Tanking vs. whatever it is the Sox are doing

[tims4wins]

@soxhop411 brought this up in the Chaim thread.

Simple question: would you be ok with the Sox tanking - as in, losing 90+ (maybe 95+) games for 5 straight years if it meant the next 5+ years would be extremely successful? So basically, the Astros model. They've won 95+ games every year since 2017 (aside from Covid 2020) and 100+ games in 4 of those 5 years, along with two titles.

Or are you ok with the Sox trying to thread the needle of remaining "competitive" while rebuilding the system?

Edit: titles are not guaranteed in the Astros model. 95+ wins are.

 

[Ferm Sheller]

The latter. Win or lose, I'll always love them -- unless they intentionally (or "recklessly") tank.

 

[soxhop411]

and for reference this is the level of a tank job the Astro's had

Would I sign up for such a tank job? Yes....

Would the Boston media market sign up for such a tank job? They would send a mob with ptichforks after any Boston ownership who would attempt such a thing..

 

[donutogre]

I'm not voting yet, because I need to give this some serious thought and also because I have a few questions. An "extremely successful" 5 year run says to me they won a championship; in your Astros example we're talking abut two.

Obviously though, there are no guarantees in life. Even if the Sox tanked for five years and built a wonderful team with the parts they got, they still could come out of that without any flags.

I guess that means I'm team "thread the needle." As someone said in the other thread, draft picks in MLB are a lot different than in the NBA, where the right one guy can really transform a team pretty quickly. And five years of miserable play would be, well, miserable.

What I miss was the run the Sox were on from like... 1998 through 2009. They were almost always in it, and they had an identifiable core of players that obviously shifted and evolved over time... but there were through lines from the 2003-2004 Sox into the 2007-2008 Sox that made watching them a ton of fun. Competitive play, good players, and some familiar faces that were there for long stretches of the run to latch on to. I get that's not easy to do, but damn was it fun to watch.

 

[jezza1918]

Thread the needle.
Someone brought up the celtics in the Bloom thread and while I dont like it in the NBA either, it's easier for me to stomach. One: you have a much better chance of seeing an immediate impact with a good lottery pick. Two (and perhaps more importantly): it's easier to not care about the NBA given it's 2-3 games/week and youve got the bruins season. So much of baseball is basically on it's own, and it just sucks when a team spends the bulk of the dog days of summer playing meaningless baseball.

 

[tims4wins]

I'm not voting yet, because I need to give this some serious thought and also because I have a few questions. An "extremely successful" 5 year run says to me they won a championship; in your Astros example we're talking abut two.

Obviously though, there are no guarantees in life. Even if the Sox tanked for five years and built a wonderful team with the parts they got, they still could come out of that without any flags.

I guess that means I'm team "thread the needle." As someone said in the other thread, draft picks in MLB are a lot different than in the NBA, where the right one guy can really transform a team pretty quickly. And five years of miserable play would be, well, miserable.

What I miss was the run the Sox were on from like... 1998 through 2009. They were almost always in it, and they had an identifiable core of players that obviously shifted and evolved over time... but there were through lines from the 2003-2004 Sox into the 2007-2008 Sox that made watching them a ton of fun. Competitive play, good players, and some familiar faces that were there for long stretches of the run to latch on to. I get that's not easy to do, but damn was it fun to watch.

Let's call it 95+ wins for 5+ straight years, without guarantee of title.

Also, I said this in another thread, but I also miss that stretch. Identifiable core of players is the key phrase. You really said it perfectly. "Competitive play, good players, and some familiar faces that were there for long stretches of the run to latch on to. I get that's not easy to do, but damn was it fun to watch."

 

[AB in DC]

Simple question: would you be ok with the Sox tanking - as in, losing 90+ (maybe 95+) games for 5 straight years if it meant the next 5+ years would be extremely successful? So basically, the Astros model. They've won 95+ games every year since 2017 (aside from Covid 2020) and 100+ games in 4 of those 5 years, along with two titles.

Which comes out to exactly two championships in about a 15 year span going back to the start of the tank job -- same as the Red Sox.

Hard pass.

 

[zak1013]

Blow it up and let the young kids play. Would be a lot more interesting and exciting to watch them develop vs. a bunch of mediocre veterans who have already hit their ceiling.

 

[joe dokes]

I'm too old for a 5year plan. I'll go with what they got - a 50-50 chance to win tonight -- and better things ahead.

EDIT: And what AB in DC said.

 

[Yaz4Ever]

Blow it up and let the young kids play. Would be a lot more interesting and exciting to watch them develop vs. a bunch of mediocre veterans who have already hit their ceiling.

