wow. i'm ok with this. on the pro side of the bloom ledger -

-rebuilt farm
-slightly better financial outlook

on the negative side-

-sale extension and story signing. money that would have been better in mookie's pocket
-devers extension
-money chasing old injured pitchers
-k. hernandez extension
-starting this season with 3 viable starters and no middle infielders

What

@Buster_ESPN
It'll be interesting to see if Alex Cora emerges as one of the candidates to run Boston's baseball operations. He has a broad range of experience, and others in the organization felt he increased his presence in the player development this year.

oh geez, i hope #2 isn't true. i figured that bloom getting the axe means cora's time is done too. not a fan of cora, probably time for a full refresh.

I can't see how they'd be connected - it's always been clear that Bloom was Strongly Encouraged to hire Cora back after his time away, and I figured that, if anything, Cora would go first so that Bloom could install his guy.

#1.

I believe the Sale extension was Dombrowski's doing.

Story hasn't worked out so far, but he was only 29, with a pretty clean health record, and had 27 WAR in the equivalent of 5 full seasons with the Rockies.

I also fail to see what is so bad about the Kike extension. I'm pretty sure Kike just took the money (and 1/$10 isn't excessive), he didn't demand to be the everyday SS as a condition of signing.

But Bloom was basically paying Devers what he could have been paying Betts. That's a firing offense on its own.

The best run team in the sport has turned into a clownshoes operation. Incredible.

thanks for the correction on sale, DCA. the story signing was terrible from day 1, high K middle infielders don't have careers in their 30s. tulo, another rockies SS was irrelevant at 32 and out of baseball at 34, and he had better "old man skills" than story exhibited.

The Red Sox sure love firing GMs during the season.

It's kind of a trend lately, the Tigers fired Avila and the Royals fired Moore in September. Gives you a jumpstart on interviewing candidates so you can have someone installed by the time the post-season is over and transactions can begin.

The Sale extension - which I think has been the 2nd-biggest mistake of the last 7+ years of the Red Sox - has been an anvil around the team's rebuilding. I know some folks here say that it shouldn't be, given that it is "only" ~$25m/year, but here's the real statistic to consider:

payroll in 2019: $243m (top three, I think?)
payroll in 2023: $179m (15th in MLB this year)

It was a five-year extension: $30m in 2020-2022, $27.5m in 23-24. In 2019, he made only $15m. And, as you all know, he has done zilcho for the team since 2019, pitching 282 innings total in the last five years with a 4.34 ERA. They have been paying an ace to almost literally no pitch for the team for five years, as his salary became an increasing percentage of the team's total payroll.

In 2019, he was 6.2% of payroll. This year, he is 15.4% of payroll.

How you feel about Bloom probably comes down to two questions:

1) The farm system is much, much better than it was five years ago, but how much credit does Bloom deserve for that. Casas, Bello, and Rafaela are all from the Dombrowski era - but much of their development occurred in the Bloom era. Who gets credit for that? And some of the hotshot prospects of the Bloom era, especially Mayer and Teel, were generally seen at the time as no-brainer moves for players who fell into Boston's lap. I think Roman Anthony is right now the best argument Bloom has for a premium prospect that a lot of GMs might not have selected, but who is about to explode on the scene.

2) How much control did Bloom have over some of the key financial decisions of his tenure? I'm like a lot of fans, wondering why things ever got to the point with Betts and Bogaerts where they could even become free agents. Betts, in particular, remains deeply ingrained in the fan base. You'll go 20 years and not have a player like that; when you get one, you do whatever it takes to keep him for life. If the management told him to offer X, take it or leave it, and then Betts said leave it, so he had to trade him? Well, that's on management, mainly. But maybe it wasn't handled well by a very young and green Bloom, and he misread Betts? Then that's on Bloom. The fans see it as on Bloom...and the management is happy to feed that (possibly inaccurate) narrative.

