One of two choices: Blow it up or build it back up?

Blow it up or build it back up?

  • Blow it up -- rip that Band-Aid off and I'll have awesome cheap seats in Sept!

    Votes: 111 37.6%
  • Build it back up -- we're closer than you think, these are but flesh wounds!

    Votes: 184 62.4%

  • Total voters
    295

buttons

New Member
Jul 18, 2005
56
Agreed. I want to watch games that are, meaningful.
Even though we finished last in mid July there was
a good chance we could be at least a playoff team.
I want a team that I will be excited to watch all season.
After all management is telling us they want to be competitive
every single year. I am not ok with taking a few years off
wating for some prospects to be ready.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,637
The Yanks went through a lean period, The Astros sucked for many years and the Giants are hit or miss. I could go on, but I think the point is clear. Bloom could have wiped the decks and had years of futility, ala the Astros, or he could try to contend while building a foundation that will allow this team to contend year in and year out for the top spot. Even then there is going to be bumps in the road and years the team has to compete for a wildcard.
When did the Yankees go through a "lean period"? The 90s? They've made the post season practically every year since 1996 and have finished fourth once since 1993. And it's not because they have an amazing farm system.

The Astros last "sucked" in 2014. The Giants have one less World Series Championship this decade than us and they've had two bad seasons (fourth or fifth) since 1996. The Red Sox have finished last (5 of 5) five times in that span of time. The Cards finished fourth in 2008, the last time before that? 1999. Since 1994, the Dodgers have finished fourth or below twice. The Guardians have finished fourth once since 2011.

So your point isn't exactly clear, in fact it's flat-out wrong. There are plenty of teams, and most of these are big market teams, that have continued to have some sort of prolonged excellence over many years. Why shouldn't the Red Sox be able to do this?

But let's say Bloom does want to rip this thing to the studs. Why not say that's what they're going to do? Why do they keep telling us that they're going to reload and get better, make sure that they're in on every premium free agent, keep their good players, make sure that they swing deals for star players; when clearly they're not doing this. At all.

You keep saying that there's still half of the offseason left, and you're right. Technically. But the free agent cupboard is bare except for Swanson. They obviously don't want to trade high-profile minor leaguers, so who are you going to get for organizational jetsam? The team spackeled one hole (bullpen) but made another bigger one (shortstop) and their current, young third baseman is no doubt going to test the market next year. Look at this team realistically, how are they going to be better in a division where every team is better than them?
 

jbupstate

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2022
611
New York, USA
FSG has provide four championship banners and some incredible moments over the last 18 years. They have spent the money and receive many highs and too many lows.

I really believe the decided they wanted a much more consistent playoff return for their money. Bloom probably won the job by detailing his plan to build up the system to form a consistently highly competitive, championship potential team year in year out.

Obviously an opinion but after the 2020 tank job resulted in the #4 pick I would assume another year or so if tanking would have helped rapidly stock the system with premium young talent. But 2021 was a magical mirage of a season resulting in increased expectations to compete and rebuild. The team still had a weak upper system, highly paid injured players and not much financial flexibility. Full year 2022 went spectacularly bad due to bad injury luck and a crazy cluster of SP injuries at the same time. Ending with Boras doing what he’s paid to do.

in the end Bloom is trying to build out the system and FSG holds back that building by wanting to compete and not wanting to give out 8-10 year premium contracts.

I would love to blow it up. Trade Devers for something nice. Trade Sale if he starts the first half off right. Load up on lottery tickets, short term contracts and receive higher draft picks this and next. Upper minors get stronger and as those guys graduate to Fenway spend on premium talent. Juggernaut in 2025.

Fanbase is going to screen tomorrow anyway.
 

Ganthem

a ray of sunshine
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2022
914
When did the Yankees go through a "lean period"? The 90s? They've made the post season practically every year since 1996 and have finished fourth once since 1993. And it's not because they have an amazing farm system.

The Astros last "sucked" in 2014. The Giants have one less World Series Championship this decade than us and they've had two bad seasons (fourth or fifth) since 1996. The Red Sox have finished last (5 of 5) five times in that span of time. The Cards finished fourth in 2008, the last time before that? 1999. Since 1994, the Dodgers have finished fourth or below twice. The Guardians have finished fourth once since 2011.

So your point isn't exactly clear, in fact it's flat-out wrong. There are plenty of teams, and most of these are big market teams, that have continued to have some sort of prolonged excellence over many years. Why shouldn't the Red Sox be able to do this?

But let's say Bloom does want to rip this thing to the studs. Why not say that's what they're going to do? Why do they keep telling us that they're going to reload and get better, make sure that they're in on every premium free agent, keep their good players, make sure that they swing deals for star players; when clearly they're not doing this. At all.

You keep saying that there's still half of the offseason left, and you're right. Technically. But the free agent cupboard is bare except for Swanson. They obviously don't want to trade high-profile minor leaguers, so who are you going to get for organizational jetsam? The team spackeled one hole (bullpen) but made another bigger one (shortstop) and their current, young third baseman is no doubt going to test the market next year. Look at this team realistically, how are they going to be better in a division where every team is better than them?
In the past twenty years the Yanks have not made the playoffs four times. And what does when the Astros sucked have to do with anything I said. The point is that teams go through rough patches and sometimes trying to get into the playoffs via the wildcard is not an indictment against a particular team. Given where the Sox where when Bloom has taken over it is not hard to see progress. Further it is not hard to see this team contend if they sign Turner and one of Evoldi or Kluber. Trade for a right fielder and sign some depth pieces and this team is not in bad shape. I don't know if Bloom is the one to build a sustain contender, but the sitution is not nearly as dire as you and other on this board are making out.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,729
Yankees v. Red Sox, starting in 2004 (yes it's arbitrary but it's when the Sox finally broke through so that's where I'm starting):

1st place
- Bos: 5
- NY: 8

Playoffs
- Bos: 10
- NY: 15

3rd Place or Worse
- Bos: 9
- NY: 3

# Times Eliminating Other Team in the Playoffs
- Bos: 3
- NY: 0

Trips to ALCS
- Bos: 6 (4-2)
- NY: 7 (1-6)

WS Championships
- Bos: 4
- NY: 1

Clearly, the Yankees have been much, much better than Boston during the regular season over this stretch of years. Not disputable. But the Yankees aren't a franchise that's happy with having good regular season records. They are in it to win it. The Sox have more AL Pennants (4-1) and more WS titles (4-1). And head to head, the Sox have eliminated the Yankees 3 times while NY has eliminated Boston zero times since 2004.

I wonder how Yankee fans here in SOSH feel about all this - would they rather have had Boston's 2004-2022, or New York's 2004-2022?
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,637
In the past twenty years the Yanks have not made the playoffs four times. And what does when the Astros sucked have to do with anything I said. The point is that teams go through rough patches and sometimes trying to get into the playoffs via the wildcard is not an indictment against a particular team. Given where the Sox where when Bloom has taken over it is not hard to see progress. Further it is not hard to see this team contend if they sign Turner and one of Evoldi or Kluber. Trade for a right fielder and sign some depth pieces and this team is not in bad shape. I don't know if Bloom is the one to build a sustain contender, but the sitution is not nearly as dire as you and other on this board are making out.
Did you or did you not say:

"The Astros sucked for many years", that's what I was responding to.

You also said, "The Yanks went through a lean period", which was 30 FUCKING YEARS AGO. And I also said that the Yanks have finished fourth in their division one time since 1993.

Do you even read your own posts? Good lord.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
71,205
Yankees v. Red Sox, starting in 2004 (yes it's arbitrary but it's when the Sox finally broke through so that's where I'm starting):

1st place
- Bos: 5
- NY: 8

Playoffs
- Bos: 10
- NY: 15

3rd Place or Worse
- Bos: 9
- NY: 3

# Times Eliminating Other Team in the Playoffs
- Bos: 3
- NY: 0

Trips to ALCS
- Bos: 6 (4-2)
- NY: 7 (1-6)

WS Championships
- Bos: 4
- NY: 1

Clearly, the Yankees have been much, much better than Boston during the regular season over this stretch of years. Not disputable. But the Yankees aren't a franchise that's happy with having good regular season records. They are in it to win it. The Sox have more AL Pennants (4-1) and more WS titles (4-1). And head to head, the Sox have eliminated the Yankees 3 times while NY has eliminated Boston zero times since 2004.

