A Realistic View at 2020: Part I

[Swiharts Ghost]

After arbs are we over even if JDM opts out ? It’s still puts us close to 8 to 12 over right ? So if we take off Sandy’s 2.5 arb and JBJ 11 arb we are under not Including Mookie and his 28 plus the opt out of JDM and his what 25 ? Are we not in a position to add ? Who do you want ? No we can’t break the bank but can’t we add someone who makes an impact ?

[Bellhorn04]

Move to LA or Atlanta...

 

When the last time those two teams won a ring?

 

Yes, they win and have a strong farm, but they never win it all.

 

Plus, it remains to be seen how long the Dodgers can keep up the run they're on.

[jacksonianmarch]

After arbs are we over even if JDM opts out ? It’s still puts us close to 8 to 12 over right ? So if we take off Sandy’s 2.5 arb and JBJ 11 arb we are under not Including Mookie and his 28 plus the opt out of JDM and his what 25 ? Are we not in a position to add ? Who do you want ? No we can’t break the bank but can’t we add someone who makes an impact ?

 

I have you right at the first threshold if JD and JBJ come back. If JD opts out, you’ll be under. But damn you need him

[Kimmi]

I want to see living proof of it.

 

The Dodgers?

[Kimmi]

When the last time those two teams won a ring?

 

Yes, they win and have a strong farm, but they never win it all.

 

But that's because the playoffs are a crapshoot, not because those are not well run franchises.

[Kimmi]

This is why we should not make any trades that involves multiple players from Sox vs single from the trading partner. Also do not trade younger players for older players.

 

Just keep the farm system in tact.

 

What to do with Betts? You can't let the clock run out on him without getting something of value in return. Here you have chance to get either younger and/or make it into two or three fer for one.

 

What to do with JBJ? Non tender him. He's just not worth $10M. That $10M can be used to acquire two or three players.

 

We have multiple years vested in Sale, Price and Eovaldi. We can't abandon the money involved. They need to get healthy and Sox need to extract as much service time from the three. You can't simply Sandoval these three.

 

Team has to built around Xander and Devers.

 

Sox should keep guys like Dalbec, Chavis and Chatam. Give them chance to succeed. You can't trade them and at the same time bitch and moan about our farm.

 

I think most fans are willing to wait for better times as long as you're doing it with young talent. The goal is always to win the World Series.

 

I am opposed to trading more talent from our farm, in general. Of course, if you get a deal you can't refuse, then that's a different story.

 

I continue to go back and forth on Betts, and much of that has to do with really having no idea what the FO wants to do this offseason. I know that in the long run, trading Betts now would be better for the team. However, if we plan to be competitive next year, which I fully believe we will, then our team will be better with Betts on it than not. Needless to say, a lot remains to be seen.

 

On the whole, I agree with your post.

[Bellhorn04]

When the last time those two teams won a ring?

 

Yes, they win and have a strong farm, but they never win it all.

 

But that's because the playoffs are a crapshoot, not because those are not well run franchises.

 

I used to think the playoffs are a total crapshoot but I'm not so sure now.

 

There has to be a reason the A's, Twins and Braves have tons of playoff appearances over the last 20+ years but no rings-not even close, really. While the Red Sox have 4 rings.

[Kimmi]

Plus, it remains to be seen how long the Dodgers can keep up the run they're on.

 

It is really more or less randomness that those teams have not won a WS recently. They could just as easily have 2 championships a piece.

 

IMO, the Sox have fielded a contending team, on paper, every year since Henry took over ownership. In some years, it hasn't worked out, but I have felt really good about the team entering every season so far. As a fan, that's really all you can ask of a GM and an owner.

 

My fear is that either this year or next, we will enter the season knowing that we really don't have much of a chance to make the postseason, unless a near miracle occurs, or unless Henry continues to exceed the luxury tax limits.

[moonslav59]

But that's because the playoffs are a crapshoot, not because those are not well run franchises.

 

That may be part of it, and nobody can argue the Dodgers have not tried to do more than one would think is needed to be a top contender, but the Braves are another matter.

 

Quick answer wanted:

 

Would you rather the Sox did what the Dodgers & Braves have done- all the good and all the bad- over the last 2 decades or what the Sox have done?

