The 2021-2022 Offseason Thread

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

After the past year of fortifying the farm, making the playoffs and upsetting the Yanks and Rays, few can say Bloom is on the wrong track. However, what -- to you -- will confirm Bloom has achieved his goal of building "sustained contenders"? As we saw again this year, qualifying for the Wild Card game definitely makes contending for a title possible, if not always probable.

 

But what defines sustainment? A). Will a minimum of five straight Wild Card years do it? . How about just five straight 90ish-win seasons, maybe with a missed postseason or two, staving off elimination until the last week? C). Or is even the Houston model acceptable: five ALCS in a row with one ring mixed in? D). Sorry, but last-last-World Series champs-and last isn't an option.

 

I'm not spoiled, since I've experienced B. most of my life rooting for the Red Sox. Dick O'Connell turned things around from '67-77, with a few pennants and second places; his Sox weren't always contenders, but had winning records for a decade. Lou Gorman traded Bagwell but built a sustained contender for a spell, with three division champs in five years, from '86-90 (Haywood Sullivan's back office lost homegrown stars in the early disastrous days of free agency, but at least drafted Clemens). Dan Duquette teams made the playoffs three times in five years and helped build the eventual curse-breakers, signing Ramirez and Damon, trading for Martinez, etc. The most recent GMs are already well-documented...

[moonslav59]

After the past year of fortifying the farm, making the playoffs and upsetting the Yanks and Rays, few can say Bloom is on the wrong track. However, what -- to you -- will confirm Bloom has achieved his goal of building "sustained contenders"? As we saw again this year, qualifying for the Wild Card game definitely makes contending for a title possible, if not always probable.

 

But what defines sustainment? A). Will a minimum of five straight Wild Card years do it? . How about just five straight 90ish-win seasons, maybe with a missed postseason or two, staving off elimination until the last week? C). Or is even the Houston model acceptable: five ALCS in a row with one ring mixed in? D). Sorry, but last-last-World Series champs-and last isn't an option.

 

I'm not spoiled, since I've experienced B. most of my life rooting for the Red Sox. Dick O'Connell turned things around from '67-77, with a few pennants and second places; his Sox weren't always contenders, but had winning records for a decade. Lou Gorman traded Bagwell but built a sustained contender for a spell, with three division champs in five years, from '86-90 (Haywood Sullivan's back office lost homegrown stars in the early disastrous days of free agency, but at least drafted Clemens). Dan Duquette teams made the playoffs three times in five years and helped build the eventual curse-breakers, signing Ramirez and Damon, trading for Martinez, etc. The most recent GMs are already well-documented...

 

I think the answer is very individual and subjective.

 

One can argue just having a team you feel is good enough to be a contender in April is good enough- win or lose.

 

I admit, I’ve been spoiled by the rings from 3 GMs, and I want more, but I also like just being constant contenders, too.

[Bellhorn04]

I think the answer is very individual and subjective.

 

One can argue just having a team you feel is good enough to be a contender in April is good enough- win or lose.

 

I admit, I’ve been spoiled by the rings from 3 GMs, and I want more, but I also like just being constant contenders, too.

 

All you can really do is compare to other teams.

 

In the twenty-first century, which team do you think has done the best?

 

Red Sox

Yankees

Dodgers

Giants

 

I'll take the Red Sox record over the others. 4 rings, 7 ALCS appearances, other playoff appearances. And yes, 4 last-place finishes.

 

The Yankees and Dodgers have been much more consistent, but I'll take the rings.

[moonslav59]

All you can really do is compare to other teams.

 

In the twenty-first century, which team do you think has done the best?

 

Red Sox

Yankees

Dodgers

Giants

 

I'll take the Red Sox record over the others. 4 rings, 7 ALCS appearances, other playoff appearances. And yes, 4 last-place finishes.

 

The Yankees and Dodgers have been much more consistent, but I'll take the rings.

 

Me, too.

 

I was fine with Ben's 3 last place finishes due to ring. Yes, it sucked, but going into each year, I liked our team on paper- some more than I liked the 2013 team in March!

 

I will say, now that we have some rings, being a consistent contender carries more weight than it did pre-ring, but I very much like winning it all every 4 to 6 or 7 years.

[oldtimer]

Me, too.

 

I was fine with Ben's 3 last place finishes due to ring. Yes, it sucked, but going into each year, I liked our team on paper- some more than I liked the 2013 team in March!