I wonder how Yankee fans here in SOSH feel about all this - would they rather have had Boston's 2004-2022, or New York's 2004-2022?
I will pick NY’s 1996-now. :)
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
When did the Yankees go through a "lean period"? The 90s? They've made the post season practically every year since 1996 and have finished fourth once since 1993. And it's not because they have an amazing farm system.

The Astros last "sucked" in 2014. The Giants have one less World Series Championship this decade than us and they've had two bad seasons (fourth or fifth) since 1996. The Red Sox have finished last (5 of 5) five times in that span of time. The Cards finished fourth in 2008, the last time before that? 1999. Since 1994, the Dodgers have finished fourth or below twice. The Guardians have finished fourth once since 2011.


So your point isn't exactly clear, in fact it's flat-out wrong. There are plenty of teams, and most of these are big market teams, that have continued to have some sort of prolonged excellence over many years. Why shouldn't the Red Sox be able to do this?

But let's say Bloom does want to rip this thing to the studs. Why not say that's what they're going to do? Why do they keep telling us that they're going to reload and get better, make sure that they're in on every premium free agent, keep their good players, make sure that they swing deals for star players; when clearly they're not doing this. At all.

You keep saying that there's still half of the offseason left, and you're right. Technically. But the free agent cupboard is bare except for Swanson. They obviously don't want to trade high-profile minor leaguers, so who are you going to get for organizational jetsam? The team spackeled one hole (bullpen) but made another bigger one (shortstop) and their current, young third baseman is no doubt going to test the market next year. Look at this team realistically, how are they going to be better in a division where every team is better than them?
Houston may have last "sucked" in 2014 with a 70-92 record, but there was a legacy of suckage for more than a couple of seasons prior to that. they were 51-111 in 2013, 55-107 in 2012, 56-106 in 2011, 76-86 in 2010, 74-88 in 2009, 86-75 in 2008, 73-89 in 2007 and 82-80 in 2006. That's nine consecutive seasons of largely being as bad as a franchise can be that greatly helped to put the team in position for the success they have exhibited in recent years. Good on them for making the absolute best out of the position they found themselves in.

You are largely correct in citing some of the better franchises in recent years, but you seem to be qualifying bad seasons by where they place in their division (4th or 5th). What about records? I mean it's possible to finish second or third in your division and be a mediocre or worse.

Excluding 2020 for obvious reasons, let's look at some of the others teams you list. In seasons since 1996 where they finished higher than 4th place in the division, San Fran was 81-81 last season, 3rd in the division, 77-85 in 2019 (3rd), 76-86 in 2013 (3rd), 76-85 in 2006 (3rd) and 75-87 in 2005 (3rd). The Dodgers since 1994... 82-79 in 2011 (3rd), 77-89 in 1999 (3rd) and 58-56 in 1994 (1st) The Guardians since 2011... 80-82 in 2021 (2nd), 81-80 in 2015 (3rd), and 80-82 in 2011 (2nd). Nothing I've listed here is below a 3rd place division finish, but not exactly season

The Cardinals on the other hand have played consistently over .500 baseball including 10 games over in that 2008 season where they finished 4th in the division.

Again, these franchises have been among the better/best in the league for the past decade or more in some cases, but so has Boston if finishing win, place or show in the AL east is the measuring stick. Since 1995 they've finish in 1st place 6 times, 2nd 11 times, 3rd 5 times, 4th 1 time and 5th 5 times if you wish to include the 2020 season.
 

Ganthem

a ray of sunshine
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2022
914
Did you or did you not say:

"The Astros sucked for many years", that's what I was responding to.

You also said, "The Yanks went through a lean period", which was 30 FUCKING YEARS AGO. And I also said that the Yanks have finished fourth in their division one time since 1993.

Do you even read your own posts? Good lord.
Yes I did say that. I did not qualify that with a time frame. You did that. So do you admit to the Astros sucking prior to their recent winning ways? Also the last time the Yanks didn't make the playoffs was 2016.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,729
I mean.... there's not a fan in Red Sox Nation that wouldn't have given their left arm for a 19-year stretch following the Boone walk-off homer in 2003 whereby the Sox:

- Won the AL East 5 times
- Went to the playoffs 10 times
- Went to the ALCS 6 times
- Went to the WS 4 times
- Won the WS 4 times
- Eliminated the Yankees from the playoffs 3 times (while not being eliminated once by them)

That would be basically as good as it could possibly get for a Red Sox fan coming off 2003.

Well...

That's exactly what's happened.

Yet here we are, a good chunk of us...complaining.

Nobody likes losing. NOBODY. Certainly not me. But this 19 year stretch has bought a LOT of goodwill in my opinion. At least for me. I can't speak for anyone else.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,258
I mean.... there's not a fan in Red Sox Nation that wouldn't have given their left arm for a 19-year stretch following the Boone walk-off homer in 2003 whereby the Sox:

- Won the AL East 5 times
- Went to the playoffs 10 times
- Went to the ALCS 6 times
- Went to the WS 4 times
- Won the WS 4 times
- Eliminated the Yankees from the playoffs 3 times (while not being eliminated once by them)

That would be basically as good as it could possibly get for a Red Sox fan coming off 2003.

Well...

That's exactly what's happened.

Yet here we are, a good chunk of us...complaining.

Nobody likes losing. NOBODY. Certainly not me. But this 19 year stretch has bought a LOT of goodwill in my opinion. At least for me. I can't speak for anyone else.
This ownership group has bought a lot of good will. Chaim has not earned much himself. People are simply commenting on how things are looking/trending, particularly as it relates to retention of our top players. If that's not allowed because the team was successful under completely different GM regimes and roster constructions, I mean, sure, but what's the point of this board if that's the case?

I just don't like how these dissenting viewpoints are being framed by some. It's "complaining", "whining", "entitlement", etc. The people who did all that a year ago were proven to be 100% correct. Last year's team sucked. Injuries contributed to it but they just flat out sucked.

The jury is still out on this 2023 squad but it is objectively a pretty blah roster right now. Hopefully that changes in the coming weeks.
 

Ganthem

a ray of sunshine
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2022
914
This ownership group has bought a lot of good will. Chaim has not earned much himself. People are simply commenting on how things are looking/trending, particularly as it relates to retention of our top players. If that's not allowed because the team was successful under completely different GM regimes and roster constructions, I mean, sure, but what's the point of this board if that's the case?

I just don't like how these dissenting viewpoints are being framed by some. It's "complaining", "whining", "entitlement", etc. The people who did all that a year ago were proven to be 100% correct. Last year's team sucked. Injuries contributed to it but they just flat out sucked.

The jury is still out on this 2023 squad but it is objectively a pretty blah roster right now. Hopefully that changes in the coming weeks.
I think the problem is the dissenting point of view is overly dramatic. There are some moves that Chaim made or didn't make that are frustrating. That being said the hysterics over "the plan" and oh my god we might not compete next year despite the fact we are not even at Hanukah, is well insane. Further the arguments don't even make sense. Half the time they are screaming about the Sale contract, but they shit on Bloom for not giving up a draft pick and close to 200 million dollars to sign Redon, who has had a checkered injury path?
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,258
I think the problem is the dissenting point of view is overly dramatic. There are some moves that Chaim made or didn't make that are frustrating. That being said the hysterics over "the plan" and oh my god we might not compete next year despite the fact we are not even at Hanukah, is well insane. Further the arguments don't even make sense. Half the time they are screaming about the Sale contract, but they shit on Bloom for not giving up a draft pick and close to 200 million dollars to sign Redon, who has had a checkered injury path?
Says who? You? Just because you perceive something as "overly dramatic" doesn't make it so. There are countless people on this board who are concerned about where things are headed, people who have been following this team/sport for a long time. You keep projecting your own personal beliefs on the situation and assuming everyone else who disagrees is being unreasonable or "insane", to use your own words. I don't think that is a fair approach and I don't think language like that is helpful.

