Why the Red Sox may be missing a chance to accelerate their build (Speier Article)

[SouthernBoSox]

Speier's new article on deadline flips

The Sox aren’t necessarily done (dozens of free agents remain available). But their relative inactivity to date – after a public acknowledgement they’ll likely have a smaller payroll than the $225.7 million they spent (as calculated for luxury tax purposes) last year – suggests an outlook that spending heavily on 2024 roster, while looking toward the maturation and arrival of a homegrown core in 2025, would represent an exercise in putting the cart before the horse.

But in taking that stance, particularly with what appears to be an unprecedented (under the current Sox ownership group) measure of back-to-back planned spending decreases, the Red Sox may be missing an opportunity to flex just a little bit of financial might to accelerate their building process.

Assume for a moment that competitiveness in 2024 isn’t a Red Sox goal in its own right. Also assume that the team is going to remain on the sidelines of any big-dollar, long-term deals this offseason – meaning, in all likelihood, neither Blake Snell nor Jordan Montgomery (barring a collapse of their markets) will be part of the team.

Even with those constraints, a more aggressive approach in pursuit of players on short-term deals could accelerate the team’s building cycle.

Still, the fact the Sox could have made such a move is a reminder of the value of rental players – a notion reinforced by other one-year deals that were inked prior to the 2023 season.

The Royals signed Aroldis Chapman to a one-year, $3.5 million deal. Chapman dominated for three months as the Royals closer, then got dealt to the Rangers for starter Cole Ragans – a pitcher who showed ace-caliber stuff in Kansas City. Maybe that deal ends up looking like the next Scott Feldman-for-Jake Arrieta swap, when the rebuilding 2013 Cubs acquired a future ace in exchange for a starter whom they signed on a one-year, $6 million deal.

The Mets signed David Robertson to a one-year, $10 million deal, then dealt him to the Marlins at the deadline for two prospects who now rank among the top 30 in their system. The Nationals likewise turned one-year rental Jeimer Candelario into a pair of top-30 prospects in a deadline deal with the Cubs.

There is still time, of course, for the Sox to add to what they’ve done — to sign a bullpen lottery ticket or two, or a masher like Jorge Soler or Adam Duvall, or someone who might make their team deeper and thus better positioned to either compete in 2024 or trade for someone who can help make them better in 2025 and beyond.

The article is fantastic and does a much better job of doing something I have tried to communicate time and time again in the Offseason thread. Not signing short term free agent because "they don't make the team a contender" is really stupid. Signing short term assets can be turned into long term assets is just good business. And the Red Sox have missed on several opportunities so far this free agency.

 

[joe dokes]

Speier's new article on deadline flips











The article is fantastic and does a much better job of doing something I have tried to communicate time and time again in the Offseason thread. Not signing short term free agent because "they don't make the team a contender" is really stupid. Signing short term assets can be turned into long term assets is just good business. And the Red Sox have missed on several opportunities so far this free agency.

They had several of those players in the last couple of years, but didn't move them. I *think* it's because Bloom told management that the team could contend post 7/31. (Or it could be that he was told "no white flags here..." Doesn't really matter now, so lets not go there again.) Having been colossally wrong in that assessment twice, he got the boot. While there's still time before OD '24, they haven't grabbed any of them yet. That said, guys like Jansen & Martin (and others, I'm sure) could be those type of guys *this* year.

 

[SouthernBoSox]

They had several of those players in the last couple of years, but didn't move them. I *think* it's because Bloom told management that the team could contend post 7/31. (Or it could be that he was told "no white flags here..." Doesn't really matter now, so lets not go there again.) Having been colossally wrong in that assessment twice, he got the boot. While there's still time before OD '24, they haven't grabbed any of them yet. That said, guys like Jansen & Martin (and others, I'm sure) could be those type of guys *this* year.

Giolito, Pivetta, Martin, and Jansen all look like flip candidates.

The point is, that given they are $25mm under the tax, they should be acquiring as many as they can. Maybe they will. But the main point is it's important to remember that acquiring above average players for just money is a huge asset for a team like the Red Sox even if they don't compete in 2024.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

The article is fantastic and does a much better job of doing something I have tried to communicate time and time again in the Offseason thread. Not signing short term free agent because "they don't make the team a contender" is really stupid. Signing short term assets can be turned into long term assets is just good business. And the Red Sox have missed on several opportunities so far this free agency.

Agree with you and the article. The way I've put this in the past is that NBA teams have figured out that salary cap room is an asset that can be manipulated to acquire other assets, which then can turn into (or be combined with other assets) to turn real players.

One example is what Speier mentions - find veterans who will take short-term contracts to be flipped at the deadline for young players.

A second way, as has been mentioned before, is to take bad contracts along with young assets. This has the bonus of perhaps being flippable when the contract gets shorter.

Finally, BOS could sign their young players to contracts that perhaps are more player-friendly in the immediate future but team friendly (and tradeable, if necessary) in the future.