I'm always a fan of this approach when we're playing like we are. Don't intentionally tank, but let's see what we have with our youth without ruining their development by putting players in a must-succeed position.

 

[tims4wins]

I'm too old for a 5year plan. I'll go with what they got - a 50-50 chance to win tonight -- and better things ahead.

EDIT: And what AB in DC said.

Well if you want a 50-50 chance to win tonight, Chaim's your guy - they are 228-225 in his tenure.

 

[Petagine in a Bottle]

What would blowing it up actually entail, though? Dumping anyone who doesn’t have a long term future here (Kike, Jansen, Duvall, Martin, Turner..). What would the return be, and how much would it really impact the team? I think it’s easier said than done, gutting a team so that it’s terrible enough to really improve your fortunes in the mid-term may not be easy as it sounds.

 

[TFisNEXT]

What would blowing it up actually entail, though? Dumping anyone who doesn’t have a long term future here (Kike, Jansen, Duvall, Martin, Turner..). What would the return be, and how much would it really impact the team? I think it’s easier said than done, gutting a team so that it’s terrible enough to really improve your fortunes in the mid-term may not be easy as it sounds.

They can't really tank right now given the young talent they have that is just graduating to the majors. They would probably be pretty bad if they traded away the veterans (sans Devers who is under long term deal) but my guess is they wouldn't be bad enough to do what the Astros did.

 

[DeadlySplitter]

You can't do this anymore with the draft lottery anyways.

Just make the right picks.

 

[scottyno]

You need to be both really good and really lucky to get anywhere close to the level of success Houston has had off a tank job. If that level was guaranteed half the league would be doing it.

 

[tims4wins]

You can't do this anymore with the draft lottery anyways.

Just make the right picks.

Mayer was the 4th pick, it's not like you need to pick #1 each year to achieve the Astros outcome

You need to be both really good and really lucky to get anywhere close to the level of success Houston has had off a tank job. If that level was guaranteed half the league would be doing it.

But the question is, if you were guaranteed that level of (regular season) success, would you endure the 5 years of tanking?

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

Unequivocally no. Ask a Pirates fan how the last 30 years (more or less) of their tank job has gone.

I'm unsure when trying your best to win every year became dumb. A five-year tank job at Fenway prices? Fuck that.

 

[Toe Nash]

There is no way to tank your way to a guaranteed 95 wins. You have the draft lottery, spending caps both on the draft and IFA, and there are at least five and often more teams trying to tank every year anyway. Plus, the nature of baseball is that you're not guaranteed to get a better player at pick 5 than you would at pick 15.

The Orioles or the Astros or whoever had some good high picks but they also missed on some and developed a lot of lower picks that anyone could have grabbed. The key was they tried out a lot of prospects and they have good scouting and development org-wide. There is no reason the Red Sox couldn't do that and finish out of the cellar as well.

I guess in the abstract if you were guaranteed 95 wins for 4 straight years you would take it no matter how you had to do it but it's a silly question for that reason.

 

[Rice4HOF]

A slightly different question: Would you rather (A) almost always be competitive but never win, or (B) win occassionally and usually be non-competitive?
Poster child for A is the Red Sox from say 1972 to 2003. No Championships, but 8 playoff appearances, and 8 other 2nd place finishes while missing the playoffs (including 1978). This was a fun, if disappointing, franchise to follow most of that time. Only 1 sub .500 season in those first 20 years, and 4 sub .500 the last 11 years, sprinkled in with 4 playoff appearances.

Option B is someone like the Royals or Pirates. They each won a Championship in that timeframe. The Pirates won in 1979, and only made the playoffs again from 1990-1992, with mainly 5th and 6th place finishes (in the 6 team NL East) otherwise. Royals similarly had a slew of playoff success in the late 1970s, won it all in 1985, and then a bunch of nothing for the next 20+ years.

I know which of those 3 franchises I'd have had more fun rooting for, in spite of no rings to show for it. (And yes, I'm looking at these with my pre-2004 glasses on).

 

[Big Papi's Mango Salsa]

FWIW, I'm not voting because I don't see an answer that really encapsulates this, but I'll try my best to explain it.

I understand and accept that you're not going to have a sustainable product without a sustainable farm system and a good core. People always point to 2013 and 2021, but those two really weren't at all alike. 2013 had two major bats in the middle of their line up that were an established star and an established once in our lifetime player, both under contract for multiple seasons. It had an ace under team control at the front of it's rotation (Lester), what looked like a very solid second starter under control for many years whom could deliver ace-like performance on any given night (Buchholz), what looked like a decent young pitcher coming into his own (Doubront) and they in may ways got very lucky with Lackey.

