A Realistic View of 2023: Part II

[moonslav59]

The 2019 team was the 2018 team, one year removed in time. It wasn't a bad team, it was a team that had a bad year. Many things went wrong. I do think there are reasons no team has won it back to back this century.

 

On paper, losing Kimbrell and Kelly was pretty significant, but yes, that team looked very good, despite those losses, on paper.

 

Declining production from returning players, especially those not past prime was unexpected, and that sort of thing happens, often, just as a bunch of players can all gel at the same time.

 

Often, the manager and or GM are blamed for those declines, and I suppose some of the blame can be placed on them for not planning on some declines better, but there was a change at the top before 2019 even started. Yes, a lot of money was spent of bringing back Sale, Bogey and Nate, but basically no money was spent on anything else, and no more prospects were traded after the 2018 deadline. It seems like you have to continually seek to improve on paper, every year. Trying to stay even, usually results in declines. Not replacing Kimbrell & Kelly was asking for trouble, and we got it.

 

Losing Betts, Porcello, Price and others, after 2019, without spending hardly anything to replace them was furthering the major shift in philosophy.

 

I don't think the 2019 was as close to teh 2018 as we think, and the 2020 team was a shell of even the 2019 team.

 

[notin]

The 2019 team was the 2018 team, one year removed in time. It wasn't a bad team, it was a team that had a bad year. Many things went wrong. I do think there are reasons no team has won it back to back this century.

 

Yes if you think of the clear outlier as the norm.

 

The 2018 team was essentially the same as the 93 win 2017 team. So in 3 years with largely the same roster, the team won 93, 108, and 84 games. Are you really trying to argue that the 108 was the clear norm and the 93 and 84 seasons were the outliers?

[Bellhorn04]

Yes if you think of the clear outlier as the norm.

 

The 2018 team was essentially the same as the 93 win 2017 team. So in 3 years with largely the same roster, the team won 93, 108, and 84 games. Are you really trying to argue that the 108 was the clear norm and the 93 and 84 seasons were the outliers?

 

You asked me that before and I agreed that 108 was the outlier. This is beating a dead horse.

[Bellhorn04]

On paper, losing Kimbrell and Kelly was pretty significant, but yes, that team looked very good, despite those losses, on paper.

 

Declining production from returning players, especially those not past prime was unexpected, and that sort of thing happens, often, just as a bunch of players can all gel at the same time.

 

Often, the manager and or GM are blamed for those declines, and I suppose some of the blame can be placed on them for not planning on some declines better, but there was a change at the top before 2019 even started. Yes, a lot of money was spent of bringing back Sale, Bogey and Nate, but basically no money was spent on anything else, and no more prospects were traded after the 2018 deadline. It seems like you have to continually seek to improve on paper, every year. Trying to stay even, usually results in declines. Not replacing Kimbrell & Kelly was asking for trouble, and we got it.

 

Losing Betts, Porcello, Price and others, after 2019, without spending hardly anything to replace them was furthering the major shift in philosophy.

 

I don't think the 2019 was as close to teh 2018 as we think, and the 2020 team was a shell of even the 2019 team.

 

 

2020 should just be expunged. The 2021 team was good after some relatively inexpensive tweaks.

[notin]

You asked me that before and I agreed that 108 was the outlier. This is beating a dead horse.

 

Ok so the 2019 team was really more inline with our expectations. Or st least it should have been…

[Bellhorn04]

Ok so the 2019 team was really more inline with our expectations. Or st least it should have been…

 

The pre-season projections for the 2019 team were pretty strong, as I recall.

[notin]

The pre-season projections for the 2019 team were pretty strong, as I recall.

 

Yeah and so are my expectations. But a lot of that was due to 2018…

[Nick]

2019 team was predicted to win 95 games, just 2 below the Yankees and 3 below the Astros.

 

My recollection was that pitching staff faltered.

 

Wasn't that the spring we held back the starters? Extra month of work in 2018 was the reason given.

[moonslav59]

2019 team was predicted to win 95 games, just 2 below the Yankees and 3 below the Astros.

 

My recollection was that pitching staff faltered.

 

Wasn't that the spring we held back the starters? Extra month of work in 2018 was the reason given.

 

It was t the hitting.

 

Top 10 batters by PAs were all over .766, and 4 guys were over .900

[Bellhorn04]

2019 team was predicted to win 95 games, just 2 below the Yankees and 3 below the Astros.

 

My recollection was that pitching staff faltered.

 

Wasn't that the spring we held back the starters? Extra month of work in 2018 was the reason given.

 

Yes, yes and yes.

[Maxbialystock]

Yes if you think of the clear outlier as the norm.

 

The 2018 team was essentially the same as the 93 win 2017 team. So in 3 years with largely the same roster, the team won 93, 108, and 84 games. Are you really trying to argue that the 108 was the clear norm and the 93 and 84 seasons were the outliers?

 

2018 was much better than 2017 at the plate because bringing in JDM made the whole lineup better. Plus it helped the 2018 team when Eovaldi was brought in o/1 August 1.