So do they now do the thing where they bring in a Dombrowski type to cash some of the prospects and build a winner?

payroll in 2019: $243m (top three, I think?)
payroll in 2023: $179m (15th in MLB this year)

What are the AAV/tax numbers? I think this year's team was very close to the $233 mil. number.

So do they now do the thing where they bring in a Dombrowski type to cash some of the prospects and build a winner?

Sure, Billy Beane would listen if the Red Sox called.

Honestly, this is borderline shocking to me.

Re: #2--So one thing that used to happen (see Paul Owens, Gene Michael) is that you'd occasionally see a GM come down and manage a team. I suppose Cora moving the other way to be the GM wouldn't be the CRAZIEST thing, but it would be... well, unorthodox, for sure. (What would be crazier is for the manager to ALSO be the GM... that's something you see a lot of in European soccer, but I can't even recall the last time (if ever?) that was in the 4 major sports in North America.

Unless they have a bead on someone they want to lock up ASAP, I really don't understand the timing of this at all. They're ultimately right around where most (on here) thought they'd be at the start of the season, they've gotten the young guys playing (and playing pretty well)... I'm not sure what else could have been reasonably expected from them this year.

Hopefully this firing isn't to get ahead of something else that'll drop soon, but everything about this sort of has the feel that they're firing him to get ahead of something.

Sure, Billy Beane would listen if the Red Sox called.

Would he, though? Probably not. I'm really struggling to think of who would be best to try to bring in. I don't think there's an obvious choice here. Maybe Theo's gotten bored conquering the pace-of-play issue for MLB and wants a triumphant return?

Re: #2--So one thing that used to happen (see Paul Owens, Gene Michael) is that you'd occasionally see a GM come down and manage a team. I suppose Cora moving the other way to be the GM wouldn't be the CRAZIEST thing, but it would be... well, unorthodox, for sure.

It's been awhile, but Whitey Herzog made the move from manager of the Cards to GM of the Angels (with bad results). Jack McKeon also went from skipper to GM of the Padres. Lou Piniella went from manager to GM of the Yankees. Technically John Hart went from manager to GM, but he was only an interim manager filling in at the end of the year.

But in this day and age, I can't see it happening.

Bobby Cox was the GM of the Braves when he fired manager Russ Nixon in June 1990 and went back to the dugout himself. Cox held both positions for the remainder of the year, then John Schuerholz became the Braves' GM in the off-season.

There probably have been managers who had sufficient clout that the GM had to clear some major decision with him. Did Connie Mack hire real GMs, or just someone to help with the paperwork (or do it all himself)?

Head coaches in the other sports--the accomplished and in-demand ones--having effectively full control over roster decisions is common, though the head coach also holding the GM title is almost unheard of today. Usually there's a GM who for all intents and purposes works for the head coach, even if the org chart theoretically says otherwise.

Baseball's moved in the other direction, though, in what may actually be Sandy Alderson and Billy Beane's most lasting legacy: the Manager is middle management. Some managers get more input into the final decisions than others, but in MLB today, the manager ultimately does he's told by his boss to do, even as far as lineup construction and bullpen usage. Baseball doesn't really have star managers anymore.

1. The signing of Keith Hernandez was egregious. He had already started to lose it in 1980 and no reasonable person would think he could hit as well 30 years later, not to mention all the guaranteed money. The only guy like that you could bring back would be Barry Bonds

Jim Frey managed the Cubs in 1984-86, fired by Dallas Green a couple months into 1986, hired to replace Green as GM after the 1987 season. That didn't go well (although I don't think it would have gone well if Green had stayed.)

Tony LaRussa is the most recent I can think of to make the move to upper management with the DBacks. That didn't go well.

@jonmorosi
Chris Antonetti and David Forst are two names being mentioned in the industry today as potential candidates to become the next Red Sox president of baseball operations.

payroll in 2019: $243m (top three, I think?)
payroll in 2023: $179m (15th in MLB this year)

Assuming these numbers are accurate, the problem is not the proportion of the payroll spent on Sale, it's the $64 M raw dollar drop in payroll for a tea with money coming out of its ass.