[Kimmi]

I used to think the playoffs are a total crapshoot but I'm not so sure now.

 

There has to be a reason the A's, Twins and Braves have tons of playoff appearances over the last 20+ years but no rings-not even close, really. While the Red Sox have 4 rings.

 

I don't remember the exact numbers, but the odds of the best team entering the playoffs winning it all versus the odds of the worst team entering the playoffs really isn't that different. It's basically a coin flip. Whether looking at it by season record, best OBP, Pythagorean W-L, run differential, or even money, the correlation to winning in the playoffs is almost non-existent.

 

In a short series, randomness is king.

[Kimmi]

That may be part of it, and nobody can argue the Dodgers have not tried to do more than one would think is needed to be a top contender, but the Braves are another matter.

 

Quick answer wanted:

 

Would you rather the Sox did what the Dodgers & Braves have done- all the good and all the bad- over the last 2 decades or what the Sox have done?

 

Of course I prefer having the rings over not having the rings. My point is that it doesn't have to be an either/or situation. The fact that the Dodgers have not won a ring recently and we have four really boils down to luck. Not in the regular season, but in the postseason.

[Bellhorn04]

I don't remember the exact numbers, but the odds of the best team entering the playoffs winning it all versus the odds of the worst team entering the playoffs really isn't that different. It's basically a coin flip. Whether looking at it by season record, best OBP, Pythagorean W-L, run differential, or even money, the correlation to winning in the playoffs is almost non-existent.

 

In a short series, randomness is king.

 

I wonder how recent that research is.

[moonslav59]

I don't remember the exact numbers, but the odds of the best team entering the playoffs winning it all versus the odds of the worst team entering the playoffs really isn't that different. It's basically a coin flip. Whether looking at it by season record, best OBP, Pythagorean W-L, run differential, or even money, the correlation to winning in the playoffs is almost non-existent.

 

In a short series, randomness is king.

 

Not true.

 

The odds given before the playoffs starters were:

 

30:1 TB

25:1 MIL

20:1 OAK

18:1 WAS

17:1 STL

16:1 MN

9:1 ATL

5:1 NYY

11:4 LAD (2.75:1)

2:1 HOU

 

That's about as far from a crap shoot as can be.

 

Yes, the Nats beat the odds, but Houston is going to win it all. No way they had a 1 in 10 chance- same as everyone else. Not even close.

 

2:1 vs 30:1 best vs worst.

 

[moonslav59]

Of course I prefer having the rings over not having the rings. My point is that it doesn't have to be an either/or situation. The fact that the Dodgers have not won a ring recently and we have four really boils down to luck. Not in the regular season, but in the postseason.

 

I disagree. We built better teams than the Dodgers, and we sacrificed the farm to do it- not just DD, either.

 

the 2013 team was somewhat lucky, but we still had a top 3 winning % every year we won.

[Bellhorn04]

Not true.

 

The odds given before the playoffs starters were:

 

30:1 TB

25:1 MIL

20:1 OAK

18:1 WAS

17:1 STL

16:1 MN

9:1 ATL

5:1 NYY

11:4 LAD (2.75:1)

2:1 HOU

 

That's about as far from a crap shoot as can be.

 

Yes, the Nats beat the odds, but Houston is going to win it all. No way they had a 1 in 10 chance- same as everyone else. Not even close.

 

2:1 vs 30:1 best vs worst.

 

 

I'm with you except it's a 1 in 8 chance for the non-Wild Card teams.

[Bellhorn04]

If the Astros win this year, it will be 4 rings in a row for teams that dominated in the regular season.

[notin]

When the last time those two teams won a ring?

 

Yes, they win and have a strong farm, but they never win it all.

 

The Dodgers might not have a ring but they are in the postseason every year..

[Bellhorn04]

The Dodgers might not have a ring but they are in the postseason every year..

 

7 division titles in a row is very impressive.

 

But 4 of them came with 91 or 92 wins, so the competition wasn't the grestest.

[notin]

I disagree. We built better teams than the Dodgers, and we sacrificed the farm to do it- not just DD, either.

 

the 2013 team was somewhat lucky, but we still had a top 3 winning % every year we won.

 

So you’re saying it does have to be an either/or situation?

 

The Goantyeon 3 World Series titles in the past 10 years. Now they’re a horrible team with no farm and tons of bloated contracts.