They had one more year of a very good table setting leadoff hitter whom everyone knew was headed toward free agency.

They also had a very good farm system with multiple high end prospects on the cusp of the big leagues or just getting there in Iglesias (obv traded for Peavy), Middlebrooks, Bradley Jr, Bogaerts and Betts. They added to that team without making big deals, but they did have veterans whom would be around for a while and weren't just one year "hope for the best" options (though they did get the best out of those guys in that one wonderful season).

2021 had Bogaerts under control for one more season, JDM under control for one more season and basically nothing.


Anyway, what I want the Sox to do is:

Let the kids play. Not exactly tanking, but let them take their lumps in a season where they were never going to be playoff contenders anyway unless everything went exactly right. I really and truly enjoy watching games started by Whitlock, Bello and Houck. I don't personally think Crawford can cut it as a starter, but I'm more than fine throwing him out there every 5th day to see if he can be.

Give as many at bats to Casas, Duran, Valdez and Wong as possible. I think every plate appearance by Hernandez, Refsnyder, Arroyo, Tapia and Reyes is a lost opportunity.

I'm generally speaking "fine" with the one year deals for pieces like Duvall, Turner, Kluber, etc (or Drew in 2013) if that is the route one prefers. I would personally rather go after guys whom could provide a bit more stability (case in point this year I wanted Bassitt, Wacha, Tallion and Eovaldi, in that order) but if someone really prefers the one year deal, fine. I understand that those give more flexibility, so I'm not really disagreeing if someone really prefers that.

However, with that one year deal if you're not in playoff position (better than 50/50 odds of making it around the deadline) sell off literally every single player whom isn't under control for the next season. Maybe you get lucky and land Ben Brown. More likely you land Connor Seabold. But sell off literally everything that won't be around for multiple years and start again the next year and give more at bats to younger players.

I don't mind watching a young team struggle because there is at least something being built there. Watching a team with all these one year deals struggle is an exercise in futility.


Oh, and if somehow the team playing all youth over-achieves and is in playoff position or CLOSE to it, be a buyer and let them experience a really playoff chase where you actually commit to the team. Do not be a "half in / half out" team, I think that is literally the worst spot a team with the financial resources of the Sox can be.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

Option B is someone like the Royals or Pirates. They each won a Championship in that timeframe. The Pirates won in 1979, and only made the playoffs again from 1990-1992, with mainly 5th and 6th place finishes (in the 6 team NL East) otherwise. Royals similarly had a slew of playoff success in the late 1970s, won it all in 1985, and then a bunch of nothing for the next 20+ years.

Do you understand how long 40+ years of shitty baseball is? Half of the Pirates fan base couldn't tell you what it was like to watch the "We are Family" Pirates today. if you were 10-years-old in 1979, you're 54 now. Same thing with the Royals. Aside from the three seasons in the mid teens when they good, that team has sucked hard since the early 90s.

Watching bad baseball doesn't make you a noble sports fan. It makes you a sucker. Tanking, or the Process, is the biggest sucker's game around.

 

[tims4wins]

I guess in the abstract if you were guaranteed 95 wins for 4 straight years you would take it

This is exactly the question that is being asked.

A slightly different question: Would you rather (A) almost always be competitive but never win, or (B) win occassionally and usually be non-competitive?

Pre-2004, the answer to me would of course have been B. Now that the Sox have 4 (!!) titles, I would like them to be almost always competitive. But I think there is a gap / disagreement in what competitive means. The last 3 years have not been particularly competitive IMO. I think a better example is the 2005-2013 Patriots. They were contenders nearly every year in that stretch. Did they win a title? No. But they were a legit contender nearly every year. And that was awesome.

Competitive to me isn't being around .500. It's having a legitimate chance to compete for a championship. Despite the 2021, I can't say that the Red Sox have fielded a team on opening day that meets this criteria since 2019. Or said differently, in the Chaim Bloom era.

 

[chrisfont9]

The International Free Agent market is at least as good a way to build a system as the draft, which as others have noted doesn't tend to reward "tanking" like football and basketball. Baseball is nothing like those sports in terms of player development, so strategies derived from anything other than heavy scouting at home, in Asia, the Caribbean, even Europe, and sophisticated player development across multiple levels, are unacceptable.

Even the Astros example is cherry-picking. Jeremy Peña was a third round pick. Much of their pitching staff (Framber, Garcia, etc), plus Altuve, are all IFAs. If you have no chance of competing for some reason, sure, dump your players for prospects and move up in the draft. But the draft order alone is such a small part of the solution.

