I dunno, “we were interested in retaining the player, but the years got to a point where we were no longer comfortable…we felt that such a contract would make it more difficult for us to field a championship contending club year in and year out as our fans expect and deserve…we thank Xander for his contributions, wish him the best of luck, and continue our efforts to building a great team for 2023 and beyond”.
If X was their top priority yet they barely engaged with him and then were $100M off and shocked / distraught when their final offer didn’t land him…well, that’s not a good look. At least project some confidence going forward.
If X was their top priority yet they barely engaged with him and then were $100M off and shocked / distraught when their final offer didn’t land him…well, that’s not a good look. At least project some confidence going forward.
Definitely not now, maybe not this year, but it kinda depends on the overall proximity to the tax thresholds. They do get a lot more room after Sale is gone post-'24, and of course any deal (or lack of) with Devers makes a big difference. But if their performance forces your hand, start talking at the break this year. Of the two, Bello seems the more likely early extension candidate to me.
Looking back over the past year of notable SP extensions:
Sandy Alcantara (Marlins, 26 at the time of the extension last winter, about to enter his Arb1 year): 5/56m with a 21m club option for '27. So Marlins get up to 3 extra years of control, and in doing this right before Sandy's CY season, look like damn magicians. He'd always been solid, and took a leap into excellence in 21, but that 2022 was obviously absurd.
Kyle Freeland (Rockies, 28, signed this April, starting Arb2): 5/64.5m, with a vesting 17m player option for 2027 if he has 170IP in 2026 and an opt out after 2024 if he's top a 5 CY candidate before then. 3 years of control gained. He had one great year in 2017 and has been very medium since, so fine, whatever?
Aaron Ashby (Brewers, 24, signed July, would have been Arb1 in 2025): 5/20.5, with escalators and team options in 28 & 29 potentially taking it up to 46m. 2 years of control gained. Swingman who successfully transitioned to solid but not exceptional starter.
Joe Musgrove (Padres, 29, signed August, was Arb3): 5/100 with full no-trade through 2026 and limited trade protection in 2027. Musgrove's been consistently really good and this is widely seen as a serious hometown discount (which is also maybe why they waited so long to do it, if they weren't concerned about him wanting to test FA)
So what does that all mean wrt Bello (will be 24 in May, Arb1 in 2026)? Ashby is the immediate comp for age/playing time, but Bello's ceiling is clearly higher (fun with SSS: compare his 2.94 FIP this year to Alcantara's 2.99
) and maybe I'm greedy but I'd like to get 3+ years additional control? If we're starting talks this summer, offer something like 6/60 running 2024-2029, with club options for 30 & 31 at 30m each?
Unless there's some angle where they are claiming those balls were being targeted to only Judge, it seems a bit short-sighted to chalk up Judge's huge jump in the 2nd half to the ball considering almost every single other one of his teammates did between slightly & a lot worse in the 2nd half of the season - Stanton, Rizzo, Donaldson, Gleyber, Carpenter, DJ, Trevino, & Hicks (IKF put up a slightly better ISO in the 2nd half but was maybe slightly worse overall, too).
Also, if we're looking for a reason the Red Sox might not think X's #s are sustainable going forward, there's always the fact that he hit .343 on ground balls last season (Judge, for example, hit .255 on grounders)...
If the Braves are the model then look no further than 24yo Spencer Strider who just signed 6/$75M after a stellar rookie season (131 IP, 202K, 45BB)
I was trying to look at the deals in a vacuum (your second point that they usually turn out badly), but I don’t disagree that the premier deals help win titles. The key is that you need that title window to be in the first 3 or 4 years of the contract because there’s a good chance that’s as long as you’re getting a productive player, nevermind an elite one. The corollary So if you have a baseline of a competitive team, pay the premium for top tier talent to push you over the top and open a window of legitimate title contention, knowing there will be some pain the out years.
The corollary to this is that all of the Sox’ title teams had multiple guys with very good to elite production at bargain rates. I don’t think we’re breaking new ground to say you need players who outperform their contracts in order to contend. It is less risky to be sure you have some of those guys on your roster before you sign big money deals and gamble that the cheap production pops in the 3-4 years you have before your top deals likely implode. I get that risks waiting for a tomorrow that may never come, I think knowing when to trust your evaluations of your prospects is one of the hardest parts of being a GM. I do think if Mayer and his wave were in AA/AAA Bloom would be more willing to overextend for FAs.
