The 2021-2022 Offseason Thread

[moonslav59]

And the only reason I disagree with that is that we just came within spitting distance of a World Series appearance. i think it's OK to take some risks and see if we can build on that rather than trying to forget what happened this year.

 

Also while i don't disagree with you about the so called "arms rate" but I don't think it's mutually exclusive with building speed into the lineup. Again, this isn't the royals. We can do two things.

 

My problem with your idea is not about adding speed or not, it's about spending precious resources at 3B rather than a higher need area. If we can get a speedster leadoff hitter that plays 2B or OF, then I'll be more on board.

 

My position is and almost always is we need to add pitching, pitching, pitching.

 

Quality over quantity.

 

To me, we only need to bring back Iggy, and I'll be okay with the everyday players.

 

I'd like to see our defense improve, but it might be too complicated to do it, this winter.

[notin]

That was my point, about the Sox not having anyone like Arozarena, who scores from first on a liner over shortstop. I even mentioned it before the ALDS, when comparing the contestants.

 

To Dojii's point, none of the top four fastest Red Sox on this list were regulars in the postseason (the top three weren't even on the roster).

 

As for Bogaerts' trade market, I'd like think a team willing to deal value for a starting All-Star in his prime would do so with the intention of trying to keep him (somewhere on the diamond)... like LA did, I'm sure, when the concept of acquiring Betts originated. A swap of Bogie and Houck for Ramirez replaces the offense we'd lose but further hammers the club weakness: the arms' race. It would be like treating a strained achilles with a Buck knife.

 

At this point, I'd rather keep Houck, take a draft pick when X leaves, and watch a cheap glove man keep shortstop warm for a couple years until the Mayer Era begins.

 

 

Preferences aside, a swap of Bogaerts and Houck for Ramirez is certainly reasonable, right? It’s not a question of whether or not you would make that exact trade, but whether or not it’s actually a fair deal for a player you described as Mookie-like…

Edited October 28, 2021 by notin

[notin]

Semien hired Boras.

 

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2021/10/marcus-semien-switches-agencies-hires-boras-corporation.html

 

Next!

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Preferences aside, a swap of Bogaerts and Houck for Ramirez is certainly reasonable, right? It’s not a question of whether or not you would make that exact trade, but whether or not it’s actually a fair deal for a player you described as Mookie-like…

 

Yes, reasonable for both clubs: for Bloom, who'd rather trade a star he's losing, instead of giving up coveted controllables; and for the Guardians, who'd receive their trade partner's best young arm.

 

But wait -- that's not a Mookie-like deal, since the Sox got zero pitchers for the best player they ever traded who was about to enter his prime.

[Old Red]

And the only reason I disagree with that is that we just came within spitting distance of a World Series appearance. i think it's OK to take some risks and see if we can build on that rather than trying to forget what happened this year. After all, the long term plan was to GET HERE. We're ALREADY HERE. In that sense Wren has done an amazing job but if you can't switch from "rebuilding" into "contending" when an opportunity falls into your lap... well that's the difference between a good GM and a great GM.

 

Also while i don't disagree with you about the so called "arms race" but I don't think it's mutually exclusive with building speed into the lineup. Again, this isn't the royals. We can do two things.

 

It’s true we came within spitting distance of a World Series appearance, but we also came within spitting distance of not making the playoffs at all. To say the long term plan was to get there is true, but to say we’re already there will depend on what the front office does the next two years. Right now how many of the current roster will be on the roster two years from now with Bogey, and Raffy at the top of the list. It may pretty much be a whole new team two years from now.

[Nick]

Cot's has Sox being $35M under the cap BEFORE $7M for Vaz. If we pick up his option, we'll only have $28M to spend.

 

Devers up to $10M+ and Renfroe up to $7M in arbitrations.

 

Assuming we stay under the cap at 2021 level, not much money there.

[notin]

Yes, reasonable for both clubs: for Bloom, who'd rather trade a star he's losing, instead of giving up coveted controllables; and for the Guardians, who'd receive their trade partner's best young arm.

 

But wait -- that's not a Mookie-like deal, since the Sox got zero pitchers for the best player they ever traded who was about to enter his prime.

 

And the Sox don't get any in this one. Wow, you sure do like to complain about stuff you approve if...

