2011-2012 Offseason Thread

[mvp 78]

Yes, wins is a good KPI in order to rate successful seasons in low/mid market teams. In large market teams, wins are not enough. Wins is not the correct barometer or KPI in order to call a season as successful. ALCS/WS/Rings are. You can't ask/demand less to a large market team. They spend tons of money in order to build WS contender taems. Boston is one of those teams. ALCS/WS/Rings is the accurate KPI in order to even consider a season as susccesful in teams like Boston. Sorry, doesn't matter how you want to split those wins, it doesn't matter if you can't support them with making at least the ALCS. Even making the POs is not enough in orden to call a season as successful. That is understood or given that you have to achieve as minimal objective when a season begins, and still, it is not enough in order to call it as successful. Sorry, There's no other way to see it.

 

Hell, It's unacceptable that a team like TB with a 1/4 of your payroll has owned you, let's say, the last 4 years?.

 

Prior to the new ownership group, this team wasn't a large market team. Feel free to thank them for all the $$$ they brought in.

[example1]

Yes, wins is a good KPI in order to rate successful seasons in low/mid market teams. In large market teams wins are not enough. Wins is not the correct barometer or KPI in order to call a season as successful. ALCS/WS/Rings are. You can't ask/demand less to a large market team to achieve to. They spend tons of money in order to build WS contender taems. Boston is one of those teams. ALCS/WS/Rings is the accurate KPI in order to even consider a successful season in teams like Boston. Sorry, doesn't matter how you want to split those wins, it doesn't matter if you can't support them with making at least the ALCS. Even making the POs is not enough in orden to call a season as successful. That is understood or given that you have to achieve as minimal objective when a season begins. Sorry, There's no other way to see it.

 

Hell, It's unacceptable that a team like TB with a 1/4 of your payroll has owned you, let's say, the last 4 years?.

 

 

This is silly. The team can't hold it's ultimate measure of success as something outside of it's control. Their nu

Bet one goal every year--as agreed upon by theo and the entire front office was to win 95 games. In mist years that was the amount necessary to make the playoffs historically and because of that it offered a reasonable benchmark. That benchmark exists independent of what other teams do and is therefore a better aim than making the playoffs, or winning the ALCS. Both of those require luck that cannot be controlled.

 

Winning 95 games is not easy, and it doesn't assure you of a playoff spot but more often than not it will get you there. It also allows you to build a team with certain parameters in mind, because run differential is highly predictive of won-loss record.

 

Notice that my claim is not that they succeeded in the goal of 95 wins every year. They didn't. In the years they missed the playoffs the responsibility is on them, nobody else.

 

What I'm saying is that if there is one golden mark that this team aims for year in and year out, it is wins. Without enough wins to get to the playoffs an ALCS is impossible. Wins are tangible and predictable based on runs scored or prevented. Winning the ALCS is not. Just ask every other team in baseball. How are the yankees doing in your categories lately? Why isn't Cashman fired? Because they recognize that making the playoffs is a much better indicator of consistent quality team construction than the reams arbitrary performance in a short playoff series.

 

Which team would you put money on, the 2011 phillies or the 2011 cardinals? I go with the Philadelphia ten times out of ten. Five of those ten times the cardinals aren't even in the playoffs while the phils would be there every year.

[jacksonianmarch]

I look at playoff appearances more than anything. Wins are a good thing to look at, but sometimes you are out of it and dont go for the jugular and other times you are up by so much that you once again dont go full force. The playoffs are about talent as much as they are about luck. You gotta have a team that gets hot to go through it well, and sometimes, that just doesnt happen.

[a700hitter]

For all the great things the ownership has done in building this financial giant of an enterprise the team management from the GM down should have done better than win 1 Division title. Finishing first once in 10 years is nothing great to crow about. It's just not. I don't care how many wins we have averaged. Both Zimmer Little had a better win percentages with the Sox than Francona, but I wouldn't say either that he was a better manager than Tito. Average # of wins don't mean a whole lot.

[example1]

What did that win percentage get those guys? It seems that by any measure we might pick, division titles is the least relevant. Not winning a division didn't prevent them from making the playoffs, winning in the playoffs or winning the world series.

 

They are in the same division as the Yankees. Given that it seems that division titles would be a poor choice of measures to evaluate success. They cam gave baseballs second best record in the beat division in the tougher league yet still be considered a failure in terms of success.

 

I still prefer wins.

[a700hitter]

What did that win percentage get those guys? It seems that by any measure we might pick, division titles is the least relevant. Not winning a division didn't prevent them from making the playoffs, winning in the playoffs or winning the world series.