Obviously, none of this should take away from playing time for the young players but BOS should do something.

OTOH, the closer they get to the season starts may mean that there could be a player or two who would sign for a short-term deal instead of the long-term deal they originally wanted.

 

[chawson]

I think Speier is right here, but it's a two-to-tango kind of thing. Pitchers don't typically sign with the Red Sox for one-year "pillow" contracts because it's an extreme hitters' park. And right now, we don't have many positions where a productive, one-year player might be signed, played full-time to establish value, and flipped. Casas is entrenched, Grissom is ready to rock, Story is a full-time regular with negative value, Devers is a franchise player. Yoshida doesn't apply, Duran is a promising and divisive young player with a ton of team control (and an elite prospect on his heels), and Abreu/Refsnyder are a fairly promising platoon.

The exception is Tyler O'Neill, a guy on a one-year deal who we already traded for. He'll need full-time play in order to rebuild his value, and we should want to give it to him, but we need a back-up plan in case he gets hurt or falters.

 

[Petagine in a Bottle]

Pitchers don’t typically sign one year deals with the Sox? Really? How does one explain the never ending series of pitchers who have done just that over the past few years (Martin Perez, Rich Hill, Garret Richards, Michael Wacha, Lucas Giolito, Corey Kluber, Colin McHugh…)

 

[cantor44]

I think Speier is right here, but it's a two-to-tango kind of thing. Pitchers don't typically sign with the Red Sox for one-year "pillow" contracts because it's an extreme hitters' park. And right now, we don't have many positions where a productive, one-year player might be signed, played full-time to establish value, and flipped. Casas is entrenched, Grissom is ready to rock, Story is a full-time regular with negative value, Devers is a franchise player. Yoshida doesn't apply, Duran is a promising and divisive young player with a ton of team control (and an elite prospect on his heels), and Abreu/Refsnyder are a fairly promising platoon.

The exception is Tyler O'Neill, a guy on a one-year deal who we already traded for. He'll need full-time play in order to rebuild his value, and we should want to give it to him, but we need a back-up plan in case he gets hurt or falters.

There could be a productive RH DH type (outfield or first base sometimes or both), and another starting pitcher signed to short term deals.

 

[moondog80]

They had several of those players in the last couple of years, but didn't move them. I *think* it's because Bloom told management that the team could contend post 7/31.

Bloom did more than tell management the team could contend -- he actually had them contending. It didn't work out, but that's another story. Either way, if they sign a few of these guys and end up not trading them because the team is in contention, that's a good thing.

But yes, Speier makes good points here. The idea that there simply isn't any way to benefit the team by spending money without taking on long term risk is absurd.

 

[chawson]

Pitchers don’t typically sign one year deals with the Sox? Really? How does one explain the never ending series of pitchers who have done just that over the past few years (Martin Perez, Rich Hill, Garret Richards, Michael Wacha, Lucas Giolito, Corey Kluber, Colin McHugh…)

Yeah, these are some guys. A few of them are special cases (Kluber and Hill both lived here), and Richards was obviously on his last legs. I think other big-market teams are more successful at landing these types, and the Rays are too.

I do think bringing Breslow/Bailey/Willard aboard helps this effort though. The Rays are now a destination for pitchers wanting to rebuild their arsenals and recuperate their market value. The Sox have an uphill battle attracting these guys while playing in a run-inflating ballpark, but this should help.

 

[tims4wins]

Bloom did more than tell management the team could contend -- he actually had them contending. It didn't work out, but that's another story. Either way, if they sign a few of these guys and end up not trading them because the team is in contention, that's a good thing.

But yes, Speier makes good points here. The idea that there simply isn't any way to benefit the team by spending money without taking on long term risk is absurd.

3 games out of the final WC is not contending IMO. YMMV.

 

[Van Everyman]

3 games out of the final WC is not contending IMO. YMMV.

I suspect @moondog80 meant they were contending well into the summer before they chose not to go for it at the deadline.

 

[LogansDad]

3 games out of the final WC is not contending IMO. YMMV.

I really don't get this thought at all. Being within 3 games of a playoff spot, any playoff spot, is the very definition of contending, is it not? I don't think I am going out on a limb here when I say that all of us want the team to play in as many meaningful games as possible, and being three games out at the end of July means that a good 3 or 4 game stretch while the team above you struggles puts you in a playoff spot. Is that not what we want, as fans?

 

[joe dokes]

Bloom did more than tell management the team could contend -- he actually had them contending. It didn't work out, but that's another story. Either way, if they sign a few of these guys and end up not trading them because the team is in contention, that's a good thing.

I was speaking only of post (non-moves at) deadline. Your point is valid, but if the GM says, "we shouldn't sell off the assets because I expect we will contend for the rest of the season" and misses the mark not by a 160th game loss, but by several orders of magnitude, that's a problem.

