A Realistic View at 2023: Part I

[moonslav59]

In the midst of all our griping this offseason, the story about the Red Sox negotiations with Devers at his home in the Dominican was actually pretty cool. Cora was there and when Devers first saw the offer his eyes got really big, according to Cora.

 

Only the negative stories get the attention.

[Bellhorn04]

Instead, the Red Sox were over the tax threshold last year and still didn't have Mookie. If you're a billionaire and going to be over, might as well blast into another orbit, like Cohen.

 

Well, it's a little early to be pronouncing Cohen's spending orgy a brilliant success.

[notin]

Supposition is what we do here. I'm talking about Foulke, Dice-K, Drew, Lackey, Victorino, Price, JDM and others, and that's not even counting Mr. Duquette's prize free agent signing.

 

That's pretty reasonable supposition.

 

I think you and I differ greatly on the definition of a free agent bust…

[moonslav59]

Well, it's a little early to be pronouncing Cohen's spending orgy a brilliant success.

 

Comparing the farm and budget Bloom was given to spend on a "supporting cast," even without Betts and half-Price's contracts on the books to what LA was able to build up since the trade is a joke.

 

Like it's Bloom's fault our budget isn't close to LA's.

 

[Bellhorn04]

I think you and I differ greatly on the definition of a free agent bust…

 

I'm not really sure what your argument is any more. You said "the free agents Henry has shelled maybe a billion or so for over the years haven’t really done much".

 

So I was agreeing with you that most were busts.

[moonslav59]

I'm not really sure what your argument is any more. You said "the free agents Henry has shelled maybe a billion or so for over the years haven’t really done much".

 

So I was agreeing with you that most were busts.

 

It's interesting to look back and see that our best 2 free agent signings of this century were in 2000 (Manny signed by Dan D.) and Jan 22, 2003 (Papi signed for peanuts by Theo.)

 

If you look at all the FA signings over the last 20 years, it's not an good overall look. Manny & Papi were both signed more than 20 years ago!

[notin]

I'm not really sure what your argument is any more. You said "the free agents Henry has shelled maybe a billion or so for over the years haven’t really done much".

 

So I was agreeing with you that most were busts.

 

I don’t mind any free agent signed to a deal of 3 years or less. Anything longer is probably going to stop being an asset and start being a problem…

[moonslav59]

I don’t mind any free agent signed to a deal of 3 years or less. Anything longer is probably going to stop being an asset and start being a problem…

 

The funny thing is, many of our contracts for 4 years or longer, actually stopped being an asset before 4 years or never really were an asset, except for maybe one season.

* extension

 

217/7 Price: Yr1 good (136 ERA+ w DET then 112 in '16), Yr 2 75IP, Yr 3 176 IP 126 ERA+

160/8 Manny: Clear winner until the very end of his contract

154/7* AGon: Yr 1 great season (155 OPS+), then nothing close & traded year 2.

142/7 Crawford: Complete bust from yr 1 (107 OPS+ w TBR & 89 w BOS)

145/5* Sale: Complete bust year 1, 2 & 3

140/6 Story: Injured for a big chunk of yr 1 and yr 2

110/5 JD: Year 1, 2 & 4 were big plusses. 5 was not bad.

110/8 Pedroia: Pretty clearly a bust, although the start was not bad

95/5 Sandoval: Bust from year 1

88/4 HRam: Yr 1 kinda bad, yr 2 good, yr 3-4 pretty bad

83/4 Porcello: Yr 1 Cy Young, yr 3 okay, the rest not so good

83/5 Lackey: Yr 1 Meh, Yr 2 sucked, Yr 3 missed, Yr 4 helped win ring, traded

73/7 Castillo: Bust from the start

70/5 JD Drew: Pretty good, especially yr 2 & 3. 1 & 4 were OK

68/4 Eovaldi: Yr 1 bad, Yr 2 good but COVID, Yr 3 his best, Yr 4 meh

68/4* Beckett: Yr 1 good, Yr 2 bad, yr 3 good, yr 4 bad/traded (beergate)

52/6 (+52 posting fee) Dice-K: Yr 1 okay, 2 very good, then caput

42/4* Youkilis: Yr 1 good, Yr 2 pretty good, Yr 3 not good & traded

40/4 Renteria: Yr 1:Not good then traded

40/4 VTek ('05): Solid contract all the way

36/4 Lugo: Yr 1 not as bad as many think but still... lost a step afterwards

31/4 Damon: Good signing front to back

30/5* Lester: Good extension

26/4 Foulke: Yr 1 was vital, then yuck!