FWIW, the only contracts I hated were Price and Sale - big money/years to pitchers on the wrong side of 30 with a lot of miles on their arms. I loved the Crawford deal! It started his age 29 season, he was coming off 5 and 7 bWAR seasons the 2 years prior, had only missed significant time 1 of the prior 8 seasons, hurt a division rival in the process . . . and then was useless for the rip. All-time bad evaluation by me.
And just for the record, I would have given Mookie a blank check if there were ever a legitimate opportunity to extend him before FA and I would have offered X 6/150 last year after they signed Story.
Ah yeah, mlbtr didn't have that on their extension tracker and I missed it, but Strider is a good comp. They did that after a full season of excellence, and get 1-2 additional years of control ($92m total if they exercise the 2029 team option)
@JCizzle nailed the response to this.
it’s ok to say that Chaim messed up. Not everything is some axe to grind by the always evil Boston media to make Chaim look bad or to light him up. There are at least a few things that he could have said that read A LOT better than “I have a couple of regrets” on something that happened a week ago.
You are absolutely and 1,000% right that I should have specified it wasn't just "unforeseen injuries" that ruined last year. It was a combination of unforeseen injuries, time on the IL that should have totally been expected based on career numbers, and underperformance that should have totally been expected based on career numbers. In short... based on career stats of the players he brought in. Bloom should have expected at least 25-30 starts from AAA starters and ended up with 42. He should have expected below average offensive performance from 2/3 of the OF and at least hedged 1b as well. He should have expected a combination of injuries (Arroyo) or horrible performance (Cordero) from depth pieces. In long...
Sale - totally fair, at least heading into 2022 (as opposed to 2023).
Eovaldi - in his career he's averaged about 24 starts per season. He should have been expected to miss about 8 starts because that is his career average. He missed 12 instead of 8, so we were a little "unlucky" with injury there. (FWIW, I tossed out 2020, even though in even a short year he still missed 25% of his starts. I also tossed out his year missed recovering from his second TJS).
Pivetta - he was a little bit better than what should have been expected. Over his career he's been a below average pitcher (87 ERA+) and he was a bit less bad last year (92 ERA+). Overall, he shouldn't have been expected to be an average pitcher, and he wasn't. On a big market team, that's fine for your 5th starter, though. It's not great when he's expected to be one of your most reliable starters, however.
Wacha - did a similar calculation here from Eovaldi (tossing out his rookie year, tossed out 2020) and he should have been expected to miss 8 starts (depending on what you want to call an average of 23.5 starts, but I went on the "healthy" side). He made - 23 starts - about exactly what one should have expected based on his career data.
Hill - just looked at his career as a starter, and he should have been expected to miss 9 starts based on his career numbers, but he only missed 6, so we got a little "lucky" from what should have been expected.
Paxton - averaged 21 starts per season leading into last year (and I tossed out both 2020 and 2021 recovering from TJS). He was always pretty much a good bet to miss between 3-15 starts per season BEFORE the surgery.
All this is to show that, reasonably speaking, Bloom should have expected needing to cover 8 starts from Eovaldi, 8 from Wacha and 9 from Hill or in essence you needed another full starting pitcher (25 starts). So no, when you had 3 of your starting 5 pitchers whom one should have EXPECTED to miss a good chunk of the season and your (at the time) 2nd most reliable piece should have been expected to be a bad to below average starting (Pivetta and his career 87 ERA+), I don't think that was good roster construction to begin with. It was made even worse by taking a bet on another guy whom was always a safe bet to miss between 3 - 19 starts BEFORE having Tommy John Surgery.
When I have more time I can look more in depth to the bullpen but briefly on the line up (just using career stats):
C: Vazquez - obviously he's seen as a defense first catcher, but he has a career 85 OPS+ and produced in Boston for a 109 OPS+. He was excellent offensively in Boston and it made all the sense in the world to trade him. Good move by Bloom there.
1b: Dalbec - not personally a fan of the player / profile but Dalbec had a wonderful August and September, so I can at least understand seeing what he had. This is of course the risk with prospects.
2b: Story - didn't have an injury history; wasn't fair to expect he'd get injured last year. That one was totally unforeseen, no argument.
SS: Bogey was expected to be a middle of the order fixture with a career 117 OPS+ and he was better than expected with a 131 OPS+.
