A Realistic View of the 2025 Red Sox: Part I

[moonslav59]

22 minutes ago, notin said:

Use the search on the boards…

I don't see a search bar or anything that says "Boards."

[Bellhorn04]

30 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

I was talking to the point about the "indecisiveness" of the choice made comment, namely because we waited until February. While I do think Bloom was kicking around various scenarios of trades, I think the "why" is as clear as day: to meet the budget set by JH.

I think Max was right: he knew we could not afford Betts, or if we did try to do it, we'd have had to gut much of the supporting cast as we ended up doing, even with trading Betts w half-Price. We also lost Porcello's contract and a few small to moderate ones, too- replacing all these guys with Martin Perez and scrubs.

You're really muddying the waters.  Max's statement wasn't about Bloom having to trade Betts to meet Henry's budget, it was about the Red Sox having to trade Betts because they can't compete financially with the Dodgers. 

I have said repeatedly that it wasn't Bloom's idea to trade Betts.  He was just the patsy.

[Bellhorn04]

As for the delay in trading Betts, I think there's an excellent chance they delayed because they didn't want to impact the decisions of season ticket buyers.  Bloom did kind of lie in December when he said there were no plans to trade Betts.  I think he phrased it a bit more ambiguously than that, something like, "I'm proceeding on the assumption he will be part of the 2020 team".

At that point the media clearly had no idea that the Sox had actually been in discussions to trade Betts at the deadline in 2019.  

[moonslav59]

43 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

You're really muddying the waters.  Max's statement wasn't about Bloom having to trade Betts to meet Henry's budget, it was about the Red Sox having to trade Betts because they can't compete financially with the Dodgers. 

I have said repeatedly that it wasn't Bloom's idea to trade Betts.  He was just the patsy.

Isn't slashing the budget evidence we "can't compete with the Dodgers" or just saying the same thing in a different way?

We traded Betts over finances. We can word it anyway we want.

Could we have afforded to pay Betts what LAD did and still met the budget demands? Probably, but we'd have gutted the rest of the team, as we ended up pretty much doing, anyway. Betts wasn't even the beginning of the slashing. While maz keeps pointing out that the 2019 budget was bigger than 2018, that was largely about risings costs of stars that were nearing their big payday and bringing back some guys like Pearce. The fact is, we let Kimbrel and Kelly go without even trying to replace them. Then, it was Betts, 1/2 price and Porcello plus others. The next year it was Beni, JBJ, Workman and others. Eventually, it was nate, JD, Bogey and more.

Yes, cutting the budget by huge amounts meant we could not compete with the Dodgers on signing Betts and others on signing other departing stars. I'm seeing clear waters, not muddy ones.

[Bellhorn04]

10 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Isn't slashing the budget evidence we "can't compete with the Dodgers" or just saying the same thing in a different way?

Not really.  Some would say it's just evidence they wanted to make more profit?

You seem to be saying that they have only cut payroll because they had no choice in the matter - as if "they did it, so it must be right".

[moonslav59]

51 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

As for the delay in trading Betts, I think there's an excellent chance they delayed because they didn't want to impact the decisions of season ticket buyers.  Bloom did kind of lie in December when he said there were no plans to trade Betts.  I think he phrased it a bit more ambiguously than that, something like, "I'm proceeding on the assumption he will be part of the 2020 team".

At that point the media clearly had no idea that the Sox had actually been in discussions to trade Betts at the deadline in 2019.  

I have zero faith in anything the Sox say, and that goes retroactively.

It's just my opinion, but I think Bloom was handed a budget that required massive cuts and not replacing Porcello's contract was just a part of it. 

The only indecision might have been as he sought different ways to reach the budget by keeping Betts, so maybe he didn't outright lie, or by trading him. They probably had no takers for full-price Price, and he soon realized Betts had to go. Maybe he waited to February to maximize season ticket sales, or to wait out any other teams that might offer more than what LAD offered. Reports were that just one other offer was made to Bloom. 

We ended up cutting $60M from the 2019 budget that was already without our 2 top RP'ers. The writing was on the wall before 2019. I don't think anyone expected slashes like we saw, but I don't think JH ever intended to pay everyone and keep that 2018 team intact. Even if he did, Porcello sucked and never pitched after 2019, Beni declined, quickly, Nate, Sale and ERod missed a lot of starts. Price did next to nothing. 

It has also been argued that if we never extended Sale and nate, maybe Betts would still be here.

[moonslav59]

9 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Not really.  Some would say it's just evidence they wanted to make more profit?

You seem to be saying that they have only cut payroll because they had no choice in the matter - as if "they did it, so it must be right".

Our GMs had no choice. I have clearly stated JH could afford anyone, if he wanted.

This isn't about JH's motives. To me, making money is clearly his motive.

Yes, the reason we could not compete with the Dodgers, and why we slashed the budget was all about JH's choice to put money over winning. I'm not sure anything I have said counters that or muddies anything.

I've never come close to even hinting what they did was "right." It is what JH chose it to be. The GMs might have had some say in how to make the cuts and who stays vs who goes, but it was always about JH & Co. making more money- or "saving it."

