moonslav59

A fair opinion, for sure. Some see more context and nuances than others, when it comes to assigning blame. Was Bloom responsible for 2020? If you say, no, then there is an acceptance of more than W-L as the final and only gauge of success or failure. Of course 2021 and 2022 did not have all the context that 2020 had, but the world is not always so black or white to some of us. .

By an infinite factor. TRADE CASAS! Bring BOBBY DEE BACK!

Cora for MOY!!!

I do think McGuire/Wong will be better than Vaz/Plawecki, but I certainly may be wrong. I do think it will be close enough to be a plus, due to the $7M saved on the Vaz/Plawecki cost differential. That $7M will allow us to try and upgrade another position by at least more than anything we might lose at catcher. Also, remember that Vaz has not always been a .750 hitter. .617 in 2014 .585 in 2016 .735 '17 .540 '18 .798 '19 .801 '20 .659 '21 .711 (overall in 2022) Keeping Vaz would be no guarantee of .700+. Bloom is forced to try and cobble together decency at a number of positions, with hopes for slight improvements, while he focuses resources towards improving our highest need areas. Before the Vaz trade, our 2023 and beyond catcher situation was scary as hell. Now, it is less scary. To me, it is much less scary. That may be all we can hope for, when we have about 8-10 positions in need of improvement: C 1B RF CF DH SP1 SP2 SP3 Closer Set up Set up We can dream about signing Judge, Turner, Bell, Rodon, Syndergaard and Diaz and still spend enough to improve on our catcher and extend Devers, but it ain't happening. Like it or not, some positions will have to be left to the likes of McGuire and Wong at catcher and Casas, Dalbec and Hosmer at 1B. Most likely, we will have to count on Sale and Bello to fill 2 SP'er slots, too. We will have to fill at least 1-2 key RP'er roles with players we already have- like Barnes and or Schreiber. There just isn't enough budget room to fix every problem in significant ways. I think Bloom has succeeded in slightly improving some longer term outlooks without giving up top prospects of tying up a bunch of money. I'm fine with opinions that disagree these were slight improvements, but IMO, they were and still are. It's not really McGuire/Wong > Vaz/Plawecki. For 2023, it's McGuire/Wong > Wong/RHern. It's Casas/Hosmer/Dalbec> Dalbec/Cordero It's Dugo/Pham> Dugo/Duran It's Bello> Wink/Craw None of these might end up being earth-shattering upgrades, but it is what is needed when you have 10 slots to fill and a limited budget and priorities that hoard prospects.

Indeed, and the 2 rings in those 11 years helps mitigate that pain- for some, more than others. I'm not saying I want us to repeat the last 11 years, again, but I'd much rather see that than what I saw from 1972-2003.

I'm the driver of the Devers Forevers bandwagon, so I think that answers that question. His age and durability makes the choice clear, to me.

I think I'd rather have Devers and a defensive SS who can hit well, but not at Bogey's rate. Just those signings, alone, will restrict how many other psoitions we can upgrade in significant ways. With a continued restricted budget, I'm not sure it's realistic to assume greatness, until our farm can start providing 1-2 key additions each year. Casas and Bello might be the first time that has happened in a long while, unless you want to count Houck and Whitlock as one season, in which it technically was not or additions fro "our farm," which Whitlock was not.

Very true, but that has happened before. He did spend big from 2016-2018, but we still never went 3 years over or paid a mega tax in any year, like the Dodgers and soon to be Mets.

The farm is much better, and Casas and Bello are the best two prospects we've called up in the same year in many many years, but we are not "there, yet," and it takes time to start seeing farm results, especially when you focus on adding HS players in the draft and 17-18 year olds in IFA.

It's hard to know what his spending plan looks like. History shows he does NOT spend big, unless and until we seem to be 1-2 key pieces away from being highly competitive, and then, the mega spending does not last for more than 1-2 years. He has never paid a 3rd year tax. The key questions are: Is he prepared to go 3 years over and be significantly over in year 2 or 3? Are we 1-2 key players away from being highly competitive, orwill that long-standing strategy be abandoned? Perhaps, only Henry knows. My guess, the answer is no to both questions. I think we reset in 2023 or 2024. I think we are not just 2 key players away from being highly competitive, and that is beyond bringing Bogey and Devers back beyond 2023 and 2024, which will be costly without adding anything to what we already have.