 

They are in the same division as the Yankees. Given that it seems that division titles would be a poor choice of measures to evaluate success. They cam gave baseballs second best record in the beat division in the tougher league yet still be considered a failure in terms of success.

 

I still prefer wins.

Win percentage means little. That's my point. As you point out, the Sox are in the same division as the Yankees, their chief rivals. Beating the Yanks is a good measure of success. We've done it twice in 10 years and one of those times the Rays beat us out for the division. Prior to this ownership, we used to beat the Yankees more often.

[Palodios]

Win percentage means little.

 

You have spoken a great deal about how you enjoyed the seasons from previous seasons. Most fans will never get a chance to witness a Red Sox playoff game. But I certainly know that if I go to a game, I'll enjoy it quite a bit more if they win. In the general scheme of things, sure, wins are meaningless, but it does matter to the fans, and is part of the experience of enjoying being a sports fan-- of any team.

[iortiz]

This is silly. The team can't hold it's ultimate measure of success as something outside of it's control. Their nu

Bet one goal every year--as agreed upon by theo and the entire front office was to win 95 games. In mist years that was the amount necessary to make the playoffs historically and because of that it offered a reasonable benchmark. That benchmark exists independent of what other teams do and is therefore a better aim than making the playoffs, or winning the ALCS. Both of those require luck that cannot be controlled.

 

Winning 95 games is not easy, and it doesn't assure you of a playoff spot but more often than not it will get you there. It also allows you to build a team with certain parameters in mind, because run differential is highly predictive of won-loss record.

 

Notice that my claim is not that they succeeded in the goal of 95 wins every year. They didn't. In the years they missed the playoffs the responsibility is on them, nobody else.

 

What I'm saying is that if there is one golden mark that this team aims for year in and year out, it is wins. Without enough wins to get to the playoffs an ALCS is impossible. Wins are tangible and predictable based on runs scored or prevented. Winning the ALCS is not. Just ask every other team in baseball. How are the yankees doing in your categories lately? Why isn't Cashman fired? Because they recognize that making the playoffs is a much better indicator of consistent quality team construction than the reams arbitrary performance in a short playoff series.

 

Which team would you put money on, the 2011 phillies or the 2011 cardinals? I go with the Philadelphia ten times out of ten. Five of those ten times the cardinals aren't even in the playoffs while the phils would be there every year.

 

Here we go again E1. Nothing is controllable. Predictable? Yes. This is not about lucky. Look at the tremendous job that TB has done in the recent years with a limited budget.

 

Even a single win or 5 or 20 or 95 wins are outside of your control, NOTHING can guarantee you an outcome, NOTHING. On the other hand each team makes all the necessary to win as many games as possible according to their budget, farm, market, structure, etc., etc. etc.

 

NY, Boston, Philadelphia, among a few others, have the OBLIGATION to make at least the POs. If they don't do that, it doesn't matter how many games you win against NYY or how many months you are in the first place or how many games you win after 162; the balance score card will show you that you failed. is it cruel? is it silly? is it drastic? no it is not, actually. When you have a record of 3 Y in a row which you haven't won a single PO game, regardless the terrible execution at FA, and even with those 95 W/year or whatever, an imminent fumigation is expected to be executed in your house as happened in our team. A700, SCM33, I and a few others said that and a lot of people called us crazy and pessimist and that these kind of things don't happen in baseball and much less in a team like Boston. This is pretty simple, actually, when you spend those tons of money and you don't make at least the POs as a minimal objective or the ALCS (not win it but at least appear in that series) in order to call it as an acceptable/good season, you simply label the season as a failure. This is called result-oriented view and is how business execute and run their business in order to plan and move forward. Don't believe me? look at the people that have lost their jobs included Mr. Theo, otherwise they wouldn't walk, would they?

[a700hitter]

You have spoken a great deal about how you enjoyed the seasons from previous seasons. Most fans will never get a chance to witness a Red Sox playoff game. But I certainly know that if I go to a game' date=' I'll enjoy it quite a bit more if they win. In the general scheme of things, sure, wins are meaningless, but it does matter to the fans, and is part of the experience of enjoying being a sports fan-- of any team.[/quote']Wanting to see a win when you go to a game holds true even if you are a KC fan, so i don't know what point you are making.

[iortiz]

Prior to the new ownership group' date=' this team wasn't a large market team. Feel free to thank them for all the $$$ they brought in.[/quote']

 

You made an interesting point here.

 

Sure, money doesn't guarantee you Championships, but gives you more chances to win, that is out of doubt. When you go all the way in order to achieve championships and mostly supported with tons of money, the expectation and the KPIs will be higher, and the outcome must be higher as well. Last decade we have been in that category. The problem is that this team hasn't achieved s*** lately (3Y); reason why a lot of people have walked.

