Fire Bloom .

[Bellhorn04]

Not to even have one person mention his name means nobody should be bitching, now, IMO.

 

Sorry, I think that's total nonsense. This is Talksox, for God's sake. We've got about ten people who post here during the offseason.

[Bellhorn04]

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?

[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?

 

So it’s a clear path to success?

 

The Yankees not protecting Whitlock is an even less extreme example of the Sox not protecting Song. At least Whitlock had some experience/success in AA with the Yankees.

 

In hindsight, do you protect Song over anyone?

Edited February 25, 2023 by notin

[Bellhorn04]

So it’s a clear path to success?

 

The Yankees not protecting Whitlock is an even less extreme example of the Sox not protecting Song. At least Whitlock had some experience/success in AA with the Yankees.

 

In hindsight, do you protect Song over anyone?

 

I certainly wouldn't think twice about protecting him over Ort.

[harmony]

At some point I wonder if Sox fans will realize what we lost in this year’s Rule 5 draft

 

Noah Song - turns 26 in May. 17 career IP in low A ball.

Thad Ward - already 26. 41 career IP above A-ball, all in AA.

Andrew Politi - also 26. Played every minor league level, but only impressed in AAA.

 

Not so sure we lost anything better than Jay Groome here…

We had a Jay Groome sighting on Friday (with new teammate Xander Bogaerts):

 

MLB Gameday: Mariners 3, Padres 2 Final Score (02/24/2023) | MLB.com

WWW.MLB.COM

---

Follow MLB results with FREE box scores, pitch-by-pitch strikezone info, and Statcast data for Mariners vs. Padres at Peoria Stadium

[dgalehouse]

I think people are getting a little carried away here. It seems to make sense that you would find room to protect prospects like Ward and Song. ( I have never seen either one of them pitch , nor would I recognize them if they rang my doorbell. ) But it's not as if the roster is so loaded in talent that you can't make room for them. Now, they probably will never amount to first rate MLB pitchers. As always, time will tell. I think Dombrowski sees Song as a low risk, possibly high reward move. No matter what, it's not the end of the world.

[Bellhorn04]

I think people are getting a little carried away here. It seems to make sense that you would find room to protect prospects like Ward and Song. ( I have never seen either one of them pitch , nor would I recognize them if they rang my doorbell. ) But it's not as if the roster is so loaded in talent that you can't make room for them. Now, they probably will never amount to first rate MLB pitchers. As always, time will tell. I think Dombrowski sees Song as a low risk, possibly high reward move. No matter what, it's not the end of the world.

 

Yes, he's the very definition of a low risk, possibly high reward move for Dombrowski.

[notin]

I certainly wouldn't think twice about protecting him over Ort.

 

I look at it this way. The same people who decided Whitlock was a good Rule 5 selection are the exact same ones who chose not to protect Song and Ward.

 

I’m not wild about Ort, who strikes me as someone who easily clears waivers, but I would not have replaced him with Song, and probably not with Ward (despite my earlier complaints). For me, I’d have kept Frank German over both of them…

[moonslav59]

A bunch of 26yo pitchers with almost no AAA experience and very little AA experience (and even less success). We may get 2 of them back. (Make your pick.)

 

Granted, I’m still not wild about Ort and Hamilton…

 

Had nobody taken Song or Politi, but someone had taken Hamilton, would we be hearing anything, like why did we protect Politi or Song?

[moonslav59]

Sorry, I think that's total nonsense. This is Talksox, for God's sake. We've got about ten people who post here during the offseason.

 

Do you think had explained how Rule 5 works and anyone asked every poster here, if Song should be protected, how many would have said yes? (Especially, if you also explaing Song's predicament.)

 

Now, people are reaching to find another issue to blame Bloom for.

[Bellhorn04]

Do you think had explained how Rule 5 works and anyone asked every poster here, if Song should be protected, how many would have said yes? (Especially, if you also explaing Song's predicament.)

 

Now, people are reaching to find another issue to blame Bloom for.