[Bellhorn04]

1 minute ago, moonslav59 said:

It has also been argued that if we never extended Sale and nate, maybe Betts would still be here.

Bringing Eovaldi into it is nonsensical.  A $17 million per contract prevents the Boston Red Sox  from retaining one of the best players in franchise history?  

That's just offensive.

 

[moonslav59]

2 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Bringing Eovaldi into it is nonsensical.  A $17 million per contract prevents the Boston Red Sox  from retaining one of the best players in franchise history?  

That's just offensive.

 

I said Sale and Nate, and how much did we underbid the Dodgers by? (about $64M, right?)

Certainly, if Bloom was looking of other ways to cut the budget and keep Betts, it would have been easier without Sale and Nat's contracts on the books.

Bloom had a tough budget to work with. The Price aspect of the trade is often neglected, and the loss of Porcello's innings eating and $21M contract with a Martin Perez replacement is another huge cut.

[Bellhorn04]

9 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Our GMs had no choice. I have clearly stated JH could afford anyone, if he wanted.

This isn't about JH's motives. To me, making money is clearly his motive.

Yes, the reason we could not compete with the Dodgers, and why we slashed the budget was all about JH's choice to put money over winning. I'm not sure anything I have said counters that or muddies anything.

I've never come close to even hinting what they did was "right." It is what JH chose it to be. The GMs might have had some say in how to make the cuts and who stays vs who goes, but it was always about JH & Co. making more money- or "saving it."

Well, I apologize if I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, but it's kind of confusing how you're expressing your point, i.e. Isn't slashing the budget evidence we "can't compete with the Dodgers?" 

If you replaced "can't" with "won't" or "choose not to", it would be much clearer.  "Can't" implies a lack of ability, not a lack of desire.

 

 

[Bellhorn04]

4 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

I said Sale and Nate, and how much did we underbid the Dodgers by? (about $64M, right?)

Certainly, if Bloom was looking of other ways to cut the budget and keep Betts, it would have been easier without Sale and Nat's contracts on the books.

Bloom had a tough budget to work with. The Price aspect of the trade is often neglected, and the loss of Porcello's innings eating and $21M contract with a Martin Perez replacement is another huge cut.

Again, this is not about Bloom.  I'm not blaming Bloom one iota.  He had marching orders.    

[notin]

33 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

I said Sale and Nate, and how much did we underbid the Dodgers by? (about $64M, right?)

Certainly, if Bloom was looking of other ways to cut the budget and keep Betts, it would have been easier without Sale and Nat's contracts on the books.

Bloom had a tough budget to work with. The Price aspect of the trade is often neglected, and the loss of Porcello's innings eating and $21M contract with a Martin Perez replacement is another huge cut.

Sale (and Bogaerts) signed after the Betts negotiations broke down.  I got the impression they were Plan B.

If any single existing contract prevented the Sox from signing Betts, the only one that makes sense is Price with its $31mill AAV that went through the end of 2022.

Most likely it was the Big Picture with numerous 8 figure AAV deals including Price, Eovaldi, Martinez, Sandoval, Hanley and Rusney Castillo. Any others?

[harmony]

1 hour ago, moonslav59 said:

I don't see a search bar or anything that says "Boards."

Google Baseball Trade Values and the player's name to produce a list of dated matches that sometimes disclose the player's BTV values.

[Nick]

1 hour ago, moonslav59 said:

Isn't slashing the budget evidence we "can't compete with the Dodgers" or just saying the same thing in a different way?

We traded Betts over finances. We can word it anyway we want.

Could we have afforded to pay Betts what LAD did and still met the budget demands? Probably, but we'd have gutted the rest of the team, as we ended up pretty much doing, anyway. Betts wasn't even the beginning of the slashing. While maz keeps pointing out that the 2019 budget was bigger than 2018, that was largely about risings costs of stars that were nearing their big payday and bringing back some guys like Pearce. The fact is, we let Kimbrel and Kelly go without even trying to replace them. Then, it was Betts, 1/2 price and Porcello plus others. The next year it was Beni, JBJ, Workman and others. Eventually, it was nate, JD, Bogey and more.

Yes, cutting the budget by huge amounts meant we could not compete with the Dodgers on signing Betts and others on signing other departing stars. I'm seeing clear waters, not muddy ones.

Don't ask me to prove it, but I believe Bloom said something to the effect AFTER the trade yeah we could have signed Betts but as you said and Bloom said that the team would have been gutted, not enough supporting cast to put out a playoff team for three or four years. 

I would challenge the club now that we have enough pieces to put out a playoff contending team, spend some money to chase the title.

Does JH really want to die and his epitaph to say well he was able to retain much of his wealth at the time of his death?

[notin]

32 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Again, this is not about Bloom.  I'm not blaming Bloom one iota.  He had marching orders.    

Cherington was likely more of an issue than Bloom, as Cherington’s commitments of some $280 mill (or so) to Hanley, Sandoval, and Rusney Castillo ultimately proved useless.  I won’t count Porcello, because at least he worked out…

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Again, this is not about Bloom.  I'm not blaming Bloom one iota.  He had marching orders.    