B is the only answer.

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

Cross posted-

• Add bookmark
• #758

I 100% do not believe for an instant that the fans here that claim they'd be okay with a "tank job" on the level of the O's, Astros, etc... would honestly be okay with it. It's easy to say when we're in the middle of a frustrating middling sloppy team that is at the tail end of what everyone thinks is "contending" but the misery of friends down here that were Astros fans during that stretch really makes me doubt any "yeah, I'd be fine with tanking" bullshit.
And even if you had a guarantee that the Sox would come out of a 5 year "tank-job" as a perennial contender for the following 5-7 years but no guarantee on a WS victory? Nope.
Here's your actual choice--- Tank for 5 years and hope that it pays off long term with a better structured system. or. Try to contend for 5 years and hopefully somethings go right (2021) for a few years and then be able to contend long term with a better structured system.
There's no guarantees. Houston flopped on one of it's top picks. What if Correa flopped too? Springer?

 

[tims4wins]

Cross posted-

• Add bookmark
• #758

I 100% do not believe for an instant that the fans here that claim they'd be okay with a "tank job" on the level of the O's, Astros, etc... would honestly be okay with it. It's easy to say when we're in the middle of a frustrating middling sloppy team that is at the tail end of what everyone thinks is "contending" but the misery of friends down here that were Astros fans during that stretch really makes me doubt any "yeah, I'd be fine with tanking" bullshit.
And even if you had a guarantee that the Sox would come out of a 5 year "tank-job" as a perennial contender for the following 5-7 years but no guarantee on a WS victory? Nope.
Here's your actual choice--- Tank for 5 years and hope that it pays off long term with a better structured system. or. Try to contend for 5 years and hopefully somethings go right (2021) for a few years and then be able to contend long term with a better structured system.
There's no guarantees. Houston flopped on one of it's top picks. What if Correa flopped too? Springer?

But this is year 4 of that stretch. And people are already making excuses for 2024. Which makes 5 years. And they're positioned worse for 2025-2030 than a theoretical world in which they lost 90 games for 5 straight years.

 

[FlexFlexerson]

What I miss was the run the Sox were on from like... 1998 through 2009. They were almost always in it, and they had an identifiable core of players that obviously shifted and evolved over time... but there were through lines from the 2003-2004 Sox into the 2007-2008 Sox that made watching them a ton of fun. Competitive play, good players, and some familiar faces that were there for long stretches of the run to latch on to. I get that's not easy to do, but damn was it fun to watch.

Sign me up for this. I've been trying to articulate the lack of connection I feel with the Bloom-branded Sox, and it's not just the win/loss record, it's the roster churn and the lack of long term connective tissue. A down year or two isn't as off-putting when you're soldiering through with some of the guys on the field who you root for year in and year out. In the other thread, someone promised that the roster is going to look totally different in two years when The Window reveals itself. Well, that's too bad! Hard to connect with a team you know will basically not exist in a year or two. I guess this is "threading the needle" because there's an off-chance they'll be good enough to sneak into a third wild card spot because they can get hot at the right time and play slightly-above-.500-baseball at the end of the season and go almost win a pennant.

I suppose I vote for the rebuild. The 2020-present Red Sox teams have not won me over. They're not that fun to watch and it feels like not putting all our chips into tanking and just getting as many draft picks as possible is just extending the time it takes to arrive at Valhalla The Window (which I recall a few years ago was supposed to be this year, now it's 2024 or 2025). Really, once you're not playing .500 or above ball, the marginal difference - for me, anyways - between playing .400whateverish ball and even lower is just not that much.* At that point, if I'm tuning in it's not with the expectation of watching competitive, winning baseball. It's to watch prospects develop, to check in on my franchise favorites (hard to do either of those things with a roster full of one and two year contracts, though) and because maybe I just need a baseball game on.

My real fear (and I recognize that it is not something that the Front Office has remotely intimated or hinted at in any way), I think, is that at some point FSG and John Henry will decide that the Red Sox are perfectly profitable by being a .500ish club with some cost controlled talent and few major salary obligations. That with the new expanded playoffs, a goal of floating around .500 and hoping a few breaks go your way so you can sneak into the third wild card spot let's you sell yourself as "competitive" year in and year out, and that will keep enough butts in the seats and enough eyeballs on the television that they'll realize there really isn't enough value in trying to build a consistent 95+ game winner. In that case, maybe there's no rebuild or needle at all, maybe we're just in for year after year of churn and hoping a few prospects work out here and there.

*And my local team is now the Rockies! I know what pretty bad baseball looks like and what I'm signing up for when I say "go for the rebuild."