3b: Devers - see above.
LF - Verdugo - career 107 OPS+ and he had a 102 OPS+. A little worse than expected, but hardly a drag on the line up.
CF - Hernandez (not talking about the injury, just performance) was a below average hitter for his career (97 OPS+) and he was below average again last year when he was on the field (75 OPS+)
RF - Bradley Jr career OPS+ of 84 and was at 51 last year. His career stat line suggested he'd suck offensively and he did.
DH - Martinez was a worse than his career averages (117 OPS+ last year; career 132 OPS+) but generally speaking players tail off after their prime and his was a soft landing (assume the same for Turner, for instance).
Bench:
Arroyo - should have been expected to miss a huge chunk of time because he always misses a huge chunk of time. He missed - a huge chunk of time. (This wasn't exactly a "Spacey is Keyser Soze?!?!" moment).
Cordero - over his career he's been a bad baseball player (83 OPS+) and he was a bad baseball player (92 OPS+). Similarly, not a shocking outcome.
Plawecki - expected to suck offensively (career 79 OPS+ and he sucked offensively with a 58 OPS+). His career average for fWAR is .38. He was a -.5 fWAR. But he's a back up catcher. I'd like to think we could have found similar level of suck for league minimum from whomever was in Pawtucket, but maybe that's unreasonable.
Duran - same as Dalbec, but he sucked his first year and continued to suck. Still a prospect, so I get having given him time. Hope we don't make the same mistake this year.
Refsnyder - was a career 86 OPS+ and he put up a 143 OPS+. He was excellent last year. (I expect his 2023 to look a lot more like his 6 year career and a lot less like his 2022; we'll see).
So the "plan" going into the season was to rely on two outfielders whom should have been expected to be below average offensively. A question mark at 1b. A bench of always injured player, terrible player, question mark and back up catcher. A rotation of should be good but is coming off TJS, should be below average (Pivetta), should be expected to miss around 8 starts (Eovaldi and Wacha) and should be expected to miss 9 starts (Hill).
To be fair, it was a similar plan (I thought it was terrible) going into 2021 and they made the ALCS - all the credit Bloom for hitting and I was totally wrong It was a similar plan for 2022 (I thought it was terrible) and Bloom missed across the board. I think it's a similar (and terrible) plan going into 2023 and we'll see which way it ends up 50/50 chance, based on Bloom's two full seasons of data.
*Yes, it's "not even Christmas" and maybe Bloom trades for Sandy Alcantara, Woodrfuff, Adames and Yelich between now and the start of the season. I think it's far more likely we sign "SegurAndrus" to be a starting middle infielder, along with "Dylan Bundy" and "Zach Davies" style rotation depth - and I think the team will be somewhere between 70 - 80 wins.
Last edited:
Generally fair analysis, but I do think it glosses over just how damaging those 12-17 extra starts by Seabold/Winckowski were. Things look a lot different without those.
Also I think Kike's injury gets overlooked, not just in terms of damaging his own offensive production, but in saddling us with 58 games of Duran's absolute suck.
Also I think Kike's injury gets overlooked, not just in terms of damaging his own offensive production, but in saddling us with 58 games of Duran's absolute suck.
While it would have been foolish of Bloom to expect to get 200 innings out of Sale, it wasn't foolish to think he would get more then five innings from him. Another way of looking at things is that Bloom signed Wacha and planned to start him in the bullpen if everybody was healthy coming out of Spring Training. Sale got injured even before Spring Training and Wacha was pressed into duty and did well. At the same time he had Houck on reserve and he had Winchowski, Seabold and Crawford all in the minors. Those guys at various points, especially Crawford, did well. As for Kike, if he had stayed healthy, put up a 90 plus wrc+ and played his usually defense in center field, then that would be great. I guess I am in disagreement with you about how shabby last years team was constructed. There was some risk involved, which is a product of trying to rebuild and contend at the same time, but the worst case scenario, which is as likely to happen as the best case scenario, occurred. Bloom certainly deserves shit for the Bogey negotions, but I think he constructed a solid team last year and I am hopeful for whatever the finished product of this years team is.
I don't think the offseason plan for 2023 was to have 25-30 AAA starts - I think it was to have most of those covered by MLB players.
