moonslav59

The team articulation of their plan has been atrocious, although broadcasting your specific plans is not something any GM does. I think it came down to Devers vs Bogey, and they made the right choice. The talk of Bogey being their number 1 priority was either a lie of a gross miscalculation of the market, or as Red calls it "misreading the room." I wish we could have kept 2 of the big 3. Betts was my #2, Devers #2 and Bogey #3. Signing Story and Yoshida at numbers that look like enough to have kept Betts or Bogey does look frightful. The Betts comp is hard to make, because we had massive budget cuts in 2020 and 2021, so we'd have had to get rid of others, but the Story (plus maybe another player) vs Bogey comp can be made. In terms of judging which was the best one to sign, the jury is out, although the Story signing is looking like the Sale one, out of the gate. Time will tell. I think Bogey will do well. I think he'll easily earn $170M/6 or even $200M/8 but not what SD paid him. I don't know, if Story or Yoshida will earn their keep. Most big signings don't work out for the team. We'll see.

At the time, I wondered why we just didn't take Verdugo and Maeda. Maeda was cheap and had many years of team control. He was a good SP'er, too, but he kinda fell off a cliff after 2-3 years.

Just saying context is not spin. It sucked losing Betts. It sucked Bloom was forced to trade him and what made it worse, he had to add Pr5ice to the deal to lessen the return. That is context- not spin. Losing Betts sucked. None of this changed that.

If he did "misread the room" like you said, but Bogey ends up sucking, it's still a mistake not to have signed him? Man! You are tough! 1. We both agree the $30M/1 yr add-on was a slap in the face. That's not the same as being a mistake, though, if Bogey sucks in 2023 or gets hurt. You judged the Downs part of the trade, because he sucked, but somehow what Bogey does or does not do is not important? 2. We both wish Bloom had offered Bogey a deal around $160-170M/6, last year or earlier, but we don't know if Bogey would have taken it. You can call it a mistake not to offer it, but that can only be judged as a mistake, if Bogey goes on to play well enough to earn that over the next 6 years. I think he will. I wish he was here at that number. We agree on that part. 3. Yes, the negotiation process was what it was and cannot be changed. We have a lot of the facts about it, but not all of them. It does not look good. Again, I agree. The communication between the team and Bogey and the team and fans/media was a cluster. I'm fine with calling it a "mistake" on this level, but if Bogey sucks, I'll be glad he made this "mistake." That is the point I am making. Not sending Fisk's contract to him on time was a mistake. The mistake was made also that Fisk did great after he left- even better than when he was here. Some thought not extending Jake was a mistake. Was it?

Indeed.

Indeed, and I've been saying the same thing about "botching the Bogey negotiations." Let's see what he does, first. It might also help to know what he would have accepted before blaming Bloom for not offering something that was moot.

You do realize I'm regurgitating the same thing in response to your and others regurgitating your same points over and over.

I think they felt Verdugo and Downs had "all star potential." The question is, what other allstars were offered?

When the GM is forced to trade Betts and Price, not viewing it within that context is way beyond ludicrous. Blame Henry all you want. That's fair. Not blaming Bloom for making the trade is far from spin. If you think he could have gotten better, that's debatable and fair game, but I would disagree other significantly better offers were out there. How many team would even make an offer for the combo of Betts and half-price. The money alone would knock out 22-26 teams from even picking up the phone.

In this sense, that's what makes the trade "suck."

You admit we don't know, but then act so sure he "could have gotten more." One year of Betts + 3 years of half-Price may not be what you think it was.

All the pundits said Price was a good signing.

Again, where did I say the trade was good for us. Yes, I have heard what else was out there, and I was and still am not impressed. We could have done slightly better, but that doesn't mean the trade was bad or good or successful. I think we got close to the best we could get. In hindsight, I wish we asked for a lesser prospect than Downs- one that did better, so yes, that part sucks. Verdugo has been okay and may still add more value. Wong is a long shot. The whole Betts situation sucked. I hated having to trade him. Nothing would have made me happy, except keeping him. It was what it was- a crappy situation forced on Bloom.

You keep saying I think the trade was a "success" or "good." Saying we got the best or close to the best we could get is far from saying it was a success or good. I keep telling you this, but for some reason, you enjoy putting words in my mouth.

Some gave the Sox a "C," so when you keep saying "all the pundits," even after being corrected several times, I have to wonder why you persist knowing you are wrong.

Indeed, just as some say the Price signing was good one, because of that ring. The deal was certainly a good one for the Dodgers, even if Betts left to another team after 2020. It's hard to say it was "good, " "decent," "okay" or "bad" from the Sox side, because the whole situation was complex, and the Price aspect of the trade makes it even more nuanced. No doubt, I'd rather have Betts than Verdugo, but it's not that simple.

He won't. We've asked him to do this several times on this and other issues and comments Like "He got all failing grades on _____." I do recall, the Sox were given Cs and Ds by many "pundits," but I wonder if they knew what other choices were out there or factored in that a Betts trade was mandatory and forced.

File under the Horror story genre.

The thing is, it's hard to not think of the trade as just 60 games + the postseason from Betts, and from the Dodger perspective, trading for him gave them the inside track on extending him, so it looks like a clear A+, so far. There is no way I can look at a trade at face value and say trading Betts for Verdugo was good for the Sox, but when you look at all the details and other choices out there, I'm not sure we could have done any better or significantly better. That still doesn't mean it was "good trade," but it was a necessary one.

MLBTR did a poll on the trade: Sox Grade: 30% C 27% B 18% D 13% A 12% F Many "pundits" gave it a "C" or "D," at the time.

We did pay for 2 years of half-Price. Add that to what Betts made, and what our budget was in 2020. Don't count Betts in 2021 or 2022, but count $16M for Price for each season. So, keep Betts & Price and trade Bogey & Nate or JD and ____?

There you go, again.

Of course you disagree. BTW, I never said it was a "good trade, " but only that other options were not much better. You took that to mean I was saying it was a "good trade." No doubt, Downs sucked and was a big part of that trade. No doubt, it sucked trading Betts away. I was hoping we signed him for 14 years, but that was not a choice. One question is, how much value is 60 games of Betts worth, minus 3 years of half-Price?

I totally agree, and this is a fine example of how saying this does not make us a "Bloom apologist" or whatever defending him on this is being thrown out there. It's what any GM who was here before the 2020 season would have been facing. If reports are true about what other offers might have been out there, nothing else looked significantly better, and certainly not to the level of a difference maker. It should be a GM neutral issue.

The other thing is, if you are good enough, defensively, you just have to hit .650.675 to stick around, a long time, but if he can just get over .700, he may be a starter for a long time.