Red Sox ownership

[moonslav59]

And yet no one has come up with a reasonable solution as to how to solve the overall pitching weakness with the Sox other than to keep drafting the best SS in the 1st rd every year in the hopes he can be flipped for a top P prospect because that has worked so well for us.

 

And nobody has come up with a reasonable solution on how we can be sure we get a top pitching draft pick right.

 

But, actually, we have come up with some very reasonable solutions: the Sox just don't agree with them or try to enact them.

 

1. Sign a damn pitcher that is not a reclamation project would be a solution more likely to work than drafting a pitcher just for the sake of him being a pitcher and not being the best talent available.

 

2. Trade some of these non pitching prospects we drafted so highly, some of which appear to have very good trade value for the young and controlled SP'ers we never drafted or developed. (It worked, at least 3 times after the Pedro trade.)

 

These ideas haven't "worked," because they have not been tried.

 

Hell, the best somewhat high prospect trade we have made in the last 4 years was actually trading a pitching prospect (Aldo Ramirez) for a big bat (Schwarber.)

 

It seems like an easier and quicker solution by doing 1 and or 2 than to attempt to revamp the scouting, development and drafting aspects or our whole system.

 

I'm all for the revamp, but it would not automatically mean they new guys will or should draft an inferior prospect, just because he's a pitcher.

 

Not drafting pitchers highly does make it harder to produce a top pitcher, but to me, it's more about development and finding gems in rounds 3 or worse.

 

We should do that plus #1 anytime and #2, when needed.

 

[Randy Red Sox]

And nobody has come up with a reasonable solution on how we can be sure we get a top pitching draft pick right.

 

But, actually, we have come up with some very reasonable solutions: the Sox just don't agree with them or try to enact them.

 

1. Sign a damn pitcher that is not a reclamation project would be a solution more likely to work than drafting a pitcher just for the sake of him being a pitcher and not being the best talent available.

 

2. Trade some of these non pitching prospects we drafted so highly, some of which appear to have very good trade value for the young and controlled SP'ers we never drafted or developed. (It worked, at least 3 times after the Pedro trade.)

 

These ideas haven't "worked," because they have not been tried.

 

Hell, the best somewhat high prospect trade we have made in the last 4 years was actually trading a pitching prospect (Aldo Ramirez) for a big bat (Schwarber.)

 

It seems like an easier and quicker solution by doing 1 and or 2 than to attempt to revamp the scouting, development and drafting aspects or our whole system.

 

I'm all for the revamp, but it would not automatically mean they new guys will or should draft an inferior prospect, just because he's a pitcher.

 

Not drafting pitchers highly does make it harder to produce a top pitcher, but to me, it's more about development and finding gems in rounds 3 or worse.

 

We should do that plus #1 anytime and #2, when needed.

 

 

The bottom line is that the FO has proven they are NOT going to sign 30 yr old TOP FA SP anymore and they have not been able to come up with any real other ways to get quality young controllable P. As proven when they let Xander and Mookie walk they have little or no interest in maintaining any of their homegrown players who become stars. They are following the Tampa model ( which is why they hired Bloom in the 1st place) where they try and build from within the system and when the players reach the point of demanding raises they will be shipped out for prospects and the cycle continues. This is now the Red Sox way sprinkled with a few 1 yr veteran player signings to keep the team competing and all the while raising prices on everything

[moonslav59]

The bottom line is that the FO has proven they are NOT going to sign 30 yr old TOP FA SP anymore and they have not been able to come up with any real other ways to get quality young controllable P. As proven when they let Xander and Mookie walk they have little or no interest in maintaining any of their homegrown players who become stars. They are following the Tampa model ( which is why they hired Bloom in the 1st place) where they try and build from within the system and when the players reach the point of demanding raises they will be shipped out for prospects and the cycle continues. This is now the Red Sox way sprinkled with a few 1 yr veteran player signings to keep the team competing and all the while raising prices on everything

 

The Rays model includes trading for Young pitchers from other teams.

 

Look, I'm all for putting major resources into finding, scouting, acquiring and developing the best young pitchers in the world. Indeed, if we are not ever going to sign a big FA pitcher, again, then this is essential.

 

It also takes time: usually a lot of time. It does not mean we should decide to copy the Angels and draft any and every pitcher possible. I know you are not advocating that, but I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I can never support a plan that involves purposely drafting inferior players, just because they pitch. If it's a real close call, then make that the deciding factor, especially in the mid to later rounds, but when you have a top 7 to 15 pick, I'm always for taking the best and or least riskiest player out there. How to decide which factor matters most (best vs less risky) is a hard nut to crack, and it is the risk factor that usually brings down pitching candidates. Can or should we tweak that balance a bit?