 

I will say, now that we have some rings, being a consistent contender carries more weight than it did pre-ring, but I very much like winning it all every 4 to 6 or 7 years.

 

I am not a fan of boom and bust cycles which result from overspending on large questionable contracts and trading away most of the good young assets. It may result it a high but also will likely be followed by a cliff. I like what Bloom is saying and hope he smartly approaches team development which includes sustainability as a priority.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

now that we have some rings, being a consistent contender carries more weight than it did pre-ring,

 

It's true, the pressure is off -- so much so that rival fans and media have regressed from elitist to hapless, still clinging to tired Big Lies like whose HR was the difference in '78, and that an error lost the '86 World Series, and who the attacker was in the '03 takedown...etc, etc.

[notin]

I think the answer is very individual and subjective.

 

One can argue just having a team you feel is good enough to be a contender in April is good enough- win or lose.

 

I admit, I’ve been spoiled by the rings from 3 GMs, and I want more, but I also like just being constant contenders, too.

 

Agreed on the subjectivity. And I think we can all agree that a big part of it is not sucking…

[notin]

I am not a fan of boom and bust cycles which result from overspending on large questionable contracts and trading away most of the good young assets. It may result it a high but also will likely be followed by a cliff. I like what Bloom is saying and hope he smartly approaches team development which includes sustainability as a priority.

 

 

I do like the terminology “Boom or Bust Cycles” to describe that exact strategy I hate.

 

I also do find a significant enough amount of people who prefer the team go all in NOW and remind us they will take the bad times as long as they get a winner suddenly change their mindset when the bad times arrive. Naturally it’s their prerogative to do so, but it doesn’t make out less hypocritical…

[moonslav59]

I am not a fan of boom and bust cycles which result from overspending on large questionable contracts and trading away most of the good young assets. It may result it a high but also will likely be followed by a cliff. I like what Bloom is saying and hope he smartly approaches team development which includes sustainability as a priority.

 

I think the idea is to have a sustainable winning strategy, but when you feel real close- you make a big push that won't kill the future budgets. That's the tricky part.

 

After Theo left, he spoke of "getting away" from the sustainable plan too much.

 

I feel Ben was trying to build to that model, but DD up-ended that approach.

 

Bloom looks to be trying to do what Ben was doing, but he has yet to be given a fat checkbook like Theo, Ben and DD got at various times in their tenure with the Sox.

 

[moonslav59]

I do like the terminology “Boom or Bust Cycles” to describe that exact strategy I hate.

 

I also do find a significant enough amount of people who prefer the team go all in NOW and remind us they will take the bad times as long as they get a winner suddenly change their mindset when the bad times arrive. Naturally it’s their prerogative to do so, but it doesn’t make out less hypocritical…

 

What happened with several posters was that they wanted us to go all in, but denied it would have a lasting effect on future chances.

 

"Henry can just spend more."

 

"We just need to rebuild the farm."

 

"There is no reason a top spending team can't contend every year."

 

[Bellhorn04]

What happened with several posters was that they wanted us to go all in, but denied it would have a lasting effect on future chances.

 

"Henry can just spend more."

 

"We just need to rebuild the farm."

 

"There is no reason a top spending team can't contend every year."

 

 

And they were right?

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

What happened with several posters was that they wanted us to go all in, but denied it would have a lasting effect on future chances.

 

"Henry can just spend more."

 

"We just need to rebuild the farm."

 

"There is no reason a top spending team can't contend every year."

 

 

I don't live in California, but can only assume fans there were glad when the Dodgers signed the NL Cy Young last winter, and then made the blockbuster of all deadline deals in July. Most pundits predicted LA to repeat as world champs even before these moves, but imagine the outlook when they were still celebrating a year ago if someone said, "And next year, you're going to add Trevor Bauer, Max Scherzer and Trea Turner!"

 

And the Dodgers didn't even make it back to the World Series.

[notin]

”There is no reason a top spending team can't contend every year."

 

 

 

Unless, you know, you understand how aging works…

[notin]

And they were right?

 

That depends on whether or not you acknowledge 2020 ever happening.

 

Obviously it’s pure speculation, but do you think this team would be better off right now with Dombrowski still in charge or worse off?

[Bellhorn04]

That depends on whether or not you acknowledge 2020 ever happening.

 

Obviously it’s pure speculation, but do you think this team would be better off right now with Dombrowski still in charge or worse off?

