Sources say Napoli signs with Sox.

[a700hitter]

The Red Sox should be hesitant about parting with their second round draft choice as compensation to sign Adam LaRoche, according to Tim Britton of the Providence Journal. Britton points out Boston's second round draft pick will be the 44th overall because the free agent compensation rule changes have reduced the number of supplemental first round selections. Joey Votto and highly-regarded Tigers prospect Nick Castellanos have been tabbed at number 44 in past drafts.

we would be better off giving up our first round pick, because it rarely amounts to anything.

[jung]

I think it is more common for a FO to think in terms of wins. That is also why I think most years the Sox have tried to be competitive for the division. I would think that in most years the Sox are thinking in terms of 95 wins plus....surely something north of 92. Once you are thinking about win totals like 95 you are competing for the division. There was never any guarantee that the Yanks would also end up north of 95 in many years. The 98 Yankee team was a monster winning 114 and rolling into and to the WS. They had 100+ win totals from 01-03. In 05 and 06 Yanks won the division with 97 and 95 win totals. The 07 Sox won the division with 96 in 07. The division has been won with win totals over 100 in five years since 1990. the Yanks in all cases, twice going on to win the WS.

 

Since the year 2000 the Sox have recorded 95+ win totals in six seasons, recording a 93 win season in one other season since 2000. With the exception of years when a GM feels like he has built a real powerhouse (as in a 100 win regular season team) I would be willing to bet that 95+ is a very common goal with everything above 95 representing something pretty close to gravy and 95 or 95+ considered a decent shot at a division win.

[mvp 78]

Iortiz is a very smart guy. What can I say? He lis usually right about most basball issues, so we agree alot. I agree with him just as often as he agrees with me. Maybe I am the one who should be criticized. The times that I dont agree with him I am usually wrong. Iortiz knows baseball and the Red Sox. You guys should be ashamed to denigrate him when he is smarter than both of you with half of his brain tied behind his back.

 

And the way to prove your intelligence is simply posting "this" and smiley faces?

 

I don't think anyone has denigrated him. My only point was that he seems to always agree with you. That's denigrating him?

[a700hitter]

And the way to prove your intelligence is simply posting "this" and smiley faces?

 

I don't think anyone has denigrated him. My only point was that he seems to always agree with you. That's denigrating him?

Well, pointless snark doesn't prove any intelligence.

 

As for denigrating, BSN's post, it was denigrating.

[a700hitter]

And the way to prove your intelligence is simply posting "this" and smiley faces?

 

I don't think anyone has denigrated him. My only point was that he seems to always agree with you. That's denigrating him?

^ I guess the first sentence of your post is also meant not to denigrate him? Too funny.

[a700hitter]

I think it is more common for a FO to think in terms of wins. That is also why I think most years the Sox have tried to be competitive for the division. I would think that in most years the Sox are thinking in terms of 95 wins plus....surely something north of 92. Once you are thinking about win totals like 95 you are competing for the division. There was never any guarantee that the Yanks would also end up north of 95 in many years. The 98 Yankee team was a monster winning 114 and rolling into and to the WS. They had 100+ win totals from 01-03. In 05 and 06 Yanks won the division with 97 and 95 win totals. The 07 Sox won the division with 96 in 07. The division has been won with win totals over 100 in five years since 1990. the Yanks in all cases, twice going on to win the WS.

 

Since the year 2000 the Sox have recorded 95+ win totals in six seasons, recording a 93 win season in one other season since 2000. With the exception of years when a GM feels like he has built a real powerhouse (as in a 100 win regular season team) I would be willing to bet that 95+ is a very common goal with everything above 95 representing something pretty close to gravy and 95 or 95+ considered a decent shot at a division win.

Since 2002, 95 wins was good enough to top the league only once. It was good enough for the second best record two other times. Perhaps, their goal wasn't ambitious enough. I would build a team to be better than my competitors, not to achieve a target number of wins which is likely to fall short of being the best record or even the second best record in the league, but that's just me.

[mvp 78]

^ I guess the first sentence of your post is also meant not to denigrate him? Too funny.

 

Ah yes, saying someone often only posts "this" and smiley faces which doesn't reflect his true intelligence is most certainly denegrating! I can't believe someone would say something so harsh!

 

C'mon man, be real for a second. Nothing I've said was denegrating.

 

I believe he's a smart guy. I've got nothing against him. You, on the other hand, are a different story.

[jung]

We are talking about winning the division, not toping the league. Since 2000, the AL east has been won three times with 95 win totals, 3 times with 96 win totals and 3 times with 97 win totals.

[a700hitter]

Ah yes, saying someone often only posts "this" and smiley faces which doesn't reflect his true intelligence is most certainly denegrating! I can't believe someone would say something so harsh!

