A Realistic View at 2024: Part III

[notin]

The big lie is blaming Dombrowski for the Betts trade. Mookie was under contract through the 2020 season. Bloom traded Mookie. That is the reality.

 

Stop trying to disassociate Dombrowski. No one blames him like you do to Bloom. But he absolutely had his chances to extend Betts, and was actively trying as far back as 2017. Betts just wasn’t going for it. That’s not DD’s fault, but it isn’t (as you repeatedly claim) Bloom’s fault either. And THAT is the reality.

 

Bloom was basically the hatch hey man charged with dealing Betts. I’d be surprised if he was even given the resources to sign Mookie.

[moonslav59]

The big lie is blaming Dombrowski for the Betts trade. Mookie was under contract through the 2020 season. Bloom traded Mookie. That is the reality.

 

Except that he was about to trade Betts in 2019.

 

The "blame" on DD was about him choosing to sign Sale, Nate and Bogey and not Betts. If you think JH was going to allow him to sign everyone, that is not reality thinking.

[moonslav59]

Stop trying to disassociate Dombrowski. No one blames him like you do to Bloom. But he absolutely had his chances to extend Betts, and was actively trying as far back as 2017. Betts just wasn’t going for it. That’s not DD’s fault, but it isn’t (as you repeatedly claim) Bloom’s fault either. And THAT is the reality.

 

Bloom was basically the hatch hey man charged with dealing Betts. I’d be surprised if he was even given the resources to sign Mookie.

 

To think Bloom actually had a chance to sign Betts and chose to trade him,because he wanted to, is alternate universe thinking.

[notin]

Of course spending doesn't guarantee winning. But it certainly helps. Are you really going to argue that it doesn't ?

 

I can absolutely make that argument. Especially if “winning” is measured by rings.

 

MLB recent history is loaded with teams that went all in on spending, didn’t win, and then found themselves stuck with a load of aging and cumbersome and largely immovable contracts.

 

Players winning isn’t a guarantee. Players aging and declining is…

[notin]

Except that he was about to trade Betts in 2019.

 

The "blame" on DD was about him choosing to sign Sale, Nate and Bogey and not Betts. If you think JH was going to allow him to sign everyone, that is not reality thinking.

 

Even at the time, I seem to recall DD shifting to Bogaerts and Sale once the negotiations with Betts went sour. I don’t think the choice was Bogaerts and Sale over Betts as much as those two were Plan B.

 

The notion that Bloom could have signed Betts over Story and Yoshida is simply wrong, as it ignores the entire timeline, the existence of luxury tax, the signings of Sale and Bogaerts, the total value of the contracts in question, and that David Price was still alive…

[vegasbob]

The big lie is blaming Dombrowski for the Betts trade. Mookie was under contract through the 2020 season. Bloom traded Mookie. That is the reality.

 

The real issue in the Betts trade should be what did Bloom get in return for a generational player ? Even if JH said, I will not pay him a premium on a long term deal, Bloom should have extracted a real star off a loaded team like LAD. What we have from that deal is Conor Wong . Downs was a dud and to some extent so was Verdugo , certainly not a star OF'er. The pitchers received from NYY for Dugo have yet to prove out and may not at all.

 

The icing on the cake for Bloom and JH was offloading half of David Price's salary. It was the 1st step in the reshaping of the Sox to what we see today. Lower budgets, no lux tax, young players under control.

[dgalehouse]

Just more of the same old spin from the Legion of Bloom. The plain truth is that Bloom traded Mookie Betts. Dombrowski did not. Feel free to make up your own scenario.

But it doesn't change the facts.

[notin]

Just more of the same old spin from the Legion of Bloom. The plain truth is that Bloom traded Mookie Betts. Dombrowski did not. Feel free to make up your own scenario.

But it doesn't change the facts.

 

Other than exonerating DD, do you have a point? Are you really trying to say DD never even attempted to extend Betts? If so, that’s far, far worse than anything Bloom did. Times 100…

[Bellhorn04]

Do you have a point? We’re those were the only 4 years?

 

Sox were also a top payroll team in 2012, 2014, and 2015. Also they had the highest payroll in team history in 2019. And they weren’t far off the top payroll in 2020.

 

Like I said, spending doesn’t guarantee winning. Are you really going to argue that it does?

 

Of course it doesn't guarantee winning, and of course that's not what I'm arguing.

 

Is there a general correlation between spending and winning?

 

Of course there is. It would be absurd to argue otherwise.

[Bellhorn04]

Just more of the same old spin from the Legion of Bloom. The plain truth is that Bloom traded Mookie Betts. Dombrowski did not. Feel free to make up your own scenario.

But it doesn't change the facts.

 

That was an ownership level move. The Boston Red Sox do not trade Mookie Betts unless John Henry gives it the stamp of approval first. CBO's come and go, but Henry is the one with the lasting legacy, like Harry Frazee.

