Giving up 28 today = We are sellers

[Maxbialystock]

So? If that's what other teams are willing to pay, then that's his market value, risk and all. If the RS economic theory involves not paying market value for players, then we can expect a lot more Bloomian games like last night.

 

Ahem. The Sox are shelling out plenty this year for Bogey, Price, Sale, JDM, Story, Raffy ($11M is still more than chump change), et al. Total salaries around $204M--6th highest freaking team salary package in freaking MLB.

 

Meanwhile, a team that Bloom played a large part in building/structuring for success, absolutely owns the Red Sox because they are solid at every position and, depending on how you count Wander Franco, have no big bucks stars. The Rays are professionals. The Sox this year are not. The Rays salary package is $88M.

 

The Sox clearly can afford to shell out more than $88M. If you read moonslav, he makes the argument they can go well over $200M. But, if you think Raffy is worth $500M for what will almost certainly be no more than 10 good years--thus $50M a year--that means Bloom or someone else needs to be awfully smart about who else they fill those other 25 (or is it 40) roster positions with.

[Maxbialystock]

So? If that's what other teams are willing to pay, then that's his market value, risk and all. If the RS economic theory involves not paying market value for players, then we can expect a lot more Bloomian games like last night.

 

Hey, guess what? We have Bogey and Devers and JDM and Story right now. The Sox also have Sale, Price (part of his salary, anyway), Eovaldi, Whitlock, Wacha, Pivetta, Houck, Schreiber, et al.

 

So, tell me, please, how's this team doing so far? You know, what with them losing 25-4 last night, and 13-2 and 14-1 in the two games before last night.

 

My opinion is that with all those guys and especially your very most favorite Red Sox players ever--Raffy and Bogey--this team stinks to high heaven. READ MY LIPS: IT TAKES AT LEAST 9 GOOD POSITIONS PLAYERS, 5 GOOD STARTERS, AND 7 GOOD RELIEVERS TO HAVE A GOOD TEAM.

 

So, my thought is that, if you want Bloom to keep your favs for whatever salaries they want and to get a bunch more good guys, next year's team salary package could be $300M without breaking a sweat.

[MADSTORK]

Sell

[redsoxrules]

Fangraphs playoff odds: 33%

 

Wait another 10 days. It will much lower than that

[harmony]

Wait another 10 days. It will much lower than that

The Red Sox chances for a postseason berth are down to 28.8 percent as I write at 8:29 pm EST:

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/standings/playoff-odds

[moonslav59]

29% is higher than I expected.

[harmony]

29% is higher than I expected.

538 has the Red Sox at 30 percent:

 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-mlb-predictions/

 

It's been a miserable week for the Red Sox but they're still just three games back of the third and final Wild Card slot (currently held by the falling Seattle Mariners thanks in part to the Sox ineptitude against the Blue Jays;))

[jad]

Ahem. The Sox are shelling out plenty this year for Bogey, Price, Sale, JDM, Story, Raffy ($11M is still more than chump change), et al. Total salaries around $204M--6th highest freaking team salary package in freaking MLB.

 

Meanwhile, a team that Bloom played a large part in building/structuring for success, absolutely owns the Red Sox because they are solid at every position and, depending on how you count Wander Franco, have no big bucks stars. The Rays are professionals. The Sox this year are not. The Rays salary package is $88M.

 

The Sox clearly can afford to shell out more than $88M. If you read moonslav, he makes the argument they can go well over $200M. But, if you think Raffy is worth $500M for what will almost certainly be no more than 10 good years--thus $50M a year--that means Bloom or someone else needs to be awfully smart about who else they fill those other 25 (or is it 40) roster positions with.

 

6th highest salary package. So? I guess your point is "Just look at LAD. That's what happens when you make the stupid mistake of paying an MVP market value."

[Maxbialystock]

6th highest salary package. So? I guess your point is "Just look at LAD. That's what happens when you make the stupid mistake of paying an MVP market value."

 

LA is a much bigger market and the Dodgers lead MLB in attendance, which Boston can never do with Fenway Park.

 

In case you're wondering, the Yankees are also in a much bigger market than the Sox and also have higher attendance.

 

But, since you raised the issue of Mookie Betts, I thought I'd float some numbers for you.

 

He played 5.3 seasons for the Sox and was paid a cumulative total of $33M. During those 5.3 seasons, his cumulative WAR was 35, so basically the Sox paid $1M for every 1 WAR Mookie delivered on the playing field.