However Cot's puts it at just a $27 M drop in CB tax payroll. In 26-man terms Cot's ranks them in a 3-way tie for 5th in the AL. The top-spending teams in the NL are finally spending as much/more than the AL so they are in a group roughly around 10th.

Nerd note: This is where rankings are pretty pointless. The Sox 26-man payroll is listed as $181.2; the White Sox are at $181.1 ... $100,000 is meaningless. Astros $179.8; Cubs $184.2; Cards $176.5; Giants $187.9; Rox $172.1. Those teams are all roughly the same in terms of spending on talent. Even the $10 M difference between the Rox and Red Sox doesn't amount to more than 1 expected win. The average # of wins of the non-RS teams is 71, the Red Sox have 73 wins. The Astros and Cubs are in good shape to make the playoffs and the Giants still with a shot. So get all worked up about Kike Hernandez or how with Eovaldi instead of Sale, the Red Sox might only be 3 back of the Jays but the proper target of your ire is the Red Sox ownership that set team spending down at White Sox/Rox levels.

Jim Frey managed the Cubs in 1984-86, fired by Dallas Green a couple months into 1986, hired to replace Green as GM after the 1987 season. That didn't go well (although I don't think it would have gone well if Green had stayed.)

Yeah - Frey was kind of a disaster... Hard to see how the org would have done worse. There was, of course, the disastrous Lee Smith for Calvin Schiraldi trade... then followed up the hilariously stupid Moreland for Gossage trade.... and his "crowning gem" - Raffy Palmeiro and Jamie Moyer for Mitch Williams trade - got hailed because it *supposedly* led to the 1989 team title, but obviously... well.

The real irony of the time is that Frey got hailed for "rebuilding the Cubs farm system"... but the reality - that was Gordon Goldsberry, who was a Dallas Green crony. The drafts under Frey were atrocious - and scuttlebutt at the time was that Gord left because Frey vetoed his board.

But hey -- the 1989 team was fun. My 3rd favorite Cubs iteration after 2016 and 1984. The only pity in hindsight was that Frey basically got "credit" for stuff that in a big way, he actually undermined and just didn't manage to totally ruin.

Why does Dombrowski always get such bad press? His tenures are littered with World Series teams. Isn't that the goal ? To get to (and hopefully win ) the World Series ?

Dombrowski became a living, breathing embodiment of the GM agency problem. He did indeed go all in to win, and often did, leading to going even more in to win again, which maybe ... but he knew he wouldn't be around to have to clean up the mess left by an empty farm system and long-term contracts.

So kinda depends what kind of fandom you like. Would you like a serious shot at the WS once a decade but be the Mets the other 9 years or would you rather be the Cards? (If you're a Mets fan, you have no choice of course.)

But Bloom was basically paying Devers what he could have been paying Betts. That's a firing offense on its own.

If getting rid of Betts was actually all Bloom's idea/call, I agree.

I highly doubt that was the case. I think ownership gave Bloom a mandate to get under the luxury tax at almost literally all costs, making clear that nothing including trading Betts was off the table, probably made that explicit during the interview/hiring process, and that was the way to make that happen.

I'm not arguing that Bloom was a great or even an especially good GM, but I do place the blame for trading Betts 100% at the feet of ownership.

Edit: Also, #### John Henry.

He gets a title in Florida in 1997. Id have to look at the transactions but the 2003 title is likely his team as well (he's gone in 2002). Tigers have a great run in his 13 years. He has 8 years in the middle where he gets to World Series twice ( he must have built a good team to be good that long).
He wins another one with the Red Sox in a short stint and has the Phillies in the series two year after joining.

That's 25 odd years and five series appearances. The seems pretty good to me.

the Phillies seem to be quite good at building a team and hasn't stripped the farm system bare.