[example1]

Here we go again E1. Nothing is controllable. Predictable? Yes. This is not about lucky. Look at the tremendous job that TB has done in the recent years with a limited budget.

 

Even a single win or 5 or 20 or 95 wins are outside of your control, NOTHING can guarantee you an outcome, NOTHING. On the other hand each team makes all the necessary to win as many games as possible according to their budget, farm, market, structure, etc., etc. etc.

 

NY, Boston, Philadelphia, among a few others, have the OBLIGATION to make at least the POs. If they don't do that, it doesn't matter how many games you win against NYY or how many months you are in the first place or how many games you win after 162; the balance score card will show you that you failed. is it cruel? is it silly? is it drastic? no it is not, actually. When you have a record of 3 Y in a row which you haven't won a single PO game, regardless the terrible execution at FA, and even with those 95 W/year or whatever, an imminent fumigation is expected to be executed in your house as happened in our team. A700, SCM33, I and a few others said that and a lot of people called us crazy and pessimist and that this kind of things don't happen in baseball and much less in a team like Boston. This is pretty simple, actually, when you spend those tons of money and you don't make at least the POs as a minimal objective or the ALCS (not win it but at least appear in that series) in order to call it as an acceptable/good season, you simply label the season as a failure. This is called result-oriented view and is how business execute and run their business in order to plan and move forward. Don't believe me? look at the people that have lost their jobs included Mr. Theo, otherwise they wouldn't walk, would they?

 

You are arguing into thin air. Nothing you are arguing has anything to do with my point.

 

I think the big market teams have an obligation to set realistic expectations for the number of wins they get, and that expectation should be high. The Red Sox under Theo set their goal as 95 wins on a yearly basis, because that number would get them to the playoffs. 6 times out of 9 they got 95 wins or more, and all 6 times they made it. 3 times they did not get it, and they missed the playoffs.

 

Seems like 95 wins is a pretty good expectation if making the playoffs is something you would also like to accomplish.

 

Your point was that small market teams can have goals around "wins" but big market teams have to base success and failure on making the ALCS. I'm saying that all teams have goals around wins, with certain numbers of wins correlating with making the playoffs every year, and other amounts not correlating with that.

 

You are making a strawman argument about whether 2011 was successful or something.... I'm not saying it was successful. They didn't get 95 wins. They missed it by 5 games. If they had reached it, they would have been in the playoffs.

 

The difference is that your view (playoffs: yay/nay) vs my view (number of wins) gives me a scale of success. Yours has two categories. In measurement, it is better to have an interval or ratio level scale than a nominal scale whenver possible.

[a700hitter]

They are in the same division as the Yankees. Given that it seems that division titles would be a poor choice of measures to evaluate success.

This is a huge cop out. Steinbrenner has owned the Yanks since 1972 and he always lavished money on the team, yet we beat the Yanks in the standings more often before this ownership took over. Yankee money is not an excuse, because Steinbrenner always spent big. Also, the Rays have beaten the Yanks twice in 10 years just like us and they have a lot less money than either team.

[example1]

This is a huge cop out. Steinbrenner has owned the Yanks since 1972 and he always lavished money on the team' date=' yet we beat the Yanks in the standings more often before this ownership took over. Yankee money is not an excuse, because Steinbrenner always spent big. Also, the Rays have beaten the Yanks twice in 10 years just like us and they have a lot less money than either team.[/quote']

 

This is like saying that Boise State is a more successful college football team than Alabama over the past deade because they have more division titles. It would be a copout, in your view, for an Alabama fan to argue that point with a Boise State fan, right?

 

 

This isn't a copout, it's just the reality. John Henry and Larry Lucchino would say the same thing: it is much more difficult to win the division if you're in a division with the Yankees than if you are in a division with the White Sox and Twins. Given that they are in a division with the Yankees, winning the division isn't and shouldn't be their #1 concern.

 

The Sox won 95 games or more 6 times but only wn the division once. Many of those years those wins would have been enough to win many other divisions.

[Palodios]

Wanting to see a win when you go to a game holds true even if you are a KC fan' date=' so i don't know what point you are making.[/quote']

 

My point is that fans care about regular season wins.

[a700hitter]

This is like saying that Boise State is a more successful college football team than Alabama over the past deade because they have more division titles. It would be a copout, in your view, for an Alabama fan to argue that point with a Boise State fan, right?

