A Realistic View at 2018: Part I

[Kimmi]

If moon stopped mentioning it, we'd never hear of the cliff again. "Both sides" is disingenuous.

 

NOT!

 

And in fairness to Moon, there are two posters who have 'cliff' avatars, which makes mentioning the cliff fair game. Read the handbook.

[Northern Star]

NOT!

 

And in fairness to Moon, there are two posters who have 'cliff' avatars, which makes mentioning the cliff fair game. Read the handbook.

 

wait, there's a handbook? I don't think I got a copy.

[FredLynn]

The cliff exists, until it doesn't.

 

We have not yet reached it, but it's there.

 

I prefer the term "potential cliff".

Overall, its a dumb idea anyway. Too much can change in the period of three years to postulate baseball Armageddon for this team.

[notin]

No.

 

An oncoming hurricane can be predicted with a very high degree of accuracy. You're talking about something that's going to happen in the next day or two.

 

And nothing can be done to stop it.

 

Its not about stopping it

 

Plenty can be done to prepare, however...

[dgalehouse]

JBJ might be better than Beni, but the extra years of team control makes Beni >JBJ.

 

I would be very surprised if there was a GM in baseball that did not prefer Benintendi over JBJ.

[notin]

I would be very surprised if there was a GM in baseball that did not prefer Benintendi over JBJ.

 

There isn't. But how much of that is salary and years of control?

[Bellhorn04]

Its not about stopping it

 

Plenty can be done to prepare, however...

 

Right, but if it's a powerful hurricane and your property is in the path of destruction, preparation consists of evacuating and coming back later to deal with the devastation.

 

It's a metaphor that half-works...

[a700hitter]

On both sides, to be honest...

One poster brings it up 99+% of the time.

[moonslav59]

Can we all agree on one thing?

 

Talking about the debate on the cliff is worse than talking about the cliff, potential cliff or cliff denial.

[a700hitter]

The cliff exists, until it doesn't.

 

We have not yet reached it, but it's there.

Unlike hot streaks and clutch, the “Cliff” is a myth. It can’t be defined, and it’s future existence cannot be proved.

[moonslav59]

One poster brings it up 99+% of the time.

 

Gross hyperbole.

 

Even between just Kimmi and myself, nobody is near 90%.

[moonslav59]

Matt Adams, Drew Smyly and Mike Fiers were non tendered. Edited December 2, 2017 by moonslav59

[a700hitter]

Gross hyperbole.

 

Even between just Kimmi and myself, nobody is near 90%.

Take a poll.

[S5Dewey]

The cliff is not inevitable. It's possible, some can even have the opinion that it's probable, but it is not inevitable.

[moonslav59]

The cliff is not inevitable. It's possible, some can even have the opinion that it's probable, but it is not inevitable.

 

Probable is a better word than possible, but I agree it is not inevitable.

 

[moonslav59]

Take a poll.

 

That would be opinion not fact.

 

Maybe this poll would be more enlightening:

 

Assuming the word "cliff means" 2-3 consecutive years of missing the playoffs (I know others may define it differently, but for argument's sake follow along.)

 

Where would posters here place the odds of this happening starting somewhere between 2020 and 2021?

 

A) 91%+

 

75-90%

 

C) 66%-74%

 

D) 50-65%

 

E) 33-49%

 

F) Under 33%

 

I'd choose B, but I'd say the odds are closer to 90% than 75%.

 

Edited December 2, 2017 by moonslav59

[harmony]

That would be opinion not fact.

 

Maybe this poll would be more enlightening:

 

Assuming the word "cliff means" 2-3 consecutive years of missing the playoffs (I know others may define it differently, but for argument's sake follow along.)

 

Where would posters here place the odds of this happening starting somewhere between 2020 and 2021?

 

A) 91%+

 

75-90%

 

C) 66%-74%

 

C) 50-65%

 

D) 33-49%

 

E) Under 33%

 

I'd choose B, but I'd say the odds are closer to 90% than 75%.

 

I'll go with the second C).

 

If "the word 'cliff means' 2-3 consecutive years of missing the playoffs," the Red Sox have accomplished that twice in the last eight seasons.

 

Of course, my favorite team has missed the postseason for 16 straight seasons.

[a700hitter]

That would be opinion not fact.