I guess I'd rather boom vs bust if boom means 5 series appearances in 25 years.

So kinda depends what kind of fandom you like. Would you like a serious shot at the WS once a decade but be the Mets the other 9 years or would you rather be the Cards? (If you're a Mets fan, you have no choice of course.)

As a Tiger fan, I can 100% say I'd rather have Dombrowski than what came before or after him. But if there had been an option of veering into a timeline where the Tigers were more like the Cardinals/Braves/Astros... yeah, maybe I'd prefer that.

I think ownership gave Bloom a mandate to get under the luxury tax at almost literally all costs, making clear that nothing including trading Betts was off the table, probably made that explicit during the interview/hiring process, and that was the way to make that happen.

It's correct that dropping the payroll was the mandate. Trading Betts wasn't directly the way to make that happen. Trading David Price was the way to make it happen, but the only way to make that happen was to package him with Betts.

It's correct that dropping the payroll was the mandate. Trading Betts wasn't directly the way to make that happen. Trading David Price was the way to make it happen, but the only way to make that happen was to package him with Betts.

This is a great point. Fans think the Red Sox got three assets for Betts: Downs, Verdugo, Wong. But they actually got four, and the 4th one was critical to the deal (and also why the player return wasn't greater): $54m of Price's contract being paid by the Dodgers.

BTW, the Red Sox were paying $18m a year in 2021 and 2022 (and would have paid the same in 2020, if Price hadn't opted out due to COVID concerns) to not have Price on the team. Think about that: In 2021 and 2022, the Red Sox paid...$48 million dollars each year to get this from combined Sale and Price:

2021: 42.2 IP
2022: 5.2 IP

That's right: The Red Sox paid about $1.2m per inning pitched from these two in 2021, and over $9m per inning pitched in 2022.

Bloom's a scapegoat, but he'll land on his feet. Not signing Betts is entirely on ownership. Bloom had his orders, he followed them. I bet he's happy to go.

It's hard for me to say \"#### John Henry", after 4 championships this century. After 86 years, many of them dismal, and a few of them frustratingly close to wonderful.

BTW, the Red Sox were paying $18m a year in 2021 and 2022 (and would have paid the same in 2020, if Price hadn't opted out due to COVID concerns) to not have Price on the team.

Where you going with this, Billy?

There probably have been managers who had sufficient clout that the GM had to clear some major decision with him.

Frank Cashen cleared the Juan Samuel trade with Davey Johnson. Great work both of them.

It's correct that dropping the payroll was the mandate. Trading Betts wasn't directly the way to make that happen. Trading David Price was the way to make it happen, but the only way to make that happen was to package him with Betts.

As some were pointing out at the time, there were other ways to get under the cap. It would have been painful but it could be done. It seems like they decided that they couldn't (or didn't want to pay to) resign Betts so that was how they were getting under the cap.

Who is on the short list ? Seems like you only get a few years. I wouldn't want to move to Boston thinking I only had three years before I got fired.

Who is on the short list ?

Watch it, pal.

BTW, the Red Sox were paying $18m a year in 2021 and 2022 (and would have paid the same in 2020, if Price hadn't opted out due to COVID concerns) to not have Price on the team. Think about that: In 2021 and 2022, the Red Sox paid...$48 million dollars each year to get this from combined Sale and Price:

2021: 42.2 IP
2022: 5.2 IP

In one sense, yes. But Price's deal was for 7/$217 mil. and covered 2016-2022. With long term deals, especially for 30-year-old pitchers, the majority of the money is paying for the earliest years in the contract. I'd estimate their expectation of his value at the time of the signing was something like:


2016 $45 m
2017 $41 m
2018 $36 m
2019 $33 m
2020 $27 m
2021 $21 m
2022 $14 m

Price didn't live up to that contract. But from 2020-2022, they didn't expect him to be worth the $96 mil he was owed.

Who is on the short list ?

David Samson is always on the short list.