 

[nattysez]

We're not currently at the point where the kind of guys Speier is talking about are going to settle for 1-year deals, are we? For example, Ryan effin' Brasier JUST signed a two-year deal with the Dodgers. Look at this list of pitchers who are still available. When pitchers and catchers start reporting, some of these guys will realize they're going to have to settle for a one-year deal with an also-ran; that's when the Sox should start making the signings Speier wrote about.

 

[tims4wins]

I really don't get this thought at all. Being within 3 games of a playoff spot, any playoff spot, is the very definition of contending, is it not? I don't think I am going out on a limb here when I say that all of us want the team to play in as many meaningful games as possible, and being three games out at the end of July means that a good 3 or 4 game stretch while the team above you struggles puts you in a playoff spot. Is that not what we want, as fans?

Maybe it’s semantics but I don’t equate “alive for the final WC spot” with “contending”. They were about 6 games over .500 and 8 games out of the east. Again YMMV. I could buy that they were on the outskirts of contention.

2022 was a far worse offense though. They were under .500, fading fast, and 19 back if the division.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

We're not currently at the point where the kind of guys Speier is talking about are going to settle for 1-year deals, are we? For example, Ryan effin' Brasier JUST signed a two-year deal with the Dodgers. Look at this list of pitchers who are still available. When pitchers and catchers start reporting, some of these guys will realize they're going to have to settle for a one-year deal with an also-ran; that's when the Sox should start making these signings.

And typically the guys that do end up settling for one year deals tend to do it where they have a clear shot at a job that presents them an opportunity to earn a bigger contract next winter. Whether the Sox sign one of those remaining pitchers to a one year deal might come down to whether or not they can be convinced that a rotation spot is guaranteed. Otherwise, the pickings are slim and the easiest to sign might be the aged guys who might not having anything left (call it Corey Kluber redux). I'm not convinced this path is one that is likely to lead to a lot of success despite the examples Speier offers.

 

[HangingW/ScottCooper]

Speier is 100% correct here and it's all things we've discussed at length. Short term deals of deadline tradeable assets are a great way to supplement a rebuild. It was the fuel of a good amount of my frustration with Bloom.

 

[Jimbodandy]

In principle I'm down the the FO exercising any financial advantage, and this is one way to do it. And it has been done before as noted in the piece. One thing that jumped out though was the quote about David Robertson being traded for two top-30 prospects. Honestly I don't think that the problem with the Sox organization is too few top-30 prospects. If there is someone out there who can bring back a top-10 prospect, fantastic. Sign him and be prepared to move at the deadline if we're again a .500-ish team with no real hope. But it doesn't feel like the big problem with our current org is not enough David Hamiltons (#21 SP) and Bryan Matas (#28 SP). If we can land a Yorke or Raffaela at the deadline for someone, fantastic.

 

[Sin Duda]

Alluded to upthread, but keep in mind that there is more to it than just spending money; a 1-year rental of a productive, flippable vet means less developmental playing time for young players.

 

[TomRicardo]

They have some in season trade candidates with Pivetta, Giolito, Martin and Jansen.

 

[Big Papi's Mango Salsa]

It's an interesting article, and I totally get this perspective if one doesn't believe at all in the "youth" in the organization.

As someone that admittedly doesn't think much of the job that has been done here over the past half decade, I would certainly understand someone taking the perspective of "none of Houck, Whitlock, Winckowski, anyone in AAA are capable MLB starting pitchers" (and I'd even get it if someone wanted to argue that Crawford was a one year wonder last year) as well as someone saying "Abreu, Duran, and Rafaela, nor anyone in AAA are capable MLB starting outfielders" and thus wanting to bring in guys like Ryu, Lorenzen, Soler or whomever.

However, the only of those players listed that will be in their age 23 season or younger next year is Rafaela. So they're not exactly "young." Houck and Whitlock will be 28. Duran will be 27, Winckowski will be 26, Abreu will be 25. The call should be made either to give them a chance this year OR that they're not good enough to depend on as anything more than bullpen pieces in terms of the pitchers / organizational depth / bench players in terms of the bats.

You need to have a clear understanding of what those players are (or are not) at the MLB level sooner than later. The only way I think guys should be brought in on one year deals is if Breslow has already made that call about players in question - which he very well might have, but not outside of that.

 

[Rovin Romine]

It's an interesting article, and I totally get this perspective if one doesn't believe at all in the "youth" in the organization.

As someone that admittedly doesn't think much of the job that has been done here over the past half decade, I would certainly understand someone taking the perspective of "none of Houck, Whitlock, Winckowski, anyone in AAA are capable MLB starting pitchers" (and I'd even get it if someone wanted to argue that Crawford was a one year wonder last year) as well as someone saying "Abreu, Duran, and Rafaela, nor anyone in AAA are capable MLB starting outfielders" and thus wanting to bring in guys like Ryu, Lorenzen, Soler or whomever.

