Who should the Sox have play CF on opening day?

[jad]

I'm not saying there was no good reasons for letting Betts walk.

 

I'm just saying we have let a lot of players walk- some stars, but most were on the wrong side of 30 or had health issues.

 

Betts is a unique case, but I do NOT think his loss signals a major change in team building strategy. It was a tough call to make. Earmarking 1/6 to 1/7 of your player budget to one guy for 10+ years is something that does not come up very often.

 

We did it for Price for 7 years. And, we ended up dumping him.

 

Manny was signed for 8 years, and we dumped him, too.

 

A tough call?? Why? He was the best player in baseball. And the team they gave him away to (paying half of PRice's salary as a bonus!) just won a Championship while the RS front office was celebrating publicly getting under the salary cap. Manny is hardly comparable as the RS got and paid for the best years of his career.

[notin]

A tough call?? Why? He was the best player in baseball. And the team they gave him away to (paying half of PRice's salary as a bonus!) just won a Championship while the RS front office was celebrating publicly getting under the salary cap. Manny is hardly comparable as the RS got and paid for the best years of his career.

 

So they should have kept him and maybe finished ahead of Balitmore?

 

If the Sox didn't deal Betts, they would still have very, very likely still have missed the post-season and watched him reach free agency anyway. And even if they somehow made the post-season, like maybe if 3 or 4 other AL teams all missed their flights or something and got disqualified for it, how far were they going to go with Martin Perez headlining the rotation?

 

All keeping Betts does is maybe keeps the Dodgers from winning it all...

[dgalehouse]

Winning is everything. Not necessarily championships, but just overall good , winning baseball. Division titles and good pennant races. When you don't win , people are going to start complaining and questioning your moves. Maybe we are a bit spoiled, but that's life. You should not accept losing and bad baseball just because you like the people involved and their styles and methods. And it's not good business. The majority of the paying customers don't much care about all of the nuances involved or all of the hundreds of metrics floating around. They don't want excuses . They want good baseball with players they know and like. When they don't see it , they are not going to part with their money. When they see a Mookie Betts traded and then watch the team tank , they are not going to be happy campers. They would rather see JBJ roam the outfield than some lesser paid newcomer , a " better value " if you will. A Division title could change that. The question is : When might that happen if we continue our current approach? And will we continue our current approach if things don't improve soon ? Or if attendance and NESN ratings plummet.

[Bellhorn04]

Winning is everything. Not necessarily championships, but just overall good , winning baseball. Division titles and good pennant races. When you don't win , people are going to start complaining and questioning your moves. Maybe we are a bit spoiled, but that's life. You should not accept losing and bad baseball just because you like the people involved and their styles and methods. And it's not good business. The majority of the paying customers don't much care about all of the nuances involved or all of the hundreds of metrics floating around. They don't want excuses . They want good baseball with players they know and like. When they don't see it , they are not going to part with their money. When they see a Mookie Betts traded and then watch the team tank , they are not going to be happy campers. They would rather see JBJ roam the outfield than some lesser paid newcomer , a " better value " if you will. A Division title could change that. The question is : When might that happen if we continue our current approach? And will we continue our current approach if things don't improve soon ? Or if attendance and NESN ratings plummet.

 

John Henry knows all this. He didn't get where he is by being a dummy.

 

The Red Sox have said the reason they hired Bloom was to try to have more consistent good results. Henry no doubt got tired of the roller coaster ride that started in 2011. And I believe he thought a large part of the problem was trying to fix everything with big splashy signings.

 

We need to give Bloom a chance.

[jad]

Winning is everything. Not necessarily championships, but just overall good , winning baseball. Division titles and good pennant races. When you don't win , people are going to start complaining and questioning your moves. Maybe we are a bit spoiled, but that's life. You should not accept losing and bad baseball just because you like the people involved and their styles and methods. And it's not good business. The majority of the paying customers don't much care about all of the nuances involved or all of the hundreds of metrics floating around. They don't want excuses . They want good baseball with players they know and like. When they don't see it , they are not going to part with their money. When they see a Mookie Betts traded and then watch the team tank , they are not going to be happy campers. They would rather see JBJ roam the outfield than some lesser paid newcomer , a " better value " if you will. A Division title could change that. The question is : When might that happen if we continue our current approach? And will we continue our current approach if things don't improve soon ? Or if attendance and NESN ratings plummet.