[notin]

Of course it doesn't guarantee winning, and of course that's not what I'm arguing.

 

Is there a general correlation between spending and winning?

 

Of course there is. It would be absurd to argue otherwise.

 

A general correlation feels like a weak description, as there are different types of spending, and they anre definition equal. Extending younger players has shown to be far more effective than signing free agents. After winning certainly isn’t a guarantee, but age and decline are…

 

Like I said, aging and decline is a guarantee.

[moonslav59]

Even at the time, I seem to recall DD shifting to Bogaerts and Sale once the negotiations with Betts went sour. I don’t think the choice was Bogaerts and Sale over Betts as much as those two were Plan B.

 

The notion that Bloom could have signed Betts over Story and Yoshida is simply wrong, as it ignores the entire timeline, the existence of luxury tax, the signings of Sale and Bogaerts, the total value of the contracts in question, and that David Price was still alive…

 

Agree on all points, here. I do think Betts was DD's top priority, and once it looked like he was dead set on reaching free agency, he did what he should have did: he locked up our next best players.

 

The budget was not ever going to be endless, and the fact that DD could not even bring back Kimbrell and Kelly in 2019 proves that point. If we couldn't bring them back, how can anyone think Betts was still "on the table" after 2019?

 

Our new spending in 2020 was a joke. 2021 was not much better and we barely replaced the contracts dropping off the books in those years.

 

We never even replaced Porcello's money, Bett's arb money and half Price's money.

[moonslav59]

A general correlation feels like a weak description, as there are different types of spending, and they anre definition equal. Extending younger players has shown to be far more effective than signing free agents. After winning certainly isn’t a guarantee, but age and decline are…

 

Like I said, aging and decline is a guarantee.

 

One understated fact about all those winning seasons the Sox had starting around 2003 was the fact that we let some very productive players bolt, before they reached their declining years. Some still hurt like hell, and a few we wish we never let go- like Beltre and Lester, but for the vast majority, we made the right choice. Even the Damon departure worked out okay for us. When Ellsbury bolted, many were pissed off, but wow- nice job, right? Many hated letting Beni go, and he did have a couple good seasons afterwards, but right now, he has one of MLB's worth fWARs among everyday players.

 

We made plenty of mistakes on some, but we did well letting many go, when the time was right, just right or nearly right. Letting Betts go, was a big mistake, but he did say he wanted to be a FA. DD acted on that, and the rest is history.

[Nick]

When lack of pitching is the major concern and jerkoffs are still talking abouts Betts.

 

He hates Boston and people in it. Get over it.

[notin]

When lack of pitching is the major concern and jerkoffs are still talking abouts Betts.

 

He hates Boston and people in it. Get over it.

 

Sorry for not meeting your topic expectations. But on to that pitching, exactly what the f*** do you think we should be doing about it? Will our conversations magically heal it?

[Randy Red Sox]

Breaking and SHOCKING news--James Paxton leaves his start today with an injury in the 1st inning.

[moonslav59]

The Betts discussion will never go away. It shouldn't, either.

 

The Babe Ruth topic lasted over a century.

 

Pitching is the top need area, for sure, and is deserving of much discussion, but that does not mean talking about other things means we no longer think pitching is the biggest problem.

 

A related issue to pitching is spending. They have gone hand-in-hand for years. Trading prospects for pitching is also a related topic worthy of debate.

[Nick]

Don't you ever tired of talking about a player we traded in 2020? Arguing over who is at fault? Can you settle it for everyone so we can be at peace?

 

Love it that I elicited a f***k out of you.

 

And you're one of my favorite posters here.

[notin]

The Betts discussion will never go away. It shouldn't, either.

 

The Babe Ruth topic lasted over a century.

 

Pitching is the top need area, for sure, and is deserving of much discussion, but that does not mean talking about other things means we no longer think pitching is the biggest problem.

 

A related issue to pitching is spending. They have gone hand-in-hand for years. Trading prospects for pitching is also a related topic worthy of debate.

 

But boy are Sox fans specific. That Babe Ruth chatter has lasted as long as it has just shows how much we ignore. The Sox traded/sold a slew of players to the Yankees around that time, including practically an entire pitching staff. Some other names include:

 

Carl Mays

Red Ruffing (Hall of Famer)

Sad Sam Jones

Bullet Joe Bush

Herb Pennock (Hall of Famer)

Waite Hoyt (Hall of Famer)

 

That’s a ridiculous amount of talent to have, let alone have and give away. But fans like to focus solely on one player, I guess, which is why only Ruth ever gets discussed despite three other all time greats being right there with him.

 

It’s like how fans focus solely on Jackie Robinson when discussing braking the color barrier, and completely ignore the other 3 players who crossed the barrier that year (including one RHP became Robinson’s teammate in Brooklyn)…

[notin]

Don't you ever tired of talking about a player we traded in 2020? Arguing over who is at fault? Can you settle it for everyone so we can be at peace?