However, the only of those players listed that will be in their age 23 season or younger next year is Rafaela. So they're not exactly "young." Houck and Whitlock will be 28. Duran will be 27, Winckowski will be 26, Abreu will be 25. The call should be made either to give them a chance this year OR that they're not good enough to depend on as anything more than bullpen pieces in terms of the pitchers / organizational depth / bench players in terms of the bats.

You need to have a clear understanding of what those players are (or are not) at the MLB level sooner than later. The only way I think guys should be brought in on one year deals is if Breslow has already made that call about players in question - which he very well might have, but not outside of that.

With the exception of Houck and Dalbec, most of those guys lost a development year in 2020, as there was no minor league baseball.

 

[Big Papi's Mango Salsa]

With the exception of Houck and Dalbec, most of those guys lost a development year in 2020, as there was no minor league baseball.

Sure, I understand this. Same can be said for other teams as well.

Case in point, look at the Orioles (just to name a team in the same division with a ton of prospects) and across the board you have guys up at younger ages, with varying levels of prospect pedigree. Kremer at 26, Hays and Bradish at 25, Rutschman, Mountcastle, Westburg, at 24; Rodriguez at 23, Henderson at 22.

I know that prospects develop at different rates, etc, etc. However my greater point being, since the rest of the team around them isn't particularly strong, you might as well see what these guys have now. Putting it off another year to sign Ryu, Lorenzen and Soler to go 82-80 and having the exact same questions about players next year does no good.

 

[KillerBs]

In my conception of it signing Lorenzen (or his ilk) implies squeezing Mata OR Slaten off the roster and does not take opportunities from Houck, Whitlock, Winck, Crawford etc. A vet in the middle of the bullpen that can log multiple credible innings and spot start, is conducive to protecting these younger arms, I think.

Likewise Soler takes Refsnyder's spot, and to me implies Rafaela to AAA to start the season, but still leaves Abreu and Duran getting somewhere around 3/4 playing time, which should give you a decent sense of what role they may play in the future, if any, without at the same time placing an undue burden on them.

 

[6-5 Sadler]

I know that prospects develop at different rates, etc, etc. However my greater point being, since the rest of the team around them isn't particularly strong, you might as well see what these guys have now. Putting it off another year to sign Ryu, Lorenzen and Soler to go 82-80 and having the exact same questions about players next year does no good.

How many games or innings pitched do you need to make that determination? Take the OF/DH situation. Let’s say we sign Soler so we have 5 players (Soler, Yoshida, Abreu, Duran, and O’Neill) for 4 positions…that’s 648 games or about 130 games started per player. Soler and Yoshi would get a little more, O’Neill a little less but Duran/Abreu would be around 130. This also assumes no injuries but that’s not realistic (looking at you O’Neill).

Edit: KillerBs beat me to it but it’s the same concept. You’re not replacing the youth development games/innings…you’re replacing playing time that would go to the Refsnyders and Matas (or worse Walters)

 

[Big Papi's Mango Salsa]

In my conception of it signing Lorenzen (or his ilk) implies squeezing Mata OR Slaten off the roster and does not take opportunities from Houck, Whitlock, Winck, Crawford etc. A vet in the middle of the bullpen that can log multiple credible innings and spot start, is conducive to protecting these younger arms, I think.

Likewise Soler takes Refsnyder's spot, and to me implies Rafaela to AAA to start the season, but still leaves Abreu and Duran getting somewhere around 3/4 playing time, which should give you a decent sense of what role they may play in the future, if any, without at the same time placing an undue burden on them.

Sure, if you think Lorenzen (or Ryu) would sign for that role, why not I guess. I’d be skeptical of them agreeing to be a swing man. But relative to losing Mata, and a certain level who cares. I’d assume Slaten won’t be the player DFA’ed just because he was acquired by Breslow, but agree about there being a far higher likelihood of recouping some value for “Lorenzen” in July then of Mata being anything.

How many games or innings pitched do you need to make that determination? Take the OF/DH situation. Let’s say we sign Soler so we have 5 players (Soler, Yoshida, Abreu, Duran, and O’Neill) for 4 positions…that’s 648 games or about 130 games started per player. Soler and Yoshi would get a little more, O’Neill a little less but Duran/Abreu would be around 130. This also assumes no injuries but that’s not realistic (looking at you O’Neill).

Edit: KillerBs beat me to it but it’s the same concept. You’re not replacing the youth development games/innings…you’re replacing playing time that would go to the Refsnyders and Matas (or worse Walters)

If we’re agreeing here that Valdez is “just” AAAA organizational filler, again, why not. But he’s had nearly 600PA (599) at the AAA level and will be 25. So if someone isn’t willing to give him a shot in a throw away season, thats fine, but he also shouldn’t be pointed at / relied upon any more than organizational filler.