I hope he can score hits like Wacha, Hill, Strahm, Schreiber, Refsnyder, McGuire and others, like last winter. Those results speak for themselves, too. Sure, there is the JBJ deal everyone wants to focus, solely on and the W-L record, and yes, we cannot have a repeat of this year. Would a repeat of 2021 be good enough for the bloom-bashers?

It helps that the Dodgers often hit jackpot on their mega signings, except for a few- like Bauer. Many felt they overpaid, bigtime for a 1Bman, Freeman, but they guy is top 10 in fWAR, this year, and if he declines, they'll just add another big contract. We have largely swung a missed on our most recent big signings (Sale, Price, HRam, Pablito and back to Crawford), or at best, got sporadic or mixed results like from Nate & JD. Bogey was an extension that added 1 year to his team control with the opt-out. That one worked. The Story signing has not started out well, but it looks better than the Sale signing. IMO, the free agents signings only work, when you have a foundation established by a strong and deep farm and a GM who has the ability to fill lower paid roles well. I know Bloom has had mixed results on the lower paid players, but overall, I don't think we should have expected more than Whitlock, Wacha, Hill, Strahm, Schreiber, Refsnyder, Arroyo, McGuire and a few others. We are starting to see an uptick in farm help, and that is a good sign. Of course, much of that is speculative, but we can look back at all the farm help we've gotten from 2016 or 2017 to 2021, and count on one hand (or finger) all the positive players- namely Houck. It's no surprise we can't fill all the high need areas on $40M.

I forgot to mention Price!

The Sale, Nate, JD and Bogey deals were all 3 or more years long. You keep saying I interpret your positions wrongly, but where did I say Bloom deserves aa pat on the b ack? Pointing out that our record should be viewed in the context of playing in, by far, the toughest division is not a "defense." It's adding context. Things are not always black and white, and before you go on saying you never said they were, I know that. When way more than half of the dead money is not on Bloom, I think that matters a lot. Only Story and Barnes are on Bloom, and both don't seem like total write-offs, either. Bloom will lose a big chunk of the deadwood, as well as possibly non-deadwood in Bogey and maybe later, Devers. Let's give the guy a chance. Not pat him on the back, but a realistic chance to form "his team."

No doubt. We could have been better or much better had Bloom gotten 100% or even 85% of his moves right, but when you are forced to spend $4-8M/1 on most of your players acquired, it's hard to expect that. Hell, the success rate of signing known studs is hardly 50%..

Again, look at the 2020 roster- all 40 players plus the state of the farm after 2019. Then, look at the net winter spending budgets (cuts before 2020, $40M in 2021 and about $60M before, this year). Bloom had to be creative and ingenious to fix that mess. He did well on some moves (Whitlock, Arroyo, Schreiber, Refsnyder, Pivetta, Wacha, Hill, Strahm and the 2021 Kike) and swung and missed on others (Richards, Perz I, Perez II, Paxton, Marwin, Andriese and most of all JBJ), but when you are forced to sign 1 year deal fro $3-7M, you'd need a lot of miracles to bring this team to glory in 3 short years. Bloom had made several mistakes, as have GMs with bigger winter spending budgets. It's not like Bloom chooses $3-7M one-year contracts over larger and longer ones, and that's why I respond when people point out the $200M budget and oversimplify the reality of what that budget is all about. Just my opinion.

Ok. I went with cots. I think the 2 tiered option is the point of contention. Paxton is guaranteed $4M, if he takes his option after the Sox refuse theirs, but he could say no and not get the $4M. Since it's not a "buyout," it's not really guaranteed. Either way, 4 of the top 5 deals on the budget were DD signings or extensions. Only Bogey earned his money, but his dip in RBIs really hurt our chances, this year. Cal it excuse-making. Call it reality, but to bring up the $200M player budget as something Bloom should be held totally responsible for is deceptive. Now, I'm sure Red will counter with

The problem is, if you spend all your budget on Judge, you won't spend on the depth you need. Same with the Sox: if we spend on Bogey and Devers, there will not be enough to fill other high need areas, enough to win, unless and until we start getting more and better farm infusions. We did see an uptick, this year with Casas and Bello, and it looks like more are coming in 2023 and 2024, but will or can it be enough?

It's like the chicken or egg coming first.