It's perfectly fine for completely different takes on the current situation. That doesn't make either side "dramatic" or "insane". You may feel differently, which is perfectly fine. I won't call your viewpoint "insane".
 

The_Dali

New Member
Jul 2, 2021
141
Obviously an opinion but after the 2020 tank job resulted in the #4 pick I would assume another year or so if tanking would have helped rapidly stock the system with premium young talent. But 2021 was a magical mirage of a season resulting in increased expectations to compete and rebuild. The team still had a weak upper system, highly paid injured players and not much financial flexibility. Full year 2022 went spectacularly bad due to bad injury luck and a crazy cluster of SP injuries at the same time.
It's my take that 2021 screwed up Bloom's plan. I feel like that's why his only move at the deadline was to pick up a "bargain bin" Schwarber and try to shoehorn him into a 1B job instead of really addressing the needs. It seemed like the playoff run actually surprised him and he wasn't quite prepared for the trade deadline. In any event, the plan (as it appears to me) was to rid the team of all the old contracts and compete in 2024-25. The moves this year and last feel in-line with that approach... pick up enough guys that keep the team "watchable" to keep revenue floating, but no real moves to compete in the near-term - especially given how stacked the Al East is...

I 100% believe he brought in Story to play SS because he had no intentions of bringing back Xander - but now Story's arm may not be able to handle SS and he was so good at 2B I believe the group is flexing to Swanson since he is a good defender and likely won't require 10 years. We were never really "in" on the other shortstops... and Swanson always seemed like the target if a SS was in the cards. I have zero belief that Bloom wants to spend $330+ million on Raffy since he is limited defensively and may not age well... and Bloom is counting on Casas taking 1B... so I expect Swanson (if signed) to move to 3B when Mayer is ready.
 
Last edited:

The_Dali

New Member
Jul 2, 2021
141
I think the problem is the dissenting point of view is overly dramatic. There are some moves that Chaim made or didn't make that are frustrating. That being said the hysterics over "the plan" and oh my god we might not compete next year despite the fact we are not even at Hanukah, is well insane. Further the arguments don't even make sense. Half the time they are screaming about the Sale contract, but they shit on Bloom for not giving up a draft pick and close to 200 million dollars to sign Redon, who has had a checkered injury path?
Unless we (like 2021) catch lightning in a bottle, there is very little chance we compete in 2023. That isn't in the plan, and the sooner people realize that, the better. Even if we sign the best remaining players I don't see how we compete with the big 3 or 4 teams in the AL. If everything breaks "right" (Sale is back to normal, Bello steps up, Pivetta is slightly better than average, the bullpen stays healthy and effective, Casas hits 30 bombs, Yoshida integrates seamlessly, Story stays healthy, they keep Devers and he is MVP caliber) we can compete, but the FO isn't building a team to compete this year... it so clearly obvious... they are seeing if anything might "stick" for the future, looking at a few young players, and waiting for contracts to expire - and eventually also re-setting the CBT (unbelievable that they didn't do that last year).

With that said... I can see the team picking up players without QO's like Conforto or re-signing Wacha or Eovaldi. Swanson would be the one player I think they might do even though he has the QO.
 
Last edited:

Pedro's change up

New Member
Nov 24, 2022
3
Says who? You? Just because you perceive something as "overly dramatic" doesn't make it so. There are countless people on this board who are concerned about where things are headed, people who have been following this team/sport for a long time. You keep projecting your own personal beliefs on the situation and assuming everyone else who disagrees is being unreasonable or "insane", to use your own words. I don't think that is a fair approach and I don't think language like that is helpful.

It's perfectly fine for completely different takes on the current situation. That doesn't make either side "dramatic" or "insane". You may feel differently, which is perfectly fine. I won't call your viewpoint "insane".
actually I agree with him too LOL. There is less of the drama here on this site, but the drama, agony and self pity is everywhere on other sites. Everybody on the sox "suck" the GM is an "idiot" and the ownership has "Alzheimer's" is what i read recently. Its very real.

Personally I believe our biggest problem was the pen. Probably adequately addressed. I am hopeful that houk, whitlock and witkowski and bello can continue to mature and be larger contributors. I'd like to add a #2 starter so we can have more stability. Can't count on Sale or Paxson.
 

Benj4ever

New Member
Nov 21, 2022
367
Unless we (like 2021) catch lightning in a bottle, there is very little chance we compete in 2023. That isn't in the plan, and the sooner people realize that, the better. Even if we sign the best remaining players I don't see how we compete with the big 3 or 4 teams in the AL. If everything breaks "right" (Sale is back to normal, Bello steps up, Pivetta is slightly better than average, the bullpen stays healthy and effective, Casas hits 30 bombs, Yoshida integrates seamlessly, Story stays healthy, they keep Devers and he is MVP caliber) we can compete, but the FO isn't building a team to compete this year... it so clearly obvious... they are seeing if anything might "stick" for the future, looking at a few young players, and waiting for contracts to expire - and eventually also re-setting the CBT (unbelievable that they didn't do that last year).

With that said... I can see the team picking up players without QO's like Conforto or re-signing Wacha or Eovaldi. Swanson would be the one player I think they might do even though he has the QO.
The degree of competitiveness of the Red Sox in 2023 does not determine whether or not there is a "plan." It may not be the plan a lot of fans want, but that doesn't mean it's not a plan.
 

streeter88

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 2, 2006
1,808
Melbourne, Australia
The degree of competitiveness of the Red Sox in 2023 does not determine whether or not there is a "plan." It may not be the plan a lot of fans want, but that doesn't mean it's not a plan.
In the Faith in the Front Office poll, 67% of us voted for confidence of 40% or less. That’s either “there must be a plan but hard to tell what it is”, “the plan is not working”, or “there is no plan”. I think it’s pretty clear that SOSH - which has been pretty pro-Bloom/FSG - has substantial doubts. We know the offseason has plenty of time to run, but there will be some amongst us who are secretly hoping the Sox finish last so there’s a new CBO in 2024.
 

mikcou

Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2007
926
Boston
Houston may have last "sucked" in 2014 with a 70-92 record, but there was a legacy of suckage for more than a couple of seasons prior to that. they were 51-111 in 2013, 55-107 in 2012, 56-106 in 2011, 76-86 in 2010, 74-88 in 2009, 86-75 in 2008, 73-89 in 2007 and 82-80 in 2006. That's nine consecutive seasons of largely being as bad as a franchise can be that greatly helped to put the team in position for the success they have exhibited in recent years. Good on them for making the absolute best out of the position they found themselves in.

You are largely correct in citing some of the better franchises in recent years, but you seem to be qualifying bad seasons by where they place in their division (4th or 5th). What about records? I mean it's possible to finish second or third in your division and be a mediocre or worse.

Excluding 2020 for obvious reasons, let's look at some of the others teams you list. In seasons since 1996 where they finished higher than 4th place in the division, San Fran was 81-81 last season, 3rd in the division, 77-85 in 2019 (3rd), 76-86 in 2013 (3rd), 76-85 in 2006 (3rd) and 75-87 in 2005 (3rd). The Dodgers since 1994... 82-79 in 2011 (3rd), 77-89 in 1999 (3rd) and 58-56 in 1994 (1st) The Guardians since 2011... 80-82 in 2021 (2nd), 81-80 in 2015 (3rd), and 80-82 in 2011 (2nd). Nothing I've listed here is below a 3rd place division finish, but not exactly season

The Cardinals on the other hand have played consistently over .500 baseball including 10 games over in that 2008 season where they finished 4th in the division.