This was the MLB opening day roster, FWIW. https://www.mlb.com/news/red-sox-2022-opening-day-roster
As far as rotation depth goes, by the end of the 2022 offseason Houck and Whitlock (or Wacha and Whitlock) were both seen as bullpen pieces, but also as backup starting pitchers. They were the hedge against a starter going down, and could even transition into the rotation. There was also some discussion that a stronger bullpen with multiple inning guys like Whitlock/Houck/Wacha/Strahm/Deikman, et al. could effectively bridge some shorter "twice through the lineup" starters, including any AAA coverage guys. And there was the Paxton lottery ticket for the second half.
I think that's an adequate depth plan.
But the year ended up being the Chris Sale Domino effect.
Sale's injury was disclosed after the FA cupboard was bare (IIRC), and in any event, he was thought to be only temporarily out and expected to come back at some point in the season. The (temporary) loss of Sale resulted in Houck getting pressed into the rotation, weakening the pen. Whitlock later was pressed into the rotation again weakening the pen. Both Houck and Whitlock were injured, and none of the AAA guys did well (apart from a few promising Crawford starts.)
So Sale (essentially) ended up dumping 30 starts onto the Houck/Whitlock depth combo. . .who due to injury and the need to shore up the pen (looking at you, Deikman) were only good for 13 starts anyway.
***
I think your point about the OF and 1B has some legs. But I have a slightly different take on what went wrong.
All in all I think the biggest dice-rolls of 2022 were:
1) Dalbec/Shaw holding down 1B until Casas was ready.
2) JBJ having some production left.
Both came up "1's" - yet both were also somewhat reasonable risks - they simply had their contingency plans and mitigating factors go up in injury and underperformance flames around them.
As far as 1B goes, Dalbec had finished August and September of 2021 strong, and who knows what the internals said on him. Shaw, while likely cooked, did have some success in 2020 and 2021 after joining the Sox. Casas was likely due up mid-year or sooner. And if super-necessary you could rotate Arroyo or someone at 1B to hold down the fort for Casas.
There was some risk there, but not of a crazy variety. Casas is a legit prospect but had no AAA seasoning - he could have been up mid or late season. But Dalbec's first 75 PAs in 2022 were abysmal - .449 OPS. Shaw completely fell apart and was released. Arroyo (IIRC) even got injured at 1B covering. (Or was that in 2021?). And none of the internal bandaids really worked while keeping the bag warm for Casas. Cordero, called up on May 1 as a replacement emergency stopgap, looked like he might stick at some point, but. . .alas, no. Casas himself didn't set the world afire in AAA with an .850 OPS for April and a .798 for the first half of May. I think he would have been the late May replacement. . .but rolled his ankle mid-May and was out for an unknown period of time - turned out to be until July 12. (And so, what do you do - trade prospects for a stopgap? How much of a stopgap? Are we waiting till Casas comes back maybe in 3 weeks, or maybe not at all?)
As far as the OF, JBJ was 32, had a great 2020 (yes yes, I know) and a terrible 2021. Expecting him to bounce back to something like an overall 80s-90s OPS+ wasn't crazy, especially if boosted by his Fenway numbers. Instead, he was barely passable at Fenway and abysmal on the road for an overall OPS+ of 60. And of course a poor-but-passible offensive showing from him (say in the low 80s) was to have been hedged against and mitigated by at least an average Hernandez and an above average Verdugo - neither of which happened. Arroyo was also played as an OF from the very beginning of the season to see if he could adapt to the position and provide another bat that should have been league average.
Instead, Hernandez completely fell off a cliff. A bit of regression is expected, but he started cold and the June/July/August hip injury resulted in him not getting his season together at all. By the end of the year, Verdugo was the least disappointing of the main OF crew, but he was uneven in the early going, and terrible for long stretches. (He hasn't been trending upward as a hitter, and we may have already seen the best version of him if he can't adjust.) Arroyo, given Story's injuries, was used mostly at 2B and wasn't very good in the OF by the eye test at least.
But here, the farm had depth, and we saw it. Refsnyder seems to have been a very good depth signing. . .but after his call-up, he was also injured at points. Durran had the tools to be a potentially useful piece, and is still young enough to progress as a batter, but his melt-downs were well documented here. Jaylin Davis was grabbed early on, and played a small role. Cordero was also there as a wild card. He did seem to make progress, but not enough of it to be a viable ML starter.