Ill make it easy... Lux Tax Dollars 25.6 Sale 23.3 Story 22.0 JD 20.0 Bogey 17.0 Eovaldi 11.2 Devers (arb2 of 3) 10.0 Paxton 9.4 Barnes 7.0 Kike 7.0 Wacha 5.0 Hill 3.6 Dugo (arb 1 of 3) 3.0 Strahm 2.7 Pivetta (arb 1 of 3) Less than 1.5: Whitlock, Schreiber, Refsnyder, Arroyo, McGuire, Danish, Taylor, German, Kelly, Wong, Wink, Seabold, Ort and others Houck, Casas, Bello, Dalbec, Duran, Crawford, Brasier, Bazardo and others

You mentioned the $200M player budget as something to pat Bloom on the back for, not me. I'm with you on the bad idea to just let expiring contracts go for just a comp pick, but it seems like it's a lose-lose choice for the Sox GM. With the tight wallet, he gets grief for trading our beloved stars or grief for not trading them. Lets say we kept Betts, Bogey, Beni and then Devers. If that meant we could add basically nobody else to fill in the 10-15 other high need slots, we'd probably look like the Angels of the east. Our farm was not at the point where we could expect enough infusions to even come close making us a winning team. Henry would have had to come close to the Dodger payroll to get to glory. We can argue that he "can, if he wants to" all day long, but until we see it, we shouldn't expect it. BTW, it wasn't just losing Betts. Take a look at the 2020 roster: it lacked quality AND quantity and not $40M spending budget could solve all the problems. Not even a GM who got 100% of his moves right could have fixed that, overnight. The fact that we got as far as we did in 2021 was just short of miraculous or "genius" or just plain luck. This past winter was much like 2021, until the late March Story signing, and our expectations were supposed to be a ring in '22? Really? But hey, it's $200M and Bloom is a bum, because we finished last to team that spend hugely or who had a solid and deep farm system in place for several years- or both?

I remember when we signed Pablito & HRam; the talk was we should have signed Scherzer. The following winter, we broke our self-imposed rule of no long term deals to anyone over 30, when we signed Pric e to $210M/7. At that time, I felt like Price had the type of profile worth overpaying for and giving an extra year or two. Even he did not work out as hoped or planned. Now, are Rodon and Syndergaard really the types of pitchers we want to go large and long on? Granted, they may accept less than 7 years, but I'm just not feeling the optimism with just about any FA SP'er, this year- not that my feelings matter, as I have been wrong so many times on who we should spend on, it's not even funny. My idea is to trade for a younger, cost-controlled pitcher, but that may be a bigger pipedream than those suggesting we spend $80-100M, this winter (beyond the $10M we just gave to Kike.) I see the best FAs out there as Nimmo and one of the 4-5 SSs (Turner, Correa, Bogey, Swanson and maybe Anderson.) Judge ain't happening. I'm not sure the lon term plans would allow for a top 6 or 2 top 12 prospects trade to fill another high need area- like pitching, so maybe all our hopes for 2023 are just a mirage. I hope not, but certainly a reset and a bigger spending winter for 2024 is a possibility. Even if that is the case, I think top brass knows enough to do something, this winter, to bring back some hopes and optimism to Sox Nation. I'm not sure a b unch of one year deals will calm the natives. I see the Story deal as one that was not just about 2022 and 2023, but the hopes were he'd be part of the longer term plan, as well. Maybe we make two deals like that, this year: 4-5 years, so not super long and $22-$27M, so not super large. Enough to reset, but leaving (too) many positions to the kids and in-house solutions for many or most fans to be satisfied with.

I added some minor adjustments. It's obvious Bloom's focus has mostly been on all 5 ways, with the FA choice being limited by a fairly strict winter spending budget- not strict in the sense that he had to spend less than 20 other GMs did, except before 2020, but strict in the sense that $40M AAV to fill 10-15 slots is not going to get you a Verlander.

Is he patting DD on the back for much of that $200M?

Top 25 Everyday WAR players on the same team: Rank: STL 2. Arenado 3. Goldschmidt 19. Edman LAD 5. Freeman 7. Betts 12. T Turner HOU 8. Y Alvarez 9. Altuve 16. Bregman 25. Tucker NYM 6. Lindor 18. McNeil 23. Nimmo BOS 14. Bogaerts 21. Devers CLE 13. Gimenez 15. Ramirez Pitchers SFG 1. Rodon 13. Webb HOU 3. Verlander 15. F Valdez AZ 10. Gallen 25. M Kelly CLE 8. Bieber 20. T McKenzie