 

[Seels]

I don't care either way as long as there is a clear goal and a case for optimism. What's the reason to believe that this team will be better in 2024 or 2025? There isn't one.

I'd say I prefer tanking but not because I'm a believer that the draft pick matters in any meaningful way, but because I think this team is not capable of being a contender while guys like Chaim are running it, and whatever ends that quicker is the preferred outcome.

 

[AB in DC]

But this is year 4 of that stretch. And people are already making excuses for 2024. Which makes 5 years. And they're positioned worse for 2025-2030 than a theoretical world in which they lost 90 games for 5 straight years.

This is a bit misleading, because
a) 2020 was a tank job, clearly
b) 2021 was a great run, and
c) 2022 was destroyed by injuries, something that happens to every team from time to time.

And I don't know who's making excuses for 2024. I think the Sox will be in good shape based on some of the development we've seen from Whitlook, Houck, Bello, Duran, and Casas.

 

[tims4wins]

Sign me up for this. I've been trying to articulate the lack of connection I feel with the Bloom-branded Sox, and it's not just the win/loss record, it's the roster churn and the lack of long term connective tissue. A down year or two isn't as off-putting when you're soldiering through with some of the guys on the field who you root for year in and year out. In the other thread, someone promised that the roster is going to look totally different in two years when The Window reveals itself. Well, that's too bad! Hard to connect with a team you know will basically not exist in a year or two. I guess this is "threading the needle" because there's an off-chance they'll be good enough to sneak into a third wild card spot because they can get hot at the right time and play slightly-above-.500-baseball at the end of the season and go almost win a pennant.

I suppose I vote for the rebuild. The 2020-present Red Sox teams have not won me over. They're not that fun to watch and it feels like not putting all our chips into tanking and just getting as many draft picks as possible is just extending the time it takes to arrive at Valhalla The Window (which I recall a few years ago was supposed to be this year, now it's 2024 or 2025). Really, once you're not playing .500 or above ball, the marginal difference - for me, anyways - between playing .400whateverish ball and even lower is just not that much.* At that point, if I'm tuning in it's not with the expectation of watching competitive, winning baseball. It's to watch prospects develop, to check in on my franchise favorites (hard to do either of those things with a roster full of one and two year contracts, though) and because maybe I just need a baseball game on.

My real fear (and I recognize that it is not something that the Front Office has remotely intimated or hinted at in any way), I think, is that at some point FSG and John Henry will decide that the Red Sox are perfectly profitable by being a .500ish club with some cost controlled talent and few major salary obligations. That with the new expanded playoffs, a goal of floating around .500 and hoping a few breaks go your way so you can sneak into the third wild card spot let's you sell yourself as "competitive" year in and year out, and that will keep enough butts in the seats and enough eyeballs on the television that they'll realize there really isn't enough value in trying to build a consistent 95+ game winner. In that case, maybe there's no rebuild or needle at all, maybe we're just in for year after year of churn and hoping a few prospects work out here and there.

Could not agree more with this post. I have no connection to the Red Sox. There is no difference to be between .400, .450, .500 given the lack of connection to the team.

I don't care either way as long as there is a clear goal and a case for optimism. What's the reason to believe that this team will be better in 2024 or 2025? There isn't one.

Mayer? But yeah, I agree. Where's the path to 100 wins?

This is a bit misleading, because
a) 2020 was a tank job, clearly
b) 2021 was a great run, and
c) 2022 was destroyed by injuries, something that happens to every team from time to time.

And I don't know who's making excuses for 2024. I think the Sox will be in good shape based on some of the development we've seen from Whitlook, Houck, Bello, Duran, and Casas.

If I had a dime for all of the 2025 contention posts I've seen, I could retire today.

Also, the 2022 team started 11-20. They played well for like literally 6 weeks of the season. May 13-June 26. 31-11 during that stretch. The rest of the season they went 37-73. Yay?!

 

[4 6 3 DP]

I think what is missing from all of this analysis is what is feasible in today's baseball environment/economy. I actually read somewhere on here that the loss of Yu Chang was the reason the Bloom plan didn't work out. Folks here have discussed Mondesi, a guy we acquired for Josh Taylor, as being a key to the 2023 plan.

From 1995-2019, except for the very end of a few injury prone seasons, the Red Sox generally fielded lineups and rotations with very few black holes. The early Theo Red Sox had 9 legitimate hitters in most of those lineups. The rotations tended to field legitimate pitching talent topped by ace level starters and had 3-5 legitimate 12-15 game winners in them if not more. Some of those teams may have broken a rookie or two into the lineup, but always surrounded by stability.