 

 

 

[Bellhorn04]

26/4 Foulke: Yr 1 was vital, then yuck!

 

I figure Foulke's arm was destroyed in the 2004 postseason. In Games 4-6 of the ALCS he threw 100 pitches over 3 nights, in cold weather. Pitchers aren't really supposed to do that.

 

He was worth every penny regardless.

[Bellhorn04]

I don’t mind any free agent signed to a deal of 3 years or less. Anything longer is probably going to stop being an asset and start being a problem…

 

So were you opposed to extending any of Betts, Bogaerts or Raffy?

[notin]

So were you opposed to extending any of Betts, Bogaerts or Raffy?

 

Absolutely not. Not Lester.

 

The big issue with free agents is that the overwhelming bulk of them are stat over 30. So now the Sox are paying players in their 30s for what they did for another team in their 20s…

[Bellhorn04]

Absolutely not. Not Lester.

 

The big issue with free agents is that the overwhelming bulk of them are stat over 30. So now the Sox are paying players in their 30s for what they did for another team in their 20s…

 

OK, so let's look at Betts's deal with the Dodgers.

 

12 years

 

Year 1 started at age 28.5 ended at age 29

Year 2 started at age 29.5 ended at age 30

 

The last 10 of the 12 years are all over age 30.

 

Good signing or bad?

[notin]

OK, so let's look at Betts's deal with the Dodgers.

 

12 years

 

Year 1 started at age 28.5 ended at age 29

Year 2 started at age 29.5 ended at age 30

 

The last 10 of the 12 years are all over age 30.

 

Good signing or bad?

 

I still would have liked it. If the Sox are going to have their future payroll hamstrung, it shouldn’t be by someone who played their best baseball in another uniform…

[Bellhorn04]

I still would have liked it. If the Sox are going to have their future payroll hamstrung, it shouldn’t be by someone who played their best baseball in another uniform…

 

That implies it's a bad deal for the Dodgers, but wouldn't have been for the Red Sox.

[notin]

That implies it's a bad deal for the Dodgers, but wouldn't have been for the Red Sox.

 

I don’t care if the Dodgers make bad deals.

 

Do you think it’s a good deal by the Dodgers?

Edited January 29, 2023 by notin

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

 

To me, it's revisionist history to think we could have build a supporting team around Betts on the budgets provided Bloom in 2020, 2021 and 2022.

 

It seems like trading Betts & Price was a given. We'd have wasted 3+ years of Betts and likely not been bad enough to get Mayer in the draft.

 

No one is revising history, just commenting on Bloom's explanation of why he didn't bet big on Mookie.

 

I'm just not buying the excuse that the time is now right to build around Raffy but not Betts, who is still great and better than Devers, and just might be for the next half decade.

 

And what fans consider it a waste to watch their favorite players star for their team in any year? Or would rather have a top pick four levels down still trying to someday make the majors? There may even be some Yankee fans who don't think Judge's '22 season was a waste...

[notin]

No one is revising history, just commenting on Bloom's explanation of why he didn't bet big on Mookie.

 

I'm just not buying the excuse that the time is now right to build around Raffy but not Betts, who is still great and better than Devers, and just might be for the next half decade.

 

And what fans consider it a waste to watch their favorite players star for their team in any year? Or would rather have a top pick four levels down still trying to someday make the majors? There may even be some Yankee fans who don't think Judge's '22 season was a waste...