[moonslav59]

Cot's has Sox being $35M under the cap BEFORE $7M for Vaz. If we pick up his option, we'll only have $28M to spend.

 

Devers up to $10M+ and Renfroe up to $7M in arbitrations.

 

Assuming we stay under the cap at 2021 level, not much money there.

 

We could not pay Vazquez’s or trade him, but the $28M you quote is very close to what we had and spent last winter. This assumes we won’t go over the tax line for the third straight season- something we have done before under Henry.

 

The big difference is this: last year we spent all that money on 8 players, and this winter, about the same money will likely be spent on 4-5 players. That should produce more quality but it’s not quarantined. Some of Bloom’s largest contracts were not his best signings.

 

Here’s a look back at last year’s signings and additions:

 

$Millions

10 Richards

8 Ottavino

7 Kike x 2

6 Perez

3.5 Andriese

3 Marwin

1.8 Santana

1.2 Sawamura

-2.8 Beni

[Dojji]

I have no interest whatsoever in trading Tanner Houck by thhe way. If that's the price I'd rather sit tight, go with Iggy and Xander up the middle, and see if we can add some speed off the bench.

 

Do you guys realize that Houck is the first guy we drafted with ace potential that actually got all the way through the development process since Jon Lester and Jonathan Papelbon all the way back in 2005? This has seriously been a major sore area for Boston forever. We've finally got one of those guys I kind of want to use him ourselves.

[notin]

I have no interest whatsoever in trading Tanner Houck by thhe way. If that's the price I'd rather sit tight, go with Iggy and Xander up the middle, and see if we can add some speed off the bench.

 

Do you guys realize that Houck is the first guy we drafted with ace potential that actually got all the way through the development process since Jon Lester and Jonathan Papelbon all the way back in 2005? This has seriously been a major sore area for Boston forever. We've finally got one of those guys I kind of want to use him ourselves.

 

 

Well, Clay Buchholz in 2007. He might be unpopular, but he was also more recent

[moonslav59]

Well, Clay Buchholz in 2007. He might be unpopular, but he was also more recent

 

I’d stack Workman, Barnes, Beeks, Weiland and Wilson up against any other team’s top pitching prospects over the last 14 years!

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

And the Sox don't get any in this one. Wow, you sure do like to complain about stuff you approve if...

 

I answered your question but never said I approved of the deal. I found Jose Ramirez for Bogaerts and Houck on the trade simulator, and feel it's not worth it for Boston to trade a promising young pitcher at this time.

 

I have never approved of trading Mookie, even if he breaks down eventually because he's too short, and Downs becomes an All-Star. As a selfish fan, I really enjoyed watching the best homegrown player in franchise history during my lifetime play for the Red Sox, and loathe the thought of him starring in another uni in another league 3,000 miles away, and someday wearing an LA cap into the Hall of Fame.

[oldtimer]

I answered your question but never said I approved of the deal. I found Jose Ramirez for Bogaerts and Houck on the trade simulator, and feel it's not worth it for Boston to trade a promising young pitcher at this time.

 

I have never approved of trading Mookie, even if he breaks down eventually because he's too short, and Downs becomes an All-Star. As a selfish fan, I really enjoyed watching the best homegrown player in franchise history during my lifetime play for the Red Sox, and loathe the thought of him starring in another uni in another league 3,000 miles away, and someday wearing an LA cap into the Hall of Fame.

 

The 30 mil for Mookie wasn't the problem, it was the length of contract.

[Bellhorn04]

I have never approved of trading Mookie, even if he breaks down eventually because he's too short, and Downs becomes an All-Star. As a selfish fan, I really enjoyed watching the best homegrown player in franchise history during my lifetime play for the Red Sox, and loathe the thought of him starring in another uni in another league 3,000 miles away, and someday wearing an LA cap into the Hall of Fame.

 

"too short" = strawman

 

If Mookie breaks down it'll be the usual suspects of age and injuries.

 

He did miss 40 games this year.

[Bellhorn04]

Here’s a look back at last year’s signings and additions:

 

$Millions

10 Richards

8 Ottavino

7 Kike x 2

6 Perez

3.5 Andriese

3 Marwin

1.8 Santana

1.2 Sawamura

-2.8 Beni

 

Renfroe says hi.