 

That is exactly correct. And they will follow players they know and like (as everyone on this board has), even when the team does not win championships. They don't give a crap whether the ownership group makes billions or loses their shirt. Nor whether the team is run like a "good business."

[Bellhorn04]

That is exactly correct. And they will follow players they know and like (as everyone on this board has), even when the team does not win championships. They don't give a crap whether the ownership group makes billions or loses their shirt. Nor whether the team is run like a "good business."

 

What do you suppose happened to these fans in 2019, when NESN ratings started their plunge? Seems to me the outfield that year was the Killer B's.

[mvp 78]

What do you suppose happened to these fans in 2019, when NESN ratings started their plunge? Seems to me the outfield that year was the Killer B's.

 

They moved to FL and stopped watching NESN.

[Bellhorn04]

They moved to FL and stopped watching NESN.

 

Which is a real problem.

[moonslav59]

A tough call?? Why? He was the best player in baseball. And the team they gave him away to (paying half of PRice's salary as a bonus!) just won a Championship while the RS front office was celebrating publicly getting under the salary cap. Manny is hardly comparable as the RS got and paid for the best years of his career.

 

I'm not complaining about the great Manny signing- just pointing out that we had to dump him, and that was an 8 year deal- not 12.

 

Look, I was one of the few saying pay Mookie for 12 years, so I'm not happy we lost him, but clearly there is a strong justification for not committing 1/6th of your yearly player budget to one guy for 10-12 years. You can convince yourself, henry can and could spend all he wants, but he hasn't, doesn't and won't- like it or not. He has limits, and I'll never bash the greatest owner this team has ever seen.

 

You haven't responded to the facts presented about this team changing stars every 2-3 years with near total turnovers every 2-4 years.

 

This is not any different from the strategy that has brought us 4 rings, except that Betts was not on the wrong side of 30, but then again, no past star was demanding 10+ years and $35M plus before, either.

 

I wish we still had Betts, but with a pretty much limited spending budget, the rest of the team would have been severely restricted by spending allowances for 10 more years.

 

It wasn't a slam dunk decision to sign Betts.

[dgalehouse]

John Henry knows all this. He didn't get where he is by being a dummy.

 

The Red Sox have said the reason they hired Bloom was to try to have more consistent good results. Henry no doubt got tired of the roller coaster ride that started in 2011. And I believe he thought a large part of the problem was trying to fix everything with big splashy signings.

 

We need to give Bloom a chance.

Henry is the owner who finally broke the curse . Now he has four rings. He didn't do that by cutting costs. He deserves credit for that. But let's be honest. Before Henry , the Sox came very close several times. Sometimes just an out away. Nothing an owner can do about that. That is not to take anything away from Henry , but the breaks have to go your way sometimes. I don't think he is a dummy. He is a billionaire. Smart . A stock market guy. A money manager. Hedge fund type. Not the most likable folks , but successful. And he is kind of an odd duck. I don't think he would fit in with , or relate to , the average Sox fan. As for hiring Bloom , we will have to see whether that leads to sustained success or just lower cost decent , but not great Red Sox teams. Time will tell , but last season was an inauspicious debut no matter how you slice it.

[moonslav59]

Henry is the owner who finally broke the curse . Now he has four rings. He didn't do that by cutting costs. He deserves credit for that. But let's be honest. Before Henry , the Sox came very close several times. Sometimes just an out away. Nothing an owner can do about that. That is not to take anything away from Henry , but the breaks have to go your way sometimes. I don't think he is a dummy. He is a billionaire. Smart . A stock market guy. A money manager. Hedge fund type. Not the most likable folks , but successful. And he is kind of an odd duck. I don't think he would fit in with , or relate to , the average Sox fan. As for hiring Bloom , we will have to see whether that leads to sustained success or just lower cost decent , but not great Red Sox teams. Time will tell , but last season was an inauspicious debut no matter how you slice it.

 

Hard to disagree, but I often got the sense that the Sox refused to just go that extra step to put them over the top and become the prohibitive favorite to win it all during years where they clearly were a strong contender, until Henry rolled into town.

 

Now, had Bowie Kuhn allowed the Rollie Fingers & Joe Rudi deal to stand, maybe...

 

(The yanks also had the Vida Blue deal nixed, too.)