Not crazy about firing Bloom, I liked what he was doing. This feels like the Cherington situation, redux. They hire a guy to do a job (rebuild farm), he did it, and now they want someone who's better at other things (i.e., Dombrowski-type...a mover and shaker).

Kinda like when an NBA team hires a disciplinarian coach for a few years, then they tune him out, and go on to hire a "Player's coach". We are on that treadmill...

This is a great point. Fans think the Red Sox got three assets for Betts: Downs, Verdugo, Wong. But they actually got four, and the 4th one was critical to the deal (and also why the player return wasn't greater): $54m of Price's contract being paid by the Dodgers.

I think a lot of fans do understand that on one level or another (I certainly do, and did).

My issue is that I simply don't care about that part. It may have made short-term business sense for ownership in terms of preserving/maximizing profits but, again, I don't care. Partly because we all know good and ####### well that ownership is *raking* in the profits overall on the team, and would still have done so even had they not dumped that salary, it just would have been less. (It wasn't the difference between literally losing money on the Red Sox or breaking even, for example.)

The problem for me is that from the fan's perspective, a major sports team is not just another business, it's a trust of sorts. Diehard fans generally support teams through ups and downs as long as they have the sense that the team is trying to win, and is not placing "make the most money possible" above winning and the fans' ability to enjoy the team. For me, for the first time they broke that trust when they preemptively traded the most exciting and talented homegrown player in a generation. To save money.

So, yeah, as far as I'm concerned, thanks for the memories, but in the here and now, #### John Henry.

I looked at DD's moves (trades/signings/releases) while he was with the Red Sox. It doesnt appear to me at first glance that any of the players be traded out do the system amounted to much and that most of his moves worked out. Price didn't but pitchers break.

When people say he left them with a lousy farm - was it really any good before he got there? Because it doesn't look like he trade away anyone that became a star

Not crazy about firing Bloom, I liked what he was doing. This feels like the Cherington situation, redux. They hire a guy to do a job (rebuild farm), he did it, and now they want someone who's better at other things (i.e., Dombrowski-type...a mover and shaker).

Was his job just to build the farm? I think it was also to field a competitive team under a tightened budget. This is why you hire a guy from Tampa Bay. He built the farm and cut payroll but the team wasn't competitive in 3/4 years.

When people say he left them with a lousy farm - was it really any good before he got there? Because it doesn't look like he trade away anyone that became a star

It was rated pretty highly when he took over--top 5 maybe? When he took over, here are some of the prospects in the pipeline:

Eduardo Rodriguze
Yoan Moncada
Rafael Devers
Manuel Margot
Andrew Benintendi
Michael Kopech
Anderson Espinoza
Travis Shaw

Some of these guys obviously panned out better than others, but that's a pretty nice list. As far as what he traded away, he did do a decent job of deciding who to keep and who to trade. Moncada and Kopech were top prospects but that's the price for 3 super-cheap years of Chris Sale. Margot and company was probably an overpay for Kimbrel, but none were stars and Kimbrel was the top closer in the game. The Travis Shaw deal looks like a complete miss. but luckily the Sox got him back in his 30s so he could put up negative WAR for a couple years.

Right, if Bloom's only job was to rebuild the farm, that's one thing. But he also had to build a major league team that justifies people buying tickets and paying for NESN, and while everything broke right in 2021, the past couple years have had gaping holes with insufficient backup plans for fairly predictable injury situations. That's a pretty big part of the job, and Bloom was more than unlucky there.

It was rated pretty highly when he took over--top 5 maybe? When he took over, here are some of the prospects in the pipeline:

Eduardo Rodriguze
Yoan Moncada
Rafael Devers
Manuel Margot
Andrew Benintendi
Michael Kopech
Anderson Espinoza
Travis Shaw

Plus Betts and Bogaerts were recent graduates if that reflects on the overall health of the farm system.