The bottom line is you can only have so much depth, and you can't stock starting MLB OFs in AAA just to have them there. JBJ was a risk, but imagine he fails and you have an OF of:
CF: Decent Hernandez,
LF: Good Verdugo,
RF: someone (anyone) sticking from the JBJ, Refsnyder, Durran, Davis, Cordero crew and otherwise spelling H and V to give the breaks.
I'm not saying the FO couldn't have scouted better or hedged against risk more. But there's only so much you can do, and not every free agent on the market or players available in theoretical trades are available to the Sox in real life.
I think 2022 was absolutely snake-bit.
That's why I said, it was totally fair (in 2022) to expect Sale to be healthy based on him coming back from 2021 and TJS.
Following that up with a rib injury, 5ip and then a wrist injury, I don't give nearly the same benefit of the doubt for 2023; but Bloom is ostensibly planning on Sale being SP1 because, well, we haven't done anything to add an SP1, or SP2 or even an SP3 this year, and all that's left out there on the FA market are really guys whom are more like 4 to 5 guys in the rotation on a good team at this point in their career (ie Kluber). *If someone wants to say Eovladi is an SP1 or 2 fine, it did happen in 2021, but that was literally one season that happened out of his entire career. For comparison, calling Matsuzaka an SP1 or SP2 would have been "more" reasonable since pitched a full season to an ERA+ above 100 twice, Eovaldi has done it once.
For the record, this is NOT to say I don't like Eovaldi. I think if he's your 3 starter or below, you're likely going to have a pretty good team. There were guys on the FA market I wanted to varying degrees more - Verlander, Bassitt, Tallion - but I also would rather pursue Eovaldi and what he SHOULD get much more than the deals deGrom or Rodon got. I have / had Senga higher than Eovaldi, but that's mostly due to their ages and Eovaldi's injury history. I'd far rather have Eovaldi than Anderson, Heaney, Eflin or Stripling. I also think he's going to have a higher fWAR this year (and next year) than Sale or Paxton.
I don't think "banking" on Winckowski or Crawford if you want to be a world series contender is a good plan, to be clear. I don't think it was last year, I think it's even worse this year. I feel the same way about Walter, FWIW.
Honestly, I don't even mind giving the rotation over to all kids though - I'm actually on board with having a rotation this year of Whitlock, Bello, Houck, Mata and Walter (and I'd trade Pivetta for more prospects). See what you've got, hope some hit and if they all stink, I'd rather have lets say a pick at 8th or 9th (and higher odds at a top 6) than 14th. That's at least closer to the Braves or Astros model vs the current "build the farm system but try to be mediocre in the mean time plan."
Again, I realize it's not Christmas. I realize he can make trades. Based on the additions Bloom has made so far, the trades he's made (or not made - which is admittedly impossible to know) so far, and what is left in free agency, I think this is another poorly constructed team. Maybe everything comes together like 2021 did - and that would be awesome. I think career numbers, ages and recent major injuries paint a picture that is more likely to end up missing the playoffs than in the ALCS, however.
Last edited:
I'd agree, but I don't think they are though.
The SP rotation depth (on the 40 man) is currently something like: Sale, Paxton, Pivetta, Whitlock, Bello, Houck, Crawford, Winckowski, Seabold, Mata, Murphy.
Some may be injured (Paxton), and others used elsewhere (Houck).
Unless additions are made, I think Sale, Paxton, Pivetta, and Bello are dedicated starters, to which you add one of Houck/Whitlock (if they ever figure out what's going on with those guys), with Crawford/Wincowski/Seabold/Mata/Murphy as AAA depth or in the pen. Of them all, I think Crawford is a pen candidate - I'm not sure the others make much sense there.
If Paxton is a dud I share your concerns for the #5. . .assuming Houck stays in he pen. But even so, I think the Sox will want to add either a starter or someone who can take Houck's spot in the pen - either way, it seems good insurance would be a guy like 2022 Wacha. Someone who can lengthen the depth in the pen or in the rotation.
Relief Pitching depth (on the 40 man) looks like: Jansen, Houck, Martin, Schreiber, Barnes, Rodriguez (LH), Kelly, Brasier, Taylor (LH), Mills, Ort, Darwinzon (LH), German. Also possibly Crawford. That's 14 names for 10 or 11 slots on the 25.