I don't know if the changed economics/rules of baseball have changed the ability to put that type of lineup on the field. The Red Sox were generally able to for 25 years through multiple GMs, franchise players, etc. We may have been utterly spoiled like we were with Tom Brady in Foxboro, and it's not reasonable to put that type of team on the field.

But right now this team feels like the 1991-94 version of the Red Sox, a bunch of broken down talent with black holes in places. What I don't know is how feasible it is to find the Todd Walkers and Mark Bellhorns and Bill Muellers and Mitch Morelands, etc - professional major league players who can be signed reasonably to non-long term deals. It feels like those guys are not available in FA anymore. The discussion of SS at a short term level comes up - the guys being discussed are not legitimate MLB starters. In 2013 the Sox were able to get a stopgap at SS before X was ready in Stephen Drew for a year.

If these types of players are out there and Bloom isn't getting them, then shame on him. When I review all the FA signings out there, I'm not seeing a lot of guys signing shorter term smaller dollar contracts. We got one of them in Turner. I just don't know if the new economy of baseball sees most of these guys either sign long term big money deals with their original teams or get dealt to teams that sign them long term. They don't seem to come available on the market as freely.

I think the Red Sox have a messaging problem. The owners are nowhere to be found. Sam Kennedy isn't very good at it. Bloom is understandably defensive. They can't articulate a strategy. Bloom feels incredibly passive at the deadlines, whether it's an inexperience thing or something else, he needs to be excellent at the deadline this year if there's any sort of market and play a hand.

But as to the specifics of Bloom and the strategy - can you field a team of 7-9 legitimate every day regulars and 3-5 legit starters anymore without Padres/Mets/Dodgers payroll? If so, and Bloom isn't, then he should be gone, but if not, a reasonable standard is all he can be graded on.

 

[donutogre]

Sign me up for this. I've been trying to articulate the lack of connection I feel with the Bloom-branded Sox, and it's not just the win/loss record, it's the roster churn and the lack of long term connective tissue. A down year or two isn't as off-putting when you're soldiering through with some of the guys on the field who you root for year in and year out.

Absolutely. This is why 2014-2015 didn't feel nearly as bad (to me) as 2020-present. It was much easier for me to look at the pieces the Sox had and see where success would come from -- and even if it didn't, watching Ortiz, Pedroia, Xander, and Lester (for half the season anyway) kept me better tuned in to the team.

 

[Rice4HOF]

Do you understand how long 40+ years of shitty baseball is? Half of the Pirates fan base couldn't tell you what it was like to watch the "We are Family" Pirates today. if you were 10-years-old in 1979, you're 54 now. Same thing with the Royals. Aside from the three seasons in the mid teens when they good, that team has sucked hard since the early 90s.

Watching bad baseball doesn't make you a noble sports fan. It makes you a sucker. Tanking, or the Process, is the biggest sucker's game around.

I think we're in total agreement here. I'd rather be competitive and fall just short all the time, then suck and win it all once very 40 years or whatever. Pre 2004 I hated that we hadn't won in my lifetime, but I think I enjoyed watching baseball a lot more than I would have as a Royals/Pirates fan.

 

[chrisfont9]

Could not agree more with this post. I have no connection to the Red Sox. There is no difference to be between .400, .450, .500 given the lack of connection to the team.

Mayer? But yeah, I agree. Where's the path to 100 wins?

If I had a dime for all of the 2025 contention posts I've seen, I could retire today.

Also, the 2022 team started 11-20. They played well for like literally 6 weeks of the season. May 13-June 26. 31-11 during that stretch. The rest of the season they went 37-73. Yay?!

So they weren't derailed by injuries?

 

[donutogre]

From 1995-2019, except for the very end of a few injury prone seasons, the Red Sox generally fielded lineups and rotations with very few black holes. The early Theo Red Sox had 9 legitimate hitters in most of those lineups. The rotations tended to field legitimate pitching talent topped by ace level starters and had 3-5 legitimate 12-15 game winners in them if not more. Some of those teams may have broken a rookie or two into the lineup, but always surrounded by stability.

I don't know if the changed economics/rules of baseball have changed the ability to put that type of lineup on the field. The Red Sox were generally able to for 25 years through multiple GMs, franchise players, etc. We may have been utterly spoiled like we were with Tom Brady in Foxboro, and it's not reasonable to put that type of team on the field.