 

 

This isn't a copout, it's just the reality. John Henry and Larry Lucchino would say the same thing: it is much more difficult to win the division if you're in a division with the Yankees than if you are in a division with the White Sox and Twins. Given that they are in a division with the Yankees, winning the division isn't and shouldn't be their #1 concern.

 

The Sox won 95 games or more 6 times but only wn the division once. Many of those years those wins would have been enough to win many other divisions.

Boise State and Alabama? I can't relate to that, because I don't care much about any college sports.

 

I never said that it wasn't more difficult to beat the Yankees than other teams. My point is that it has always be more difficult to beat the Yankees than other teams, not just since 2002. The Sox from 1972 -2002 did a better job of beating the Yankees more often. The Yanks have been owned by the Steinbrenner family for the entire period and it was always tough to beat them. That being said, we used to beat them more often in the first 30 years of Steinbrenner than the last 10, so it is not an excuse for this ownership vs. past ownership.

[a700hitter]

My point is that fans care about regular season wins.

The wanting to see your team win when you go to the game argument really wasn't the best way to make the argument. So, would you rather the Sox average 95 wins a year for 10 years, but finish second to the Yanks every year, or average 90-91 wins and finish first every year?

[example1]

Boise State and Alabama? I can't relate to that, because I don't care much about any college sports.

 

I never said that it wasn't more difficult to beat the Yankees than other teams. My point is that it has always be more difficult to beat the Yankees than other teams, not just since 2002. The Sox from 1972 -2002 did a better job of beating the Yankees more often. The Yanks have been owned by the Steinbrenner family for the entire period and it was always tough to beat them. That being said, we used to beat them more often in the first 30 years of Steinbrenner than the last 10, so it is not an excuse for this ownership vs. past ownership.

 

Oh, well if that is your only point then sure. My point is that because it is the Yankees, it is ALWAYS hard to beat them, and winning the division is a pretty unrealistic performance measure regardless of the era. I suppose we can agree on that then.

 

I think with the advent of the Wild Card, teams like the Red Sox care less about winning the division (until 2012 probably). It simply doesn't matter and really doesn't add much to their chances of winning a world series or playoff series. Both of those things take getting good games in big spots, and being on a roll at the right time.

 

You don't have to follow college sports to get what I'm talking about either. Any sport where the two powerhouses of the entire sport are in the same division/conference creates a situation where winning that division--although a really nice feather to have in the cap--is in no way a reflection of the team's competitiveness against all teams in the league. You get this.

[a700hitter]

Oh, well if that is your only point then sure. My point is that because it is the Yankees, it is ALWAYS hard to beat them, and winning the division is a pretty unrealistic performance measure regardless of the era. I suppose we can agree on that then.

 

We used to do much better at this before 2002 and we should be doing better at this since 2002 than the Rays.

[Bellhorn04]

This is a huge cop out. Steinbrenner has owned the Yanks since 1972 and he always lavished money on the team' date=' yet we beat the Yanks in the standings more often before this ownership took over. Yankee money is not an excuse, because Steinbrenner always spent big. Also, the Rays have beaten the Yanks twice in 10 years just like us and they have a lot less money than either team.[/quote']

 

The years the Sox were consistently beating the Yankees, early Eighties to early Nineties, the Yankees' payroll wasn't that high...Steinbrenner was being slagged by the fans...like George Costanza...

[Bellhorn04]

The Rays have done a brilliant job in the draft, especially with pitching. Can they maintain that now that they're finishing so high in the standings? We'll see. At some point the combination of high finishes and low budgets has to catch up with them...

[jacksonianmarch]

It's semantics at this point. Regardless, the facts are this. The sox havent won a playoff game since 2008, they havent been to the playoffs since 2009 and have seen their payroll steadily increase. They have just had a major meltdown and a massive change in leadership. This is a period of flux, and thus far, Ben is holding pat instead of going crazy. That might be a smart move, or it could be fatal, who knows

[a700hitter]

I think with the advent of the Wild Card, teams like the Red Sox care less about winning the division (until 2012 probably). It simply doesn't matter and really doesn't add much to their chances of winning a world series or playoff series. Both of those things take getting good games in big spots, and being on a roll at the right time.

Winning the Division will matter much more when there is a second Wild Card team and the WC teams have to play a 1 game playoff. We will have to see how the Sox do under the new alignment.

[a700hitter]

It's semantics at this point. Regardless' date=' the facts are this. The sox havent won a playoff game since 2008, they havent been to the playoffs since 2009 and have seen their payroll steadily increase. They have just had a major meltdown and a massive change in leadership. This is a period of flux, and thus far, Ben is holding pat instead of going crazy. That might be a smart move, or it could be fatal, who knows[/quote']

Letting Pap walk is not standing pat.