 

The “time is right” thing (link? I didn’t see it in that article posted by Bobe) smacks of Politispeak. Bottom line was the Betts ship sailed, and the Sox were likely only going to be able to retain one of their two remaining stars. To me, there were arguments for and against both of them…

[Nick]

Wow, we're still talking about Betts?

 

It takes two to tangle.....keep believing that it was all Sox.

 

Could've, would've, should've.....time to move past your disappointment.

 

I suggest MLB package for $125. You can still watch Betts.

Edited January 29, 2023 by Nick

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

The “time is right” thing (link? I didn’t see it in that article posted by Bobe) smacks of Politispeak. Bottom line was the Betts ship sailed, and the Sox were likely only going to be able to retain one of their two remaining stars. To me, there were arguments for and against both of them…

 

I think Bloom's speech is quoted a few pages back. But you're right if referring to Bogey and/or Raffy. However, that narrative maybe would've brought down showers of more than boos: tomatoes, beer bottles, spitballs (banned in Boston, but not Springfield)...

 

The wounds from Xander were too raw, so Bloom had to blab about his first year and deciding not to drive off a cliff (his words). Was it a mistake to tell fans there is a worse fate than two last place finishes, as in maybe five years of rebuilding?

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Wow, we're still talking about Betts?

 

It takes two to tangle.....keep believing that it was all Sox.

 

Could've, would've, should've.....time to move past your disappointment.

 

I suggest MLB package for $125. You can still watch Betts.

 

You don't have to, but your CBO was just last week, comparing why it's better to build his team around Raffy, starting now.

[notin]

You don't have to, but your CBO was just last week, comparing why it's better to build his team around Raffy, starting now.

 

Betts is the clear better player today.

 

Betts is signed through 2032. Devers through 2033. Both are owed roughly $300mill between now and then (Devers is owed more due to the extra year.)

 

Which one do you think will be better between now and the end of the deal?

[Bellhorn04]

I don’t care if the Dodgers make bad deals.

 

Do you think it’s a good deal by the Dodgers?

 

Yes.

[notin]

Yes.

 

If extending Betts meant both Bogaerts and Devers walk, are you on board ?

[Bellhorn04]

If extending Betts meant both Bogaerts and Devers walk, are you on board ?

 

Yes.

[notin]

Now do you believe Betts when he says he would have signed his current deal if the Sox had offered it?

[Bellhorn04]

Now do you believe Betts when he says he would have signed his current deal if the Sox had offered it?

 

I don't know whether to believe that or not.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Betts is the clear better player today.

 

Betts is signed through 2032. Devers through 2033. Both are owed roughly $300mill between now and then (Devers is owed more due to the extra year.)

 

Which one do you think will be better between now and the end of the deal?

 

Great question. Assuming the history of longterms and even what experts like Bloom tell us, neither will be as good on the back half. So to me, the real debate is who will be better in the next five years -- especially, since that's the window to build around these stars (Chaim won't even have a job if we're waiting longer).

 

It also depends on criteria. If it's WAR, gotta go with Mookie, the better all-around player. If it's just offensive production over a decade, Raffy might make the most sense, since he's five years younger. But look at injuries: both recently experienced some normal nagging that affected their games or even caused them to miss a few. This is where Devers' age works against him, because he's already having aches and pains...

[notin]

Great question. Assuming the history of longterms and even what experts like Bloom tell us, neither will be as good on the back half. So to me, the real debate is who will be better in the next five years -- especially, since that's the window to build around these stars (Chaim won't even have a job if we're waiting longer).

 

It also depends on criteria. If it's WAR, gotta go with Mookie, the better all-around player. If it's just offensive production over a decade, Raffy might make the most sense, since he's five years younger. But look at injuries: both recently experienced some normal nagging that affected their games or even caused them to miss a few. This is where Devers' age works against him, because he's already having aches and pains...

 

Betts has missed 60 games over the past two years. Devers has missed 27…

[Bellhorn04]

Devers's body type is a bit more concerning. Especially those hammies...

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Betts has missed 60 games over the past two years. Devers has missed 27…

 

Raffy didn't look so good playing on a bad hammy in the second half of '22.