A Realistic View at 2022: Part I

[moonslav59]

Yeah, but that statement is definitely a complaint. And you hear it a lot. Price was another one.

 

The statement is usually based on a lack of reports of other teams in on the bidding. Fans assume that means there weren't any, and it gives them something to beef about.

 

I do think we could have gotten him for less, but I loved and still love the deal, so maybe that is a veiled complaint, but what the hay.

[Bellhorn04]

I do think we could have gotten him for less

 

And why exactly do you think that?

[moonslav59]

And why exactly do you think that?

 

Because I do not think any other team was making a serious off like we did, but I did say "I think" not "I know."

[Nick]

I've often pointed out that every winning Sox team had a second "ace." That doesn't mean every year we had two top pitchers, we won, but IMO, every year we won we did.

 

We didn't win until we added Schilling.

 

We didn't win the second time, until we replaced Pedro with Beckett.

 

We didn't win again, until we added Lackey to Lester.

 

We didn't win again, until we added Sale to Price.

 

1967: we had just Lonborg.

 

1975: just Tiant.

 

1986: just Clemens.

 

 

It goes back your thought of strengthening the staff by acquiring #1, thus making Sale #1,#1A.

[Bellhorn04]

I've often pointed out that every winning Sox team had a second "ace." That doesn't mean every year we had two top pitchers, we won, but IMO, every year we won we did.

 

We didn't win until we added Schilling.

 

We didn't win the second time, until we replaced Pedro with Beckett.

 

We didn't win again, until we added Lackey to Lester.

 

We didn't win again, until we added Sale to Price.

 

1967: we had just Lonborg.

 

1975: just Tiant.

 

1986: just Clemens.

 

 

Your overall premise is fine, but you got a little sloppy in the details.

 

1986 Hurst was better than 2007 Schilling.

 

But of course, Schilling was a clutch, money, big game pitcher.

[moonslav59]

Your overall premise is fine, but you got a little sloppy in the details.

 

1986 Hurst was better than 2007 Schilling.

 

But of course, Schilling was a clutch, money, big game pitcher.

 

I did say we didn't win every time we had 2 aces, and I should have left off the examples of not winning it all.

 

(That being said, I'll do it again, also, in 1978, we had Eckersley & Tiant)

[moonslav59]

It goes back your thought of strengthening the staff by acquiring #1, thus making Sale #1,#1A.

 

Yes, I've always felt that trying to improve your current 5th starter by acquiring a "better on" is sheer folly.

 

That's not to say adding starter depth is not worthwhile, but if you are weak at the top of your rotation, strengthening the bottom will not win you a ring, unless you're like KC or something.

[Nick]

Call me crazy but if I'm the owner, I'd take a chance on Syndergaard.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

I did say we didn't win every time we had 2 aces, and I should have left off the examples of not winning it all.

 

(That being said, I'll do it again, also, in 1978, we had Eckersley & Tiant)

 

Don't forget Torrez (wish I could). He was the Sox' big free agent signing for '78, the World Series hero for New York... but no Sox fans were too excited, just for that reason, with our rational hatred for anything pinstriped.

[mvp 78]

We did not sign JD early.

 

I misremembered.

[mvp 78]

Your overall premise is fine, but you got a little sloppy in the details.

 

1986 Hurst was better than 2007 Schilling.

 

But of course, Schilling was a clutch, money, big game pitcher.

 

Hurst was better than 2013 Lackey. Hurst was better than 2018 Price.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Hurst was better than 2013 Lackey. Hurst was better than 2018 Price.

 

2013 Buchholz was better than 2013 Lackey (just not in the postseason). The original premise said "in the year", but was it implied in October? In that case, the '18 Sox had Eovaldi and Price.

 

Hurst was definitely the ace in the '86 postseason, better than Clemens. Hurst was at his best in September and October, but before that was arguably Boston's #3 starter, behind Oil Can Boyd, whose first-half had him in the discussion of making the AL All-Stars (though maybe he was doing most of the discussing).

[mvp 78]

2013 Buchholz was better than 2013 Lackey (just not in the postseason). The original premise said "in the year", but was it implied in October? In that case, the '18 Sox had Eovaldi and Price.