 

In his 3 years, including this one, with the Dodgers, Mookie has been paid a total--and this doesn't include up front bonuses or other stuff they're paying him--of $74M for three seasons during which his cumulative WAR (this season isn't over yet) of 11. So they are paying $7M (less by the end of this season, assuming Mookie's seasonal WAR is more than the 3.1 achieved to date) per WAR earned on the playing field.

 

In other words, the Dodgers are in reality paying Mookie for those great years he had in Boston and not, I emphasis not, for what he has done for the Dodgers.

Edited July 24, 2022 by Maxbialystock

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

In other words, the Dodgers are in reality paying Mookie for those great years he had in Boston and not, I emphasis not, for what he has done for the Dodgers.

 

There is no stat to show the full impact of Mookie Betts except number of rings: two. But you're right, LA is paying for him to be like he was in Boston: a leader, the face of the franchise and a winner.

 

It is rare in baseball history for a team to have the opportunity to acquire such a ballplayer in his prime; the most obvious one in our lifetimes was Frank Robinson. MVP. Hall of Famer.

 

edit: sorry, before the semantics police raid my keyboard, I need to add: ... difference-maker who actually put his new club over the top

Edited July 24, 2022 by 5GoldGloves:OF,75

[redsoxrules]

538 has the Red Sox at 30 percent:

 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-mlb-predictions/

 

It's been a miserable week for the Red Sox but they're still just three games back of the third and final Wild Card slot (currently held by the falling Seattle Mariners thanks in part to the Sox ineptitude against the Blue Jays;))

 

It's not just the Blue Jays. They can't beat anyone in the East

[Yaz Fan Since 67]

I have been optimistic all along, and I still think they can right the ship. We knew all year how dangerous it was to have 3 guys carrying the load offensively and we saw last night with 2 of them out they are fielding a minor league lineup. I mean they had no chance last night with that lineup full of holes. I will give it another week, after that I'm in sell mode too.

[Bellhorn04]

I have been optimistic all along' date=' and I still think they can right the ship. We knew all year how dangerous it was to have 3 guys carrying the load offensively and we saw last night with 2 of them out they are fielding a minor league lineup. I mean they had no chance last night with that lineup full of holes. I will give it another week, after that I'm in sell mode too.[/quote']

 

Injuries have gradually decimated the team, I'm afraid.

[oldtimer]

LA is a much bigger market and the Dodgers lead MLB in attendance, which Boston can never do with Fenway Park.

 

In case you're wondering, the Yankees are also in a much bigger market than the Sox and also have higher attendance.

 

But, since you raised the issue of Mookie Betts, I thought I'd float some numbers for you.

 

He played 5.3 seasons for the Sox and was paid a cumulative total of $33M. During those 5.3 seasons, his cumulative WAR was 35, so basically the Sox paid $1M for every 1 WAR Mookie delivered on the playing field.

 

In his 3 years, including this one, with the Dodgers, Mookie has been paid a total--and this doesn't include up front bonuses or other stuff they're paying him--of $74M for three seasons during which his cumulative WAR (this season isn't over yet) of 11. So they are paying $7M (less by the end of this season, assuming Mookie's seasonal WAR is more than the 3.1 achieved to date) per WAR earned on the playing field.

 

In other words, the Dodgers are in reality paying Mookie for those great years he had in Boston and not, I emphasis not, for what he has done for the Dodgers.

 

I was not alone in saying that Mookie would probably be a great asset on the Dodgers team in the near term. My issue was the length of contract representing substantial risk. The risk includes injuries and waning of ability, which might leave the Dodgers with a big dead money liability to swallow. Very long contracts for prime age players all come with similar risks.

[notin]

I was not alone in saying that Mookie would probably be a great asset on the Dodgers team in the near term. My issue was the length of contract representing substantial risk. The risk includes injuries and waning of ability, which might leave the Dodgers with a big dead money liability to swallow. Very long contracts for prime age players all come with similar risks.

 

 

The Sox signed players to 7 and 5 year contracts that produced very little. Imagine if Sale was a 12 year contract.

 

I’m sure the deadweight of Steasburg’s deal is a factor in Soto’s availability…

[moonslav59]

The Sox signed players to 7 and 5 year contracts that produced very little. Imagine if Sale was a 12 year contract.

 

I’m sure the deadweight of Stasburg’s deal is a factor in Soto’s availability…

 

We also signed Manny to 8.

[notin]

We also signed Manny to 8.