Again, these franchises have been among the better/best in the league for the past decade or more in some cases, but so has Boston if finishing win, place or show in the AL east is the measuring stick. Since 1995 they've finish in 1st place 6 times, 2nd 11 times, 3rd 5 times, 4th 1 time and 5th 5 times if you wish to include the 2020 season.
Youre digging pretty deep on LA there. If they have on under 500 season in the past 30 years that occured 23 years ago ; how is that remotely comparable? Similar to the Dodgers, the last time the Yankees were under .500 was 1995.

Thats the entire point here - well run big market teams only very rarely have bad seasons. The Sox since 2010 have been all over the place. Even if you want to exclude 2020, the Sox have finished under .500 four times since Theo left after the 2011 season. Excluding 2020 thats 40% of the time. Including 2020 its close to 45%. Well run large markets are doing once every 30 years. Definitely seems like something is up.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
5,289
I wonder how much of that volatility is due to the GM churn post-Theo. Friedman's been in LA for eight years now, and I believe Cashman started in NY sometime around the Ruth trade, but we keep bringing in new guys with different plans.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
73,323
Depends on who the DBO is

Build up - Dumbo
Blow it up Cherington/Hoyer etc

since we have Bloom, I don’t think there’s a good answer either way
 

Auger34

used to be tbb
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
9,618
Says who? You? Just because you perceive something as "overly dramatic" doesn't make it so. There are countless people on this board who are concerned about where things are headed, people who have been following this team/sport for a long time. You keep projecting your own personal beliefs on the situation and assuming everyone else who disagrees is being unreasonable or "insane", to use your own words. I don't think that is a fair approach and I don't think language like that is helpful.

It's perfectly fine for completely different takes on the current situation. That doesn't make either side "dramatic" or "insane". You may feel differently, which is perfectly fine. I won't call your viewpoint "insane".
Exactly. I think even the most optimistic person here would have to admit it’s been a bad offseason thus far and the difference makers in this FA class are gone. If you want to remain optimistic that’s fine but you definitely can’t act like that position is obvious or the people who disagree are somehow crazy or unreasonable
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Youre digging pretty deep on LA there. If they have on under 500 season in the past 30 years that occured 23 years ago ; how is that remotely comparable? Similar to the Dodgers, the last time the Yankees were under .500 was 1995.

Thats the entire point here - well run big market teams only very rarely have bad seasons. The Sox since 2010 have been all over the place. Even if you want to exclude 2020, the Sox have finished under .500 four times since Theo left after the 2011 season. Excluding 2020 thats 40% of the time. Including 2020 its close to 45%. Well run large markets are doing once every 30 years. Definitely seems like something is up.
I used the standard that was supplied by the post that I replied to. I suppose I could have cherry picked and left LA out of the of my post , but they were a part of section I highlighted. My point was that a finish higher than 4th place doesn't always reflect a good season.
 

mikcou

Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2007
926
Boston
I used the standard that was supplied by the post that I replied to. I suppose I could have cherry picked and left LA out of the of my post , but they were a part of section I highlighted. My point was that a finish higher than 4th place doesn't always reflect a good season.
Ok, but doesnt the broader point still stand? Well run large market teams aren't having terrible seasons (anything under .500 I'd classify as terrible given the advantages large market teams have in the sport). People can point to "bad luck," but if other well run large market teams are under .500 2-4 times in the past 30 years and the Sox have done so 4 times since Theo left so 2012 on even after excluding 2020 (so 5 times including 2020), doesn't that point to something about their management might be off?
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Ok, but doesnt the broader point still stand? Well run large market teams aren't having terrible seasons (anything under .500 I'd classify as terrible given the advantages large market teams have in the sport). People can point to "bad luck," but if other well run large market teams are under .500 2-4 times in the past 30 years and the Sox have done so 4 times since Theo left so 2012 on even after excluding 2020 (so 5 times including 2020), doesn't that point to something about their management might be off?
You're reading way too much into what I posted and I'm not sure where I've disputed the point being made. If you want to address things that people "point to" that's fine, but I'm not sure where I fit into your narrative.
 

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
1,202
Ok, but doesnt the broader point still stand? Well run large market teams aren't having terrible seasons (anything under .500 I'd classify as terrible given the advantages large market teams have in the sport). People can point to "bad luck," but if other well run large market teams are under .500 2-4 times in the past 30 years and the Sox have done so 4 times since Theo left so 2012 on even after excluding 2020 (so 5 times including 2020), doesn't that point to something about their management might be off?
Just as another perspective, a well run large market team might look at a likely “non-playoff” season as the failure, not the .500 benchmark or whatever. So it could be better to quickly determine you’re unlikely to make the playoffs, sell off assets that WON’T be in the organization for future assets (re-setting the tax; prospects; higher draft picks).

I may be in the minority, but I find missing the playoffs or a .500 season by a few games and the (missed) opportunity costs associated with that (see 2022) as a much larger organizational failure than moving wasted assets for things that might have value in the future.
 

mikcou

Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2007
926
Boston
You're reading way too much into what I posted and I'm not sure where I've disputed the point being made. If you want to address things that people "point to" that's fine, but I'm not sure where I fit into your narrative.
Fair enough, your initial post on the matter seemed to indicate otherwise. Pretty much every indicator will say the Sox have way higher variance over the past 10 years than pretty much any well run big market team because they have.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,637
Houston may have last "sucked" in 2014 with a 70-92 record, but there was a legacy of suckage for more than a couple of seasons prior to that. they were 51-111 in 2013, 55-107 in 2012, 56-106 in 2011, 76-86 in 2010, 74-88 in 2009, 86-75 in 2008, 73-89 in 2007 and 82-80 in 2006. That's nine consecutive seasons of largely being as bad as a franchise can be that greatly helped to put the team in position for the success they have exhibited in recent years. Good on them for making the absolute best out of the position they found themselves in.

You are largely correct in citing some of the better franchises in recent years, but you seem to be qualifying bad seasons by where they place in their division (4th or 5th). What about records? I mean it's possible to finish second or third in your division and be a mediocre or worse.

Excluding 2020 for obvious reasons, let's look at some of the others teams you list. In seasons since 1996 where they finished higher than 4th place in the division, San Fran was 81-81 last season, 3rd in the division, 77-85 in 2019 (3rd), 76-86 in 2013 (3rd), 76-85 in 2006 (3rd) and 75-87 in 2005 (3rd). The Dodgers since 1994... 82-79 in 2011 (3rd), 77-89 in 1999 (3rd) and 58-56 in 1994 (1st) The Guardians since 2011... 80-82 in 2021 (2nd), 81-80 in 2015 (3rd), and 80-82 in 2011 (2nd). Nothing I've listed here is below a 3rd place division finish, but not exactly season

The Cardinals on the other hand have played consistently over .500 baseball including 10 games over in that 2008 season where they finished 4th in the division.

Again, these franchises have been among the better/best in the league for the past decade or more in some cases, but so has Boston if finishing win, place or show in the AL east is the measuring stick. Since 1995 they've finish in 1st place 6 times, 2nd 11 times, 3rd 5 times, 4th 1 time and 5th 5 times if you wish to include the 2020 season.
I'll get into this a little bit more. The basic point is what @mikcou mentioned in one of his posts, namely that most large market teams (NY, LA, SF, StL, etc) don't go through these same boom-busts schizophrenic periods that the Red Sox have gone through in the last decade or so. I'm not going to go too far down this road on this particular point, but I think that this type of whiplash is detrimental to a fan base.

But the reason why I chose divisional places instead of overall records or games behind is because I was doing a very quick and dirty assumption: mainly that whether that team finished third in 1998 or third in 2012, we can presume that a third place record would be enough to have the team in the conversation for a postseason appearance with 2023 rules. Are all third place teams alike? Of course not, and you've shown that with a couple of W-L records over the years (thank you), but I think that one can safely predict that a finish in third place will show you a baseball team that had a cromulent year.