This gets at what I was thinking when I talked about what the team was like from 1998-2009 a few posts ago, but I think you're right that it's fair to extended that windows quite a bit in both directions. Like I just said, 2014-15 were rough, but a number of significant players from 2013 were there as things turned around in '16, and then the kids came up and everything came together in 2018. Yes, that's simplifying, but again there was some connective tissue there that made it fun to be a fan riding the ups and downs. Right now just feels so incredibly uninspired in so many ways.

 

[tims4wins]

So they weren't derailed by injuries?

They played well for 6 weeks out of 26. If it was the first 6 weeks and then all the stars went down with injuries, then sure, I would agree. The 2010 team was derailed by injuries. The 2006 team was derailed by injuries. The 2022 team... wasn't good.

X played 150 games last year. Devers played 141.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

I think we're in total agreement here. I'd rather be competitive and fall just short all the time, then suck and win it all once very 40 years or whatever. Pre 2004 I hated that we hadn't won in my lifetime, but I think I enjoyed watching baseball a lot more than I would have as a Royals/Pirates fan.

Even pre04, the Sox were different than the modern day Royals and Pirates because they were good. Or good enough to be entertaining. Unless you’re talking 92 or 93, the Sox were never in last place.

They always had good—Hall of Fame—players that were fan favorites. At the very least they were interesting. I think that’s the name of the game. Watching Bob Zupcic, Carlos Quintana and Tim Brunansky hit was death in the early 90s.

I imagine that’s what being a Pittsburgh or KC fan have had to deal with in the last 30+ years.

 

[chrisfont9]

They played well for 6 weeks out of 26. If it was the first 6 weeks and then all the stars went down with injuries, then sure, I would agree. The 2010 team was derailed by injuries. The 2006 team was derailed by injuries. The 2022 team... wasn't good.

X played 150 games last year. Devers played 141.

Can they pitch? Because the entire rotation save for Pivetta missed most of July when the team fell apart. They lost something like 1600 days to injury last year. The following players had more starts than Chris Sale: Winckowski, Crawford, Rich Hill, Connor Seabold, Austin Davis... Franchy Fucking Cordero played 39 games in the outfield and even more at 1b. Bobby Dalbec played every infield position. Jeter Downs had to be recalled. They relied on Tyler Danish to get outs. Injuries completely detonated the team. Do I have to keep listing them all? Gimme a break.

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

But this is year 4 of that stretch. And people are already making excuses for 2024. Which makes 5 years. And they're positioned worse for 2025-2030 than a theoretical world in which they lost 90 games for 5 straight years.

I haven’t read Any excuses for ‘24. I don’t expect them to win it all but I expect marked improvement, along with an increase in FA signings. Mayer is likely to break in in ‘24. You think he’s going to immediately turn the team around?
I expected this seasons team to be better than last seasons with young players making it fun to watch (check). If things break welll with veterans on short term deals, they could do damage (can’t say either way but leaning towards no). To me that’s a step forward.
In ‘24 I want to see all those struggling young players hitting their potential, a better FA pitcher brought in and Mayer up by mid season. I want to be IN the playoff hunt (like trying to get a home field game). By ‘25 I want that team to be chasing 100 wins.
I think we’re on that track.

IMO any Sox fan that claims they’d prefer Houston’s history (without a guarantee of that success….) are lying to themselves

 

[tims4wins]

Can they pitch? Because the entire rotation save for Pivetta missed most of July when the team fell apart. They lost something like 1600 days to injury last year. The following players had more starts than Chris Sale: Winckowski, Crawford, Rich Hill, Connor Seabold, Austin Davis... Franchy Fucking Cordero played 39 games in the outfield and even more at 1b. Bobby Dalbec played every infield position. Jeter Downs had to be recalled. They relied on Tyler Danish to get outs. Injuries completely detonated the team. Do I have to keep listing them all? Gimme a break.

Why did they suck for the first 6 weeks of the year if injuries were the primary factor?

Edit: literally almost all of those players were acquired by... Chaim Bloom! Maybe he should have acquired... better players?!

I haven’t read Any excuses for ‘24. I don’t expect them to win it all but I expect marked improvement, along with an increase in FA signings. Mayer is likely to break in in ‘24. You think he’s going to immediately turn the team around?
I expected this seasons team to be better than last seasons with young players making it fun to watch (check). If things break welll with veterans on short term deals, they could do damage (can’t say either way but leaning towards no). To me that’s a step forward.
In ‘24 I want to see all those struggling young players hitting their potential, a better FA pitcher brought in and Mayer up by mid season. I want to be IN the playoff hunt (like trying to get a home field game). By ‘25 I want that team to be chasing 100 wins.
I think we’re on that track.