 

I'm not so sure.

 

I'm also no more convinced we can pull it off, as in start drafting and developing top pitchers by the next draft, as I am that we will never spend agai or make a trade.

 

I'm actually thinking a big trade for a young SP is in the works, as we speak. Why? Because it costs JH nothing.

[Dipre]

Like I said earlier, we'll get the actual details on our offer to Yamamoto...

 

right after we get the details on our last offer to Mookie.

 

That's the whole point. We just don't know.

[Hugh2]

That's the whole point. We just don't know.

 

With Mookie it felt like they just didn't want to go as high as he was talking, with Yamamoto, it feels like he just wanted to go to LA all along. Allegedly Steve Cohen said he'd up any offer LA gave him after he left new york but didn't even give the Mets a chance. He took his bids to LA and they matched and he signed. Yamamoto was always going to LA.

 

I know there are reports that Mookie was always going to FA, and he wasn't going to resign here, but who knows how true that is and if $365 million dollars would have changed his mind. Also, he signed after covid hit and there was a lot of uncertainty in the world at that time. $365 million dangled in front of your face might look a whole lot different in the summer of 2020 than it would in the summer of 2019.

 

But I suppose we will never truly know for certain what could have been, but I'm fairly certain Yamamoto was always a no go here. I wanted him hard, but after seeing how the whole thing went down, it's obvious to me now that we never had a chance. It was LA all along.

[Hugh2]

The Rays model includes trading for Young pitchers from other teams.

 

Look, I'm all for putting major resources into finding, scouting, acquiring and developing the best young pitchers in the world. Indeed, if we are not ever going to sign a big FA pitcher, again, then this is essential.

 

It also takes time: usually a lot of time. It does not mean we should decide to copy the Angels and draft any and every pitcher possible. I know you are not advocating that, but I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I can never support a plan that involves purposely drafting inferior players, just because they pitch. If it's a real close call, then make that the deciding factor, especially in the mid to later rounds, but when you have a top 7 to 15 pick, I'm always for taking the best and or least riskiest player out there. How to decide which factor matters most (best vs less risky) is a hard nut to crack, and it is the risk factor that usually brings down pitching candidates. Can or should we tweak that balance a bit?

 

I'm not so sure.

 

I'm also no more convinced we can pull it off, as in start drafting and developing top pitchers by the next draft, as I am that we will never spend agai or make a trade.

 

I'm actually thinking a big trade for a young SP is in the works, as we speak. Why? Because it costs JH nothing.

 

 

Other teams models of bringing in pitching often include bringing in young unproven players, or young cost controlled pitchers without a performance record, where said team is able to fix something. Or they're trading for young pitching (like the Fitts trade). THe other way is to draft.

 

The former, is something posters in here would complain about prefusively, the later.....well Boston just doesn't do that. Maybe Breslow will change the organizational philosophy on drafting and developing pitchers. But in the absesnce of trading away the farm for a guy....there's zero quick fix. It's going to take years to build the pitching up in this organization. And fans will not like hearing that one bit.

[jacksonianmarch]

You need to have a strong farm system regardless. This is one of the reasons the Dodgers have stayed so good. They mixed massive spending with awesome development to be able to make trades for stars year in and year out. Overshadowed with their craziness this year is the fact they added Glasnow to their rotation by trading young, high end arms.

 

The sox development team was humming in the 00s. Just better than everyone. They took down a star laden and older 2004 title team and turned them into a home grown title winner in 07 bringing in a new age of Sox stars. When Cherington took over, he kept the farm churning but he was paralyzed when it came to dealing away pieces. DD comes in and raped, pillaged and salted the earth. His Dev people were mostly kept when Bloom came in and the development has been awful. The sox should absolutely gut their development team. Start over, bring in new guys. Drafting is just part 1 of the dev process. Their issues have not been the draft, per se. It has been the fact that they get these top 100 BA draftees and they turn into dogshit.

[Bellhorn04]

That's the whole point. We just don't know.

 

Because the only leaks we get are the ones they want us to to get.

 

With Betts, he came right out and said no $300 million offer was ever made, and no one has refuted that, so I have to assume it's true.

 

With Moto, there were stories that suggested the Red Sox were "on the periphery", or words to that effect, which generally mean "not a chance in hell". I'm going to go ahead and assume they didn't make a competitive offer unless there's evidence they did.