 

Manny and the first ARod deal were both rarities in that the players were good for the life of the deal. Part of the reason is Manny was roughly the same age as Mookie but signed for 4 fewer years, and that was a product of the times. 8 year deals were considered crazy back then…

[Bellhorn04]

Manny and the first ARod deal were both rarities in that the players were good for the life of the deal. Part of the reason is Manny was roughly the same age as Mookie but signed for 4 fewer years, and that was a product of the times. 8 year deals were considered crazy back then…

 

What's really bizarre is that Mookie's deal actually looks almost sensible, comparatively speaking...

 

BTW Chris Gasper interviewed Mookie and asked him flat out if the deal he got from the Dodgers would have kept him with the Red Sox and Mookie said yes. Whether true we'll never know.

[moonslav59]

Manny and the first ARod deal were both rarities in that the players were good for the life of the deal. Part of the reason is Manny was roughly the same age as Mookie but signed for 4 fewer years, and that was a product of the times. 8 year deals were considered crazy back then…

 

I realize the majority of long term deals suck for the team. Another significant percent are barely close to a wash. Only a small percentage work out well for the team.

 

I'm not against the general philosophy of not ever signing anyone to large and long deals, but I do think there are times when an exception is needed.

 

I think Betts was one to make an exception for, and now I think Devers is. It has a lot to do with their ages. I'm not for going long on Bogey. Large, yes, but not long.

 

Maybe we could have spread the money out and still won, but I don't see us winning in 2004 or 2007 without Manny. Many feel we don't win in 2018 without Price.

[moonslav59]

I realize the majority of long term deals suck for the team. Another significant percent are barely close to a wash. Only a small percentage work out well for the team.

 

I'm not against the general philosophy of not ever signing anyone to large and long deals, but I do think there are times when an exception is needed.

 

I think Betts was one to make an exception for, and now I think Devers is. It has a lot to do with their ages. I'm not for going long on Bogey. Large, yes, but not long.

 

Maybe we could have spread the money out and still won, but I don't see us winning in 2004 or 2007 without Manny. Many feel we don't win in 2018 without Price.

 

The one year we won without a mega contract was 2013, and many view that win as a fluke.

 

Can we create more flukes?

[Kimmi]

I have been optimistic all along' date=' and I still think they can right the ship. We knew all year how dangerous it was to have 3 guys carrying the load offensively and we saw last night with 2 of them out they are fielding a minor league lineup. I mean they had no chance last night with that lineup full of holes. I will give it another week, after that I'm in sell mode too.[/quote']

 

It's been hard to remain optimistic, but I'm not ready to give up on this team. They have to get healthy though. I think with relatively good health and a few reinforcement pieces, the team can contend. Bloom will have some tough decisions to make, especially since it appears that most of our IL guys will be returning in early August, just after the deadline.

[cp176]

The one year we won without a mega contract was 2013, and many view that win as a fluke.

 

Can we create more flukes?

 

That is the point isn't it? How badly does JH want to win these days? It is certainly a pleasant thought that we could be Tampa north I'm sure. Relying on unproven prospects regardless of their newspaper clippings and aging AAA veterans might not be the way to go. It doesn't have to be one or the other. And before it is mentioned again, I am aware of what the current red Sox payroll is.

[Bellhorn04]

That is the point isn't it? How badly does JH want to win these days? It is certainly a pleasant thought that we could be Tampa north I'm sure. Relying on unproven prospects regardless of their newspaper clippings and aging AAA veterans might not be the way to go. It doesn't have to be one or the other. And before it is mentioned again, I am aware of what the current red Sox payroll is.

 

I think JH still wants to win plenty. He hired Bloom because he wants sustainable success.

 

Right now the 2022 team doesn't look good, no getting around that. And I don't think JH can be very happy about it.

[moonslav59]

That is the point isn't it? How badly does JH want to win these days? It is certainly a pleasant thought that we could be Tampa north I'm sure. Relying on unproven prospects regardless of their newspaper clippings and aging AAA veterans might not be the way to go. It doesn't have to be one or the other. And before it is mentioned again, I am aware of what the current red Sox payroll is.

 

I wasn't hinting at spending less.

 

I was hinting at maybe taking a strategy of having more moderate contracts than ever, but less or eventually no large and long deals at all.

 

This doesn't mean we aren't trying to win: it could mean we are trying a different way.

 

When Henry hired Ben, I thought he was moving towards no mega deals, having a strong farm and looking for steady competitive teams. The three last place finishes caused him to scrap that plan, but maybe, this time, he'll give it a longer chance to work.

 

It's not easy building that type of team and system in 4 years. Even 5 might be unrealistic to hope for a ring-worthy type team.

 

This winter will not only be telling for Bloom, but for Henry as well, and the whole organizational blueprint.

