Fire Bloom .

[Bellhorn04]

The essential fact of the matter is that Bloom chose to protect 2 over-30, mediocre at best, eminently fungible relievers in Ort and Brasier, over 2 mid-twenties pitchers with some potential.

 

For a team that's obviously setting its sights beyond 2023.

[dgalehouse]

The idea of Rule 5 was to prevent teams from keeping prospects in the minors indefinitely. Give the kids a chance to reach the bigs. As with many things, too much tinkering causes it to get convoluted.

[Bobe2]

Exactly. I get it. His name would never be mentioned had he stayed ineligible, until he was returned to us, and maybe it would have gotten a slight mention.

 

Nobody expected Song to be eligible in 2023. Maybe DD did his homework and figured something out that Bloom & Co. didn't, but there was no indication he would become eligible, until he did, and now a bunch of posters are trying to blame Bloom for not knowing the unknowable.

 

Nobody thought he should have been protected, yet Bloom was dumb for not doing it. That doesn't ring hollow, to you?

 

Look, I'll be wondering "what if," too, like everyone else, if Song goes on to b e just half of what Whitlock has given us, but I can't see blaming Bloom & Co. for it.

 

This was Songs first year in rule 5 if Bloom had classified him as military he would have been exempt from rule 5 draft

[notin]

This was Songs first year in rule 5 if Bloom had classified him as military he would have been exempt from rule 5 draft

 

Incorrect. This has been explained before.

 

https://www.soxprospects.com/players/song-noah.htm

 

Please look at his team for 2021 and 2022.

 

This wasn’t an oversight. This was another GM taking a chance…

[Bobe2]

Incorrect. This has been explained before.

 

https://www.soxprospects.com/players/song-noah.htm

 

Please look at his team for 2021 and 2022.

 

This wasn’t an oversight. This was another GM taking a chance…

 

Why wasn’t he classified as military duty in 2023 he should have been he was still in the navy

[notin]

Why wasn’t he classified as military duty in 2023 he should have been he was still in the navy

 

He was. But there are no stats for that season yet for obvious reasons.

 

This wasn’t an oversight by Bloom and the Military List isn’t some form of protection from the Rule 5 draft.

 

If the Military List did provide exception from the Rule 5 draft, Song wouldn’t have even been eligible for 4 more years…

Edited February 25, 2023 by notin

[moonslav59]

So you're saying hindsight calls are the only calls that count?

 

No. Of course not. I think the fact that not a single person in the universe would have protected Song, knowing the circumstances as they were in December makes criticism ring hollow, to me. I didn't say it "doesn't count," and I even said I'd be thinking "what if..." if Song ever amounts to anything, but I can't blame Bloom & Co. for doing what everyone would have done.

 

Plus, all the hindsight blaming isn't even based on anything Song has done on the mound, yet.

[moonslav59]

The essential fact of the matter is that Bloom chose to protect 2 over-30, mediocre at best, eminently fungible relievers in Ort and Brasier, over 2 mid-twenties pitchers with some potential.

 

For a team that's obviously setting its sights beyond 2023.

 

Another essential fact is that had he cleared 2 slots by dumping Ort and Brasier, he would have and should have protected 5-6 guys before Song.

[Bellhorn04]

No. Of course not. I think the fact that not a single person in the universe would have protected Song, knowing the circumstances as they were in December makes criticism ring hollow, to me. I didn't say it "doesn't count," and I even said I'd be thinking "what if..." if Song ever amounts to anything, but I can't blame Bloom & Co. for doing what everyone would have done.

 

Plus, all the hindsight blaming isn't even based on anything Song has done on the mound, yet.

 

But this is not hindsight blaming. It's the opposite. As soon as the Rule 5 draft was over on December 7, notin said it was a poor job by Bloom losing Ward, Politi and Song. I said it was very surprising losing Ward and Song. 5 Gloves said are you effing kidding me, we lost 3 young pitchers?

[moonslav59]

But this is not hindsight blaming. It's the opposite. As soon as the Rule 5 draft was over on December 7, notin said it was a poor job by Bloom losing Ward, Politi and Song. I said it was very surprising losing Ward and Song. 5 Gloves said are you effing kidding me, we lost 3 young pitchers?

 

None of them mentioned protecting Song before, so how is not hindsight?

 

Yes, it was "surprising" losing Song (not Ward,) because nobody thought the guy would even be allowed on the mound.

 

It did suck "losing 3 young pitchers," but Song was the only one of the 3 that was shocking.

 

I understand your point, but if a pick was so shocking, it's hard for me to think Bloom should have foresaw the chance of it happening.

 

I'm not even sure that had we known Song would be eligible, it would have been the right move to protect him over some others. I might have mentioned him a couple times, had I thought there was a chance he could pitch in 2023, but it still would not have been a non-brainer decision.