 

C'mon man, be real for a second. Nothing I've said was denegrating.

 

I believe he's a smart guy. I've got nothing against him. You, on the other hand, are a different story.

Iortiz has a body of work here that speaks for itself. I can see no reason for you to make that statement other than to denigrate him. Please explain yourself. what did you mean by posting this?

And the way to prove your intelligence is simply posting "this" and smiley faces?

I think you need to be real.

[a700hitter]

We are talking about winning the division, not toping the league. Since 2000, the AL east has been won three times with 95 win totals, 3 times with 96 win totals and 3 times with 97 win totals.

same result. 95 wins was good enough 3 times in 13 seasons. That leads me to believe that they were building towards a target (95 wins) that the knew had less than a 25% chance of winning the division. They were aiming too low.

[iortiz]

Iortiz has a body of work here that speaks for itself. I can see no reason for you to make that statement other than to denigrate him. Please explain yourself. what did you mean by posting this?

I think you need to be real.

 

Thanks Ted.

 

Just noticed all this discussion that BSN began.

 

Isn't worthy to discuss this.

 

Thanks for watch my back my friend.

[reYoukilis]

I think going for amount of wins vs the division is a sabermetrics thing. Its something more concrete that you can figure mathmatically that you cant with topping the division because you wont know what the records will be. Maybe the win total needs to be higher.

[a700hitter]

I believe he's a smart guy. I've got nothing against him. You, on the other hand, are a different story.

What a weird thing to say. If you think a person's character can be summed up by his posts on a sports discussion board, that's pretty pathetic. Maybe if you addressed my posts instead of who you think I am, your posts would be more substantive and less snarky.

[a700hitter]

Thanks Ted.

 

Just noticed all this discussion that BSN began.

 

Isn't worthy to discuss this.

 

Thanks for watch my back my friend.

My friend, you can certainly defend yourself better than I could. It's a pet peeve of mine when a poster becomes the issue and not his/her posts.

[iortiz]

My friend, you can certainly defend yourself better than I could. It's a pet peeve of mine when a poster becomes the issue and not his/her posts.

 

You did pretty well Ted, thank you. BTW Happy new year and the best for you and your family in 2013.

 

Happy new year to MVP and BSN too!

[a700hitter]

I think going for amount of wins vs the division is a sabermetrics thing. Its something more concrete that you can figure mathmatically that you cant with topping the division because you wont know what the records will be. Maybe the win total needs to be higher.

I think one of the weak points of the sabermetric approach is that it does not account for the dynamics of your opponents moves. I would build a team to be better than my competitors and let the wins come, rather than build a team based on WAR stats when your opponent has a superior team. Again, that's just me. One thing cannot be disputed, whatever approach the Yankees have taken, they have been far more successful than us.

[a700hitter]

You did pretty well Ted, thank you. BTW Happy new year and the best for you and your family in 2013.

 

Happy new year to MVP and BSN too!

Happy New Year to you and your family! Are you going to plan a trip to Fenway this coming season?

[Bellhorn04]

I think one of the weak points of the sabermetric approach is that it does not account for the dynamics of your opponents moves. I would build a team to be better than my competitors and let the wins come, rather than build a team based on WAR stats when your opponent has a superior team. Again, that's just me. One thing cannot be disputed, whatever approach the Yankees have taken, they have been far more successful than us.

 

The Yankees did have a vastly higher payroll than the Red Sox for most of the time since Henry took over the team. That changed in 2011.

 

I think the Red Sox goal of winning 95 games as opposed to beating the Yankees was realistic in those years when the Yankees had a payroll of 60 million to 80 million higher. Also conceding the fact that the Yankees didn't just have a much bigger payroll, they had a core of excellent players, a good manager etc.

 

I think the 95 win approach was a realistic and intelligent one at the time, under the circumstances.

[a700hitter]

The Yankees did have a vastly higher payroll than the Red Sox for most of the time since Henry took over the team. That changed in 2011.

 

I think the Red Sox goal of winning 95 games as opposed to beating the Yankees was realistic in those years when the Yankees had a payroll of 60 million to 80 million higher. Also conceding the fact that the Yankees didn't just have a much bigger payroll, they had a core of excellent players, a good manager etc.

 

I think the 95 win approach was a realistic and intelligent one at the time, under the circumstances.

The Yankees having more money is a cop out. The Sox have plenty of resources to be excellent. In one of the two seasons that the Yankees did not win the division, the Rays beat us out for the division, so money is not the reason. The 95 win target was too low IMO. It only won 3 divisions in 13 years. They used the wrong target.

[Bellhorn04]

The Yankees having more money is a cop out. The Sox have plenty of resources to be excellent. In one of the two seasons that the Yankees did not win the division, the Rays beat us out for the division, so money is not the reason. The 95 win target was too low IMO. It only won 3 divisions in 13 years. They used the wrong target.

