A Realistic View at 2020: Part I

[Elktonnick]

But if they're getting lowball offers there's not much sense taking them.

 

Maybe Bloom is asking too much, if the rumor about asking prospects for Price is true.

 

I think they are more than just rumors. Bloom traded Price when he was with Tampa so he isn't exactly President of the David Price fan club (for that matter who is?) More importantly, however, Bloom's reputation is built on player development. I think that's one of the reasons he was so attractive to John Henry. Trading Price for prospects would allow Bloom to be Bloom. At least that would be my guess.

[notin]

I think they are more than just rumors. Bloom traded Price when he was with Tampa so he isn't exactly President of the David Price fan club (for that matter who is?) More importantly, however, Bloom's reputation is built on player development. I think that's one of the reasons he was so attractive to John Henry. Trading Price for prospects would allow Bloom to be Bloom. At least that would be my guess.

 

 

We’ve had other GMs who were brought in for player development, like Dan Duquette. But we also learned that sometimes when those low budget guys do get a budget, they get a bit overwhelmed by it...

[jacksonianmarch]

Maybe he is. But standing pat is dumb. If he is realizing that he cannot shed payroll, then what’s the harm in going right up to the final line? The penalty for next year would be 50% no matter if the Sox are over by $1 or $39.9 mil

[Bellhorn04]

Maybe he is. But standing pat is dumb. If he is realizing that he cannot shed payroll, then what’s the harm in going right up to the final line? The penalty for next year would be 50% no matter if the Sox are over by $1 or $39.9 mil

 

Because going over by $39.9 million costs John Henry $30 million more than going over by $20 million? That would be one reason.

[moonslav59]

Maybe he is. But standing pat is dumb. If he is realizing that he cannot shed payroll, then what’s the harm in going right up to the final line? The penalty for next year would be 50% no matter if the Sox are over by $1 or $39.9 mil

 

The answer is obvious: $19.9M vs $500K in taxes for a team likely to not make the playoffs.

 

That's $59.8M total ($39.9+ !9.9).

 

I still think we reset.

[Elktonnick]

We’ve had other GMs who were brought in for player development, like Dan Duquette. But we also learned that sometimes when those low budget guys do get a budget, they get a bit overwhelmed by it...

Dan Duquette was the ancien regime. Besides he did not do a bad job in Baltimore working for the worst owner in baseball.

[Bellhorn04]

The answer is obvious: $19.9M vs $500K in taxes for a team likely to not make the playoffs.

 

That's $59.8M total ($39.9+ !9.9).

 

I still think we reset.

 

It's getting harder and harder to see how they can re-set and be competitive this year.

[jacksonianmarch]

Because going over by $39.9 million costs John Henry $30 million more than going over by $20 million? That would be one reason.

 

Henry cannot have a PR nightmare here. He doesn’t like being at the bottom of the totem pole in boston without some hope. If he puts out a clearly substandard team due to financial concerns and then didn’t reset because nobody would bite, then what has he accomplished? If you reset, you reset. Make that goal #1 and get it done. In doing so, you need the replacements for the guys you move away. As the days get slightly longer but far colder, the low cost options dry up and you’re eventually left with minor leaguers

[Bellhorn04]

Henry cannot have a PR nightmare here. He doesn’t like being at the bottom of the totem pole in boston without some hope. If he puts out a clearly substandard team due to financial concerns and then didn’t reset because nobody would bite, then what has he accomplished? If you reset, you reset. Make that goal #1 and get it done. In doing so, you need the replacements for the guys you move away. As the days get slightly longer but far colder, the low cost options dry up and you’re eventually left with minor leaguers

 

I don't totally disagree, but it's pretty obvious at this point they're not going to increase payroll. Trying to be realistic here. Best case scenario for Sox fans who want them to go for it is that they virtually stand pat. That would give a shadow of hope for a Wild Card spot at least.

