moonslav59

I was fully in board with $25M x 7, and would still wish that happened. My point is that we do NOT know he'd have ever accepted that. I think he would have at the time of the Story signing, but it's just conjecture. I'm fine with arguing hypothetical scenarios, but lets just make sure that's all they are.

What's a "legitimate offer?" And, more importantly, would or would not Bogey have accepted it, whatever "it" would have been? Those are some pretty important distinctions that creates this whole speculative debate. I get that. I wish he had offered Bogey $160M/6 at the time of the Story signing and maybe $200M/7, later. I'd like to know if Bogey would have taken either offer. It would have made judging much easier, but even had these offers been made and turned down or accepted, we still won't know ifr it was good or bad for years. Over and over and over again, I have agreed with you the initial $30M add-on was a slap in the face, but maybe it's all he thought he was worth. While I disagree on that assessment, we can't say "botched, Until we see if Bogey was indeed worth even that. This isn't the same as me saying I don't think he was worth that and more. I do think he was worth $160M/6 and even said $170M/6, which I think is close to what you suggested. We do not think we disagree on what we think Bogey was/is worth. We disagree on saying we know, right now, if the "signing was botched." 1. We don't know what he'd have taken. 2. We don't know he'll be worth the very least he would have taken, let alone the most Bloom might have offered. For someone who constantly blasts posters for taking positions based on speculation, like being optimistic about our farm, you sure seem to have no issue grabbing hold of a purely speculative issue in several ways and coming to a firm and immovable position that the "signing was botched." It's fine having that position, and you are clearly not alone. I'd even guess the majority of Sox nation sees it pretty closely to the way you see it. I don't doubt that, and the booing just adds furl to the fire burning in the Nation. I've never doubted there is a fire raging or the reasons for it burning. I just disagree with the overall assessment and out of context judgements. I'm pretty sure I'm in a minority, and maybe a small one. If the guys we sign do well, and Bogey does well or not so well, I don't thin it matters much. If the reverse happens, I'll be "what-iffing" along with everyone else. Let's see how it plays out before pronouncing victory or defeat.

They were wrong, only if Bogey plays well going forward, as with any FA signing. I've said all along, I wish we kept him and were able to sign him for way less a year or so ago. My point is, it's all speculation, and not only that, we are speculating on an amount that is speculative. If we never know what he would have taken, we'll probably never know if he would have been worth it. Yes, the recent Story injury makes keeping him more valuable, but even if we could have had him for $25M x 6 or 7 years, are we sure we'd be better with him, instead of Jansen & Turner or Turner, Kluber and Duval? And, those comps don't come close to matching the longer term aspects of signing Bogey. It's fine to disagree on whether it was worth letting Bogey go or not, but without knowing the exact amount, it's hard to be certain, and either way, it ends up depending on how well he does, going forward.

Yes, I got your point and agree with it. I do think we could have gotten Bogey to sign, if we really wanted him, but I do not think they ever felt he was worth the amount it would have taken to get him- even at the lower possible amounts from a year or two ago. My added point was about some just blindly saying Bloom "botched the Bogey signing" that goes beyond the idea that maybe we never really wanted him, so calling it a botch can only be about the poster thinking he was worth signing and the Sox blew it by not signing a plyer worth signing. (What else is new?) My point was about do we even know Bogey will be worth $160M/6 or $200M/7? Until we know that, saying "botched: is speculative, too.

Josh Harrison signs for just $2M with Phillies. At that cost, I'd like to have seen us sign him.

LMAO! Good one.

Indeed, but even just looking at it year-by-year, the budget logistics just isn't there. It only works, if we assume JH would have spent more, or we have to figure in that others would have been traded away, instead of Betts. Sale & half-Price or 3/4 Price? Nate and 3/4 Price? JD and 3/4 Price? JD & Nate?

How can we know anything was botched or not, without ever knowing what Bogey would have accepted, if offered? It's all speculation, and even if we could have gotten Bogey for $160M/6 (doubtful,) are we sure yet, that was a botch? It's not like the history on these types of deals is an exact science. That being said, I do wish we could have kept Bogey, especially after losing Betts. In hindsight, I wish DD had worked the Bogey extension better and paid him more to not have the opt out, and extended Betts and not Sale & Nate. Once all those deals were set or not set, the die was cast. We can argue till the cows come home about "JH spending more, if he wanted to," but the fact is he didn't want to, and he did not do it.