[notin]

Because the only leaks we get are the ones they want us to to get.

With Betts, he came right out and said no $300 million offer was ever made, and no one has refuted that, so I have to assume it's true.

 

With Moto, there were stories that suggested the Red Sox were "on the periphery", or words to that effect, which generally mean "not a chance in hell". I'm going to go ahead and assume they didn't make a competitive offer unless there's evidence they did.

 

 

Betts came out and said it after the man who reportedly made it was no longer with Boston. I think people want to believe Betts, because it fosters the belief he was always easily retainable but for management greed/incompetence. But that doesn’t make the story do.

 

In fact, most front offices rarely discuss public offers they made to players. I thought they were forbidden to do so in the CBA, but I’m not positive of this. What we do know it’s certainly rare, which was why Cashman releasing details of a seven year $230mill extension that Judge rejected became a big story. We rarely get that level of transparency from teams. Players (specifically, players’ agents) are always willing to talk, which gives them an upper hand when it comes to public perception.

 

Plus, no one roots for ownership. Being fans of players makes them harder to disbelieve them, especially in the wake of silence. But that doesn’t make them right. Or honest.

 

It’s also possible some/many/most players take little to no interest in the negotiating aspect of representation. And therefore don’t hear about every offer…

[moonslav59]

Other teams models of bringing in pitching often include bringing in young unproven players, or young cost controlled pitchers without a performance record, where said team is able to fix something. Or they're trading for young pitching (like the Fitts trade). THe other way is to draft.

 

The former, is something posters in here would complain about prefusively, the later.....well Boston just doesn't do that. Maybe Breslow will change the organizational philosophy on drafting and developing pitchers. But in the absesnce of trading away the farm for a guy....there's zero quick fix. It's going to take years to build the pitching up in this organization. And fans will not like hearing that one bit.

 

We have been doing it more than before, but still not at the level other teams seem to be doing it. No doubt, we have a ways to go.

 

Winckowski

Whitlock

Pivetta (not a prospect)

Schreiber

Bernardino

Z Kelly

 

We just added a bunch of pitchers who might be good:

Campbell

Fitts

Slaten

Weissert and more

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Betts came out and said it after the man who reportedly made it was no longer with Boston. I think people want to believe Betts, because it fosters the belief he was always easily retainable but for management greed/incompetence. But that doesn’t make the story do.

 

In fact, most front offices rarely discuss public offers they made to players. I thought they were forbidden to do so in the CBA, but I’m not positive of this. What we do know it’s certainly rare, which was why Cashman releasing details of a seven year $230mill extension that Judge rejected became a big story. We rarely get that level of transparency from teams. Players (specifically, players’ agents) are always willing to talk, which gives them an upper hand when it comes to public perception.

 

Plus, no one roots for ownership. Being fans of players makes them harder to disbelieve them, especially in the wake of silence. But that doesn’t make them right. Or honest.

 

It’s also possible some/many/most players take little to no interest in the negotiating aspect of representation. And therefore don’t hear about every offer…

 

I agree with most of this post. The only issue is that Merloni is the one source I personally heard quote the supposed offer to Mookie.

 

Merloni works for the club as occasional color man on radio or tv... but the perception is that he's not a company man. Instead, he's always giving candid opinions (kinda like Shaugnessey in the Henry-owned Globe).

 

As an ex-MLB player, Merloni sounds more on the side of the players and coaches than the owners or front office. And as a current Sox fan, Merloni is definitely more empathetic to the fans helplessly watching and wishing their team was better.

 

Then again, maybe he was just quoting a leak that he heard...

[Old Red]

Because the only leaks we get are the ones they want us to to get.

 

With Betts, he came right out and said no $300 million offer was ever made, and no one has refuted that, so I have to assume it's true.

 

With Moto, there were stories that suggested the Red Sox were "on the periphery", or words to that effect, which generally mean "not a chance in hell". I'm going to go ahead and assume they didn't make a competitive offer unless there's evidence they did.

 

The Red Sox didn’t get a second meeting with the Yam Man like the Yankees, and Mets did, so that’s pretty telling to me. I think they just wanted to say hello in the only meeting they got.

[Bellhorn04]

Betts came out and said it after the man who reportedly made it was no longer with Boston. I think people want to believe Betts, because it fosters the belief he was always easily retainable but for management greed/incompetence.