[Elktonnick]

I don't totally disagree, but it's pretty obvious at this point they're not going to increase payroll. Trying to be realistic here. Best case scenario for Sox fans who want them to go for it is that they virtually stand pat. That would give a shadow of hope for a Wild Card spot at least.

 

It all depends on how they start the year. The question of a so called reset is a process that will continue until the trade deadline.

[jacksonianmarch]

If you’re gonna reset, you reset then pick up the pieces with cheaper options so you don’t have a completely barren team. Let’s say the Sox deal Price, what would they replace him with? Let’s say they move Eovaldi? Same question. You’re risking running a team out there on day 1 before season tix are rolled out that is clearly substandard and very likely to get far, far worse. It’s a PR disaster

[notin]

If you’re gonna reset, you reset then pick up the pieces with cheaper options so you don’t have a completely barren team. Let’s say the Sox deal Price, what would they replace him with? Let’s say they move Eovaldi? Same question. You’re risking running a team out there on day 1 before season tix are rolled out that is clearly substandard and very likely to get far, far worse. It’s a PR disaster

 

That’s why you trade Eovaldi; you need to replace him anyway...

[Elktonnick]

If you’re gonna reset, you reset then pick up the pieces with cheaper options so you don’t have a completely barren team. Let’s say the Sox deal Price, what would they replace him with? Let’s say they move Eovaldi? Same question. You’re risking running a team out there on day 1 before season tix are rolled out that is clearly substandard and very likely to get far, far worse. It’s a PR disaster

 

It is gross overstatement to call the red sox a completely barren team that is clearly substandard. They may not be where I would want them to be but you imply they are worse then the Orioles.

[harmony]

Posts like this are worse than no posts at all.

 

Note: when you say 'probably', adding 'or not' is redundant.

The intentional redundancy was a humble acknowledgement that it’s just one fan’s speculation.

 

Or not.

 

Thank you for the feedback.

[Bellhorn04]

The intentional redundancy was a humble acknowledgement that it’s just one fan’s speculation.

 

Or not.

 

Thank you for the feedback.

 

You can eliminate the redundancy by saying 'might have', like most people do. Just trying to help.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

The intention is to reset, not rebuild. Trading a high-priced pitcher and replacing him with a cheaper option will not eliminate the Red Sox from contending in 2020. And I refuse to believe any fans -- even posters who say they care more about future prospects (pun intended) -- don't want Boston to try to make the playoffs in the coming year.

 

The Sox young core of position players is intact and as good as anyone else's in the game. It really wouldn't be much of a stretch if someone like Benintendi rebounds and someone like Betts (in his walk year) plays again like an MVP.

 

Maybe the only changes will be different bench players and the development of younger arms, from a combination of internal promotions and low-key acquisitions. It makes for a boring offseason, but there's no way a team with Devers, Bogie, Betts, JD, Vaz and Beni is going to suck, because their established starting pitchers -- the majority of whom were injured last season -- aren't all going to be worse than 2019... when they still helped Boston post a winning record.

[jad]

I think I have completely lost the distinction between "reset" and "rebuild," since they can mean entirely different things, depending on the basis of the metaphor.

[Elktonnick]

I think I have completely lost the distinction between "reset" and "rebuild," since they can mean entirely different things, depending on the basis of the metaphor.

I take reset to mean what happens to a team that gets below the lux tax. Once that happens the penalties reset.

[jad]

I take reset to mean what happens to a team that gets below the lux tax. Once that happens the penalties reset.

 

Ah. Well that makes complete sense, since it comes from MLB's own description of the luxury tax. Thus: "an effort to get below the LT and thus 'reset' the clock on penalties." That would thus have no necessary relation to how you choose to do that--small adjustments in personnel or completely blowing up the team--an entirely different question. (I wonder whether everyone is using it in this sense.)

[Nick]

Reminder....