In my opinion, our 40 man roster depth and farm promise has come a long way since 2019-2020. It remains to be seen, if it will be a difference maker, but we went from having maybe 20 (or more) weak spots on our 40 in 2020 to maybe 3-5, now. Personally, I would not have counted Barnes in that bottom 3-5, but clearly Bloom & Co. value some players much differently than I and others on this site. As of now, I'd say these are our weakest 5 slots- in order from weakest to less weak: 1. Ort (2 options remaining) 2. Brasier (no options) 3. Hamilton (3) 4. Duran (2) 5. Abreu (3) Contenders: Paxton (0), Mondesi (0), Mills (1) and Wink (2) Note: this is not a projected DFA list. One could say the list is 9 long and not much of an improvement, but I'd disagree. I'm also optimistic about some players on the farm that may be added to the 40, this year or in 2024: 1. Mayer (Rule 5 after '25, but will be added earlier) 5. Yorke (Rule 5 after '24) 14. Lugo (Rule 5 after '23) 20. Kavadas (Rule 5 after '24) 23. Drohan (Rule 5 after '23) 29. Uberstine (Rule 5 after '24) Other Rule 5's after 2023, besides Lugo & Drohan that might be close to protecting. perhaps depending on what they do in 2023 on the farm: 10. Luis Perales (projected 2026 arrival) 11. Eddison Paulino (projected '25 arrival) 12. Wikelman Gonzalez (projected '25 arrival) 16. Brainer Bonaci ('25) 33. Christian Koss 37. Ryan Fernandez 40. Gilberto Jimenez 41. Stephen Scott 44. Juan Encarnacion

I've never said Bloom did not "botch" the Bogey negotiations. I'd still like to know the amount and years Bogey would have accepted 2 years ago, 1 year ago and a few months ago. I'd also like to know, if he might have accepted more, and exactly how much more, back when DD extended him but without the opt out. Until I know those numbers, it might not matter that Bloom botched the negotiations, if the number was never going to be accepted by JH & Co. I am fully aware, it might very easily have mattered, too. I wish we had all 3, today, but only if what I see as an impossible wish accompanied this one: that JH would have spent way, way, way more than he did over the last 3 years and would continue to do so, despite the penalties to drafts that would come with it. This whole "we could have kept 2 or 3, if JH would have..." rings hollow to me. It's a valid thing to discuss, but it should not be tied to judging DD and Bloom. DD saw what happened when the money was cut off, too. He wasn't too happy about the winter before 2019 and the deadline of 2019. I'm sure he would not have liked JH telling him to cut $60M off the 2019 budget going into 2020, either. We can wish history had been different, but tying that wish to why Bloom has not been successful seems unfair, to me.

The argument that JH could have should have is moot. He didn't and wouldn't have upped the budget had he kept 2 or 3. Nobody argues we would not have been better had we kept 2 or 3 and greatly increased our budget over the last 3 years. NOBODY. Newsflash: we'd have been better than we have been the last 3 years with just Devers and $60M more on the budget, year one, $40M more year 2 and $20M more year 3. Of course I admit that this set the Sox b ack for years. That's been my point all along- that and the fact our farm has given us next to nothing since devers in 2017. When the budget is cut, the only hope is in the farm and finding gems for low costs. Had JH agreed to spend wildly over the last 3 years, we would not have sucked. BTW, yes, I agree, if the nprospec ts don't pan out, we will suck for a few more years. Why you think I won't admit this is puzzling. It's a no-brainer. I happen to choose to be optimistic about our farm. You choose to call them "suspects"not "prospects." This is not the same as me thinking it is a certainty they lead us out of this doom and gloom we've seen in 2 of the last 3 years. Nuance is something you don't understand.

You also said notin agrees. That was what I was addressing, but missin g the point is your M.O. Only a strawman is disagreeing on us having a winning record for 4 years, but continue battling against it.

how you interpret other people's posts never ceases to amaze me.

Had we kept 2 of the three, we have to acknowledge, someone else goes or would not have been signed. Of course, in hindsight, we could pick and choose only the bad signings and maybe come close to robbing Peter to pay Paul, but we'd still be left with gaping holes in the roster with no money to fill them and no farm infusions, either. Betts, Bogey and Devers plus a bunch of guys like Brice, Weber, Marwin, Dalbec, Darwin, Chavis ... There is a good chance the guys who would have taken the slots filled by Richards, Perez I & II, Ottavino and others would have done worse, since they'd all be min wage guys.

Again, you respond to a point I did not make. Had we kept all 3, we'd have no money for players to sign as FAs to support them. We'd still have to rely on farm help to create a winning team... actually, even more so.

Those 3 cost about $20M. Betts + half price was close to $45M.

Had we kept Betts, Bogey and Devers, we'd have close to no free agents added to the roster around them and would still have to put all our faith into "the suspects," as you like to call them. We might have had a better record in 2020 and no Mayer, too.

I wish we did build around Betts, even if it meant trading Bogey or Sale or Nate, assuming we could have dumped 1/2 Price with one or two of them. We'd have still not won for the last 3 years with the budget we had and minus Bogey or Nate. We'd be looking somewhat better off, this year, but maybe we'd be seeing Devers off, next year. I think I'd prefer to build around 27-36 year old Devers than a 30-39 year old Betts, but it's not a clear no-brainer choice, for sure.