 

Maybe this poll would be more enlightening:

 

Assuming the word "cliff means" 2-3 consecutive years of missing the playoffs (I know others may define it differently, but for argument's sake follow along.)

 

Where would posters here place the odds of this happening starting somewhere between 2020 and 2021?

 

A) 91%+

 

75-90%

 

C) 66%-74%

 

C) 50-65%

 

D) 33-49%

 

E) Under 33%

 

I'd choose B, but I'd say the odds are closer to 90% than 75%.

 

This isn’t the poll that I had in mind. LOL! I made the statement that one poster brings up this topic 99+% of the time. You characterized that as “gross hyperbole” saying that even between you and Kimmi it was nowhere near 90%. That was the poll that I suggested for you to take. LOL! Do you want me to post it?

[moonslav59]

This isn’t the poll that I had in mind. LOL! I made the statement that one poster brings up this topic 99+% of the time. You characterized that as “gross hyperbole” saying that even between you and Kimmi it was nowhere near 90%. That was the poll that I suggested for you to take. LOL! Do you want me to post it?

 

Post whatever opinion poll you wish. It proves nothing, except what posters think.

 

I'd say between Kimmi and myself only, I've brought it up about 2 or maybe 3 to 1 vs her only.

 

Throw in everyone else and I'm not even near 50%, and I post much more than just about anyone but you.

 

Why not chime in on my poll?

[a700hitter]

Post whatever opinion poll you wish. It proves nothing, except what posters think.

 

I'd say between Kimmi and myself only, I've brought it up about 2 or maybe 3 to 1 vs her only.

 

Throw in everyone else and I'm not even near 50%, and I post much more than just about anyone but you.

 

Why not chime in on my poll?

The opinion of Board posters on how often you bring up the topic is the point. Perception of the posters in that regard is reality.

[moonslav59]

If "the word 'cliff means' 2-3 consecutive years of missing the playoffs," the Red Sox have accomplished that twice in the last eight seasons.

 

I'm sure others think of "the cliff" as maybe 3 losing seasons in a row or maybe even 3 last places back-to-back.

 

I'm not sure I'd call 3 last places surrounding a championship a cliff, but it does meet the requirement I set in my example. Perhaps I should have said 3 consecutive and not 2-3 years.

 

That's one of the problems discussing things like this; not everyone even agrees on what the term "cliff" means. Add to that the speculative nature of projecting that far into the future, and it's no wonder there are so many differing viewpoints.

 

It's a bit amusing that the discussion has now morphed into a discussion about the discussion and its participants.

 

Man this is a slow time of the year!

[moonslav59]

The opinion of Board posters on how often you bring up the topic is the point. Perception of the posters in that regard is reality.

 

If that floats your boat, by all means, take a poll.

 

My vote is that nobody even has brought it up 25% of the time- and more likely it's under 20%, so yeah, gross hyperbole.

 

[a700hitter]

If "the word 'cliff means' 2-3 consecutive years of missing the playoffs," the Red Sox have accomplished that twice in the last eight seasons.

 

I'm sure others think of "the cliff" as maybe 3 losing seasons in a row or maybe even 3 last places back-to-back.

 

I'm not sure I'd call 3 last places surrounding a championship a cliff, but it does meet the requirement I set in my example. Perhaps I should have said 3 consecutive and not 2-3 years.

 

That's one of the problems discussing things like this; not everyone even agrees on what the term "cliff" means. Add to that the speculative nature of projecting that far into the future, and it's no wonder there are so many differing viewpoints.

 

It's a bit amusing that the discussion has now morphed into a discussion about the discussion and its participants.

 

Man this is a slow time of the year!

You really need to do a better job of reading the crowd.

[Spudboy]

I had never heard of this cliff other than a couple of people promoting the idea here on Talksox.

 

The local media speaks once in while of the Sox being in "Win now" mode but no reference is made to any cliff.

[notin]

I had never heard of this cliff other than a couple of people promoting the idea here on Talksox.

 

The local media speaks once in while of the Sox being in "Win now" mode but no reference is made to any cliff.

 

"Win now" is the optimistic side of the same coin...

[cp176]

I had never heard of this cliff other than a couple of people promoting the idea here on Talksox.

 

The local media speaks once in while of the Sox being in "Win now" mode but no reference is made to any cliff.