 

Betts actually said "if you want all the details of the negotiations, talk to Chaim." Obviously implying that there was a final offer after Bloom took over. Plus Bloom would have been aware of previous offers, I assume.

 

The other thing is this ownership has a history of lowballing guys. Before Betts they did it with Lester. After Betts they did it with Bogaerts.

[Old Red]

Betts actually said "if you want all the details of the negotiations, talk to Chaim." Obviously implying that there was a final offer after Bloom took over. Plus Bloom would have been aware of previous offers, I assume.

 

The other thing is this ownership has a history of lowballing guys. Before Betts they did it with Lester. After Betts they did it with Bogaerts.

 

The one year extension offer to Bogey was nothing more than a slap in the face.

[Old Red]

Remember back in the old days when JH would go out into the parking lot, and say goodbye to Lester, or go on the Felger, and Massorotti show, and tell his side, and stick up for the Red Sox way of doing things? The good old days, and the good old JH.

[Bellhorn04]

The one year extension offer to Bogey was nothing more than a slap in the face.

 

Just like the initial offer to Lester was a slap in the face.

 

It's a pattern of behaviour. That's why it's so plausible that they never made a market value offer to Betts.

[Hitch]

I didn't want him, either. Adding Giolito to the rotation for one good year, or one or two bad ones, stabilizes nothing -- it just puts us right back into the Bloom Era of 1-year/$10M fill-ins (only now the fair market price has nearly doubled).

 

If he's a #4, though -- which means Brez makes a big trade for a starter, and/or signs the likes of Montgomery/Imanaga/Stroman -- then it almost makes sense.

 

But replacing Sale with Giolito isn't much improvement. In fact, they were equal with 1.7 WAR last year, and that's after Gio threw almost twice as many innings... (his big strength, which saves the bullpen, but also offers more Bearclaw games if he's '23 ineffective).

 

Your second sentence is what I believe will happen. I am aware I may be spectacularly off the mark with recent history to back this up, but it's what I'm pretty sure of nonetheless.

[notin]

Betts actually said "if you want all the details of the negotiations, talk to Chaim." Obviously implying that there was a final offer after Bloom took over. Plus Bloom would have been aware of previous offers, I assume.

 

The other thing is this ownership has a history of lowballing guys. Before Betts they did it with Lester. After Betts they did it with Bogaerts.

 

While true, those were all different GMs.

 

And interspersed among all of those lowballs, they signed quite a few high priced players, including Price, JD Martinez, Devers, Story, and Yoshida. So clearly the team was spending for a lot of those. Which offers the next question - how many of these lowball offers were left there simply because the player’s camp stopped negotiating?

 

So at that point, you’re just cherry-picking data points.

[Hitch]

It's reported here that Betts didn't regret turning down £300m https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mookie-betts-says-he-doesnt-regret-turning-down-300-million-offer-from-red-sox/

 

Also reported in there is the £200m offer Betts got during his second year in which his production had fallen off - the one his mother told him not to take. £200m for a 2nd year guy is the kind of contracts AA gets lauded for down in Atlanta.

 

I'm not sure it's fair to say Betts didn't get fair offers.

 

That said, they have lowballed several stars, so the suspicion is warranted.

[Bellhorn04]

It's reported here that Betts didn't regret turning down £300m https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mookie-betts-says-he-doesnt-regret-turning-down-300-million-offer-from-red-sox/

 

Also reported in there is the £200m offer Betts got during his second year in which his production had fallen off - the one his mother told him not to take. £200m for a 2nd year guy is the kind of contracts AA gets lauded for down in Atlanta.

 

I'm not sure it's fair to say Betts didn't get fair offers.

 

That said, they have lowballed several stars, so the suspicion is warranted.

 

I've read that report before, and what's curious is that we have a quote from Betts but we don't have the specific question he was asked, and we don't have him saying "I turned down $300 million."

 

Then he comes out and says there was no $300 million offer, and it's been crickets ever since.

[moonslav59]

While true, those were all different GMs.

 

And interspersed among all of those lowballs, they signed quite a few high priced players, including Price, JD Martinez, Devers, Story, and Yoshida. So clearly the team was spending for a lot of those. Which offers the next question - how many of these lowball offers were left there simply because the player’s camp stopped negotiating?

 

So at that point, you’re just cherry-picking data points.

 

We've seen some big extensions and re-signings, too.

 

We extended/re-signed:

Pedro, Schilling, Papi (many times)

Beckett, Pedey (twice), Youk, AGon

Porcello, Sale, Nate, Bogey (w opt out)

Devers

[Bellhorn04]

No one is suggesting they've been cheapskates from the get-go.