IMO any Sox fan that claims they’d prefer Houston’s history (without a guarantee of that success….) are lying to themselves

Literally all of the Bloomers are saying "2025 will be the year!"

 

[Petagine in a Bottle]

This gets at what I was thinking when I talked about what the team was like from 1998-2009 a few posts ago, but I think you're right that it's fair to extended that windows quite a bit in both directions. Like I just said, 2014-15 were rough, but a number of significant players from 2013 were there as things turned around in '16, and then the kids came up and everything came together in 2018. Yes, that's simplifying, but again there was some connective tissue there that made it fun to be a fan riding the ups and downs. Right now just feels so incredibly uninspired in so many ways.

It’s also weird to get all nostalgic about the “2 games from glory” 2021 team when there are like seven guys left from that team even still on the roster.

 

[tims4wins]

It’s also weird to get all nostalgic about the “2 games from glory” 2021 team when there are like seven guys left from that team even still on the roster.

Yep. There is such little continuity. It sucks being a Sox fan right now. Does anyone truly disagree with that?

Obviously being a Sox fan from 2003-2018 was incredible. Throw in 2019 if you want. The last 4 years have been worse than tanking, IMO. Boring, shitty baseball with no goal / endgame in sight.

 

[chrisfont9]

Why did they suck for the first 6 weeks of the year if injuries were the primary factor?

Edit: literally almost all of those players were acquired by... Chaim Bloom! Maybe he should have acquired... better players?!

I can't keep looking shit up for you. I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors.

 

[simplicio]

Obviously being a Sox fan from 2003-2018 was incredible. Throw in 2019 if you want. The last 4 years have been worse than tanking, IMO. Boring, shitty baseball with no goal / endgame in sight.

Wait what? 2012, 2014 & 2015 were garbage teams. Are you seriously pining for the Pablo Sandoval era right now?

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

Why did they suck for the first 6 weeks of the year if injuries were the primary factor?

Edit: literally almost all of those players were acquired by... Chaim Bloom! Maybe he should have acquired... better players?!

Literally all of the Bloomers are saying "2025 will be the year!"

Come on really???

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

Another fucking thread gone to histrionics

 

[YTF]

Sure, folks here are going to be fine watching baseball being played at a worse level than they've been complaining about for the past few seasons with no guarantee of success as a result.

 

[Petagine in a Bottle]

Yeah I feel like folks are exaggerating a bit - the Sox have played some pretty mediocre baseball this year, but they are still generally competitive. The end of last year was excruciating, but this year has been pretty ok at worst. There’s at least enough youngish guys who are compelling, if frustrating at times, to watch.

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

Yep. There is such little continuity. It sucks being a Sox fan right now. Does anyone truly disagree with that?

Regardless of what I feel about Bloom or Cora, or the Plan or tanking or whatever, I, for one, will never agree that it sucks to be a Sox fan.

 

[4 6 3 DP]

Wait what? 2012, 2014 & 2015 were garbage teams. Are you seriously pining for the Pablo Sandoval era right now?

See this is where I lose the conversation. The 2012 Red Sox had Pedroia, Ortiz, A-Gon, John Lester, Josh Beckett, Carl Crawford, obviously Nick Punto - this was a team built to win that didn't.
2014 came off a world series - Napoli, Pedroia, X, Ortiz, Lester, Lackey, Peavy, obviously guys didn't work out, but this would be the comparison to the 2019 team - built to win, didn't.
2015 - Napoli, Boegarts, Pedroia, Pablo, Hanley, Mookie, Ortiz, Porcello, ERod, Buchholz - built to win, obviously didn't.

The 2023 Red Sox were not fielded like these three teams. They were fielded to contend. This one was not. Perhaps that was a smart move given the MLB economy and where the team stands, but in my opinion, Chaim Bloom this year (ignoring 2020) fielded the first Red Sox team not seriously built to contend since I'd argue 1992-94 timeframe, and I think fans have good reason to ask what's changed.

 

[TFisNEXT]

The biggest take home I’m getting from this thread is that we were really spoiled from 2003-2018.

I agree that 2020-present has kind of sucked from a “direction of the team” standpoint. But it’s also weird to just write off 2021 as part of that suck. That was a pretty fun and magical ride that year and it made up like 30% of the period we’re complaining about.

I mentioned it in the other thread, but as someone who is kind of ambiguous on Chaim right now, I’m willing to let the young players develop a little more before tossing him to the wolves. There’s some good stuff going on in 2023 from that standpoint. I’ll be willing to waive the white flag on the plan if we don’t see light at the end of the tunnel in 2024. I think 2024 needs to at least be a playoff year (or close miss with a lot of upside beyond 2024).