[Bellhorn04]

None of them mentioned protecting Song before, so how is not hindsight?

 

Let me try to answer this from my own personal experience.

 

I did not know that Song and Ward were being left unprotected in the Rule 5 draft until after the draft took place - until notin's post that I've quoted. That's the simple truth.

 

The next question seems to be: should I have known?

 

All I can say to that is, nobody here told me. As far as I can tell, there was not one single mention on this forum of the draft and who we were and weren't protecting. There was no separate thread on it. mvp didn't start the '2023 Prospects' thread until after the draft. And I've just combed through the 'Realistic Look at 2023 Part 1' thread for a couple of weeks before the draft, and I can find absolute zero about it. All we were talking about was free agent signings.

 

Therefore, since I didn't say anything until I knew about it, I vehemently deny that it's a hindsight call. It's no more of a hindsight call than when you said the Bradley trade was a head-scratcher after it was announced.

Edited February 26, 2023 by Bellhorn04

[moonslav59]

Let me try to answer this from my own personal experience.

 

I did not know that Song and Ward were being left unprotected in the Rule 5 draft until after the draft took place - until notin's post that I've quoted. That's the simple truth.

 

The next question seems to be: should I have known?

 

All I can say to that is, nobody here told me. As far as I can tell, there was not one single mention on this forum of the draft and who we were and weren't protecting. There was no separate thread on it. mvp didn't start the '2023 Prospects' thread until after the draft. And I've just combed through the 'Realistic Look at 2023 Part 1' thread for a couple of weeks before the draft, and I can find absolute zero about it. All we were talking about was free agent signings.

 

Therefore, since I didn't say anything until I knew about it, I vehemently deny that it's a hindsight call. It's no more of a hindsight call than when you said the Bradley trade was a head-scratcher after it was announced.

 

I get that. My point was had someone taken 5 minutes, back in December to briefly explain to you and others how the Rule 5 draft works and why certain players are protected or left unprotected, even if very talented or promising, I do believe not a single person would have said, "We should protect Song." Most knew he was in the military and ineligible to play or would have been filled in on that fact during said discussion, and like everyone else who follows this type of thing would have written his protection off very early in the analysis due to his ineligible to play status.

 

No, technically, it's not hindsight bashing since you and others had no opinion in foresight, but to me it is, because of what I just opined.

 

This whole discussion may end up being moot or silly, if Song amounts to nothing special, which actually has a high likelihood of happening.

 

Had anyone else been protected by opening up slots now held by Ort and Brasier, they would have been TWard and Politi, not Song.

 

The weirdest call was actually Hamilton, who was mentioned mostly in passing, or not at all by everyone. I think letting Downs go and the Story injury created a high need for middle IF depth, and the new value being placed on speed led to his surprising protection. I suppose one could argue TWard for Ort, Politi for Ort and Song for Hamilton, but IMO, everyone, including those "not in the know" would have chosen others, like Wallace, Paulino, Wikelman, Bonaci, Cottam or Scott.

 

I've gone back and read several articles on who the Sox protected or should protect, before the draft, and nobody even mentioned Song.

[notin]

Hindsight or not, these situations are far from resolved…

[moonslav59]

He was. But there are no stats for that season yet for obvious reasons.

 

This wasn’t an oversight by Bloom and the Military List isn’t some form of protection from the Rule 5 draft.

 

If the Military List did provide exception from the Rule 5 draft, Song wouldn’t have even been eligible for 4 more years…

 

I just found this from blogging the Red Sox...

 

According to Baseball America, the Red Sox could have added Song to their 40-man roster then placed him on the military service list, which would have made him ineligible for the Rule 5 Draft. By doing that, though, they would have been required to immediately add Song to the 40-man roster once he was eligible to pitch again.

 

Bloom, for his part, explained why the Red Sox elected to not protect Song when speaking with reporters (including MassLive.com’s Chris Cotillo) at the conclusion of the Rule 5 Draft.

 

“Anytime you leave somebody unprotected, there’s always a chance they get picked,” Bloom said. “He’s a high-profile guy for a reason. Obviously, such a unique situation. You don’t ever want to lose anybody. Given his situation, we felt that when he returns from his commitment, being on the 40-man roster would not be an ideal situation to have. That’s a risk we were willing to take.”

 

It does appear Bebe made a decent point, and the Sox could have protected him and kicked the can down the road another year, and if he became eligible, they could have traded him, or DFA'd him, then. He would not have needed a 40 man roster slot until eligible, which happened sooner than expected. It appears they still did not want him on the 40, even if this happened, but you have to think they could have traded him for something.

 

One GM took him knowing he had to keep him on the 26. It's likely he and other GMs would have jumped at the chance to get him with only 40 man roster requirements, so maybe Bloom did err, afterall. I wasn't aware that was an option, until reading this.