 

If you go to page 288 of your Realistic Look at 2023 Part 1 thread, you'll see the initial reactions to the results of the Rule 5 Draft. Starting with notin saying "Poor job by Bloom" and going from there.

[moonslav59]

I certainly wouldn't think twice about protecting him over Ort to make room for one more.

 

Ort wasn't Rule 5, but yes, we could have DFA'd him.

 

IMO, had we chosen to DFA Ort and maybe even Brasier, I'd have protected at least 3-4 other players before Song, including Ward and Politi. Koss, Wallace, Fernandez are 3, right off the top of my head.

 

Here's an article that mentions Ward, Politi, Wallace, Koss, Fernandez, Wikelman, Paulino and Bonaci. It even goes on to list 12 other players. No mention of Song, at all.

 

https://bloggingtheredsox.com/2022/11/16/which-prospects-did-the-red-sox-leave-unprotected-from-next-months-rule-5-draft/

 

This one mentions 6 names: No Song and no Hamilton

 

https://www.masslive.com/redsox/2022/11/red-sox-leave-prospect-thaddeus-ward-unprotected-for-decembers-rule-5-draft.html

 

Honestly, nobody would even consider protecting him, except maybe DD.

 

[moonslav59]

If you go to page 288 of your Realistic Look at 2023 Part 1 thread, you'll see the initial reactions to the results of the Rule 5 Draft. Starting with notin saying "Poor job by Bloom" and going from there.

 

Yes, after the fact. Most was about Ward, since nobody expected Song would be eligible.

 

I'm fine with the Ward criticism, but even that is highly speculative, which is fine, I might add. (I do it, too.)

[Bellhorn04]

Ort wasn't Rule 5, but yes, we could have DFA'd him.

 

IMO, had we chosen to DFA Ort and maybe even Brasier, I'd have protected at least 3-4 other players before Song, including Ward and Politi. Koss, Wallace, Fernandez are 3, right off the top of my head.

 

Here's an article that mentions Ward, Politi, Wallace, Koss, Fernandez, Wikelman, Paulino and Bonaci. It even goes on to list 12 other players. No mention of Song, at all.

 

https://bloggingtheredsox.com/2022/11/16/which-prospects-did-the-red-sox-leave-unprotected-from-next-months-rule-5-draft/

 

This one mentions 6 names: No Song and no Hamilton

 

https://www.masslive.com/redsox/2022/11/red-sox-leave-prospect-thaddeus-ward-unprotected-for-decembers-rule-5-draft.html

 

Honestly, nobody would even consider protecting him, except maybe DD.

 

 

Well, it seems possible that some sources overlooked Song altogether because of his unusual status.

[Bellhorn04]

Yes, after the fact.

 

Why, was there a lot of discussion about it here before the fact?

[moonslav59]

Why, was there a lot of discussion about it here before the fact?

 

Well, my whole point was that nobody did or would have considered protecting Song back in December, so after the fact does not relate to my point.

 

How many people bitched about Song after the fact but before we knew he could now play?

 

The bitching was about Ward.

[notin]

If you go to page 288 of your Realistic Look at 2023 Part 1 thread, you'll see the initial reactions to the results of the Rule 5 Draft. Starting with notin saying "Poor job by Bloom" and going from there.

 

I was absolutely very down on it at first. Still not going to call it a good job. But I think in the end it will probably all be inconsequential.

 

Although if someone had selected Ort, I’d smile wider…

[Bellhorn04]

Well, my whole point was that nobody did or would have considered protecting Song back in December, so after the fact does not relate to my point.

 

How many people bitched about Song after the fact but before we knew he could now play?

 

The bitching was about Ward.

 

Song was mentioned too, by notin, by me, by 5Gloves.

[moonslav59]

Well, it seems possible that some sources overlooked Song altogether because of his unusual status.

 

Exactly, as they and we should have and did. That's my whole point.

 

To go back, now, and say "coulda- shoulda" rings hollow, to me. The talk may stop, pretty soon, as well, once Song underperforms or gets put on waivers.