 

But now we're back to the question of whether winning the division matters as long as you make the playoffs. I don't think it did matter.

[a700hitter]

But now we're back to the question of whether winning the division matters as long as you make the playoffs. I don't think it did matter.

Again, that was never my point that winning the division was the most important thing, so I am not the one taking us in the circle. A team's record over 162 games is the best gauge of how good the team is. The post season is a bit of a crapshoot. The record of our FO indicates that they have very rarely built the best team over a 162 game schedule. That's all I am saying. I am not making any argument valuing division titles over championships. I have made that clear over and over. Just making the playoffs was fine under the old alignment. Going forward, winning the division grows in importance, and our FO has shown little ability to achieve that goal.

[Bellhorn04]

Personally I'm only talking about the Epstein years of 2003-2011 when I say 'they' had a good approach up until recently. They won the Wild Card in 03, 04, 05, 08 and 09 and the Division in 07. That's 6 times in the playoffs in 7 years. We all know the rest. Game 7 of the ALCS 4 times and 2 titles. Then they went out and spend wads of money in 10 and 11 and f***ed up.

[Bellhorn04]

Again, that was never my point that winning the division was the most important thing, so I am not the one taking us in the circle. A team's record over 162 games is the best gauge of how good the team is. The post season is a bit of a crapshoot. The record of our FO indicates that they have very rarely built the best team over a 162 game schedule. That's all I am saying. I am not making any argument valuing division titles over championships. I have made that clear over and over. Just making the playoffs was fine under the old alignment.

 

But you said they used the 'wrong' target. Why was it the wrong target if making the playoffs was 'fine'?

[seabeachfred]

Winning the division has far more meaning now then it did. Theo built to win 90-95 games because that should be good enough to get you into the playoffs which was the point. Being the WC team or Division winner had no real advantage. Now it does. I would think most teams would be trying to build for a division title and trying to avoid the WC game all together.

 

The WC has become what it should have been, a last chance not the same chance as a division winner. I think the new format is great. And will feel the same even if the Sox were a one and done team. 1 game is a lot to put 2 teams seasons on the line for, but they didn't win the division, so that's not a luxury the team gets to have.

 

No doubt BSN that the division title is more important now than it might have been before, save for that important potential home field advantage, but I take it also from a different angle. An AL East Title of and by itself is not that big a thing, but it does signal winning and being of champion of something. In the Red Sox case, we haven't won anything at all the past five seasons, nada, nyet, nein, no mas!!!!!!! Perhaps getting a division title might be a large step in regaining our prestige and winning ways, and once you've won one the path to further success might be a little easier.

 

Tp me the Red Sox have to win something....and soon!!!!!!!

[jung]

Well since this is just a forum discussion anyway, there might be one more perspective worth exploring.

 

We won two championships in the period from the beginning of 2000. We won 1 division championship with 96 wins. 95 wins won three other times in that period and if you recall I had mused early that once you establish 95 wins as a target, you are competing for a division championship. Asking a GM to cut it as fine as 97 vs 95 is a bit unrealistic I think and aiming for a 100 sounds like it has salary implications.

 

Are we really going to say that if we had won 2 WS and 3 division's in the period from 2000 to today we would consider that some sort of failure? I will absolutely be the first to agree that the train had gone off the rails of late with the Sox becoming the poster child for wretched excess in wasteful spending and bad decisions but I would have a hard time calling 3 divisions and 2 WS wins some sort of failure up till then. I have a hard time calling 2 WS and 2 division some sort of failure over that period.

 

I just don't think Dan The Duke gets enough credit for the 2004 WS win and I don't think the organization such as it was gets enough credit generally for the second. I have to admit, that I detected something of a "the fans got theirs now we are going to get ours" mentality in the way the team has been run since then coupled with something of a wayward owner that maybe should have centered and refocused the organization before the train went off the rails.

 

I would have wanted my organization to continue to try to fill the park by being concentrated on wins as opposed to things like 100 year anniversaries of the ballpark as a means to generate revenues. Granted the organization should have and could have done both but it didn't. As fans we were treated to endless product related marketing and product merchandizing fests while the team was falling apart.

 

But as for the success of the period since 2000 and up till the recent embarrassments, probably lucky this is not a Patriots board. We would likely all of us be laughed off the thing.

[a700hitter]

But you said they used the 'wrong' target. Why was it the wrong target if making the playoffs was 'fine'?