I think these are locks: Jansen, Houck, Martin, Screiber, Barnes, and Rodriguez. Brasier inexplicably. Taylor if healthy. The 9th is probably Crawford. Leaves Mills, Kelly, Ort, and German, with Mills (one option) likely getting the spot.
So:
SP: Sale (LH), Paxton (LH), Pivetta, Whitlock, Bello.
(AAA - Winckowski, Seabold, Mata, Murphy.)
RP: Jansen, Houck, Martin, Schreiber, Barnes, Rodriguez (LH), Brasier, Taylor (LH), Crawford, Mills.
(AAA - Kelly, Ort, German.)
Crawford and Houck are convertible to SP if needed.
I like it - provisionally. They could use a touch more depth - a 2022 Wacha would look great on this staff, optioning the weakest reliever back to AAA, or Crawford so he can stretch out as a starter and be the #1 depth guy and Bello backup. Or he slots into the rotation for Paxton who goes on the 60 day IL.
But IF the 2022 voodoo doll has not already been found and destroyed, and so consequently: Sale is involved in a bizarre ice fishing accent, while Paxton turns out to be a Toe Nash type hoax, and Pivetta regresses, and Whitlock loses 3 months due to his hip, while in the pen Barnes is Bad Barnes, and Taylor is out for the season, and one of the new signings puts up terrible (for them) numbers, and Houck defects to the Canadian Baseball League. . .that's it. There's no way to create enough depth to overcome that.
Last edited:
I very rarely agree with chawson, but he’s right here. Given the way that we’re obsessing over SOB (Standard Operational… Boilerplate) I’m not sure what he could have said that we wouldn’t be pitching fits over. It’s literally meaningless fluff that execs in every sport mutter some form of in the wake of good players leaving and we’ve extrapolated the Theory of Relativity from it.
Duran is so awful that I’m contemplating electro-shock therapy to erase my memories of his time in CF after he’s gone.
Agree totally with regards to how they're looking at it - no debate there at all. I also agree there is a substantial amount of upside. Though as Speier alluded to, the variance is off the charts. Granted, it's "not my money", but if it were, I'd want to see a heck of a lot more certainty in my pitching staff for $233m.
Suppose the biggest thing is I don't think it's a "voodoo doll" scenario (or, I guess another way to say it is, I think the "voodoo doll" scenario is just as likely as the "4/5ths of the rotation are good and healthy" scenario). I don't think it's unreasonable to project that 34 year old pitchers coming off major injuries might not bounce back. Of the kids, just generally speaking, I think it's fair to say out of Whitlock, Bello, Houck, Mata, Murphy and Walter one will be a good starter we like having in our rotation, one will be a very good bullpen piece / #4 or 5 starter, one will be a swingman type and two or three will provide nothing. I have no idea which ones will be which (though I think the best bets as starters are Bello, Whitlock, Houck and Mata).
If I were allocating $233m on putting together a roster, I'd look at it more like: I have $204m to spend and with that I need to build an entire pitching staff - good news is I have some young starters whom I want to see what they have. So I'm going with those guys at 3-5 (Whitlock, Bello, Houck) and then I'm getting some pitchers with lower error bars to put in front of them. I'd tell Sale and Paxton they have to pitch their way into the rotation, not that they have a spot, mostly because I don't think it's a "voodoo doll" scenario that they don't come back to be healthy and effective.
My plan / hope was that we'd actually sign (obviously I have no idea if they would have come here for more money, but...) Bassitt at 3/$66m (he signed for 3/$62m) and Tallion at 4/$72m (he signed at 4/$68m). Then you have 3 spots filled between Pivetta, Whitlock, Bello and Houck with two more "bankable" options in Bassitt and Tallion. That would put us approximately $13.75m above the tax, the way I would have managed the budget would have been not signing Martin ($4.95m over); not signing Rodriguez ($2.95m over) and assuming Speier is right (and I trust him) and Hosmer doesn't count against our AAV (ie SportTrac is wrong) that puts us at $2.75m below the AAV threshold.
Anyhow, I totally understand your (and other's) reasons and data for more bullishness on Sale and Paxton than I have. Even though we disagree with how it's going to look, I hope I've outlined the rationale / data behind why I am so bearish on them, and at least demonstrated that at least some of us whom strongly oppose Bloom's plan have done research and looked up data as to WHY we can't stand it and think it's going to fail as opposed to just complaining without basis. The great thing about baseball is, we're going to get a chance to see whom was right, whom was wrong, and discuss that all next off-season!