Either way, it’s really not worth getting worked up over. The only guys I think have much ability to really be a first division starter from the group we‘re talking about are Duran and Rafaela anyway.

Oh, as to the “how much time”, I think situation is as important. Case in point, you’d need to see a ton of Duran and Abreu against same handed pitching, because that is probably their biggest question (well, Duran it could be staying on the field, but facing LHP is certainly something you’d want to get a lot of data on). Which becomes tougher the more pieces added.

Everyone else in this discussion (in my opinion) are bullpen / fungible bench pieces anyway.

 

[Petagine in a Bottle]

How many clearly open rotation spots are there in the league, though? The idea that a player won’t sign with the Sox because we don’t have a clear path to playing time seems silly to me. Guys keep signing with the Dodgers.

Most players who are unsigned right now probably realize they will have to compete for a role. And I’m guessing nearly every player thinks he can win a role on most any team.

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

Maybe it’s semantics but I don’t equate “alive for the final WC spot” with “contending”. They were about 6 games over .500 and 8 games out of the east. Again YMMV. I could buy that they were on the outskirts of contention.

2022 was a far worse offense though. They were under .500, fading fast, and 19 back if the division.

What? That’s not semantics. That’s close to scientific fact. 3 games out is 109% CONTENDING. Seriously??? They played well against good teams and had 4 key players returning. I don’t know what to say but if you don’t call that in contention geez…. Get on some meds

 

[tims4wins]

What? That’s not semantics. That’s close to scientific fact. 3 games out is 109% CONTENDING. Seriously??? They played well against good teams and had 4 key players returning. I don’t know what to say but if you don’t call that in contention geez…. Get on some meds

Yes, they were in contention, for the last playoff spot. They were not, IMO, contending for a championship.

Get on some meds? Seriously?

 

[Rovin Romine]

Sure, I understand this. Same can be said for other teams as well.

Case in point, look at the Orioles (just to name a team in the same division with a ton of prospects) and across the board you have guys up at younger ages, with varying levels of prospect pedigree. Kremer at 26, Hays and Bradish at 25, Rutschman, Mountcastle, Westburg, at 24; Rodriguez at 23, Henderson at 22.

I know that prospects develop at different rates, etc, etc. However my greater point being, since the rest of the team around them isn't particularly strong, you might as well see what these guys have now. Putting it off another year to sign Ryu, Lorenzen and Soler to go 82-80 and having the exact same questions about players next year does no good.

I agree with your general point, and yes, at some point you have to shit or get off the pot.

That said, the team seems to be making a commitment to the "younger" players, which can read as "players that are in their initial window of control," and which includes Bello and Casas and Grissom. The fact that Houck or Abreu may or may not contribute this year isn't going to be some kind of call to wipe the slate clean - either generally, or for any particular player. It's always going to be on a case by case basis.

 

[jteders1]

Yes, they were in contention, for the last playoff spot. They were not, IMO, contending for a championship.

Get on some meds? Seriously?

Plus, can we start judging on the actual, you know…results? Nearly every move a GM makes can be defended on some level, but the results are where the rubber meets the road. Bloom looked at the team, and thought this team can make the playoffs, so he holds onto aging vets. They immediately shit the bed. He was wrong and paid the price.

 

[twibnotes]

The current approach would be 10x easier to stomach if we had sold last year and/or the year before at the deadline. What I can’t stand is this straddling of the fence. If you want to build to support a young corps, really do it - don’t stand pat with a medicore team bc you’re three games back (soon to be much further back, which was obvious)

 

[nvalvo]

Plus, can we start judging on the actual, you know…results? Nearly every move a GM makes can be defended on some level, but the results are where the rubber meets the road. Bloom looked at the team, and thought this team can make the playoffs, so he holds onto aging vets. They immediately shit the bed. He was wrong and paid the price.

I would say that there’s a place for ex ante and ex post evaluation. On the one hand, it’s baseball: not all your moves are going to pan out, even moves with good rationales. E.g., the Kluber signing was a disaster, but signing the pitcher with the lowest walk rate the previous season might be a decent idea more often than not. The strategy may have been sound, but the implementation left a lot to be desired; i.e., this particular pitcher, while massively talented, just didn’t have anything left.

On the other hand (as you say), it’s literally a GM/PBO’s job to produce a good roster, and Bloom did that once in four tries. That’s not enough.

 

[lexrageorge]

GM's have sold off assets despite being within striking distance of the wild card. Doing so requires a sober assessment of the capabilities of the roster, and I don't see how any such assessment of either last 2 seasons would result in a GFIN type answer. Bloom should have sold off some players (not just Vazquez), but didn't, and that's on him. He gone.

Agree with Speier that the Sox are missing an opportunity, one which they could exploit whilst still seeing what they have in the Houck's and Whitlock's.

 

[HfxBob]

It certainly appears that Bloom was guilty of some muddled thinking at the last two trade deadlines, not sure whether to buy or sell and for the most part doing neither. Now he's gone and it may well be that muddled approach had a lot to do with it.