 

a) 2020 was a 60 game season in a pandemic, and the perfect time to tank.

I've said a number of times I think Henry nailed it replacing DD with Bloom when he did.

[dgalehouse]

I don't agree that having great success leads to a "cliff" . After three terrific seasons , Dombrowski got a little complacent and let the bullpen deteriorate. Then came injuries and underperformance of key starting pitchers . A predictable ( to me ) poor season was the result. Apparently, that was reason to fire Dombrowski and to trade away our best player. It is hard to evaluate the disaster that was 2020, as that was an extremely bizarre season. This season , the Sox got back on the right track. There was no "cliff" . There was no " boom and bust " . That was always nonsense. And , " sustainable " is just another trendy buzzword. Continual success requires work and diligence every year.

[notin]

I don't agree that having great success leads to a "cliff" . After three terrific seasons , Dombrowski got a little complacent and let the bullpen deteriorate. Then came injuries and underperformance of key starting pitchers . A predictable ( to me ) poor season was the result. Apparently, that was reason to fire Dombrowski and to trade away our best player. It is hard to evaluate the disaster that was 2020, as that was an extremely bizarre season. This season , the Sox got back on the right track. There was no "cliff" . There was no " boom and bust " . That was always nonsense. And , " sustainable " is just another trendy buzzword. Continual success requires work and diligence every year.

 

 

It also requires financial flexibility and the ability to make key changes.

 

Look at the run the Yankees made from 1996 through 2001 - a stretch of only 6 seasons. The only players there for all six years were Jeter, Bernie, Tino, Posada, Pettitte and Rivera. Only six seasons, but only two pitchers were there.

 

That 1996 team had Kenny Rogers and Jimmy Key as the pitchers behind Pettitte. They had Rivera, but he wasn’t the closer.

 

The rest of the team turned over a lot and turned over a lot.

 

They also maintained the highest payroll in MLB to make that success happen, and were carried by a bunch of farm system players. They didn’t bring in anyone on any sort of crazy 7 year $200 mill contract and watch them age out of usefulness.

 

But they had the guts/brains to sell high on David Wells, held on to their younger players and rearranged a lot of seats.

 

The 2018 Red Sox were never in a position to replicate that. It’s not just about “hard work.” No amount of diligence from DD was going to keep Price effective, and no amount was going to lower his costs or increase their flexibility.

 

“Sustainability” is not a buzzword; it’s a plan.

[moonslav59]

And they were right?

 

The last one was wrong, for sure. We've finished in last place many times and had many disappointing seasons, like 2019, where we spent a ton and did way under expectations.

 

The second one: we have rebuilt faster than I thought we could, so maybe they were partially right, but we are not a top tier farm, now.

 

Henry can spend more, but he doesn't often enough.

 

[moonslav59]

I don't live in California, but can only assume fans there were glad when the Dodgers signed the NL Cy Young last winter, and then made the blockbuster of all deadline deals in July. Most pundits predicted LA to repeat as world champs even before these moves, but imagine the outlook when they were still celebrating a year ago if someone said, "And next year, you're going to add Trevor Bauer, Max Scherzer and Trea Turner!"

 

And the Dodgers didn't even make it back to the World Series.

 

I think Dodger fans are still happy with their team and GM.

[moonslav59]

I don't agree that having great success leads to a "cliff" . After three terrific seasons , Dombrowski got a little complacent and let the bullpen deteriorate. Then came injuries and underperformance of key starting pitchers . A predictable ( to me ) poor season was the result. Apparently, that was reason to fire Dombrowski and to trade away our best player. It is hard to evaluate the disaster that was 2020, as that was an extremely bizarre season. This season , the Sox got back on the right track. There was no "cliff" . There was no " boom and bust " . That was always nonsense. And , " sustainable " is just another trendy buzzword. Continual success requires work and diligence every year.

 

Scoreboard, dude.

[Bellhorn04]

To me the bad periods are measured by how many years in a row you miss the playoffs. Since 2003 here are the years we've missed:

 

2010-2012 3

2014-2015 2

2019-2020 2

[moonslav59]

It also requires financial flexibility and the ability to make key changes.

 

Look at the run the Yankees made from 1996 through 2001 - a stretch of only 6 seasons. The only players there for all six years were Jeter, Bernie, Tino, Posada, Pettitte and Rivera. Only six seasons, but only two pitchers were there.