[jacksonianmarch]

The Rays have done a brilliant job in the draft' date=' especially with pitching. Can they maintain that now that they're finishing so high in the standings? We'll see. At some point the combination of high finishes and low budgets has to catch up with them...[/quote']

 

They've been doing really well in grabbing high talent later in drafts as well. Look at this...

 

Shields- drafted in 16th round in 2000

Davis- drafted in 3rd round of 2004

Jennings- drafted in 10th round of 2006

Moore- drafted in 8th round of 2007

Hellickson- drafted in 4th round of 2005

Crawford- drafted in 2nd round in 1999

 

Obviously, having Niemann, Upton, Price, and Longoria being top 4 picks didnt hurt either, but they are definitely doing it still with later draft picks.

[jacksonianmarch]

Letting Pap walk is not standing pat.

 

I guess not. Thus far, he hasnt made one impact move and did let a potential HOF closer go for draft picks. And he did get Papi back at what is likely to be astronomical dollars. So no, thus far, he's been a dud, but it is December 10th and the trades are just starting

[a700hitter]

The years the Sox were consistently beating the Yankees' date=' early Eighties to early Nineties, the Yankees' payroll wasn't that high...Steinbrenner was being slagged by the fans...like George Costanza...[/quote']Your points are not valid as they are unsupported by facts. Steinbrenner's Yanks had the highest average payrolls of the 1980's, much higher than the Sox. In the early 90's in the few years where the Sox spent more than the Yanks those were actually some of the worst Sox seasons in the post '66 era. They finished below .500 at least twice in the Hobson years even thought they spent more than the Yanks in those years. The years they outspent the Yanks in the early 90's they finished behind them.

[iortiz]

You are arguing into thin air. Nothing you are arguing has anything to do with my point.

 

I think the big market teams have an obligation to set realistic expectations for the number of wins they get, and that expectation should be high. The Red Sox under Theo set their goal as 95 wins on a yearly basis, because that number would get them to the playoffs. 6 times out of 9 they got 95 wins or more, and all 6 times they made it. 3 times they did not get it, and they missed the playoffs.

 

Seems like 95 wins is a pretty good expectation if making the playoffs is something you would also like to accomplish.

 

Your point was that small market teams can have goals around "wins" but big market teams have to base success and failure on making the ALCS. I'm saying that all teams have goals around wins, with certain numbers of wins correlating with making the playoffs every year, and other amounts not correlating with that.

 

You are making a strawman argument about whether 2011 was successful or something.... I'm not saying it was successful. They didn't get 95 wins. They missed it by 5 games. If they had reached it, they would have been in the playoffs.

 

The difference is that your view (playoffs: yay/nay) vs my view (number of wins) gives me a scale of success. Yours has two categories. In measurement, it is better to have an interval or ratio level scale than a nominal scale whenver possible.

 

I put this before. A big market team, beyond wins, are rated under this scale:

 

No making POs - Failure.

POs - Obligation

Win DSCS - Good season

Win ALCS - Very good season

Win WS -Excellent season

 

Put the number of wins you want.

[Palodios]

The wanting to see your team win when you go to the game argument really wasn't the best way to make the argument. So' date=' would you rather the Sox average 95 wins a year for 10 years, but finish second to the Yanks every year, or average 90-91 wins and finish first every year?[/quote']

 

As a fan, who cares how your team gets into the playoffs? I get more enjoyment from those 5 extra wins than being the best in an arbitrarily decided division. I'm happy whenever the team wins. I'm happy when the team makes the playoffs. I'm happy when the Yankees are eliminated from the playoffs. The division really doesn't make a difference to me.

[a700hitter]

As a fan' date=' who cares how your team gets into the playoffs? I get more enjoyment from those 5 extra wins than being the best in an arbitrarily decided division. I'm happy whenever the team wins. I'm happy when the team makes the playoffs. I'm happy when the Yankees are eliminated from the playoffs. The division really doesn't make a difference to me.[/quote']I really don't know what point you are making here.

[Palodios]

They've been doing really well in grabbing high talent later in drafts as well. Look at this...

 

Shields- drafted in 16th round in 2000

Davis- drafted in 3rd round of 2004

Jennings- drafted in 10th round of 2006

Moore- drafted in 8th round of 2007

Hellickson- drafted in 4th round of 2005

Crawford- drafted in 2nd round in 1999

 

Obviously, having Niemann, Upton, Price, and Longoria being top 4 picks didnt hurt either, but they are definitely doing it still with later draft picks.

 

When you get the pick like the Rays do, a 2nd round pick is very similar to the 1st round pick that the Yanks/Sox get.