The Red Sox should be able to do this. A consistently good team over a long period of time is the goal here, or it should be. Yes, the rules have changed, but there are a handful of teams who seem to have been able to figure out a way to bring up quality minor leaguers, supplement some strong free agent signings and trades while fielding a good-to-sometimes-great team year after year after year after year. Why can't Boston do this? That's my question. Why can't the Red Sox front office be as smart as the Giants? Or the Cardinals? Or the Yankees? Is this too big of an ask? Am I asking too much from my team? Is this the "whining" that Bloomers talk about?

I don't know, but I don't think that it's crazy to want to hold your team to a very modest standard of not sucking.

Maybe you're right that the constant changes in the Front Office is to blame for this. And if that's the case, then we have to put the spotlight on FSG and ask them if they know what the fuck they're doing?

I'm glad you brought up the Astros, because they are an outlier (and I should have explained this a bit more in my initial post) for a number of reasons. One, they were really shitty about a decade ago. I know it seems as if the Astros are the "nouveau rich" of baseball, but they've been consistently good for almost ten years. That's a long time in baseball terms. No, it's not the Yankees or Dodgers, but just like the Pats weren't the Packers or Steelers (teams with long running winning traditions), the Astros are almost past the point of being a curiosity--that shitty team that lucked into a good season or two. Their almost decade of consistency means that they're up there with franchises that have been really good over a long period of time.

Another reason that they're an outlier is because they're really the only team that has done this "burn the house down and rebuild it back up" process that has shown long-term success. We all remember the lean Houston years and how awful they were but that doesn't guarantee success. Look at the Cubs, they did the same thing and their window was what? Three years? Four? The White Sox tried something similar and their window has just about closed. The Pirates, the Orioles (v1.0), the A's have all done similar things with minimal success.

What does this ultimately mean? At this point, even though history is working against the Sox, they may as well blow it up. This was supposed to be the offseason that they were going to get back into the thick of things, free agent wise, and it passed them by. They obviously don't want to deal off high ranking prospects, so I don't think this year's version of Pedro or Schilling or Beckett or whomever is walking through that door. I also think that Devers is gone. At this point, and I hate saying this because I don't think that the Boston Red Sox should ever do this, but the only real course of action is to punt 2023. And maybe 2024.

The one unknown in all of this is whether Bloom is the man to lead a complete and total rebuild. My confidence level in him to do this is practically nil right now. But the FSG seems to believe in him, so there's not much that I can do about that.

But maybe they’ll get lucky and things will work out. Though I feel that has been the motto of the team for the entire Bloom administration. So why change it now?
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
I'll get into this a little bit more. The basic point is what @mikcou mentioned in one of his posts, namely that most large market teams (NY, LA, SF, StL, etc) don't go through these same boom-busts schizophrenic periods that the Red Sox have gone through in the last decade or so. I'm not going to go too far down this road on this particular point, but I think that this type of whiplash is detrimental to a fan base.

But the reason why I chose divisional places instead of overall records or games behind is because I was doing a very quick and dirty assumption: mainly that whether that team finished third in 1998 or third in 2012, we can presume that a third place record would be enough to have the team in the conversation for a postseason appearance with 2023 rules. Are all third place teams alike? Of course not, and you've shown that with a couple of W-L records over the years (thank you), but I think that one can safely predict that a finish in third place will show you a baseball team that had a cromulent year.

The Red Sox should be able to do this. A consistently good team over a long period of time is the goal here, or it should be. Yes, the rules have changed, but there are a handful of teams who seem to have been able to figure out a way to bring up quality minor leaguers, supplement some strong free agent signings and trades while fielding a good-to-sometimes-great team year after year after year after year. Why can't Boston do this? That's my question. Why can't the Red Sox front office be as smart as the Giants? Or the Cardinals? Or the Yankees? Is this too big of an ask? Am I asking too much from my team? Is this the "whining" that Bloomers talk about?

I don't know, but I don't think that it's crazy to want to hold your team to a very modest standard of not sucking.

Maybe you're right that the constant changes in the Front Office is to blame for this. And if that's the case, then we have to put the spotlight on FSG and ask them if they know what the fuck they're doing?

I'm glad you brought up the Astros, because they are an outlier (and I should have explained this a bit more in my initial post) for a number of reasons. One, they were really shitty about a decade ago. I know it seems as if the Astros are the "nouveau rich" of baseball, but they've been consistently good for almost ten years. That's a long time in baseball terms. No, it's not the Yankees or Dodgers, but just like the Pats weren't the Packers or Steelers (teams with long running winning traditions), the Astros are almost past the point of being a curiosity--that shitty team that lucked into a good season or two. Their almost decade of consistency means that they're up there with franchises that have been really good over a long period of time.

Another reason that they're an outlier is because they're really the only team that has done this "burn the house down and rebuild it back up" process that has shown long-term success. We all remember the lean Houston years and how awful they were but that doesn't guarantee success. Look at the Cubs, they did the same thing and their window was what? Three years? Four? The White Sox tried something similar and their window has just about closed. The Pirates, the Orioles (v1.0), the A's have all done similar things with minimal success.

What does this ultimately mean? At this point, even though history is working against the Sox, they may as well blow it up. This was supposed to be the offseason that they were going to get back into the thick of things, free agent wise, and it passed them by. They obviously don't want to deal off high ranking prospects, so I don't think this year's version of Pedro or Schilling or Beckett or whomever is walking through that door. I also think that Devers is gone. At this point, and I hate saying this because I don't think that the Boston Red Sox should ever do this, but the only real course of action is to punt 2023. And maybe 2024.

The one unknown in all of this is whether Bloom is the man to lead a complete and total rebuild. My confidence level in him to do this is practically nil right now. But the FSG seems to believe in him, so there's not much that I can do about that.

But maybe they’ll get lucky and things will work out. Though I feel that has been the motto of the team for the entire Bloom administration. So why change it now?
Thanks for the time and effort spent on this response.
 

Ganthem

a ray of sunshine
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2022
914
I'll get into this a little bit more. The basic point is what @mikcou mentioned in one of his posts, namely that most large market teams (NY, LA, SF, StL, etc) don't go through these same boom-busts schizophrenic periods that the Red Sox have gone through in the last decade or so. I'm not going to go too far down this road on this particular point, but I think that this type of whiplash is detrimental to a fan base.

But the reason why I chose divisional places instead of overall records or games behind is because I was doing a very quick and dirty assumption: mainly that whether that team finished third in 1998 or third in 2012, we can presume that a third place record would be enough to have the team in the conversation for a postseason appearance with 2023 rules. Are all third place teams alike? Of course not, and you've shown that with a couple of W-L records over the years (thank you), but I think that one can safely predict that a finish in third place will show you a baseball team that had a cromulent year.

The Red Sox should be able to do this. A consistently good team over a long period of time is the goal here, or it should be. Yes, the rules have changed, but there are a handful of teams who seem to have been able to figure out a way to bring up quality minor leaguers, supplement some strong free agent signings and trades while fielding a good-to-sometimes-great team year after year after year after year. Why can't Boston do this? That's my question. Why can't the Red Sox front office be as smart as the Giants? Or the Cardinals? Or the Yankees? Is this too big of an ask? Am I asking too much from my team? Is this the "whining" that Bloomers talk about?

I don't know, but I don't think that it's crazy to want to hold your team to a very modest standard of not sucking.

Maybe you're right that the constant changes in the Front Office is to blame for this. And if that's the case, then we have to put the spotlight on FSG and ask them if they know what the fuck they're doing?

I'm glad you brought up the Astros, because they are an outlier (and I should have explained this a bit more in my initial post) for a number of reasons. One, they were really shitty about a decade ago. I know it seems as if the Astros are the "nouveau rich" of baseball, but they've been consistently good for almost ten years. That's a long time in baseball terms. No, it's not the Yankees or Dodgers, but just like the Pats weren't the Packers or Steelers (teams with long running winning traditions), the Astros are almost past the point of being a curiosity--that shitty team that lucked into a good season or two. Their almost decade of consistency means that they're up there with franchises that have been really good over a long period of time.