 

Luxury tax is determined at year end. That's ten months from now. Why the panic? We can get rid of Mookie and about $8M at trade deadline, no? Surely we can get a comparable 4th round draft pick in a trade for Mookie.

Edited December 29, 2019 by Nick

[Bellhorn04]

Reminder....

 

Luxury tax is determined at year end. That's ten months from now. Why the panic? We can get rid of Mookie and about $8M at trade deadline, no? Surely we can get a comparable 4th round draft pick in a trade for Mookie.

 

That's absolutely correct, and I for one am not panicking, but...

 

Cot's has us at 18.5 mill over the first threshold right now, and other payroll estimators have us even higher than that. And we haven't done anything about the bullpen or first base.

[a700hitter]

Quick Hits: Cishek, Red Sox, Cubs, Guardians

 

December 29th, 2019 at 10:38am CST • By Anthony Franco

We’ll highlight a couple notes from around the league to kick off Sunday morning.

 

• Veteran reliever Steve Cishek, a Cape Cod native, “would like” to sign with the Red Sox, hears Peter Gammons of the Athletic (Twitter link). Cishek is among the top relief arms remaining in a generally weak free agent class for late-game options. The 33-year-old submariner compiled a dazzling 2.55 ERA in 134.1 innings over the last two years with the Cubs. However, his age and a pedestrian combination of strikeouts (24.3%) and walks (10.3%) over that time figure to tamp down his market. The MLBTR staff forecast a modest two-year, $10MM deal for Cishek at the start of the offseason.
  

[notin]

That's absolutely correct, and I for one am not panicking, but...

 

Cot's has us at 18.5 mill over the first threshold right now, and other payroll estimators have us even higher than that. And we haven't done anything about the bullpen or first base.

 

 

Let’s say we start the season with Chavis at 1b. And the bullpen has Barnes, Hembree, Walden, Hernandez, Taylor, Workman and two others (Velasquez? Brasier? Brewer? Osich? Weber?). Would those be horrible situations?

[a700hitter]

Let’s say we start the season with Chavis at 1b. And the bullpen has Barnes, Hembree, Walden, Hernandez, Taylor, Workman and two others (Velasquez? Brasier? Brewer? Osich? Weber?). Would those be horrible situations?

What do you think?

[notin]

What do you think?

 

 

The bullpen wasn’t a huge problem last year given what they were asked to do, but the one guy who bothered me was Barnes and his complete ineffectiveness on consecutive days. Workman actually was very effective in the closer role.

 

I have mixed emotions about Chavis, and I actually hope they can get a LHH compliment. But it will probably be limited to Matt Adams or (ugh) Greg Bird due to the budget limits...

[Bellhorn04]

The bullpen wasn’t a huge problem last year given what they were asked to do, but the one guy who bothered me was Barnes and his complete ineffectiveness on consecutive days. Workman actually was very effective in the closer role.

 

I have mixed emotions about Chavis, and I actually hope they can get a LHH compliment. But it will probably be limited to Matt Adams or (ugh) Greg Bird due to the budget limits...

 

The main point I was trying to make to Nick is that even if we do nothing about the pen or first base, we're at least 18.5 mill over the limit. So trading Mookie at the deadline wouldn't come close to getting us under.

[notin]

The main point I was trying to make to Nick is that even if we do nothing about the pen or first base, we're at least 18.5 mill over the limit. So trading Mookie at the deadline wouldn't come close to getting us under.

 

No it won’t. Unless the Sox deal Bradley without taking money back.

[Bellhorn04]

I and others said it should be an interesting offseason for us. It's been anything but to this point.

[notin]

I and others said it should be an interesting offseason for us. It's been anything but to this point.

 

 

When was the last interesting off-season?

[Bellhorn04]

When was the last interesting off-season?

 

Last year's was a snooze, but compared to this one it was a festival of fun. At least there were the signings of Eovaldi and Pearce to keep us feelin' good. And the mystery of what DD was doing about the pen.