The unsettling part for me, though, is that with Bloom out of the picture, the Red Sox front office has issued some of the most muddled and contradictory messaging in the history of messaging, and consequently for me it's hard not to suspect that Bloom was only a symptom of the problem, and the problem is still very much there.

 

[jteders1]

It certainly appears that Bloom was guilty of some muddled thinking at the last two trade deadlines, not sure whether to buy or sell and for the most part doing neither. Now he's gone and it may well be that muddled approach had a lot to do with it.

The unsettling part for me, though, is that with Bloom out of the picture, the Red Sox front office has issued some of the most muddled and contradictory messaging in the history of messaging, and consequently for me it's hard not to suspect that Bloom was only a symptom of the problem, and the problem is still very much there.

I think this is dead on. The messaging has been mixed at best. In addition, the lack of a coherent plan being shared has left us all wondering what is going on. They really need help in the PR department.

Back to the matter at hand. I agree with Spier's overall thought process but I'm not sure that fits cleanly with this team. They could probably nab a Soler for DH who would be flippable, but as far as another OF'er, I think you pass. At this point, we really need to see what he have in Abreu, Rafaella, and Duran. Signing a vet to take at-bats from them doesn't make sense. Could we get a couple of pitchers on one-year deals? Maybe, but who is could bring us back real value at the deadline?

 

[chawson]

Injured players at the trade deadline:

‘22:
Wacha, Eovaldi, Hill, Kiké Hernandez, Arroyo, J.D. Martinez (80 wRC+ in June-July), Sale, Story

‘23:
Duvall (73 wRC+ from return on 6/9 to 8/1), Sale, Story

We have to remember that there really wasn’t much of an opportunity to sell in ‘22.

Last year, there was Paxton and Turner, though Paxton turned into a pumpkin the first start after the deadline and his velocity was already slipping through July. Turner seems like a missed opportunity, but I think the people upset today that we didn't trade him last summer should really ask themselves if they would have found another pessimistic lens to view it through. If the Sox collapsed (as they did collapse) in August and September, would the narrative have been that Bloom traded the "soul of the team" two summers in a row?

 

[chawson]

I think this is dead on. The messaging has been mixed at best. In addition, the lack of a coherent plan being shared has left us all wondering what is going on. They really need help in the PR department.

Not trying to single you out, but I have no idea why people think this is realistic, necessary or beneficial. I actively do not want to hear an articulated plan from the front office beyond We are trying to win championships.

 

[Petagine in a Bottle]

Not trying to single you out, but I have no idea why people think this is realistic, necessary or beneficial. I actively do not want to hear an articulated plan from the front office beyond We are trying to win championships.

I agree with this. Both Bloom and Breslow (and the organization at large) have taken some heat in the past few years when they’ve been very specific about what kinds of / how many players they plan to acquire, and then not executed on the plan.

 

[lexrageorge]

I agree with this. Both Bloom and Breslow (and the organization at large) have taken some heat in the past few years when they’ve been very specific about what kinds of / how many players they plan to acquire, and then not executed on the plan.

Anyone giving Breslow heat obviously hasn't been paying attention to the actions of team ownership.

 

[joe dokes]

Not trying to single you out, but I have no idea why people think this is realistic, necessary or beneficial. I actively do not want to hear an articulated plan from the front office beyond We are trying to win championships.

I agree with this. I dont need to hear "messaging" or be told what the "plan" is. There's a million ways to win. Do some of them.

 

[HfxBob]

I agree with this. Both Bloom and Breslow (and the organization at large) have taken some heat in the past few years when they’ve been very specific about what kinds of / how many players they plan to acquire, and then not executed on the plan.

OK, but was the problem giving details of the plan, or failing to execute? These details that have been given out have never been as specific as naming the players they're after, or telling us what the payroll budget was. It was always generalized stuff, one might even say Captain Obvious stuff. Nothing that would create a 'competitive disadvantage' - unless someone has specific examples.

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

Yes, they were in contention, for the last playoff spot. They were not, IMO, contending for a championship.

Get on some meds? Seriously?

Apologies. The meds comment was stupid and mean. But in contention for the last playoff spot is in contention for the playoffs. They snuck into the playoffs in '21 and made it to 6 games in the ALCS. The Diamondbacks last season snuck in and made it to the World Series. Being barely out of the last spot any year at the end of July with two months to play and with 4 impact players soon to arrive back from injury is a pretty good spot to be in. Not great, but that's being competitive.
If you want to argue that a clear eyed view of the team last year was obvious that the returning impact players weren't going to play well and the rest of the team was going to collapse, that's fine and a matter of opinion but a team the Sox were last season at the end of July was competing for A PLAYOFF SPOT. I don't blame Bloom's moves and think he should have tried to get Montgomery (and stated as much at the time). I think his lack of moves in '22 on selling was more damning- but even then... a lot of the tradeable assets were damaged goods and/or seriously underperforming and I doubt any returns would have moved the long term needle forward.
I suspect that Breslow is setting the team up more this season for trading assets in hopes that some of the underperforming or lesser valued assets (I'm thinking of guys like Abreu, Valdez, Whitlock, Houck, Masa) could play well up through July and gain some value in potential deadline deals. But then it gets to the point again that if that crew is all playing well... they're likely "competing" for a playoff spot- maybe 3 games out of the last wild card. What if Bello had a hamstring pull in June when they were in the last WC spot and through July they fell out by those 3 games.....but he's expected to return in early August?