When people say he left them with a lousy farm - was it really any good before he got there? Because it doesn't look like he trade away anyone that became a star

The stars got promoted. Christian Vazquez and Andrew Benintendi debuted in 2016, Rafael Devers in 2017, Michael Chavis and Josh Taylor in 2019. (Edit: The latter two are what constitute stars if you don't restock the system.) That's one of the other good things about Dombrowski - that he knew which prospects to keep and which to trade. He didn't seem to have a concept of how to get prospects but he knew what to do with them if he had them.

Was his job just to build the farm? I think it was also to field a competitive team under a tightened budget. This is why you hire a guy from Tampa Bay. He built the farm and cut payroll but the team wasn't competitive in 3/4 years.

To be fair Tampa Bay has an easier time competing because they get to play in a division that has soft teams like the Red Sox and Yankees, while the Red Sox have to play in a division chock full of tough teams like Baltimore and Tampa Bay.

The problem for me is that from the fan's perspective, a major sports team is not just another business, it's a trust of sorts. Diehard fans generally support teams through ups and downs as long as they have the sense that the team is trying to win, and is not placing "make the most money possible" above winning and the fans' ability to enjoy the team. For me, for the first time they broke that trust when they preemptively traded the most exciting and talented homegrown player in a generation. To save money.

First, being a diehard fan is a choice, and the team is not obligated to make a similar choice in return. But setting that aside, this team let Carlton Fisk go. They let Roger Clemens go. They traded away Nomar Garciaparra. Those are the ones in my lifetime and memory, before the 4 championships in this century. There was also some guy they gave away to the Yankees a century ago but he probably wasn't of historical note or anything. In some sense the Betts trade wasn't anything new.

The reason why Betts getting traded stung more is really because of the winning aspect, which I think is your point. Boston went 85-77 in Clemens' final season with them. They won 78 games the next season, finishing in the division ahead of only Clemens' new team. But then they went and got Pedro Martinez, and bounced up to 92 wins, which was great except that the Yankees won 114 that year. Regardless, they were still making moves to win in the short term and building an exciting team even though they let go of an all-time great. We're still waiting for Boston to make the post-Betts move. And that goes toward Darren's point in #43.

First, being a diehard fan is a choice, and the team is not obligated to make a similar choice in return.

Agreed, of course. And because they didn't, I am no longer a diehard fan, and the amount of time and money I spend on the Red Sox dropped precipitously from 2020-2022. My interest has only just begun to blip up again this season.

this team let Carlton Fisk go. They let Roger Clemens go. They traded away Nomar Garciaparra. Those are the ones in my lifetime and memory, before the 4 championships in this century. There was also some guy they gave away to the Yankees a century ago but he probably wasn't of historical note or anything. In some sense the Betts trade wasn't anything new.

I understand where you're going with this, and I can't speak for anyone else, but for different reasons none of those had more than a smidge of impact on my fandom.

Fisk- I was only 10 years old and had only been paying attention for maybe 2 years when they let him go. (I have no memory of 1978, for example.) My 10 year old self didn't *like* it, but he also didn't really know just how great Fisk really was. It wasn't disillusioning.

Clemens - I didn't love this either, but at the time I shared the perception that while he was still pretty good he was clearly not what he used to be. And Clemens, as good as he was, was never really my favorite Sox either. So this move obviously didn't look good in hindsight, but at the time it didn't feel like a betrayal by the front office either.

Nomar - I was absolutely shocked, no question. And bummed. But I was also into analytics enough by then to recognize that this was a baseball move, it wasn't really about money.

With Betts -- he was/is awesome, exciting, homegrown, a joy to watch and a charismatic personality. And they got rid of him a season earlier than they had to for no defensible reason that didn't involve money. If they'd kept Mookie for 2020, and then been outbid for him in free agency (assuming their offer wasn't insultingly bad), I would feel very differently about it.

So it's not exactly or only "the winning aspect." But that's me, YMMV as we used to say.