Another reason that they're an outlier is because they're really the only team that has done this "burn the house down and rebuild it back up" process that has shown long-term success. We all remember the lean Houston years and how awful they were but that doesn't guarantee success. Look at the Cubs, they did the same thing and their window was what? Three years? Four? The White Sox tried something similar and their window has just about closed. The Pirates, the Orioles (v1.0), the A's have all done similar things with minimal success.

What does this ultimately mean? At this point, even though history is working against the Sox, they may as well blow it up. This was supposed to be the offseason that they were going to get back into the thick of things, free agent wise, and it passed them by. They obviously don't want to deal off high ranking prospects, so I don't think this year's version of Pedro or Schilling or Beckett or whomever is walking through that door. I also think that Devers is gone. At this point, and I hate saying this because I don't think that the Boston Red Sox should ever do this, but the only real course of action is to punt 2023. And maybe 2024.

The one unknown in all of this is whether Bloom is the man to lead a complete and total rebuild. My confidence level in him to do this is practically nil right now. But the FSG seems to believe in him, so there's not much that I can do about that.

But maybe they’ll get lucky and things will work out. Though I feel that has been the motto of the team for the entire Bloom administration. So why change it now?
I totally agree that the Red Sox need to be consistent in their winning wins. That should have been the goal under Cherington and that should have been the goal under Dombrowski. Despite world series wins, the Sox did not get there. My original point was that teams go through fallow periods before they can attain that level of sustained success. The Sox are in the midst of one of those fallow periods with a relatively new GM. One of the big thing that didn't go according to plan was the Bogey signing, which was horribly handled from the get go. That is not to minimize the work Bloom will have to do to make this team competitive, but I believe that he can get this team to be competitive for a wildcard. Now if we fast forward two years and we are still talking about the team competing for the wildcard at best, that will be problematic. I also don't know if Bloom is the right person for the job, but given where the franchise was when he took over and where the franchise is now, I think he deserves a few more years to figure things out.


Says who? You? Just because you perceive something as "overly dramatic" doesn't make it so. There are countless people on this board who are concerned about where things are headed, people who have been following this team/sport for a long time. You keep projecting your own personal beliefs on the situation and assuming everyone else who disagrees is being unreasonable or "insane", to use your own words. I don't think that is a fair approach and I don't think language like that is helpful.

It's perfectly fine for completely different takes on the current situation. That doesn't make either side "dramatic" or "insane". You may feel differently, which is perfectly fine. I won't call your viewpoint "insane".
People who are declaring that this off season sucks and there is no hope for 23 in December are either trolls or insane. I am sorry there is no two ways about it. Stating that you have a lack of faith in Bloom to do what needs to be done in order to turn this team into at least a wild card team is one thing. Presenting this off season or 23 as an absolute is another. Further people who are presenting the argument that his off season sucks or 23 is going to suck are arguing in bad faith. You can easily say that thus far this off season has been a dud. If you want to do that then you need to explain why you think Yoshida's skills are not going to translate to America and you have to explain why you think the two bullpen additions are not going to move the needle on the bullpen from where it was last season. Lastly you will need to explain why it is important to ignore the rest of the off season and the 23 season given that the off season is not over and 23 is not played. So I guess it is a combination of insanity and bad faith arguments that have turned every thread into a dumpster fire.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,678
I'll get into this a little bit more. The basic point is what @mikcou mentioned in one of his posts, namely that most large market teams (NY, LA, SF, StL, etc) don't go through these same boom-busts schizophrenic periods that the Red Sox have gone through in the last decade or so. I'm not going to go too far down this road on this particular point, but I think that this type of whiplash is detrimental to a fan base.

But the reason why I chose divisional places instead of overall records or games behind is because I was doing a very quick and dirty assumption: mainly that whether that team finished third in 1998 or third in 2012, we can presume that a third place record would be enough to have the team in the conversation for a postseason appearance with 2023 rules. Are all third place teams alike? Of course not, and you've shown that with a couple of W-L records over the years (thank you), but I think that one can safely predict that a finish in third place will show you a baseball team that had a cromulent year.

The Red Sox should be able to do this. A consistently good team over a long period of time is the goal here, or it should be. Yes, the rules have changed, but there are a handful of teams who seem to have been able to figure out a way to bring up quality minor leaguers, supplement some strong free agent signings and trades while fielding a good-to-sometimes-great team year after year after year after year. Why can't Boston do this? That's my question. Why can't the Red Sox front office be as smart as the Giants? Or the Cardinals? Or the Yankees? Is this too big of an ask? Am I asking too much from my team? Is this the "whining" that Bloomers talk about?

I don't know, but I don't think that it's crazy to want to hold your team to a very modest standard of not sucking.

Maybe you're right that the constant changes in the Front Office is to blame for this. And if that's the case, then we have to put the spotlight on FSG and ask them if they know what the fuck they're doing?

I'm glad you brought up the Astros, because they are an outlier (and I should have explained this a bit more in my initial post) for a number of reasons. One, they were really shitty about a decade ago. I know it seems as if the Astros are the "nouveau rich" of baseball, but they've been consistently good for almost ten years. That's a long time in baseball terms. No, it's not the Yankees or Dodgers, but just like the Pats weren't the Packers or Steelers (teams with long running winning traditions), the Astros are almost past the point of being a curiosity--that shitty team that lucked into a good season or two. Their almost decade of consistency means that they're up there with franchises that have been really good over a long period of time.

Another reason that they're an outlier is because they're really the only team that has done this "burn the house down and rebuild it back up" process that has shown long-term success. We all remember the lean Houston years and how awful they were but that doesn't guarantee success. Look at the Cubs, they did the same thing and their window was what? Three years? Four? The White Sox tried something similar and their window has just about closed. The Pirates, the Orioles (v1.0), the A's have all done similar things with minimal success.

What does this ultimately mean? At this point, even though history is working against the Sox, they may as well blow it up. This was supposed to be the offseason that they were going to get back into the thick of things, free agent wise, and it passed them by. They obviously don't want to deal off high ranking prospects, so I don't think this year's version of Pedro or Schilling or Beckett or whomever is walking through that door. I also think that Devers is gone. At this point, and I hate saying this because I don't think that the Boston Red Sox should ever do this, but the only real course of action is to punt 2023. And maybe 2024.

The one unknown in all of this is whether Bloom is the man to lead a complete and total rebuild. My confidence level in him to do this is practically nil right now. But the FSG seems to believe in him, so there's not much that I can do about that.

But maybe they’ll get lucky and things will work out. Though I feel that has been the motto of the team for the entire Bloom administration. So why change it now?
Good post.

One thing that seems woefully underappreciated is how Boston, as a location, stacks up with those other teams’ cities you mentioned.

There are fewer MLB players who call New England home than virtually any other team’s city (with a few exceptions). The weather is unattractive, relatively speaking, and there’s probably a few socio-cultural factors that register as a turn-off to certain players, whether that has to do with racial demographic makeup or other cultural factors (I’d wonder how good ole Southern boys weigh an offer from the Red Sox against an equal one from, say, the Rangers).

I’m sorry if this kind of sweeping speculation is beyond anyone’s standards, but I genuinely think it’s a factor for the Red Sox, and it’s the best I can do with the info we have. We’ve seen a good number of free agents lately reportedly spurn the team despite competitive or leading offers, and that just seems weird for a team that’s won four championships the last 18 years. The dynamic is also something that Sox leadership has no incentive to come right out and say, because naming the problem (that free agents can find Boston undesirable relative to cities in comparable MLB markets) makes it true, to some extent.

It’s one of the reasons I have some sympathy toward Bloom and this FO. It was easier when the Sox had a clear financial advantage over every team besides NYY and LAD, or when other teams’ FOs were populated by superstitious old-school goofballs (like during the Theo era). There are a lot of unknowns in how today’s free agency negotiations go, and the fan base and press tends to underappreciate the possibility that some players don’t want to be here. For some, a little more money gets it done. With others, that’s not necessarily the case, and a good FO would never leak that to the press.
 