 

The Dodgers have dominated the NL West I recent years and been intwo of the last 3 World Series. They also have a strong farm that prevents them from filling the roster with expensive deadweight.

 

Are you saying you thing the Giants are in the better situation?

[harmony]

If the Astros win this year, it will be 4 rings in a row for teams that dominated in the regular season.

In 2018 the Red Sox won 108 games while the Houston Astros won 103 games playing in a tougher division. The Red Sox were 3-4 against the Astros in the regular season before eliminating the Astros 4-1 in the American League Championship Series.

[Bellhorn04]

In 2018 the Red Sox won 108 games while the Houston Astros won 103 games playing in a tougher division. The Red Sox were 3-4 against the Astros in the regular season before eliminating the Astros 4-1 in the American League Championship Series.

 

Dominated may not have been the exactly right word. But 108 wins is a pretty high number.

[Kimmi]

I wonder how recent that research is.

 

2017

[Kimmi]

Not true.

 

The odds given before the playoffs starters were:

 

30:1 TB

25:1 MIL

20:1 OAK

18:1 WAS

17:1 STL

16:1 MN

9:1 ATL

5:1 NYY

11:4 LAD (2.75:1)

2:1 HOU

 

That's about as far from a crap shoot as can be.

 

Yes, the Nats beat the odds, but Houston is going to win it all. No way they had a 1 in 10 chance- same as everyone else. Not even close.

 

2:1 vs 30:1 best vs worst.

 

 

'Odds' was not the right choice of words then. Those are betting odds, not statistical odds based on correlations.

[Kimmi]

If the Astros win this year, it will be 4 rings in a row for teams that dominated in the regular season.

 

It is true that the single factor that has the strongest correlation to postseason wins is regular season wins, but even that correlation is not very strong.

[harmony]

The Red Sox reportedly have spoken with former Cincinnati Reds manager Bryan Price about their pitching coach opening:

 

 

Which raises the question of who is speaking on behalf of the Red Sox.

[moonslav59]

So you’re saying it does have to be an either/or situation?

 

The Goantyeon 3 World Series titles in the past 10 years. Now they’re a horrible team with no farm and tons of bloated contracts.

 

The Dodgers have dominated the NL West I recent years and been intwo of the last 3 World Series. They also have a strong farm that prevents them from filling the roster with expensive deadweight.

 

Are you saying you thing the Giants are in the better situation?

 

It might not "need to be either or," but I'm not sure I wished we tried to have it both ways.

 

Could we have won without Manny? Without Dice-K? Without Lackey? Without Kimbrel or Sale?

 

We probably could have without Crawford, Thornburg and others, but we won by making sure we had a better than just good enough team.

 

I'm okay with second-guessing, and I do it myself enough, but I'm not going to be over-critical on anything that brought us 4 rings in 2 decades. In hindsight, we could take back some trades or signings, here or there, but I think we need to "go for it" from time to time.

 

Yes, I wish we didn't go as far as we did, but who am I to say we didn't need to. We got the rings, and it was worth it. We've had some great farms and some great teams, and sometimes both at the same time. It won't ever be as easy as it was before, but I think we can get back to the top in a few short years.

[moonslav59]

'Odds' was not the right choice of words then. Those are betting odds, not statistical odds based on correlations.

 

The opening odds given are largely based on correlations and trends from the regular season along with who people are betting on or are likely to bet on.

 

I just can't believe the Brewers, A's and Ray's had close to the same chance as the Astros or even the Yankees or Dodgers.

 

Maybe your idea of close is different than mine.

[oldtimer]

The Red Sox reportedly have spoken with former Cincinnati Reds manager Bryan Price about their pitching coach opening:

 

 

Which raises the question of who is speaking on behalf of the Red Sox.

 

I agee. Still further important decision making prior to naming a GM. Is this a sign that the GM will be named from within?

[jacksonianmarch]

I’m wondering if it would be Ferreira. Reason being is that hiring a female GM would be ground breaking, newsworthy, and MLB doesn’t like major announcements during the end of the playoffs to throw shade on the World Series.

[Nick]

Houston has added top of the line starting pitching each of last three years. That's how you go for it all.

 

Yankees could have used one this year.....