 

Hurst was definitely the ace in the '86 postseason, better than Clemens. Hurst was at his best in September and October, but before that was arguably Boston's #3 starter, behind Oil Can Boyd, whose first-half had him in the discussion of making the AL All-Stars (though maybe he was doing most of the discussing).

 

Buchholz only played 1/2 a year.

[dgalehouse]

Building a better team for less has become an obsession with a lot of folks. I am sure the billionaire owners appreciate that. I blame Money Ball.

[moonslav59]

Building a better team for less has become an obsession with a lot of folks. I am sure the billionaire owners appreciate that. I blame Money Ball.

 

It's a necessity for many GMs.

 

Hopefully, Bloom can do what he did with the Rays and also add some big money players that work out.

[mvp 78]

Building a better team for less has become an obsession with a lot of folks. I am sure the billionaire owners appreciate that. I blame Money Ball.

 

The problem is that winning doesn't matter anymore. These teams can be absolute dog s*** and the value of the club will still rise. It's an investment for some. it's a plaything for others.

[Bellhorn04]

The problem is that winning doesn't matter anymore. These teams can be absolute dog s*** and the value of the club will still rise. It's an investment for some. it's a plaything for others.

 

But it's no accident that the teams with the highest values are the Yankees, Dodgers and Red Sox.

[mvp 78]

But it's no accident that the teams with the highest values are the Yankees, Dodgers and Red Sox.

 

NY, LA are the two biggest markets. Boston has a nationwide rabid fanbase.

 

What I'm saying is that there is little incentive for BAL, PIT, MIA to ever be very good.

[SPLENDIDSPLINTER]

Building a better team for less has become an obsession with a lot of folks. I am sure the billionaire owners appreciate that. I blame Money Ball.

 

Money Ball has proven a low-budget team can be competitive during the regular season; it hasn't proven that team can win a WS.

[moonslav59]

NY, LA are the two biggest markets. Boston has a nationwide rabid fanbase.

 

What I'm saying is that there is little incentive for BAL, PIT, MIA to ever be very good.

 

They would make more money, if they won more often, but yes, not nearly as much as the big market or big fan base teams.

 

I remember watch old Oriole and Pirate World Series games that we not sold out. That blew my mind.

[mvp 78]

Yes, Miami is a big market. No, they'll never fill that baseball stadium.

[moonslav59]

Money Ball has proven a low-budget team can be competitive during the regular season; it hasn't proven that team can win a WS.

 

The 2015 KC Royals had a $113M opening day budget, but they did add some deadline money.

[moonslav59]

Yes, Miami is a big market. No, they'll never fill that baseball stadium.

 

They have also been a low budget team for much of their history.

 

I'm not sure how much they spent in '97 and '03.

[dgalehouse]

Money Ball has proven a low-budget team can be competitive during the regular season; it hasn't proven that team can win a WS.

 

While there are , and always will be a few exceptions , for the most part the best teams are the teams with the highest payrolls.

[moonslav59]

While there are , and always will be a few exceptions , for the most part the best teams are the teams with the highest payrolls.

 

By far, yes, but I think when a team wins without spending big, they can take more pride in pulling it off.

 

In some ways, I think Henry did not want to be known as the modern day George Steinbrenner.

[notin]

While there are , and always will be a few exceptions , for the most part the best teams are the teams with the highest payrolls.

 

Like the 2019 Red Sox? Or the 2020 Red Sox?

[moonslav59]

Like the 2019 Red Sox? Or the 2020 Red Sox?

 

2012, 2014, 2015...

[mvp 78]

They have also been a low budget team for much of their history.

 

I'm not sure how much they spent in '97 and '03.

 

They spent big in the 90’s. They won a WS in 03 and were still a bottom 5 drawing team.

[moonslav59]

They spent big in the 90’s. They won a WS in 03 and were still a bottom 5 drawing team.

 

Big market.

Winning team.

Low draw.

 

Move the team.

 

(I always felt like maybe Florida should have one team that plays 41 games in MIA and 41 in Tampa Bay or Orlando. The other should move to NC or CA.)

[Bellhorn04]

Like the 2019 Red Sox? Or the 2020 Red Sox?

 

Big picture please.

 

The Red Sox under Henry have had one of the highest payrolls year in and year out and have won 4 championships.

 

Pretty unlikely they would have won any without some of the high priced talent we've had.