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

OK, but was the problem giving details of the plan, or failing to execute? These details that have been given out have never been as specific as naming the players they're after, or telling us what the payroll budget was. It was always generalized stuff, one might even say Captain Obvious stuff. Nothing that would create a 'competitive disadvantage' - unless someone has specific examples.

If it's "Captain Obvious" stuff, why do we need them to say it? Why is it an expectation now when it's never really been a thing they do anyway? I don't recall Theo or Cherington or Dombrowski laying out a plan for the media/fans to see, even if it was just generalized. The most we got from Theo was what he said when he took the job and wanted to created a "player development machine." Dombrowski was a fast mover so he mostly had the job done before we even had a chance to guess what moves he might make. Which I think might be part of the issue now. Things aren't moving as fast (league-wide this winter) and we're left with more time than usual to speculate and guess and frankly, get too attached and wrapped up in our made up scenarios. To the point that we get frustrated with inaction even when inaction, or patience, migth be exactly what is necessary.

 

[HfxBob]

If it's "Captain Obvious" stuff, why do we need them to say it? Why is it an expectation now when it's never really been a thing they do anyway? I don't recall Theo or Cherington or Dombrowski laying out a plan for the media/fans to see, even if it was just generalized. The most we got from Theo was what he said when he took the job and wanted to created a "player development machine." Dombrowski was a fast mover so he mostly had the job done before we even had a chance to guess what moves he might make. Which I think might be part of the issue now. Things aren't moving as fast (league-wide this winter) and we're left with more time than usual to speculate and guess and frankly, get too attached and wrapped up in our made up scenarios. To the point that we get frustrated with inaction even when inaction, or patience, migth be exactly what is necessary.

"Bridge year" came from Theo. When Dombrowski came aboard he said pitching was an obvious need and his actions swiftly backed up the words.

 

[tims4wins]

Apologies. The meds comment was stupid and mean. But in contention for the last playoff spot is in contention for the playoffs. They snuck into the playoffs in '21 and made it to 6 games in the ALCS. The Diamondbacks last season snuck in and made it to the World Series. Being barely out of the last spot any year at the end of July with two months to play and with 4 impact players soon to arrive back from injury is a pretty good spot to be in. Not great, but that's being competitive.
If you want to argue that a clear eyed view of the team last year was obvious that the returning impact players weren't going to play well and the rest of the team was going to collapse, that's fine and a matter of opinion but a team the Sox were last season at the end of July was competing for A PLAYOFF SPOT. I don't blame Bloom's moves and think he should have tried to get Montgomery (and stated as much at the time). I think his lack of moves in '22 on selling was more damning- but even then... a lot of the tradeable assets were damaged goods and/or seriously underperforming and I doubt any returns would have moved the long term needle forward.
I suspect that Breslow is setting the team up more this season for trading assets in hopes that some of the underperforming or lesser valued assets (I'm thinking of guys like Abreu, Valdez, Whitlock, Houck, Masa) could play well up through July and gain some value in potential deadline deals. But then it gets to the point again that if that crew is all playing well... they're likely "competing" for a playoff spot- maybe 3 games out of the last wild card. What if Bello had a hamstring pull in June when they were in the last WC spot and through July they fell out by those 3 games.....but he's expected to return in early August?

Thank you for the apology.

Maybe the system is to blame, in that prior to the 3 WC era, being 3 games out of the 6th spot in the AL was not particularly competitive.

That said, the 3 WC era hasn't stopped other major market teams from trying to build consistent division winners, as opposed to potential wild card teams.

 

[Fishy1]

Thank you for the apology.

Maybe the system is to blame, in that prior to the 3 WC era, being 3 games out of the 6th spot in the AL was not particularly competitive.

That said, the 3 WC era hasn't stopped other major market teams from trying to build consistent division winners, as opposed to potential wild card teams.

I mean, I think the Red Sox did try, it's just that the big deals they signed did almost nothing for them. They signed Sale, Story, and Devers to 200 million + deals, Yoshida for a nearly 100 million dollar deal, they paid nearly twenty million for a closer... But Sale, Story, Yoshida, Jansen, and Devers combined for like 6 WAR last year. That's horrifying.