 

To me they've really only come under serious scrutiny since the Betts trade.

[moonslav59]

No one is suggesting they've been cheapskates from the get-go.

 

To me they've really only come under serious scrutiny since the Betts trade.

 

Indeed.

 

Right before the trade we did extend Sale & Bogey and re-signed Nate.

 

We did let Kimbrell & Kelly go, which to me was the first sign of the shift. Finding out we almost traded Betts & Price the summer before is further evidence of the change in direction.

 

It is noteworthy that the Devers extension blows away any other signing or extension.

[Old Red]

No one is suggesting they've been cheapskates from the get-go.

 

To me they've really only come under serious scrutiny since the Betts trade.

 

It seems to be a bigger problem resigning homegrown players. I’ve said for the last two years the Raffy was signed, because he was the last man standings, and it would have been an even more of a PR disaster of epic proportions if it didn’t get done.

[Old Red]

I've read that report before, and what's curious is that we have a quote from Betts but we don't have the specific question he was asked, and we don't have him saying "I turned down $300 million."

 

Then he comes out and says there was no $300 million offer, and it's been crickets ever since.

 

Unless DD, and, or Bloom spills the beans we’ll probably never know. one report said that JH never told Bloom that Mookie had to be traded. What you, or who you want to believe fits a different narrative.

[notin]

No one is suggesting they've been cheapskates from the get-go.

 

To me they've really only come under serious scrutiny since the Betts trade.

 

But the Betts situation is completely independent of the Lester one…

[notin]

I've read that report before, and what's curious is that we have a quote from Betts but we don't have the specific question he was asked, and we don't have him saying "I turned down $300 million."

 

Then he comes out and says there was no $300 million offer, and it's been crickets ever since.

 

But that doesn’t mean his story is accurate. What would the Sox gain by trying to refute it?

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

But that doesn’t mean his story is accurate. What would the Sox gain by trying to refute it?

 

There are those in the org that still can't sleep at night since the Betts trade. They hope to someday bring Mookie back to Boston for the last few years of his career, so he can go into the Hall of Fame wearing a B on the cap of his bronze plaque, and then become a baseball ambassador at Fenway, like Pedro and Papi.

 

I made all that up. Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.

[moonslav59]

I certainly think we've seen a pattern over the years, and more and more of our very best players leaving via free agency. The biggest change I see is that they are not being replaced, in kind or anywhere near in kind.

 

BTW, we did extend Lester beyond his years of control. We just did not extend him again. Same with Bogey.

 

When we let Pedro walk and saw Schill retire, we soon traded for Beckett and later signed Lackey. When we lost Beckett and Lackey, we eventually signed Price and traded for Sale (and extended him.) We also traded for Porcello & extended him. We traded for Nate and re-signed him, too. Had Sale done great, we might be thinking more about the few we have extended.

 

When we dumped Crawford and included AGon (and beckett) in the trade, we did spend that next winter and won the ring in 2013. That stopped happening after we lost Kimbrell/Kelly and then Betts, Price and later Porcello and ERod.

 

In the last 2-3 off seasons, we have spent a lot during the winter, but often not equal to what we lost.

 

I get the part of being a fan that wants to see continuity and keeping our best players helps with that, but it didn't seem to matter as much when we were winning.

 

Losing Pedro is not a big deal, as he was declining and hurt when we let him walk, but we also lost Damon, Beltre (one year guy but great), Agon, Beckett, Lester, Lackey and more but won rings not long after (some the very next season.) It sucked, in many cases, but we rebuilt quickly and won again. That has not happened since 2018, except for the 2021 season that was not a result of good and big winter signings.

 

In the context of biggest winter signings & extensions in Red Sox history, the Devers, Story and Yoshida (counting the fees) signings were among the largest. Devers is the largest. (The Sale, Bogey and Nate deals were not too long ago either.) The problem seems to be we picked the wrong guys to spend large and long on.

 

I wonder if the Devers extension was predicated on the idea that they were going to tighten up the winter budgets to pay for him.

[moonslav59]

There are those in the org that still can't sleep at night since the Betts trade. They hope to someday bring Mookie back to Boston for the last few years of his career, so he can go into the Hall of Fame wearing a B on the cap of his bronze plaque, and then become a baseball ambassador at Fenway, like Pedro and Papi.

 

I made all that up. Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.

 

Then, we must be free.