An off-season article about the Boston Red Sox
MCMLVTopps
Posts: 4,839 ✭✭✭✭✭
Boston Red Sox offseason has been painfully bad so far
by Michael DeVito1 week ago
The Boston Red Sox appear to be attempting to put together the least impactful offseason possible.
It’s a drag to pen articles that have no enthusiasm about this team and their lackadaisical offseason proceedings. The offseason is when championships are won, and all that’s left to do is play the games.
Last offseason, Chaim Bloom fashioned an ALCS team out of practically nothing. With shrewd signings, trades, and even Rule 5 draft picks, Bloom maximized the value of every single player, and it resulted in an overachieving 2021 Boston Red Sox squad. The lesson that was learned; never count Mr. Bloom out.
This offseason has been a polar opposite. The Sox have only signed five major league free agents to this point, and none of them have been particularly well-received. As of this moment, it isn’t looking too darn good for the Sox. So let’s have a look at their offseason thus far.
The Boston Red Sox have managed to regress this offseason
Both prior to the lockout and now after it has ended, Red Sox fans have been chomping at the bit to see some positive, exciting movement from the front office. To date, fans have just had to keep chomping, because not much is happening. The excitement level is at about a two out of 10.
After the head-scratching trade of one of the team’s best offensive players in 2021, Hunter Renfroe, to the Milwaukee Brewers for 2021 offseason departee Jackie Bradley Jr., many fans were confused by the direction of the team.
OK, two prospects were acquired in the deal, which is nice yes, but are they going to contribute one iota to the 2022 major league squad? The answer is clear; no they are not.
Chowder And Champions
Want your voice heard? Join the Chowder And Champions team!
Write for us!
Then while hope sprang eternal that the Sox would almost certainly either re-sign slugger Kyle Schwarber or go get promising Japanese slugger Seiya Suzuki to replace Renfroe’s offense, neither happened.
Time is now running out for anything meaningful to happen this offseason other than the highly unlikely mega-splash for a top player like Carlos Correa. Let’s face the facts; the Red Sox penurious ownership (for a big market team, that is) isn’t going to sanction one of those 10-year deals.
Frankly, they shouldn’t have to either. That’s why the deals for guys like Schwarber and Suzuki made so much sense. They were for a reasonable amount of years for the ages of the players, and while significant in dollars, should not have been back-breaking or budget-busting for a big market team.
The Boston Red Sox losing out on Kyle Schwarber and Seiya Suzuki is troubling
Schwarber signed with the Philadelphia Phillies for $79M on a 4-year deal. While that’s not chump change, it’s a manageable amount for a player in his prime for a not-so-long period of time. It was perfect, frankly, even if somewhat more annually than you’d have liked to pay.
In Suzuki’s case, he signed with the Chicago Cubs. His deal was also very reasonable in a baseball sense. (There was also a posting fee of $15M to his former team, the Hiroshima Toyo Carp.) Bleacher Nation provides the particulars:
Here’s the full breakdown on the Cubs’ free agent deal for Japanese slugger Seiya Suzuki – which comes with a full no-trade clause – per Mark Feinsand:
2022: $7M (plus a $5M signing bonus)
2023: $17M
2024: $20M
2025: $18M
2026: $18M
While no one other than the players and their agents knows if either player seriously considered Boston, money talks, and both deals should have been right in the wheelhouse of the big-market Boston Red Sox.
They both were shorter deals (the key), for reasonable money, and for good players. That the Red Sox couldn’t get either of those deals across the finish line (if they actually tried) is systemically distressing.
It means that one of the following is true. First, it could mean that the team is not willing to spend that kind of money on good players. Second, it may mean that good players are not particularly interested in playing in Boston. Either is a terrible optic for the team, for Bloom, for the Boston Red Sox ownership, and especially for the fans. It’s worse if both are true.
Comments
I'm still a believer but only for half a Benjamin!
You are making an emotional wager, why not bet another $50 on a more realistic winner, including a National League team?
This way, you'd be backing your bet and having two shots instead of having all your eggs in one basket.
GL with the bet.
I hit a straight flush playing Texas Holdem, the odds are very, very long to do this, but it did happen to me.
It's not about the money! I won on the slots just stopped by the books and bought it. I bet $50 last year and they almost made the playoffs. Don't get to the casino often anymore. Not many people playing table games anymore so not much action there.
It's not about the money!
HUH? You made a money bet to win money, did I miss something? So, if the Red Sox win will you just toss the $800 ticket? I think you bet $100 last year as I recall.
No, I changed that to $50.00 last year and still have the ticket somewhere. If I win I will be there to take the money.
I was going to play blackjack but they only had a $5.00 table open,, no $25 table, and I don't do $5.00 tables. Its a waste of time. They had almost no pit action so I played slots . Went there mostly to get the wife out in a wheelchair and pushing that chair around is not easy.
Nice you can get the wife out to enjoy a bit of fun.
I don't play $5 tables either. I only play $25 or $50 tables, unfortunately, my nearest casino is Harrah's Cherokee in North Carolina, a 3 hour drive one way. No surrender option. I may have posted these pics some time ago, but you'll appreciate the logo on the chips. This was after our visit to Chaco Canyon and spent about 1.5 hrs at route 66.
They don't use the $500 chips there anymore. We used to use them when I was there but there is no need now as they are not that busy. When we first opened we had them on the high stakes baccarat, craps and blackjack tables.
I remember when I was playing there (3rd base), a guy was at 1st chatting up the flooer super, who was a female and the female dealer. He had to be a local by the discussion. So, I'm playing along and surrendering when it was called for, after a while, the guy asked the super what I was doing, she said he's surrendering his hand, then explained the basics of surrender. The point is this guy apprarently never knew about surrender. I wonder how many times he hit the awful 15s and 16s and busted. He wasn't a counter, he was gabbing too much with the super to keep up.
Those are the guys the casinos love. That was the first thing I learned was how to count cards when I first became a dual rate. You really don't need to if you know how to play. I would not play at a table if they did not have surrender! Too bad I missed you when you came through Albuquerque.