Benj4ever

New Member
Nov 21, 2022
367
In the Faith in the Front Office poll, 67% of us voted for confidence of 40% or less. That’s either “there must be a plan but hard to tell what it is”, “the plan is not working”, or “there is no plan”. I think it’s pretty clear that SOSH - which has been pretty pro-Bloom/FSG - has substantial doubts. We know the offseason has plenty of time to run, but there will be some amongst us who are secretly hoping the Sox finish last so there’s a new CBO in 2024.
Yes, I realized that when posting on Overthemonster (which is much more anti-Bloom than this site). I would counter that the "plan" is for long-term, sustainable success, not a myopic plan for success in 2023 at all costs, which seems to be the prevailing sentiment among those I would dub as "big-market" fans.

Also, remember that if the plan is to get to the WS in 2023, all but 2 teams will fail! That means that numerous teams who "won" the offseason will have lost in reality and will have to start all over next year. That's the main advantage of sustainable success. You don't have to start all over next year, simply because you have a cast of older players who will need to be replaced due to diminished skills, injury, having been signed to one-year contracts, or opting out of their long-term deals!
 

Coachster

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2009
8,987
New Hampshire
People who are declaring that this off season sucks and there is no hope for 23 in December are either trolls or insane. I am sorry there is no two ways about it. Stating that you have a lack of faith in Bloom to do what needs to be done in order to turn this team into at least a wild card team is one thing. Presenting this off season or 23 as an absolute is another. Further people who are presenting the argument that his off season sucks or 23 is going to suck are arguing in bad faith. You can easily say that thus far this off season has been a dud. If you want to do that then you need to explain why you think Yoshida's skills are not going to translate to America and you have to explain why you think the two bullpen additions are not going to move the needle on the bullpen from where it was last season. Lastly you will need to explain why it is important to ignore the rest of the off season and the 23 season given that the off season is not over and 23 is not played. So I guess it is a combination of insanity and bad faith arguments that have turned every thread into a dumpster fire.
I'm sorry. I've been trying to read these threads and not get overly involved, but insanity AND bad faith.... wow. That's a lot.

So here we are on 12/17. Who is our shortstop? We all know it's not going to be Swanson, with Meyer waiting in the wings. Not a lot of great options left out there. If you'd be happy with Andrus or Iggy or Mondesi, you be you. Or the in-house option? Story? (That means Arroyo at second, till he gets hurt.) Or Kiki to the infield, and who plays center?

Yeah, let's talk about the outfield. I like the Yoshida signing. I think he'll be a terrific DH. So, Verdugo in left, maybe Kike in center, and who in right? Rob fucking Refsnyder, platooning with Duran, who can't throw from right to third on less than three hops? Not a lot of options for a defensive-first centerfielder if Kike had to play the infield, and not a lot of options for a right fielder who can field at Fenway and not hit like JBJ.

Catcher? You've got a lot of faith in Connor Wong if you think we're OK there. I like McGuire, but he's going to have to catch 140 games.

Our bullpen is significantly better. Yay. Let's talk about starters. My personal belief is we'll get less than 20 starts from Sale/ Paxton combined. I think Bello is terrific and Pivetta is a great 4/5, but wow are we going to have to get a lot of starts from the Winchowski, Crawford, Seabold gang just to get innings. Once again, not a lot of great options left out there for mid-level MLB starters.

Bottom line: on 12/17, we aren't very good. We've let the high-priced options go by, which IMHO is smart, but we also have left the mid-priced options go by.

In 2013, we signed Mike Napoli AND Shane Victorino on December 13. We signed Gomes on December 1. We signed Koji on December 18.

You want to build a team to compete for a playoff spot? You choose some guys who you think will help you get there, and sign them now, before somebody else does. We have the money for mid-priced guys, but every day some more of them are off the board.

I don't want to be left with the Yolmer Sanchez, Abraham Almonte and Jaylen Davis kind of choices because there isn't anybody else. Just fucking do SOMETHING. That's all I ask.

But I'm afraid they won't.
 
Last edited:

Ganthem

a ray of sunshine
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2022
914
I'm sorry. I've been trying to read these threads and not get overly involved, but insanity AND bad faith.... wow. That's a lot.

So here we are on 12/17. Who is our shortstop? We all know it's not going to be Swanson, with Meyer waiting in the wings. Not a lot of great options left out there. If you'd be happy with Andrus or Iggy or Mondesi, you be you. Or the in-house option? Story? (That means Arroyo at second, till he gets hurt.) Or Kiki to the infield, and who plays center?

Yeah, let's talk about the outfield. I like the Yoshida signing. I think he'll be a terrific DH. So, Verdugo in left, maybe Kike in center, and who in right? Rob fucking Refsnyder, platooning with Duran, who can't throw from right to third on less than three hops? Not a lot of options for a defensive-first centerfielder if Kike had to play the infield, and not a lot of options for a right fielder who can field at Fenway and not hit like JBJ.

Catcher? You've got a lot of faith in Connor Wong if you think we're OK there. I like McGuire, but he's going to have to catch 140 games.

Our bullpen is significantly better. Yay. Let's talk about starters. My personal belief is we'll get less than 20 starts from Sale/ Paxton combined. I think Bello is terrific and Pivetta is a great 4/5, but wow are we going to have to get a lot of starts from the Winchowski, Crawford, Seabold gang just to get innings. Once again, not a lot of great options left out there for mid-level MLB starters.

Bottom line: on 12/17, we aren't very good. We've let the high-priced options go by, which IMHO is smart, but we also have left the mid-priced options go by.

In 2013, we signed Mike Napoli AND Shane Victorino on December 13. We signed Gomes on December 1. We signed Koji on December 18.

You want to build a team to compete for a playoff spot? You choose some guys who you think will help you get there, and sign them now, before somebody else does. We have the money for mid-priced guys, but every day some more of them are off the board.

I don't want to be left with the Yolmer Sanchez, Abraham Almonte and Jaylen Davis kind of choices because there isn't anybody else. Just fucking do SOMETHING. That's all I ask.

But I'm afraid they won't.
I guess you are right. Oh wait this is an example of the insane post mixed with bad faith arguments. It is December. If spring training came along and the Sox have the exact same players they do now, then your post will have merit. As it stands your post is over reactive and just nonsense and it contributes to turning this place into a dumpster fire. Trade for a right fielder, sign or trade for a defense first shortstop and see if you can get Turner as a DH. I am not saying this will even get the Sox to qualify for a wildcard spot, though I think it will. The point was to show you how insane your argument is.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
73,323
People who are declaring that this off season sucks and there is no hope for 23 in December are either trolls or insane.
Hope for what?

I have hope that they can finish fourth?

Even assuming best case for Yoshida, say he hits .325/.390/.470, you think the OF defense of him in LF and Verdugo in RF and Enrique in CF (at least in Fenway) is any good? Are you ok with Wong/McGuire platoon in C, Dalbec at DH, Arroyo at SS, and the current state of the pitching rotation?

Where's the depth in OF or SP if there's an injury?

Is there anyone in the minors, (Rafaella, Yorke, . . . .) who can possibly contribute on OD?

You think there's any chance they can be competitive any shape or form with NYY or Tampa?

Who is out there that you are hopeful they will sign or trade for?


If they improve the team, I will be more hopeful. But right now, it's hard to hope for a playoff spot.
 

mikcou

Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2007
926
Boston
Good post.

One thing that seems woefully underappreciated is how Boston, as a location, stacks up with those other teams’ cities you mentioned.

There are fewer MLB players who call New England home than virtually any other team’s city (with a few exceptions). The weather is unattractive, relatively speaking, and there’s probably a few socio-cultural factors that register as a turn-off to certain players, whether that has to do with racial demographic makeup or other cultural factors (I’d wonder how good ole Southern boys weigh an offer from the Red Sox against an equal one from, say, the Rangers).