Sure, DD is a good, even excellent, GM. He is just a good GM of a particular type. If you have an owner willing to spend some big money to field a good ML team over the next 5 years (or 1 year in Huizenga's case), damn the torpedoes, then DD was a great hire. The question became whether he'd know when to stop and what came after the success. So he's got a track record of lots of winning -- great -- and he's got a track record of Miguel Cabrera's extension, David Price's contract, Sale's extension. Arguably the Cabrera extesion kept the Tigers from extending Scherzer; arguably the Price/Sale deals played a role in the trade of Betts. Fair enough, every big market GM has some deals he'd like back.

He's done OK so far in Philly but payroll has gone from $191 to $243. He has spent big (but hardly crippling) money on Schwarber and Castellanos, extended Realmuto (too soon to tell) and signed Tuner for 11/$300. (Harper and Wheeler were already there when he took over.) Plenty of money coming off the books and the only guy who might be missed is Nola. He hasn't been very active in the trade market but did bring in Brandon Marsh for Logan O'Hopper, a swap of solid young players that will probably work out in Philly's favor.

When I compare DD to others he seems pretty good. He plays in the deep end - owners who are willing to spend, but he seems to assess talent well. Free agent signings are hit/miss. You are often constrained by who's available. Turner is an interesting case because DD had the choice of I believe, seager, semien, Turner, boegarts, Swanson , Baez, story and Correa right ? Did he choose well?

Semien ended up at 2B
Seager had a good year and now a great one
Swanson an excellent first year
Baez - ugh
Story - ugh
Correa - ugh
Boegarts - very good start
Turner - looked bad but coming on - maybe more of a seager profile

To be fair, DD might not have been shopping for a SS in winter of 2021 but I'm guessing he looked hard

So, he at least stayed away from the "busts"

This trope that RS ownership just wants to make money at the cost of fielding a competitive team is rubbish. According to Wiki, the RS have exceeded the luxury tax threshold 10 times from 2004 to 2021 - they also exceeded it in 2022. From 2019 - 2022 had the 6th highest or greater payroll every year. This year, 2023, is their greatest departure from high spending in quite some time. During all these years of exceeding the threshold and otherwise being one of the highest spending teams in baseball they ALSO paid Rusney Castillo $72M to play in the minor leagues, largely because adding him to the team would have negatively impacted the luxury tax.

In addition to it "just being money", teams are impacted with draft penalties. Going into the 2020 season the RS were poised to lose their 2nd and 5th round draft picks and associated slot cash if they went over the the payroll limit for a third consecutive year. Losing draft picks and money to pay signing bonuses obviously hurts the long term options of fielding a competitive team.

I think that a compelling argument could be made for ignoring all the penalties and signing Mookie anyway, or if signing Sale and/or Eovaldi ahead of Betts was wise, but in those alternative universes there is a good chance the RS both performed worse and would have a weaker farm system ultimately squandering the opportunity cost of paying Mookie $30M or whatever, to be on the team during his peak years.

I agree that the team is not cheap and that they're getting a bad rap on that front. In addition to the Rusney situation you mentioned above, they did the same thing with Allen Craig. They have also spent on posting fees for Matsuzaka and Yoshida as ways of acquiring talent beyond the luxury tax. And they spent a lot in the draft before limits were imposed and on international free agents.

The one aspect of spending I am worried about is their willingness to sign long-term deals well beyond a player's effectiveness. With the exception of Devers, who was very young, and Story (a comparatively short 6 years), they don't seem to be willing to sign top of the market players to such deals. Instead, they load up on 1-2 year contracts for middle of the market players. It's not exactly clear whether this was a) a short term org strategy while they got their payrolls figured out, b) Bloom's strategy, or c) something the team has settled on as a long-term strategy. I hope it's #1 or #2.

There's an argument to be made, I think, that signing 3 SPs to 2/$20 million "make-good" contracts MIGHT pay off more than 1 big $30 mil/year FA contract, in that you (a) never know about SP, and (b) always need bodies for the rotation anyway, so the more the merrier.