[notin]

The essential fact of the matter is that Bloom chose to protect 2 over-30, mediocre at best, eminently fungible relievers in Ort and Brasier, over 2 mid-twenties pitchers with some potential.

 

For a team that's obviously setting its sights beyond 2023.

 

 

Entirely possible the Sox FO only sees the potential to be Fungibles in Ward and Song…

[Bellhorn04]

I get that. My point was had someone taken 5 minutes, back in December to briefly explain to you and others how the Rule 5 draft works and why certain players are protected or left unprotected, even if very talented or promising, I do believe not a single person would have said, "We should protect Song." Most knew he was in the military and ineligible to play or would have been filled in on that fact during said discussion, and like everyone else who follows this type of thing would have written his protection off very early in the analysis due to his ineligible to play status.

 

That's pure assumption on your part.

 

I believe that Song has petitioned the navy to be allowed to play several times. It's not really a shock that they would eventually relent and give him permission.

[Bellhorn04]

Entirely possible the Sox FO only sees the potential to be Fungibles in Ward and Song…

 

I guess so.

[moonslav59]

That's pure assumption on your part.

 

I believe that Song has petitioned the navy to be allowed to play several times. It's not really a shock that they would eventually relent and give him permission.

 

There was always a chance his status would change, but nobody expected it to happen, and that is why his name was not even mentioned by many sites, including SPs.

 

The last quote I posted from Bloom implies they would not have wanted to add him to the 40, even if he became eligible over the next year (starting in December,)

 

Not seeing the trade value seems like a mistake. The could have added him, immediately put him on military leave to keep a 40 man roster slot open, and then trade him, if he ever became eligible.

[notin]

When we got Whitlock, he had pitched 2 innings above AA ball in his career, and hadn't pitched at all in nearly 2 seasons.

 

How'd that work out for us? Anybody remember?

 

Before we go further down the path of finding pitchers with prolonged inactivity and thinking those situations are comparable to Song, bear in mind Noah Song has a career high in IP of SEVENTEEN. Whitlock and anyone else pitched much more.

 

DD is well aware and certainly should guess that 17 IP in low A ball might not be the best warmup for a full season in MLB. He also can’t bury Song on the IL for half a year, because Song’s biggest flaw is inactivity and you don’t cure that with more inactivity.

 

If Song shows up topping out at 87mph, he will be sent back and the entire scenario only costs Philly less than one game’s worth of Trea Turner salary. If he is impressive enough for Philly to want him, then notorious prospect unloaded DD should do the smart thing, and trade for Song, allowing him to option Song to the minors. Given its DD (and a freakishly shallow Philly farm system), safe to assume everyone except Andrew Painter and Mick Abel are available…

[Bellhorn04]

There was always a chance his status would change, but nobody expected it to happen, and that is why his name was not even mentioned by many sites, including SPs.

 

Did nobody even think it was a possibility, moon? If that's the case, well, they were kind of wrong, wouldn't you say?

[Bellhorn04]

Before we go further down the path of finding pitchers with prolonged inactivity and thinking those situations are comparable to Song, bear in mind Noah Song has a career high in IP of SEVENTEEN. Whitlock and anyone else pitched much more.

 

DD is well aware and certainly should guess that 17 IP in low A ball might not be the best warmup for a full season in MLB. He also can’t bury Song on the IL for half a year, because Song’s biggest flaw is inactivity and you don’t cure that with more inactivity.

 

If Song shows up topping out at 87mph, he will be sent back and the entire scenario only costs Philly less than one game’s worth of Trea Turner salary. If he is impressive enough for Philly to want him, then notorious prospect unloaded DD should do the smart thing, and trade for Song, allowing him to option Song to the minors. Given its DD (and a freakishly shallow Philly farm system), safe to assume everyone except Andrew Painter and Mick Abel are available…

 

There was a piece in The Athletic suggesting that the Phils might be able to put Song on the IL at the start of the season if it's determined he's not in MLB shape yet...

[notin]

There was always a chance his status would change, but nobody expected it to happen, and that is why his name was not even mentioned by many sites, including SPs.

 

The last quote I posted from Bloom implies they would not have wanted to add him to the 40, even if he became eligible over the next year (starting in December,)

 

Not seeing the trade value seems like a mistake. The could have added him, immediately put him on military leave to keep a 40 man roster slot open, and then trade him, if he ever became eligible.

 

Does the Military List operate that way? Song has been on the Military Lust since 2021, but was never added to the 40 man roster. Why not do it if he didn’t occupy a space on the 40 man anyway?

[moonslav59]

Entirely possible the Sox FO only sees the potential to be Fungibles in Ward and Song…

 

They knew more about TWard and Politi than anyone else, one would think, so maybe they saw- much less promise than some other team's scouts and GMs, but Song was such a unique case, it's hard to think they gave up on his "promise."