Edited March 5, 2021 by moonslav59

[notin]

Winning is everything. Not necessarily championships, but just overall good , winning baseball. Division titles and good pennant races. When you don't win , people are going to start complaining and questioning your moves. Maybe we are a bit spoiled, but that's life. You should not accept losing and bad baseball just because you like the people involved and their styles and methods. And it's not good business. The majority of the paying customers don't much care about all of the nuances involved or all of the hundreds of metrics floating around. They don't want excuses . They want good baseball with players they know and like. When they don't see it , they are not going to part with their money. When they see a Mookie Betts traded and then watch the team tank , they are not going to be happy campers. They would rather see JBJ roam the outfield than some lesser paid newcomer , a " better value " if you will. A Division title could change that. The question is : When might that happen if we continue our current approach? And will we continue our current approach if things don't improve soon ? Or if attendance and NESN ratings plummet.

 

That did happen. But then what happens when those players age and decline or get injured and you have one of the highest payrolls in the league and the team is barely above .500? And the bulk of those same players are coming back not only the next season but also the season after? And a big chunk are back even for the season after that? And they are not likely to stop declining and start improving in that timeframe.

 

What were the Sox supposed to do after 2019? That team was unexciting. 84-78 is 3 bad innings away from beng .500. How does a team in that position get better? Especially once they extended Sale?

 

The team had a payroll of nearly a quarter of a billion dollars. Spending was not the issue. In fact, it had apparently reached it's limit. And I hope you can agree that a quarter of a billion should be enough to pay 25 people. That's an average of nearly $10 million per player.

 

Complaining that you do not like the metrics and the value - the very formula the team used to win 4 championships - is not the answer. Maybe another 86 year hiatus will make some fans happy...

[notin]

Hard to disagree, but I often got the sense that the Sox refused to just go that extra step to put them over the top and become the prohibitive favorite to win it all during years where they clearly were a strong contender, until Henry rolled into town.

 

Now, had Bowie Kuhn allowed the Rollie Fingers & Joe Rudi deal to stand, maybe...

 

(The yanks also had the Vida Blue deal nixed, too.)

 

Or if Bud Selig had allowed the post-strike 1994 free agent signings to stand when the Sox inked Sammy Sosa, Kevin Appier and John Wetteland to deals...

[moonslav59]

Or if Bud Selig had allowed the post-strike 1994 free agent signings to stand when the Sox inked Sammy Sosa, Kevin Appier and John Wetteland to deals...

 

Weird how the two times the Sox apparently tried to do "what it took" to "get over the hump," the league stopped them.

 

As a frustrated Sox fan all those years, I often told my fellow Sox fans and friends, "I'd take 10 last place finishes, if we just went all in to win just one ring."

 

Now, that feeling was not present after the 2004 ring, but I meant what I said. I'd have take a ring followed by a huge fire sale and 10 years of horrific teams for just one ring.

 

That's one reason I can never fault Henry- ever! Not only did he help build teams that won 3 rings, we were good enough, on paper, to be serious contenders in many more seasons and pre-seasons.

 

The 2020 season was about the only exception, but had Sale and ERod not gone down, it might not have been so bad. (We may have even made a few deals to try and be a little more respectable.)

[notin]

Henry is the owner who finally broke the curse . Now he has four rings. He didn't do that by cutting costs. He deserves credit for that. But let's be honest. Before Henry , the Sox came very close several times. Sometimes just an out away. Nothing an owner can do about that. That is not to take anything away from Henry , but the breaks have to go your way sometimes. I don't think he is a dummy. He is a billionaire. Smart . A stock market guy. A money manager. Hedge fund type. Not the most likable folks , but successful. And he is kind of an odd duck. I don't think he would fit in with , or relate to , the average Sox fan. As for hiring Bloom , we will have to see whether that leads to sustained success or just lower cost decent , but not great Red Sox teams. Time will tell , but last season was an inauspicious debut no matter how you slice it.

 

I don't think the idea was sustained success at a lower cost. While I am sure Henry would prefer that, I think sustained success alone would be enough.

 

Just because they tried to reset in what was obviously a lost season anyway doesn't mean that is the plan every year. I do think the strategy would be different this offseason if they at least had a healthy Sale.

 

And the Sox payroll right now is like $190 million. Can we at least get into the mindset that spending $190 million on anything other than a remote island in the Pacific is not going cheap?

[moonslav59]

I'm not projecting greatness from a player who had just one, outlandishly outlier season, but Danny Santana had these numbers in 2019:

 

.283 28 81 in just 474 ABs

.324 OBP

.534 SLG

.857 OPS

 

That projects over 162 games to....