 

People argued with my premise that they consciously did not plan to build the best team. That was my premise. I never said that their approach was not good enough to make the playoffs. Was the approach good enough to make the playoffs several seasons? Yes, but they weren't aiming to be the best team over the 162 game season, and they were the best team only once. Their target of 95 wins rarely would be the best record over those seasons, so IMO they were not aiming for first. People took exception to that. I stand by it. Yes, they made the playoffs, but they did not build those teams with a goal,of beating the Yankees, but rather to reach 95 wins which they should have realized had little chance of winning the Division. They pride themselves on sabremetrics. The numbers bear out that 95 wins was good enough less than 25% of the time.

[jung]

Well since this is just a forum discussion anyway, there might be one more perspective worth exploring.

 

We won two championships in the period from the beginning of 2000. We won 1 division championship with 96 wins. 95 wins won three other times in that period and if you recall I had mused early that once you establish 95 wins as a target, you are competing for a division championship. Asking a GM to cut it as fine as 97 vs 95 is a bit unrealistic I think and aiming for a 100 sounds like it has salary implications.

 

Are we really going to say that if we had won 2 WS and 3 division's in the period from 2000 to today we would consider that some sort of failure? I will absolutely be the first to agree that the train had gone off the rails of late with the Sox becoming the poster child for wretched excess in wasteful spending and bad decisions but I would have a hard time calling 3 divisions and 2 WS wins some sort of failure up till then. I have a hard time calling 2 WS and 2 division some sort of failure over that period.

 

I just don't think Dan The Duke gets enough credit for the 2004 WS win and I don't think the organization such as it was gets enough credit generally for the second. I have to admit, that I detected something of a "the fans got theirs now we are going to get ours" mentality in the way the team has been run since then coupled with something of a wayward owner that maybe should have centered and refocused the organization before the train went off the rails.

 

I would have wanted my organization to continue to try to fill the park by being concentrated on wins as opposed to things like 100 year anniversaries of the ballpark as a means to generate revenues. Granted the organization should have and could have done both but it didn't. As fans we were treated to endless product related marketing and product merchandizing fests while the team was falling apart.

 

But as for the success of the period since 2000 and up till the recent embarrassments, probably lucky this is not a Patriots board. We would likely all of us be laughed off the thing.

[Bellhorn04]

Yes, they made the playoffs, but they did not build those teams with a goal,of beating the Yankees, but rather to reach 95 wins which they should have realized had little chance of winning the Division. They pride themselves on sabremetrics. The numbers bear out that 95 wins was good enough less than 25% of the time.

 

But what % did 95 wins make the playoffs. In the Wild Card era it's been rare that it didn't.

[a700hitter]

Well since this is just a forum discussion anyway, there might be one more perspective worth exploring.

 

We won two championships in the period from the beginning of 2000. We won 1 division championship with 96 wins. 95 wins won three other times in that period and if you recall I had mused early that once you establish 95 wins as a target, you are competing for a division championship. Asking a GM to cut it as fine as 97 vs 95 is a bit unrealistic I think and aiming for a 100 sounds like it has salary implications.

 

Are we really going to say that if we had won 2 WS and 3 division's in the period from 2000 to today we would consider that some sort of failure? I will absolutely be the first to agree that the train had gone off the rails of late with the Sox becoming the poster child for wretched excess in wasteful spending and bad decisions but I would have a hard time calling 3 divisions and 2 WS wins some sort of failure up till then. I have a hard time calling 2 WS and 2 division some sort of failure over that period.

 

I just don't think Dan The Duke gets enough credit for the 2004 WS win and I don't think the organization such as it was gets enough credit generally for the second. I have to admit, that I detected something of a "the fans got theirs now we are going to get ours" mentality in the way the team has been run since then coupled with something of a wayward owner that maybe should have centered and refocused the organization before the train went off the rails.

 

I would have wanted my organization to continue to try to fill the park by being concentrated on wins as opposed to things like 100 year anniversaries of the ballpark as a means to generate revenues. Granted the organization should have and could have done both but it didn't. As fans we were treated to endless product related marketing and product merchandizing fests while the team was falling apart.

 

But as for the success of the period since 2000 and up till the recent embarrassments, probably lucky this is not a Patriots board. We would likely all of us be laughed off the thing.

Just a couple of comments on this post. First, why is it cutting it too fine to build a team to win 97 games, but picking a number like 95 is not too fine? That doesn't follow to me.

 

Second, I for one never termed the organization's record as one of "failure". I don't think I made that characterization. However, there is plenty of evidence born out by the results that our FO was not building teams to beat the Yankees, our chief competitors. There are probably several examples of Theo saying that he didn't worry about what the Yankees were doing with moves and that it was an organizational goal to build a team that would win 95 games and be competitive. They have not demonstrated much ability to build teams to beat the Yankees. Under the new alignment that will be more important if we want to get more World Championship hardware.

[a700hitter]

But what % did 95 wins make the playoffs. In the Wild Card era it's been rare that it didn't.

It doesn't change my premise or conclusion.