 

Excellent point and very true. It is just very simple stuborness IMO to continually bring up a thought that might or might not happen in the future and compare it to something disastrous that does on occasion occur. It is just a desire to be "right" about something for which there is no right. It has become a way for a few here to essentially complain about leadership that they don't personally agree with. I'll give these few people credit for their "fight back" but it really isn't much of a topic for the average fan I guess since no one uses this "cliff" expression. We all understand that our current farm system has been weakened and probably don't really need the daily reminders and the gross exaggeration that comes along with it. The majority of the posters here do not live in the world of hindsight and seem to understand that moves needed to be made to allow us to compete. Like the moves or not, I would say as others have that it might be time to move on but I'm pretty sure that it isn't going to happen. So - Yah baby give me some of that good old gloom and doom cliff talk!

[notin]

Excellent point and very true. It is just very simple stuborness IMO to continually bring up a thought that might or might not happen in the future and compare it to something disastrous that does on occasion occur. It is just a desire to be "right" about something for which there is no right. It has become a way for a few here to essentially complain about leadership that they don't personally agree with. I'll give these few people credit for their "fight back" but it really isn't much of a topic for the average fan I guess since no one uses this "cliff" expression. We all understand that our current farm system has been weakened and probably don't really need the daily reminders and the gross exaggeration that comes along with it. The majority of the posters here do not live in the world of hindsight and seem tyo understand that moves needed to be made to allow us to compete. Like the moves or not, I would say as others have that it might be time to move on but I'm pretty sure that it isn't going to happen. So - Yah baby give me some of that good old gloom and doom cliff talk!

 

Wrong on all counts.

 

No one is saying its all doom and gloom and Dombrowski needs to be fired. And the majority of posters on here DO live in worlds of hindsight.

 

And those who see the farm is at its weakest since Steve Lomasney was the top prospect merely point out this status. It seems like some of the folks who think the farm system is fine want to take personal offense whrn they get reminded it isn't. I've been saying all along yes, its coming but there is plenty of time. Its odd how so many find even that obvious thought repugnant and then get the public lambasted from people who, while they repeatedly say they don't want to offend anyone, have no problem trying to make their point with condescension and insulting commentary.

 

Simple question - while no one can predict the future, how many members of the 2017 team will be around in 2020? Just a guess. It won't be ve.ry many, but that's the case for all 30 teams. (Only 9 players played for the 2014 Red Sox played for the 2017 Red Sox.

 

The thing is, even in 2014 we had some idea who was coming in the future. We knew Betts. We saw Bogaerts and Bradley. Who from 2017 gave you a look into the future?

[Bellhorn04]

Wrong on all counts.

 

No one is saying its all doom and gloom and Dombrowski needs to be fired. And the majority of posters on here DO live in worlds of hindsight.

 

And those who see the farm is at its weakest since Steve Lomasney was the top prospect merely point out this status. It seems like some of the folks who think the farm system is fine want to take personal offense whrn they get reminded it isn't. I've been saying all along yes, its coming but there is plenty of time. Its odd how so many find even that obvious thought repugnant and then get the public lambasted from people who, while they repeatedly say they don't want to offend anyone, have no problem trying to make their point with condescension and insulting commentary.

 

Simple question - while no one can predict the future, how many members of the 2017 team will be around in 2020? Just a guess. It won't be ve.ry many, but that's the case for all 30 teams. (Only 9 players played for the 2014 Red Sox played for the 2017 Red Sox.

 

The thing is, even in 2014 we had some idea who was coming in the future. We knew Betts. We saw Bogaerts and Bradley. Who from 2017 gave you a look into the future?

 

Benintendi and Devers?

[notin]

Benintendi and Devers?

 

And that's it. And both clocks are ticking.

 

Really if you look at 2021 the Sox have thosre two, along with Vazquez, under control.

 

But also Price making $31mill at 35. Pedroia for one more year. Whoever they sign this off-season.

 

And right now no real trade bait like Moncada, Ko pech, Espinoza, Margot, etc. to fill any holes.

 

 

Like I said, a lot can happen. Personally I think the Sox weak farm is a bigger issue NOW and will be again on July 31...

[Bellhorn04]

And that's it. And both clocks are ticking.

 

The clock is always ticking, isn't it? Cheap young talent doesn't stay that way for very long. That is, arguably, an argument for the Win Now approach.