[mvp 78]

Yes, reasonable for both clubs: for Bloom, who'd rather trade a star he's losing, instead of giving up coveted controllables; and for the Guardians, who'd receive their trade partner's best young arm.

 

But wait -- that's not a Mookie-like deal, since the Sox got zero pitchers for the best player they ever traded who was about to enter his prime.

 

1. Mookie was already in his prime.

2. The original trade included Graterol going to the Sox instead of the Dodgers, but Sox didn't like his medicals. Graterol throws an easy 100 mph, but isn't a big k guy. Time will tell if Bloom chose the right guys.

[mvp 78]

I have no interest whatsoever in trading Tanner Houck by thhe way. If that's the price I'd rather sit tight, go with Iggy and Xander up the middle, and see if we can add some speed off the bench.

 

Do you guys realize that Houck is the first guy we drafted with ace potential that actually got all the way through the development process since Jon Lester and Jonathan Papelbon all the way back in 2005? This has seriously been a major sore area for Boston forever. We've finally got one of those guys I kind of want to use him ourselves.

 

Not sure he really has ace potential, but his slider is fun to watch when it's working. With only 2 pitches, it'll be hard for him to turn the lineup over consistently.

[mvp 78]

Well, Clay Buchholz in 2007. He might be unpopular, but he was also more recent

 

True. There has still be a long drought (though Kopech would have been here if he hadn't been dealt).

[mvp 78]

I’d stack Workman, Barnes, Beeks, Weiland and Wilson up against any other team’s top pitching prospects over the last 14 years!

 

Not sure why you are hating on Anthony Renaudo.

[mvp 78]

I answered your question but never said I approved of the deal. I found Jose Ramirez for Bogaerts and Houck on the trade simulator, and feel it's not worth it for Boston to trade a promising young pitcher at this time.

 

I have never approved of trading Mookie, even if he breaks down eventually because he's too short, and Downs becomes an All-Star. As a selfish fan, I really enjoyed watching the best homegrown player in franchise history during my lifetime play for the Red Sox, and loathe the thought of him starring in another uni in another league 3,000 miles away, and someday wearing an LA cap into the Hall of Fame.

 

Height ain't nuthin but a number.

[Bellhorn04]

1. Mookie was already in his prime.

2. The original trade included Graterol going to the Sox instead of the Dodgers, but Sox didn't like his medicals. Graterol throws an easy 100 mph, but isn't a big k guy. Time will tell if Bloom chose the right guys.

 

They got 6 years of Verdugo (3 at minimum pay) for 1 year of Mookie. Some would say that's a win right there.

[mvp 78]

"too short" = strawman

 

If Mookie breaks down it'll be the usual suspects of age and injuries.

 

He did miss 40 games this year.

 

It was because he had to get on a stool to reach the top shelf in his kitchen.

[mvp 78]

Renfroe says hi.

 

Hey. Hit better in the playoffs ok?

[Bellhorn04]

Height ain't nuthin but a number.

 

Yeah, just like age.

 

Some sayings are stoopid.

[moonslav59]

Renfroe says hi.

 

I had him in there, but I must have deleted him.

[moonslav59]

Not sure why you are hating on Anthony Renaudo.

 

I was actually trying my hardest to identify the top 4-5 pitchers with at least a smidgeon of success.

 

I don't think Ranaudo qualifies.

[moonslav59]

They got 6 years of Verdugo (3 at minimum pay) for 1 year of Mookie. Some would say that's a win right there.

 

With the money saved, we also got a lot of nice players. (One could also choose the ones that did not do well, and the trade does not look as good.)

[Bellhorn04]

With the money saved, we also got a lot of nice players. (One could also choose the ones that did not do well, and the trade does not look as good.)

 

Picking and choosing which players we got for the money isn't much of a methodology.

[mvp 78]

I was actually trying my hardest to identify the top 4-5 pitchers with at least a smidgeon of success.

 

I don't think Ranaudo qualifies.

 

Who has more career GS, IP, lower WHIP and ERA in MLB: Weiland or Ranaudo? I'll hang up and listen. Thanks.

[moonslav59]

Picking and choosing which players we got for the money isn't much of a methodology.

 

True, but in general, we spent about $43M, last winter, and about $30 was "freed up" by not signing Betts (minus what Verdugo cost us.)