[moonslav59]

Song was mentioned too, by notin, by me, by 5Gloves.

 

As we should have protected him?

 

I'm preetty sure notin was part of the pre-draft talk and he never mentioned Song. (Correct me, if I'm wrong.) I'm not sure about 5G. I'm not sure you ever named names you'd have protected before draft day.

 

I stand corrected on no talk about Song, but was the talk about we shoulda...?

[Bellhorn04]

Exactly, as they and we should have and did. That's my whole point.

 

To go back, now, and say "coulda- shoulda" rings hollow, to me. The talk may stop, pretty soon, as well, once Song underperforms or gets put on waivers.

 

moon, only a true baseball nerd could be expected to know exactly what was going with Noah Song and the Rule 5 draft. The average fan can't be blamed for not being all over it.

 

It wasn't until the media started cluing us all in that Song was going to be pitching for the Phillies this year that most Sox fans took notice - I guarantee it.

[moonslav59]

I was absolutely very down on it at first. Still not going to call it a good job. But I think in the end it will probably all be inconsequential.

 

Although if someone had selected Ort, I’d smile wider…

 

Ort wasn't Rule 5 to be selected.

[notin]

Song was mentioned too, by notin, by me, by 5Gloves.

 

Yeah but not as a loss by me, but rather as a potential trade with Philly…

[notin]

Ort wasn't Rule 5 to be selected.

 

I meant if he had been exposed (as in someone else protected over him), and been selected. Or claimed off waivers. Or sold to the Gypsies…

[moonslav59]

moon, only a true baseball nerd could be expected to know exactly what was going with Noah Song and the Rule 5 draft. The average fan can't be blamed for not being all over it.

 

It wasn't until the media started cluing us all in that Song was going to be pitching for the Phillies this year that most Sox fans took notice - I guarantee it.

 

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.

[Bellhorn04]

I'll also say this:

 

I think if we had a poll before the Rule 5 draft on who we should protect, with a list of 10 names or whatever, Song and Ward would have gotten more votes than Ort and Brasier.

[Bellhorn04]

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

 

You're kind of missing the point. What I'm suggesting is that most fans were in the dark about it, but had they known, they wouldn't have liked it.

[moonslav59]

You're kind of missing the point. What I'm suggesting is that most fans were in the dark about it, but had they known, they wouldn't have liked it.

 

I addressed that point by saying had every fan being polled was given the situation and told about Song and his ineligibility, not a single person would have chose to protect him over Ward, Polit and several others, just like all the sites I provided links to.

 

One site named 12 guys and no Song.

 

I fully understand why people finding out the facts, now, feel upset. I just don't get why, if they bothered to find out the context, they'd blame Bloom & Co. for a mistake that hasn't even been determined is one, yet.

[Bellhorn04]

Here's the string of posts from the aforementioned page 288:

 

Post #4306 notin:

 

Poor job by Bloom and the Sox in the Rule 5 Draft.

 

Didn’t select anyone and lost Ward, Politi, and Song.

 

I do suspect the Phillies to work out a deal for Song. But Ward and Politi are likely just gone…

 

Post #4307 bellhorn04:

 

Ward and Song are two pitchers that have been talked about quite a bit here. Very surprising to lose both.

 

Post #4308 a700hitter (replying to post #4306 notin):

 

But we love his approach and philosophy.

 

Post #4309 5GoldGloves: OF, 75:

 

Let me get this straight: in the Major League Phase of the Rule 5 Draft, of the 15 players picked -- three were pitchers from Boston... the team that finished in last place because of crappy starting pitchers and relievers?

Post #4310 moonslav (replying to post #4309 5GoldGloves: OF, 75):

 

Our farm was better and deeper than we thought.

 

Hope we don't get burned.

[Bellhorn04]

I fully understand why people finding out the facts, now, feel upset. I just don't get why, if they bothered to find out the context, they'd blame Bloom & Co. for a mistake that hasn't even been determined is one, yet.

 

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