My guess is Betts will be better for the next 2-3 years- maybe 4, then the age differential kicks into Devers' favor. Body types may be a big factor, but sometimes big guys age pretty well, as in Papi. OPS+ (Granted, Betts blows Devers away on D) Betts 186 age 25 w BOS 134 at 26 BOS 147 at 27 LAD 126 at 28 LAD 136 at 29 LAD ? 30 ? 31 ? 32 ? 33 ? 34 ? 35 ? 36 ? 37 ? 38 ? 39 (2032) Devers 141 at age 25 ? at 26 (2023) ? 27 (extension begins) ? 28 ? 29 ? 30 ? 31 ? 32 ? 33 ? 34 ? 35 ? 36 (2033) Even though Devers is under control one year beyond Betts, he'll be just 36 in his last season. That's what Betts will be with 3 more years to go in his deal. I hope we are all around to discuss which deal was better.

I'd have kept Betts, but seeing what out budget was set at over the past 3 years makes me see it differently. I'm not sure keeping Betts would have allowed us to keep Devers. Of the 3, I'd keep Betts, then Devers, then Bogey. No way we keep all 3. If we kept Betts and Devers and the same budget, we'd be without Kluber, Martin and Jansen going into 2023.

There are posters who blame Bloom for not building up the roster- like it was his choice to slash $60M from the year 1 budget and have next to nothing from the farm in a 5 year stretch. Had we kept Betts, even at the Dodger amount (doubtful) and Price, we not only could not have added players around them, we'd have had to subtract players from what we had- maybe Bogey, Nate, or Sale or 2 of the 3. Now, it is different. We have some promising farm help here, already and expected 10+ more, this year and next. We have enough budget space to add Yoshida, Jansen, Martin, Turner and Duvall "around Devers." I get your point about Betts being here now, but we'd have basically wasted 3 years paying Betts to get to this year, and now he's over 30- still very good but the next 5 years don't look the same as the 5 years starting from 2020 on Betts. The "Time is now" three years ago was light years different from now.

The funny thing is, many of our contracts for 4 years or longer, actually stopped being an asset before 4 years or never really were an asset, except for maybe one season. * extension 217/7 Price: Yr1 good (136 ERA+ w DET then 112 in '16), Yr 2 75IP, Yr 3 176 IP 126 ERA+ 160/8 Manny: Clear winner until the very end of his contract 154/7* AGon: Yr 1 great season (155 OPS+), then nothing close & traded year 2. 142/7 Crawford: Complete bust from yr 1 (107 OPS+ w TBR & 89 w BOS) 145/5* Sale: Complete bust year 1, 2 & 3 140/6 Story: Injured for a big chunk of yr 1 and yr 2 110/5 JD: Year 1, 2 & 4 were big plusses. 5 was not bad. 110/8 Pedroia: Pretty clearly a bust, although the start was not bad 95/5 Sandoval: Bust from year 1 88/4 HRam: Yr 1 kinda bad, yr 2 good, yr 3-4 pretty bad 83/4 Porcello: Yr 1 Cy Young, yr 3 okay, the rest not so good 83/5 Lackey: Yr 1 Meh, Yr 2 sucked, Yr 3 missed, Yr 4 helped win ring, traded 73/7 Castillo: Bust from the start 70/5 JD Drew: Pretty good, especially yr 2 & 3. 1 & 4 were OK 68/4 Eovaldi: Yr 1 bad, Yr 2 good but COVID, Yr 3 his best, Yr 4 meh 68/4* Beckett: Yr 1 good, Yr 2 bad, yr 3 good, yr 4 bad/traded (beergate) 52/6 (+52 posting fee) Dice-K: Yr 1 okay, 2 very good, then caput 42/4* Youkilis: Yr 1 good, Yr 2 pretty good, Yr 3 not good & traded 40/4 Renteria: Yr 1:Not good then traded 40/4 VTek ('05): Solid contract all the way 36/4 Lugo: Yr 1 not as bad as many think but still... lost a step afterwards 31/4 Damon: Good signing front to back 30/5* Lester: Good extension 26/4 Foulke: Yr 1 was vital, then yuck!

It's interesting to look back and see that our best 2 free agent signings of this century were in 2000 (Manny signed by Dan D.) and Jan 22, 2003 (Papi signed for peanuts by Theo.) If you look at all the FA signings over the last 20 years, it's not an good overall look. Manny & Papi were both signed more than 20 years ago!

Comparing the farm and budget Bloom was given to spend on a "supporting cast," even without Betts and half-Price's contracts on the books to what LA was able to build up since the trade is a joke. Like it's Bloom's fault our budget isn't close to LA's.

Only the negative stories get the attention.