 

DD is quoted as saying we felt Song was the best pitcher in the draft, when he was selected by the Sox. Maybe Bloom & Co. never shared that belief or promise.

 

Let's wait and see, if that was a mistake, or not.

 

Of all the 3 pitchers we lost to Rule 5, I'm guessing Song has the best chance to make an impact, but it might be 2-3+ years from now, and for another team altogether.

 

I liked TWard and Politi, and certainly more than Brasier, Ort and Hamilton. I even liked Wallace and Wikelman more than those 3, but this Rule 5 draft is indeed a guessing game, in large part.

 

If Ward or Politi due well, it will be a much clearer mistake on Bloom and his staff's behalf. They had all the time in the world to evaluate their skill level and progress.

[moonslav59]

Did nobody even think it was a possibility, moon? If that's the case, well, they were kind of wrong, wouldn't you say?

 

Yes, for all the reasons I mentioned.

 

It's hard to imagine a single person, except DD, thinking his eligibility status would or probably would change between protection day and opening day or that even a slight chance made him worth grabbing )or protecting, in the Sox case.) The odds were very slim. Then, on top of that, skilled players are left unprotected by large numbers , per team, every year, because they are so far from the majors, nobody would keep a slot on the 26 for them, all year. Even guys like Paulino and Wikelman seem more ML ready than Song was.

 

I find it hard to blame Bloom for not doing something that nobody else would have done.

 

I'm not so sure, even if his status had changed last November, more than just a handful of people would have even mentioned him as a possibility of needing protection. Not pitching for 3 years, IMO, puts Song at a longer shot for ML readiness than even guys like Paulino and Wikelman, let alone guys like Wallace, Politi, Ward, Bonaci and Scott.

[Bellhorn04]

Yes, for all the reasons I mentioned.

 

It's hard to imagine a single person, except DD, thinking his eligibility status would or probably would change between protection day and opening day or that even a slight chance made him worth grabbing )or protecting, in the Sox case.) The odds were very slim.

 

I really have no idea how you can state this so confidently about such an unprecedented situation.

[notin]

There was a piece in The Athletic suggesting that the Phils might be able to put Song on the IL at the start of the season if it's determined he's not in MLB shape yet...

 

Players reinstated from the Military List are given 15 days (not games, days) to get in shape in the minors. So Song gets 15 days to get in shape.

[moonslav59]

Does the Military List operate that way? Song has been on the Military Lust since 2021, but was never added to the 40 man roster. Why not do it if he didn’t occupy a space on the 40 man anyway?

 

There was no need to add him to the 40, until he became Rule 5 eligible. In my understanding, based on what Baseball America wrote, once he became Rule 5 eligible, there was now danger of losing him, so they could have added him to the 40 in November, then immediately placed him on military leave, which would have opened up his 40 man slot for Brasier, Ort, Hamilton or Ward or Politi, in theory.

 

They kick the can down the road, and if and when he become eligible, they then have to make a choice to trade, DFA or add him to the 40 and move someone else off it. Seems like doing this would have been the right choice, to me.

[notin]

There was no need to add him to the 40, until he became Rule 5 eligible. In my understanding, based on what Baseball America wrote, once he became Rule 5 eligible, there was now danger of losing him, so they could have added him to the 40 in November, then immediately placed him on military leave, which would have opened up his 40 man slot for Brasier, Ort, Hamilton or Ward or Politi, in theory.

 

They kick the can down the road, and if and when he become eligible, they then have to make a choice to trade, DFA or add him to the 40 and move someone else off it. Seems like doing this would have been the right choice, to me.

 

But once they put him on the Military List, they remove him from the 40 man roster and all it’s protections.

 

Frankly the gamble that no one would draft Song seemed pretty safe. And even now that he was taken, the gamble that he will stick and stay in Philly at least without Sox compensation are also pretty safe…

[moonslav59]

I really have no idea how you can state this so confidently about such an unprecedented situation.

 

I'm very uncertain how anybody would have felt had they known he'd be made eligible.

 

I am very certain, based on reading many articles from all over the place, back in November and early December, nobody thought Song was worth protectings and many didn't even mention him as a long shot. (I will say, many did not mention Hamilton, either, so how in touch are these guys writing these articles, is a point worth bringing up.)

 

I honestly believe that anyone who knows much about baseball, would think a guy who hasn't thrown a pitch in 3 years and has a slight chance, at best, of even being eligible to pitch in 2023 should be chosen to take up a slot on the 40. Maybe I'm wrong, but I find it hard to believe anyone would have said yes, back then.

[moonslav59]

But once they put him on the Military List, they remove him from the 40 man roster and all it’s protections.

 

Are you sure about this?

 

Why wouldn't someone have taken Ted Williams?