 

I'll be pissed, if Devers walks, but if we are highly competitive, soon afterwards, I know I'll forget.

 

If 2021, a season where we didn't even make the WS, helped me get over losing Betts, I'm not so sure I'll be forever crushed, if Devers bolts.

 

Just win, baby!

[moonslav59]

I think JH still wants to win plenty. He hired Bloom because he wants sustainable success.

 

Right now the 2022 team doesn't look good, no getting around that. And I don't think JH can be very happy about it.

 

What if Henry's expectations for Bloom were something like this:

 

84 wins in 2021

 

88 wins in 2022

 

92 wins in 2023

 

A WS top contender by 2024?

 

Of course, it's not as simple as wins, the state of the budget, farm and foundation of winning players matters more than wins, but just follow my point.

 

We exceeded in 2021, and maybe we wont be far enough from 88 wins, this year for henry to blow a gasket and blow everything up, like he did after ben's 3 last place finishes. If you comb ine 2021 and 2022, maybe Bloom has met Henry's expectation.

 

Bloom has had one major signing, and even Story's deal is no where near Price's or even as much as Pablo+HRam's combined expenditure, which maybe weren't even Ben's top choice signings.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that maybe Henry did not expect Bloom to produce a top contending team by 2022. His budgets did not show signs that Henry was all in, like he was in 2018 and other seasons before that.

[JDavis76]

What if Henry's expectations for Bloom were something like this:

 

84 wins in 2021

 

88 wins in 2022

 

92 wins in 2023

 

A WS top contender by 2024?

 

Of course, it's not as simple as wins, the state of the budget, farm and foundation of winning players matters more than wins, but just follow my point.

 

We exceeded in 2021, and maybe we wont be far enough from 88 wins, this year for henry to blow a gasket and blow everything up, like he did after ben's 3 last place finishes. If you comb ine 2021 and 2022, maybe Bloom has met Henry's expectation.

 

Bloom has had one major signing, and even Story's deal is no where near Price's or even as much as Pablo+HRam's combined expenditure, which maybe weren't even Ben's top choice signings.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that maybe Henry did not expect Bloom to produce a top contending team by 2022. His budgets did not show signs that Henry was all in, like he was in 2018 and other seasons before that.

 

What if they weren't?

[moonslav59]

Is anyone still on the no sell bandwagon?

[Bellhorn04]

Is anyone still on the no sell bandwagon?

 

The crazy part is, the guys we thought might be involved in the fire sale have done nothing but lose value.

 

2022 has become a spectacular fustercluck.

[Maxbialystock]

I realize the majority of long term deals suck for the team. Another significant percent are barely close to a wash. Only a small percentage work out well for the team.

 

I'm not against the general philosophy of not ever signing anyone to large and long deals, but I do think there are times when an exception is needed.

 

I think Betts was one to make an exception for, and now I think Devers is. It has a lot to do with their ages. I'm not for going long on Bogey. Large, yes, but not long.

 

Maybe we could have spread the money out and still won, but I don't see us winning in 2004 or 2007 without Manny. Many feel we don't win in 2018 without Price.

 

While I do agree one player, pitcher or position player, can make a real difference, I also think they can't do it without being surrounded by a bunches of good players. You need a good lineup and a good pitching staff. Right now the Angels have two of the best players in MLB. Both have won AL MVP awards. And the Angels are 15 games below .500.

 

Based on the above, I would argue right now I simply do not see the point of trying to keep Bogey, JDM, or Raffy. All three are on this team right now, and this team stinks. And please don't give me that, "but what about the injuries" crap because injuries are absolutely part of the game.

 

Do you remember Mark Bellhorn who played 2b/3b on the 2004 team? He batted .264 and had an OBP of .373 and an OPS of .817--and sometimes batted 9th on that team.

Edited July 24, 2022 by Maxbialystock

[Bellhorn04]

While I do agree one player, pitcher or position player, can make a real difference, I also think they can't do it without being surrounded by a bunches of good players. You need a good lineup and a good pitching staff. Right now the Angels have two of the best players in MLB. Both have won AL MVP awards. And the Angels are 15 games below .500.

 

Based on the above, I would argue right now I simply do not see the point of trying to keep Bogey, JDM, or Raffy. All three are on this team right now, and this team stinks. And please don't give me that, "but what about the injuries" crap because injuries are absolutely part of the game.

 

So you're using the argument that because good individual players don't guarantee team success, you don't actually need good players?

 

Max, I know it's been a rough season, but don't let it drag you all the way down.