 

.283 34 100 (with 69 XBHs and 26 SBs)

[notin]

I'm not projecting greatness from a player who had just one, outlandishly outlier season, but Danny Santana had these numbers in 2019:

 

.283 28 81 in just 474 ABs

.324 OBP

.534 SLG

.857 OPS

 

That projects over 162 games to....

 

.283 34 100 (with 69 XBHs and 26 SBs)

 

And he very well might put those numbers up.

 

In Worcester...

[dgalehouse]

Hard to disagree, but I often got the sense that the Sox refused to just go that extra step to put them over the top and become the prohibitive favorite to win it all during years where they clearly were a strong contender, until Henry rolled into town.

 

Now, had Bowie Kuhn allowed the Rollie Fingers & Joe Rudi deal to stand, maybe...

I am certainly one of the long suffering and disappointed Sox fans of the past. Even in 2004 , 2007 and 2013 I was always waiting for the other shoe to drop , so to speak. Waiting for the letdown, the fatal mistake that turned victory into agonizing defeat. It was so hard not to be pessimistic after so many gut wrenching failures. It wasn't until the 2018 team that I felt totally confident right from opening day until the last out of the World Series. That team was so good , so complete , so dominant that even very good teams like the Yankees , Astros and Dodgers had very little chance. It kind of hurts to see that team being disassembled piece by piece.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Hard to disagree, but I often got the sense that the Sox refused to just go that extra step to put them over the top and become the prohibitive favorite to win it all during years where they clearly were a strong contender, until Henry rolled into town.

 

Now, had Bowie Kuhn allowed the Rollie Fingers & Joe Rudi deal to stand, maybe...

I am certainly one of the long suffering and disappointed Sox fans of the past. Even in 2004 , 2007 and 2013 I was always waiting for the other shoe to drop , so to speak. Waiting for the letdown, the fatal mistake that turned victory into agonizing defeat. It was so hard not to be pessimistic after so many gut wrenching failures. It wasn't until the 2018 team that I felt totally confident right from opening day until the last out of the World Series. That team was so good , so complete , so dominant that even very good teams like the Yankees , Astros and Dodgers had very little chance. It kind of hurts to see that team being disassembled piece by piece.

 

I'm with you on most of this post, except every one of those 2018 rounds had some serious drama. That club will always be remembered for the totality of the season, but a few plays in NY or Houston, or manager moves in LA, could've changed everything.

[moonslav59]

I don't think the idea was sustained success at a lower cost. While I am sure Henry would prefer that, I think sustained success alone would be enough.

 

Just because they tried to reset in what was obviously a lost season anyway doesn't mean that is the plan every year. I do think the strategy would be different this offseason if they at least had a healthy Sale.

 

And the Sox payroll right now is like $190 million. Can we at least get into the mindset that spending $190 million on anything other than a remote island in the Pacific is not going cheap?

 

Yes, and this is not the first year we re-set or didn't go over the tax line. We've even gone back-to-back before.

 

Years paying no tax:

 

1997

 

2000

2001

2002

2003

 

2008

2009

 

2012

2013

2014

 

2017

 

2020

 

My guess is, we go over, next winter, so looking at this chart, it looks like we re-set and were more frugal before 2015. We've only re-set twice since 2014 (2017 & 2020).

 

I'm just not getting the Henry bashing and never did.

 

[moonslav59]

Hard to disagree, but I often got the sense that the Sox refused to just go that extra step to put them over the top and become the prohibitive favorite to win it all during years where they clearly were a strong contender, until Henry rolled into town.

 

Now, had Bowie Kuhn allowed the Rollie Fingers & Joe Rudi deal to stand, maybe...

I am certainly one of the long suffering and disappointed Sox fans of the past. Even in 2004 , 2007 and 2013 I was always waiting for the other shoe to drop , so to speak. Waiting for the letdown, the fatal mistake that turned victory into agonizing defeat. It was so hard not to be pessimistic after so many gut wrenching failures. It wasn't until the 2018 team that I felt totally confident right from opening day until the last out of the World Series. That team was so good , so complete , so dominant that even very good teams like the Yankees , Astros and Dodgers had very little chance. It kind of hurts to see that team being disassembled piece by piece.

 

I hear you, and agree. I'm not on the side of those who think overkill is such a bad thing.

 

I, too, loved our chances in 2018 from day one (and before opening day, too.)

 

I liked our chances in 2019, but I quickly soured and was one of the first to give up on 2019. (I'm usually one of the last.)

 

I don't blame team management for choosing to reset after 2019, and once that became a priority, the Betts choice became an either or choice.