I’m sorry if this kind of sweeping speculation is beyond anyone’s standards, but I genuinely think it’s a factor for the Red Sox, and it’s the best I can do with the info we have. We’ve seen a good number of free agents lately reportedly spurn the team despite competitive or leading offers, and that just seems weird for a team that’s won four championships the last 18 years. The dynamic is also something that Sox leadership has no incentive to come right out and say, because naming the problem (that free agents can find Boston undesirable relative to cities in comparable MLB markets) makes it true, to some extent.

It’s one of the reasons I have some sympathy toward Bloom and this FO. It was easier when the Sox had a clear financial advantage over every team besides NYY and LAD, or when other teams’ FOs were populated by superstitious old-school goofballs (like during the Theo era). There are a lot of unknowns in how today’s free agency negotiations go, and the fan base and press tends to underappreciate the possibility that some players don’t want to be here. For some, a little more money gets it done. With others, that’s not necessarily the case, and a good FO would never leak that to the press.
Other than the Yankees and Dodgers, the Red Sox generate the most revenue in MLB and completely dwarf 75% of the league. Their strength may have minimally depreciated, but theres a massive advantage at play.

On the geography, MLB isnt the NBA where the stars have a cap on what they can get paid and really want certain cities; to the extent players want location, it trends towards the south, which is generally dominated by mid market teams other than possibly Atlanta. The only possible exception where there is a significant overlap between geography preferences and large market would be LA and there's only so many roster spots in LA. This geography has been true forever - players who grew up in the US are predominantly from the south and SoCal - that is not something new.
 

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 9, 2007
17,292
Washington
I guess you are right. Oh wait this is an example of the insane post mixed with bad faith arguments. It is December. If spring training came along and the Sox have the exact same players they do now, then your post will have merit. As it stands your post is over reactive and just nonsense and it contributes to turning this place into a dumpster fire. Trade for a right fielder, sign or trade for a defense first shortstop and see if you can get Turner as a DH. I am not saying this will even get the Sox to qualify for a wildcard spot, though I think it will. The point was to show you how insane your argument is.
I think the pro and anti Bloom factions are totally entitled to share their opinions, and that is good. But what is not good is repeatedly accusing people of being insane and arguing in bad faith just because they have a different opinion than you.

And I think you've been told similar from other mods before.

I recommend you stop doing that.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,767
I guess you are right. Oh wait this is an example of the insane post mixed with bad faith arguments. It is December. If spring training came along and the Sox have the exact same players they do now, then your post will have merit. As it stands your post is over reactive and just nonsense and it contributes to turning this place into a dumpster fire. Trade for a right fielder, sign or trade for a defense first shortstop and see if you can get Turner as a DH. I am not saying this will even get the Sox to qualify for a wildcard spot, though I think it will. The point was to show you how insane your argument is.
Are you saying that you actually expect them to trade for a right fielder, sign or trade for a defensive first shortstop, and get someone who is better than what they've got to DH, and that that will get them in contention for a wild card spot (but not to win the division)? Or are you just giving examples of things that might happen and how it might turn out?
 

Ganthem

a ray of sunshine
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2022
914
Are you saying that you actually expect them to trade for a right fielder, sign or trade for a defensive first shortstop, and get someone who is better than what they've got to DH, and that that will get them in contention for a wild card spot (but not to win the division)? Or are you just giving examples of things that might happen and how it might turn out?
I am saying that there is still time to make moves and declaring that the off season sucks or 23 is going to suck as an absloute is insane and an example of bad faith arguments. Saying that you are not impressed with what has happened thus far and laying out pieces of evidence amd reasoning to support your claim is one thing. The sky is falling and turning every thread into a dumpster fire is another. That being said according to Evil Empire I am the problem and that is fine. I am going to back off until there is some news to discuss.
 

absintheofmalaise

too many flowers
Dope
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2005
23,809
The gran facenda
I guess you are right. Oh wait this is an example of the insane post mixed with bad faith arguments. It is December. If spring training came along and the Sox have the exact same players they do now, then your post will have merit. As it stands your post is over reactive and just nonsense and it contributes to turning this place into a dumpster fire. Trade for a right fielder, sign or trade for a defense first shortstop and see if you can get Turner as a DH. I am not saying this will even get the Sox to qualify for a wildcard spot, though I think it will. The point was to show you how insane your argument is.
To add to what EE, as well as myself and other mods have posted, cut the shit. Now. Just because you don't agree with what people say you do not get to call them insane. If you don't like what they post, that's fine. Add your own rational counter arguments without resorting to playground attacks. You say you're going to back off for a while. I highly recommend that you do just that.
 

Philip Jeff Frye

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2001
10,296
I guess you are right. Oh wait this is an example of the insane post mixed with bad faith arguments. It is December. If spring training came along and the Sox have the exact same players they do now, then your post will have merit. As it stands your post is over reactive and just nonsense and it contributes to turning this place into a dumpster fire. Trade for a right fielder, sign or trade for a defense first shortstop and see if you can get Turner as a DH. I am not saying this will even get the Sox to qualify for a wildcard spot, though I think it will. The point was to show you how insane your argument is.
Trade what? Other than a handful of highly valued youngster like Bello and Mayer, who are going to get moved, what do we have for which other teams are going to exchange a quality shortstop or starting pitcher?
 

Ganthem

a ray of sunshine
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2022
914
To add to what EE, as well as myself and other mods have posted, cut the shit. Now. Just because you don't agree with what people say you do not get to call them insane. If you don't like what they post, that's fine. Add your own rational counter arguments without resorting to playground attacks. You say you're going to back off for a while. I highly recommend that you do just that.
Just for posterity sake I am not calling anyone insane. I am calling peoples arguments as insane, but since I am the problem here over and out until some news breaks.
 

TubeSoxs

New Member
Dec 16, 2022
36
Missed the chance at blowing it up last trade deadline, cant really so that now though with them only really addressing the bull pen I wonder if theyre just signing them to recoup prospects at the next deadline.
 

Traut

lost his degree
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
12,782
My Desk
I initially voted to double down and go for it. Now that the best free agents are off the board there are zero contracts that were given out that I wish the Sox gave out.

The way the roster is currently constructed, the strength of divisional teams, and the lack of available options - I’ve come around to trading Devers now instead of later. They need more major league caliber players all over the place.

Get one or two of those players, maybe even absorb some salary, hope the next group of guys takes next steps and pursue some free agent pieces next winter or the winter after.

The market played out in a bananas way. If you are going to pay big money that’s fine. Pay Aaron Judge but 177 million for Dansby Swanson?? Yeah no.

Sox weren’t the only team to misread the market….

View: https://twitter.com/bnightengale/status/1604229780299137024?s=46&t=t4jFkqjKkwA_pnuQp2mtXA

Dansby Swanson, who was originally offered a 6-year contract for about $100 million to stay in Atlanta, received a 7-year, $177 million contract from the #Cubs
 

grepal

New Member
Jul 20, 2005
193
Snide comments? Um...okay. I actually think your idea is an interesting one, I just don't think it would net much of a return and you run the risk of having guys like Martin and Jensen avoid Boston in the future if they flip them so quickly (Rodriguez, I can). Of course it's a possibility these guys on short deals can get traded, but if you're a free agent wouldn't you want to sign with a team that is more likely to keep you around? It's not like this is Pittsburgh signing a guy coming off a down year or two and flipping them for prospects if they do well (like Jose Quintana was, for example). These are solid arms coming off good years. Wouldn't they be more likely to look to sign with say, New York or Houston or Philly, where if you're pitching well enough to net a nice prospect they just keep them because they're trying to get to the playoffs?
They signed short term deals. I do not think the idea is to get a long-term commitment from those two. If the Sox are in a complete rebuild mode for now most players understand that. Seems to me if or when the time comes to sign megastars those deals now come with full no trade clauses. I know the Sox had a policy not to include that clause a few years ago but it can't be a thing now. That seems to be the tradeoff for players not having a right to exercise opt-outs.