 

Love it that I elicited a f***k out of you.

 

And you're one of my favorite posters here.

 

Oh I swear all the time. But I will talk about whatever I want or others want.

 

As for the Sox pitching, that’s also been discussed to death. It didn’t help.

 

Breslow needs to scour the waiver wire, but with the Sox record, it will be difficult for anyone close to worthwhile to fall that far…

[moonslav59]

But boy are Sox fans specific. That Babe Ruth chatter has lasted as long as it has just shows how much we ignore. The Sox traded/sold a slew of players to the Yankees around that time, including practically an entire pitching staff. Some other names include:

 

Carl Mays

Red Ruffing (Hall of Famer)

Sad Sam Jones

Bullet Joe Bush

Herb Pennock (Hall of Famer)

Waite Hoyt (Hall of Famer)

 

That’s a ridiculous amount of talent to have, let alone have and give away. But fans like to focus solely on one player, I guess, which is why only Ruth ever gets discussed despite three other all time greats being right there with him.

 

It’s like how fans focus solely on Jackie Robinson when discussing braking the color barrier, and completely ignore the other 3 players who crossed the barrier that year (including one RHP became Robinson’s teammate in Brooklyn)…

 

I think we should start talking about the loss of Carlton Fisk for nothing, more often.

[Hugh2]

I can’t believe we are still talking about who traded Betts. Some people still argue the world is flat.

 

Here it is. Bloom traded Betts.

 

I think it’s been LONG established that Bloom did so at the directive of Henry. Anyone was going to trade him or get fired.

 

Bloom traded Betts.

Ownership is to blame.

 

Case closed, again again.

[Bellhorn04]

A general correlation feels like a weak description, as there are different types of spending, and they anre definition equal. Extending younger players has shown to be far more effective than signing free agents. After winning certainly isn’t a guarantee, but age and decline are…

 

Like I said, aging and decline is a guarantee.

 

I don't think anyone will argue with that last sentence.

 

Another thing that can't be argued is that the Red Sox championship teams all included some pricy-and productive-free agent signings...

[moonslav59]

I can’t believe we are still talking about who traded Betts. Some people still argue the world is flat.

 

Here it is. Bloom traded Betts.

 

I think it’s been LONG established that Bloom did so at the directive of Henry. Anyone was going to trade him or get fired.

 

Bloom traded Betts.

Ownership is to blame.

 

Case closed, again again.

 

Nobody is arguing any of those points.

 

We all know Betts was traded while Bloom was the GM.

 

Most agree JH forced teh trade.

Few remember DD came close to trading Betts in 2019 for the same reason Bloom ended up doing it: JH.

 

The thing is, even if we all agree 100% on everything associated with the Betts situation, the topic would never just go away.

[moonslav59]

I don't think anyone will argue with that last sentence.

 

Another thing that can't be argued is that the Red Sox championship teams all included some pricy-and productive-free agent signings...

 

I'm not sure 2013 fits that bill. While $15-16M a year was pretty pricey, back then, Lackey was the only guy making that kind of money on a deal loner than 2 years. He also was not such a super productive isigning, although 2013 was his best season with the Sox.

Lackey's ERA+ w LAA: 123, 127, 150, 119, 115

w BOS: 99, 67, N/A, 117, then traded after a 111 start to 2014.

 

The next largest contracts on the 2013 team?

$26M/2 Papi & Dempster

$39M/3 Vic

$30M/5 Lester

$41M/6 Pedey

 

[Bellhorn04]

I'm not sure 2013 fits that bill. While $15-16M a year was pretty pricey, back then, Lackey was the only guy making that kind of money on a deal loner than 2 years. He also was not such a super productive isigning, although 2013 was his best season with the Sox.

Lackey's ERA+ w LAA: 123, 127, 150, 119, 115

w BOS: 99, 67, N/A, 117, then traded after a 111 start to 2014.

 

The next largest contracts on the 2013 team?

$26M/2 Papi & Dempster

$39M/3 Vic

$30M/5 Lester

$41M/6 Pedey

 

 

Lackey was productive in 2013, that's what I meant.

[moonslav59]

Lackey was productive in 2013, that's what I meant.

 

He was, and that was a pretty hefty signing, back then. The mid level signings carried that team, too.

[Bellhorn04]

He was, and that was a pretty hefty signing, back then. The mid level signings carried that team, too.

 

Yes, Cherington was able to sign a whole basket of mid-level guys after the Dodgers trade/purge. It worked great for one year.

[dgalehouse]

I think what might help is getting Liam Hendriks back for the stretch run. He is battle-tested and , more importantly, a fresh arm at a time when there are so many tired arms around MLB.

[Bellhorn04]

I think what might help is getting Liam Hendriks back for the stretch run. He is battle-tested and , more importantly, a fresh arm at a time when there are so many tired arms around MLB.

 

He can't hurt. But we're kind of in the midst of a total pitching meltdown here.