*FWIW, since we can't sign Bassitt or Tallion any more, I'd personally sign Eovaldi (even though I plan on him to miss about 8 starts) and then one of Wacha or Kluber (both of whom I'd plan to miss about 6-8 starts) and just hope that the injures to those two don't cluster. That would make my rotation Eovaldi, Wacha, Bello as the front 3. I'd either try to trade Pivetta if I can get good prospects (no idea) and assuming not, I'd actually try to extend him since he's fine as a 5th starter. Then I let Houck and Whitlock battle it out for a rotation spot with the other to the bullpen and one of them or Mata to come up when Eovalidi and Wacha miss their two months or so. As mentioned, I tell Sale and Paxton they can earn their way into the rotation, but they're starting the season on the outside looking in - mostly because I don't think either are dependable at this point in their careers.
Last edited:
The biggest needs that could possibly be filled from outside of the organization are SS, SP and OF, and if they do go outside there will probably be some trades. I'm curious what of the 3 areas would people be more comfortable dealing prospects for instead of signing a FA?
2021 and 2022 both potentially had a wide range of outcomes (volatility) in their opening day rosters. (Possibly, we forget how people were wringing hands over JD being toast after his awful 2020.)
IMO, 2021 went largely "as planned" and I think it was a testament to what the club wanted to do - bridge to their lower minors talent while staying competitive. And to do so in a way where you weren't shipping out the same lower minors talent to stay competitive. Some people didn't like the model and so tagged the team as "over achievers." But at the end of the day it comes down to runs scored and allowed, to games won and lost. It was a crazy year with the sticky-ban, and COVID IL list and the cycle of players through the system, including Shaw and Iglesias at the end.
2022, again IMO, was more the voodoo doll scenario where things did not go as planned. The lockout didn't help matters, nor did the cold early season and the dead-ball. Injury hitting particularly hard and in vulnerable areas, causing depth assets to be used. It was cruel in that so many of those injuries were of the day-to-day-becoming-week-to-week variety, and the Sox were juuust on the threshold of competing when the trade deadline rolled around.
Hopefully 2023 will be a more standard year, resulting in better performances.
But yes, I agree the volatility is still there. Will Enrique Hernandez rebound? How will Houck and Whitlock be after injury? Can Bello harness his gifts in terms of winning games with them? Will Casas (and Dalbec) hit? Will Sale and Paxton be healthy? Do the new players like Yoshida make the Fenway transition without melting down? Which Barnes are we getting?
And of course all those have somewhat synergistic outcomes. A dominant Barnes or a businesslike Sale or a hitting his heart out Hernandez changes the tenor of the bullpen, anchors the rotation, and can massively extend the lineup.
I'd expect a mixed outcome - some positive and some negative results, but I think 2023 will really come down to depth in the sense of avoiding crippling performances. Meaning, can we avoid black holes in the rotation and lineup, or risking wins to "test" who has a reliable arm in the pen?
FWIW, I'm more agnostic on Sale and "privately" bearish on Paxton.
Sale I think you just have to pitch. His contract isn't moveable until he shows he's back. . .and if he's back I'm not sure that you want to move him, or if he's regressed to "only a #2" that you want to take a haircut in trading him just for the sake of signing someone else. (Obviously, there are some trade scenarios that work, but I think we have to see what we have first in any case.) But I hope he's going to be good - 2021 boded well for his recovery from TJ surgery, and the 2022 injuries are not (AFAIK) chronic.
Paxton. . . Well, I think if he was a moderately sure thing they'd have triggered his two year option. Which tells me the club has doubt. However, they haven't yet obviously replaced him in the rotation from my scanning of the 40 man. So maybe there have been recent developments we're not privy to and they think he's healthy and well-motivated to pitch in what would be a "show me" season for him. But if so, why not pick up the 2 year option? It's a puzzle.
Without access to the team's perspective, beyond the option information, the plus here appears to be the same for Sale. TJ went fine, and the injuries are unrelated to the pitching arm and hopefully non-chronic. (I mean, I know it's a lat - but it's not like he's having deep shoulder pain or elbow pain.) So. . .maybe?
But it wouldn't surprise me to learn the Sox had their eye on some possibilites among the FAs or trade to replace Paxton are simply waiting for chips to fall.