It's a much different story if those guys combine for 10+ WAR. I'm just saying it's not like they didn't try: they just signed the wrong fellows.

 

[Big Papi's Mango Salsa]

Maybe the system is to blame, in that prior to the 3 WC era, being 3 games out of the 6th spot in the AL was not particularly competitive.

That said, the 3 WC era hasn't stopped other major market teams from trying to build consistent division winners, as opposed to potential wild card teams.

In some ways yes, the system is to blame. It's part of the reason that the MLBPA was actually against adding another playoff team and the owners were so for it. It's really not that difficult to be within a handful of games of 6th place in the league for the bulk of the season, and it takes a special kind of disaster of a year to have fallen off that pace before the trade deadline. So owners can basically take "whatever is left" when fielding a team and claim that they're contending more often than not.

For example, just looking back at last year and a week before the trade deadline, only 4 teams in the AL were not "contending" for the playoff at that time if one uses 5 games as a line of demarcation (Detroit, KC, Oakland and CHW). This year's Red Sox team are highly likely to be within 3 games of WC3 come the end of July - and just to play the game, if they found someone to take all of Yoshida's deal, all of Story's deal and all of Jansen's deal and replaced them with Valdez at DH, Reyes at SS and Whitlock as the closer, they'd probably still be within 3-7 games of that WC3 spot.

As an owner, would you rather be within 1 game of WC3 on July 25th with a $273m payroll (the 2023 Yanks), a $225m payroll (like the 2023 Sox) payroll or within 4 games of it with a $137m payroll (like the 2023 Guardians). Either way, you're contending, right...


Generally though, I do think that it makes more sense to make an actual call every year around the trade deadline if you're on that WC3 border. Either buy aggressively to try and make the playoffs or sell aggressively because you're not extending yourself. The last guy didn't make that call. Hopefully this guy will.

 

[tims4wins]

In some ways yes, the system is to blame. It's part of the reason that the MLBPA was actually against adding another playoff team and the owners were so for it. It's really not that difficult to be within a handful of games of 6th place in the league for the bulk of the season, and it takes a special kind of disaster of a year to have fallen off that pace before the trade deadline. So owners can basically take "whatever is left" when fielding a team and claim that they're contending more often than not.

For example, just looking back at last year and a week before the trade deadline, only 4 teams in the AL were not "contending" for the playoff at that time if one uses 5 games as a line of demarcation (Detroit, KC, Oakland and CHW). This year's Red Sox team are highly likely to be within 3 games of WC3 come the end of July - and just to play the game, if they found someone to take all of Yoshida's deal, all of Story's deal and all of Jansen's deal and replaced them with Valdez at DH, Reyes at SS and Whitlock as the closer, they'd probably still be within 3-7 games of that WC3 spot.

As an owner, would you rather be within 1 game of WC3 on July 25th with a $273m payroll (the 2023 Yanks), a $225m payroll (like the 2023 Sox) payroll or within 4 games of it with a $137m payroll (like the 2023 Guardians). Either way, you're contending, right...


Generally though, I do think that it makes more sense to make an actual call every year around the trade deadline if you're on that WC3 border. Either buy aggressively to try and make the playoffs or sell aggressively because you're not extending yourself. The last guy didn't make that call. Hopefully this guy will.

This is well said.

The only nit I'd pick is that if you're a couple games out of the 3rd WC come the trade deadline, you're (generally) not a true championship contender IMO. I realize that we've seen some mediocre teams get to the WS from that spot. Perhaps it is a case by case discussion - in other words, some teams that are around that line of demarcation might have the right roster pieces whereby you'd give them a reasonable chance to make a playoff run (e.g., they have a frontline starter or two, a good bullpen, a couple star bats - whatever your criteria); whereas some teams you could look at and say snowball's chance in hell.

 

[Jimbodandy]

GM's have sold off assets despite being within striking distance of the wild card. Doing so requires a sober assessment of the capabilities of the roster, and I don't see how any such assessment of either last 2 seasons would result in a GFIN type answer. Bloom should have sold off some players (not just Vazquez), but didn't, and that's on him. He gone.

Agree with Speier that the Sox are missing an opportunity, one which they could exploit whilst still seeing what they have in the Houck's and Whitlock's.

While I agree completely with the bolded, I think that the jury is out on the underlined.

Bloom's bosses can leak/proclaim that it was Bloom's lack of coherent deadline strategy, and that's fine. But looking at this offseason that we're in right now, what's the damn strategy? Full throttle? We got below the tax and dropped to 13th in payroll last year with the understanding that the repeater penalties are punitive in both cash and other things. But now that we're under, we're not spending? We're full throttle, but we're going to stay below the line?

I see nothing to indicate that Bloom being gone has resulted in a coherent strategy now. "Full throttle" and "I expect payroll to be lower than last year" both came from Bloom's former bosses over the span of a few weeks, long after Bloom was gone. They're both still ringing in our ears. It's disheartening.