I know.

Are we arguing over what JH's motivations were and are?

I'm not seeing any difference between saying we could not match LAD and JH was slashing the budget.

[Bellhorn04]

1 hour ago, moonslav59 said:

I know.

Are we arguing over what JH's motivations were and are?

I'm not seeing any difference between saying we could not match LAD and JH was slashing the budget.

Well, what exactly do you mean by "We could not match LA?" 

The answer to that would be a great start to clarification.

 

 

[mvp 78]

2 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Well, what exactly do you mean by "We could not match LA?" 

The answer to that would be a great start to clarification.

"Would not." 

"Didn't feel like it." 

[Bellhorn04]

2 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

"Would not." 

"Didn't feel like it." 

Exactly what I'm trying to say!  moon doesn't seem to get this distinction.  He's using this circular logic of "we couldn't afford it because Henry slashed the budget!"

[Duran Is The Man]

4 hours ago, Bellhorn04 said:

No one can dispute what actually happened, that's Captain Obvious!  Not the point!

The dispute can only be about why it happened.  My dispute is with Max's take, which is essentially that Betts had to be traded because the Red Sox can't compete financially with the Dodgers.  Here's what he said: 

Betts went to the Dodgers because they could afford the contract he was going to insist upon and the Sox could not.  

yeah....that's ********. the fact is: the Sox don't want to compete, because JH is a greedy, egotistical, POS.

[Bellhorn04]

4 minutes ago, Duran Is The Man said:

yeah....that's ********. the fact is: the Sox don't want to compete, because JH is a greedy, egotistical, POS.

Now that's the kind of plain language I'm talkin' about! 😀

[moonslav59]

21 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Well, what exactly do you mean by "We could not match LA?" 

The answer to that would be a great start to clarification.

 

 

We could not match LA, because JH set the budget too low. 

I'm still not getting how what I am saying is muddying anything. We all know he didn't sign because Jh would not pay him. Why does it matter so much how we word it?

I guess we can take issue with the word choice "could," because we all know JH "could have" paid the money, but from Bloom's perspective we "could not," unless he gutted the rest of the team.

As it turned out, we lost Betts and gutted the rest of the team, so I doubt that was even a choice, in hindsight.

[mvp 78]

18 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Exactly what I'm trying to say!  moon doesn't seem to get this distinction.  He's using this circular logic of "we couldn't afford it because Henry slashed the budget!"

That dang budget! I bet it's the accountant's fault! We should blame that bean counter for spending all his time posting here under a pseudonym! 

[mvp 78]

18 minutes ago, Duran Is The Man said:

yeah....that's ********. the fact is: the Sox don't want to compete, because JH is a greedy, egotistical, POS.

I would not invite him over for Thanksgiving dinner even though they won 4 WS. Really messed up if you think about it. 

[mvp 78]

1 minute ago, moonslav59 said:

We could not match LA, because JH set the budget too low. 

I'm still not getting how what I am saying is muddying anything. We all know he didn't sign because Jh would not pay him. Why does it matter so much how we word it?

I guess we can take issue with the word choice "could," because we all know JH "could have" paid the money, but from Bloom's perspective we "could not," unless he gutted the rest of the team.

As it turned out, we lost Betts and gutted the rest of the team, so I doubt that was even a choice, in hindsight.

It would have been better for him to gut the 2020 team and keep Mookie. Trade Xander. Trade JD. Trade Raffy if they really needed to. Mookie was the best of the bunch. 

[Bellhorn04]

5 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

We could not match LA, because JH set the budget too low. 

I'm still not getting how what I am saying is muddying anything. We all know he didn't sign because Jh would not pay him. Why does it matter so much how we word it?

I guess we can take issue with the word choice "could," because we all know JH "could have" paid the money, but from Bloom's perspective we "could not," unless he gutted the rest of the team.

Well, OK, they could have if Bloom "gutted".

Any way you look at it, saying "they couldn't do it" is unequivocally FALSE.

[moonslav59]

11 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

That dang budget! I bet it's the accountant's fault! We should blame that bean counter for spending all his time posting here under a pseudonym! 

What's the argument? We all know why we didn't sign Betts.

JH could have.

Bloom could not.

I've admitted this over and over.

JH would not pay, therefore we could not match LAD. Is this a false statement?

[moonslav59]

6 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Well, OK, they could have if Bloom "gutted".

Any way you look at it, saying "they couldn't do it" is unequivocally FALSE.

Assuming JH okayed other gutting over the Betts trade, yes.

[mvp 78]

8 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

What's the argument? We all know why we didn't sign Betts.

JH could have.

Bloom could not.

I've admitted this over and over.

JH would not pay, therefore we could not match LAD. Is this a false statement?

JH would not pay, therefore we would not match LAD.

[Bellhorn04]

22 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Assuming JH okayed other gutting over the Betts trade, yes.

But I thought you were saying all JH did was set the budget and the rest was up to Bloom to figure out?

In any case, you've admitted they could have done it, so it's kind of case closed.