 

Either we pay Betts and have a bad team around him, or we pay several players what we would have paid Betts.

 

It kills me to see Betts in Dodger blue, and I wanted us to keep him, but the choice to let him go had a lot of merit, too.

 

I think we'll be back on top, sooner than some think.

[Bellhorn04]

I don't blame team management for choosing to reset after 2019, and once that became a priority, the Betts choice became an either or choice.

 

Either we pay Betts and have a bad team around him, or we pay several players what we would have paid Betts.

 

I don't really get how you're framing this. Just that you're leaving out that keeping Betts for 2019 would also mean getting virtually nothing for him.

[harmony]

I'm not projecting greatness from a player who had just one, outlandishly outlier season, but Danny Santana had these numbers in 2019:

 

.283 28 81 in just 474 ABs

.324 OBP

.534 SLG

.857 OPS

 

That projects over 162 games to....

 

.283 34 100 (with 69 XBHs and 26 SBs)

Except for the stolen bases Danny Santana’s 2019 pace numbers are eerily similar to the 2019 pace numbers of Seattle catcher Tom Murphy:

 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/murphto04.shtml

 

Perhaps an outlier as well.

[moonslav59]

Except for the stolen bases Danny Santana’s 2019 pace numbers are eerily similar to the 2019 pace numbers of Seattle catcher Tom Murphy:

 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/murphto04.shtml

 

Perhaps an outlier as well.

 

Not trying to be mean or anything, but these comps to Seattle players do not interest me in the least. (I never click the link. Maybe other do.)

[harmony]

Not trying to be mean or anything, but these comps to Seattle players do not interest me in the least. (I never click the link. Maybe other do.)

Pointing up the limited value of a single outlier season.

 

Be well.

[moonslav59]

Pointing up the limited value of a single outlier season.

 

Be well.

 

I figured it was something like that, and I have very little hope he can or will come anywhere near those numbers again, but it's nice to have one more long shot to pull for.

 

I didn't mean my post to be antagonistic, but I thought maybe you might want to know, I don't click on the comps.

[jad]

I'm not complaining about the great Manny signing- just pointing out that we had to dump him, and that was an 8 year deal- not 12.

 

Look, I was one of the few saying pay Mookie for 12 years, so I'm not happy we lost him, but clearly there is a strong justification for not committing 1/6th of your yearly player budget to one guy for 10-12 years. You can convince yourself, henry can and could spend all he wants, but he hasn't, doesn't and won't- like it or not. He has limits, and I'll never bash the greatest owner this team has ever seen.

You haven't responded to the facts presented about this team changing stars every 2-3 years with near total turnovers every 2-4 years.

 

This is not any different from the strategy that has brought us 4 rings, except that Betts was not on the wrong side of 30, but then again, no past star was demanding 10+ years and $35M plus before, either.

 

I wish we still had Betts, but with a pretty much limited spending budget, the rest of the team would have been severely restricted by spending allowances for 10 more years.

 

It wasn't a slam dunk decision to sign Betts.

 

Not trying to duck that. I just have never felt going into a new season that the majority of my favorite players are gone. Probably one reason for that is that in pre-sports board days, I never bothered to think about the team during the off-season, and by spring, I would say "Oh look. A new player." I never sensed that four or five guys were suddenly gone. Nor did I hear open talk about dumping players and salaries or shipping guys out when their contracts came up. (I admit that many players I liked were dumped (obviously one's 'favorite' players are not to be confused with 'most skilled' players): Nomar, then Cabrera, B. Holt, Lester, Manny; I liked Hanley too.) But I never looked out and said 'Holy crap-- a brand new outfield!'

[Kimmi]

I am still concerned about team defense and wish we had signed a defensive oriented center fielder. I prefer Verdugo in right field as opposed to center, but it sounds like Cora is leaning towards Verdugo playing a lot in CF.

 

Cora has indicated that he is not going to have set outfield alignment, but will instead use his players' versatility as a tool. I'm not sure that I'm in agreement with that philosophy (I really liked the consistency we had with Beni, JBJ, and Mookie), but Cora knows what he's doing and seems to almost always make the right decisions.

[mvp 78]

The team’s strength right now is the versatility. Makes sense that he doesn’t want a set lineup until someone plays himself onto the bench.

[Donnie Sadler was short]

I dont like the idea of moving guys around in the outfield because Fenway has idiosyncrosies (sp) in all fields & the players wont get enough comfort & knowledge if they are constantly moved around.