I'm not sure that's always the BEST plan, mind you, but I can see the argument that if you're pretty sure you're not going to contend, why tie up $30 mil/year in just 1 SP when maybe you can get 2-3, see what pans out, and offer a longer deal later if one hits.

Though I do wonder if there is now a shift toward thinking that SP is fungable and really what you have to do is max out the 1-9 lineup as much as possible, accumulate RP arms and homegrown, cost-controlled SP options, and then just fill in SP with short-term deals as needed. I mean, Sale is the cautionary tale here that tying up that much $ in one SP might not be the best idea--even if they have a stellar health history (which Sale had prior to 2018).

I *do* think there is a cautious approach now to FAs, such that I'm not sure I can see the Red Sox splashing around the cash anytime soon. (I'll eat a shoe if they land or pursue Ohtani, for example.) Which is why I'm not sure there are going to be any big names pursuing the job to replace Bloom. Which may be a good thing, I don't know. I confess to having a few moments of nostalgic longing to bring back Theo after the news broke Bloom was fired, but it passed.

I'm older than you, TE, which is why my nostalgia demands the recall of Dan Duquette!

...I can see the argument that if you're pretty sure you're not going to contend, why tie up $30 mil/year in just 1 SP when maybe you can get 2-3, see what pans out, and offer a longer deal later if one hits.

I think that's a legitimate economics-focused approach. And if a quality assessment is included, it can be even more reasonable. Here are the 42 free agent starters from last winter who went on to sign a Major League deal (e.g., Chris Archer didn't make the list despite his availability), sorted by 2022 fWAR. 2023 hindsight isn't necessary to see there wasn't much worth pursuing at any dollar amount. Some winters are like that.

Carlos Rodón
Justin Verlander
Tyler Anderson
José Quintana
Martín Pérez
Clayton Kershaw
Ross Stripling
Corey Kluber
Chris Bassitt
Taijuan Walker
Johnny Cueto
Jameson Taillon
Noah Syndergaard
Jacob deGrom
Zack Greinke
Kyle Gibson
Rich Hill
Michael Wacha
Jordan Lyles
Zach Eflin
Drew Smyly
Andrew Heaney
Nathan Eovaldi
Sean Manaea
Michael Lorenzen
José Ureña
Dylan Bundy
Trevor Williams
Wade Miley
Chad Kuhl
Luke Weaver
Zach Davies
Vince Velasquez
Nick Martinez
Mike Clevinger
Matthew Boyd
Chase Anderson
Ryan Yarbrough
Tommy Milone
Kodai Senga
Drew Rucinski
Shintaro Fujinami

6-year deal: Rodon
5: deGrom and Senga
4: Taillon and Taijuan Walker
3: Bassitt, Anderson, Elfin

Everyone else got one or two years. Bloom may have been a problem (I don't know enough to opine), but it's hard to fault him for not spending heavily on this list

This trope that RS ownership just wants to make money at the cost of fielding a competitive team is rubbish.

Every team has some level of expense at which they will want to make money at the cost of fielding a competitive team. It all comes down to what level of expense that is for each team.

I get your point, though. I think the most fair way of describing RS ownership in this regard is that they do not want to have to choose between making money and fielding a competitive team. They want to do both. It's a business, so if they have to choose they will choose to make money. But they'd rather do both.

The best way to do both is to find ways to win without spending. And that's the usual stuff:

1. Undervalued players in the marketplace.

2. Underpaid players from their minor-league system.

3. Avoiding anything that limits the first two options. (e.g. financial penalties, loss of draft picks, etc.)

Yes, other things can help: effective marketing, shrewd investments outside of baseball ops (e.g. real estate development surrounding the park), new revenue streams, etc. But from a baseball ops view, winning = the revenue stream, and paying players less than they are worth is a good way to win while keeping more of that revenue stream.