 

That 1996 team had Kenny Rogers and Jimmy Key as the pitchers behind Pettitte. They had Rivera, but he wasn’t the closer.

 

The rest of the team turned over a lot and turned over a lot.

 

They also maintained the highest payroll in MLB to make that success happen, and were carried by a bunch of farm system players. They didn’t bring in anyone on any sort of crazy 7 year $200 mill contract and watch them age out of usefulness.

 

But they had the guts/brains to sell high on David Wells, held on to their younger players and rearranged a lot of seats.

 

The 2018 Red Sox were never in a position to replicate that. It’s not just about “hard work.” No amount of diligence from DD was going to keep Price effective, and no amount was going to lower his costs or increase their flexibility.

 

“Sustainability” is not a buzzword; it’s a plan.

 

Well said, and it's easy to get side-tracked or want to make a bigger push (at the expense of the future) when you feel so close, but it's also hard to sustain a highly competitive team that wins a ring, eventually.

 

[moonslav59]

That 5 out of 6 stretch was tough, but going into many of those seasons, I felt pretty good about the roster.

 

I think that makes a difference, to me, especially in terms of judging our GMs.

Edited November 15, 2021 by moonslav59

[Nick]

I think Dodger fans are still happy with their team and GM.

 

As years go by, last year's win will be viewed as the cheapest championship ever won. I have no respect for them for winning.

[moonslav59]

As years go by, last year's win will be viewed as the cheapest championship ever won. I have no respect for them for winning.

 

I don't take many points off. The playoffs were still the playoffs, and a the Dodgers would certainly have made the playoffs in a 162 game season, too.

 

It is what it is.

 

Put the asterisk, if you must, but many seasons were marred by shortened seasons and messed up planning around them.

 

To me, they earned it, but I can understand your view.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

I don't take many points off. The playoffs were still the playoffs, and a the Dodgers would certainly have made the playoffs in a 162 game season, too.

 

It is what it is.

 

Put the asterisk, if you must, but many seasons were marred by shortened seasons and messed up planning around them.

 

To me, they earned it, but I can understand your view.

 

With the expanded playoffs in 2020, the Dodgers had to win a record 13 postseason games to earn their rings.

[moonslav59]

With the expanded playoffs in 2020, the Dodgers had to win a record 13 postseason games to earn their rings.

 

While that may not make up for missing 100 games in the season, the Dodgers were the best team, and they won a long post season.

[mvp 78]

I don't agree that having great success leads to a "cliff" . After three terrific seasons , Dombrowski got a little complacent and let the bullpen deteriorate. Then came injuries and underperformance of key starting pitchers . A predictable ( to me ) poor season was the result. Apparently, that was reason to fire Dombrowski and to trade away our best player. It is hard to evaluate the disaster that was 2020, as that was an extremely bizarre season. This season , the Sox got back on the right track. There was no "cliff" . There was no " boom and bust " . That was always nonsense. And , " sustainable " is just another trendy buzzword. Continual success requires work and diligence every year.

 

The real problem with the cliff theory is twofold:

 

(1) ownership CHOSE to get under the cap by any means necessary, which amounted them to dumping Betts and fielding an uncompetitive pitching rotation for one year

 

(2) in the real world, a cliff generally leads to an extended valley (and posters that were proponents of the idea stated that the Sox would have a few down years) but this Sox team had one bad season and then was in the ALCS the following year which is more of a "blip" than a "cliff" IMO

[mvp 78]

To me the bad periods are measured by how many years in a row you miss the playoffs. Since 2003 here are the years we've missed:

 

2010-2012 3

2014-2015 2

2019-2020 2

 

14-15 really sucked, but it came right after a WS win. I think the stretch from 10-12 was more frustrating as 2010 was a completely lost and middling season. The only part I remember about it was Ryan Kalish (a guy who only OPS'd 88+). The following year was touted as "the greatest Sox team of all time" but they just squandered all that away down the stretch with a brutal September that caused Theo and Tito to be rushed out the back door. 2012 was notable only for a ST where Pedro Ciriaco the standout player and Bobby V slowly steered the ship towards an oncoming iceberg that everyone saw from miles and miles away.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

this Sox team had one bad season and then was in the ALCS the following year which is more of a "blip" than a "cliff" IMO

 

The blip was Rudolph's nose in the fog, but then Christmas morning came and they unwrapped new reindeer games.