 

And what happened in 2019 was that the starting pitching collapsed. They went from 85 quality starts in 2018 to 55 in 2019. The Sox team ERA in 2018 was ranked 8th in MLB, which for the Sox is excellent, but in 2019 it was 19th.

 

2018 was, as you say, the outlier because everything clicked that season.

[Maxbialystock]

On paper, losing Kimbrell and Kelly was pretty significant, but yes, that team looked very good, despite those losses, on paper.

 

Declining production from returning players, especially those not past prime was unexpected, and that sort of thing happens, often, just as a bunch of players can all gel at the same time.

 

Often, the manager and or GM are blamed for those declines, and I suppose some of the blame can be placed on them for not planning on some declines better, but there was a change at the top before 2019 even started. Yes, a lot of money was spent of bringing back Sale, Bogey and Nate, but basically no money was spent on anything else, and no more prospects were traded after the 2018 deadline. It seems like you have to continually seek to improve on paper, every year. Trying to stay even, usually results in declines. Not replacing Kimbrell & Kelly was asking for trouble, and we got it.

 

Losing Betts, Porcello, Price and others, after 2019, without spending hardly anything to replace them was furthering the major shift in philosophy.

 

I don't think the 2019 was as close to teh 2018 as we think, and the 2020 team was a shell of even the 2019 team.

 

 

Don't ignore 2021, a season when the Sox made it to the ALCS despite having lost Mookie, JBJ, Moreland, Beni, Price, Sale, Kimbrel, et al.

[moonslav59]

Don't ignore 2021, a season when the Sox made it to the ALCS despite having lost Mookie, JBJ, Moreland, Beni, Price, Sale, Kimbrel, et al.

 

I remember.

[mvp 78]

2023 Sox

Runs Scored 754

Runs Allowed 754

xW/L: 81-81

 

Perfectly balanced as all things should be.

[moonslav59]

2023 Sox

Runs Scored 754

Runs Allowed 754

xW/L: 81-81

 

Perfectly balanced as all things should be.

 

You mean we don't suck?

[mvp 78]

You mean we don't suck?

 

Last DAMN place! Maybe get like the 12th pick in the draft which would be worse than last year.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Last DAMN place! Maybe get like the 12th pick in the draft which would be worse than last year.

 

The Sox have actually been fifth-best in the AL East three of the past four years. They are only last in the only division they inhabit.

 

So they only suck in the world in which they exist.

[moonslav59]

The Sox have actually been fifth-best in the AL East three of the past four years. They are only last in the only division they inhabit.

 

So they only suck in the world in which they exist.

 

If only they could exist elsewhere...

[moonslav59]

The kids are making a mini statement to end the season.

 

"Hey, look at me!"

 

1.000 Abreu

.800 Rafaela

.793 EValdez (not bad, after that poor start)

 

Season is over early for...

.857 Casas (tied with Devers for team lead)

.828 Duran (comeback player of the year)

[cp176]

The Bloom years to me represent a failure. There is not one player on this roster that I wouldn't consider trading for the right return - some legit star power. Legit proven stars - kind of like we have had in past years. Players who can not only hit but field as well and pitchers who can pitch - really pitch. I really would like to have some good summertime entertainment to watch once again.

[Bellhorn04]

The Bloom years to me represent a failure. There is not one player on this roster that I wouldn't consider trading for the right return - some legit star power. Legit proven stars - kind of like we have had in past years. Players who can not only hit but field as well and pitchers who can pitch - really pitch. I really would like to have some good summertime entertainment to watch once again.

 

You're being gentle, really. The Bloom years have been a disaster. Maybe someday we'll look back on his work more kindly - maybe.

 

To me it's all on ownership. They have screwed up royally since the moments they decided to part ways with Betts and then Dombrowski. They thought they were being smart. Maybe they have learned a lesson - maybe.

[moonslav59]

You're being gentle, really. The Bloom years have been a disaster. Maybe someday we'll look back on his work more kindly - maybe.

 

To me it's all on ownership. They have screwed up royally since the moments they decided to part ways with Betts and then Dombrowski. They thought they were being smart. Maybe they have learned a lesson - maybe.

 

DD would have been a failure (after 2019) with that budget and demands to trade top salaries, too. It wasn't so much the choice to dump DD as the choice to dump salary. The 2019 results is evidence.

 

Some saw the bleak times ahead, even before 2019 came. Some thought it could never happen and would never happen.

 

It did.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

The Bloom years to me represent a failure. There is not one player on this roster that I wouldn't consider trading for the right return - some legit star power. Legit proven stars - kind of like we have had in past years. Players who can not only hit but field as well and pitchers who can pitch - really pitch. I really would like to have some good summertime entertainment to watch once again.

 

This post sums up my feelings -- and fears, when Bloom was hired -- all along. Even blowhard Kevin Millar has said the same things: it's all about star power. And that includes multi-tool position players combined with ace pitchers.

 

I'm glad owners fired Bloom, but only if it truly signifies the end of the Bloom Era (which was never about the guy whose name will forever mar this period in Sox history). As for Bloom's legacy, I refuse to laud him for doing his job and drafting players who someday may become big leaguers. On draft day, every GM, along with an entire front office staff, crosses off names on a list until it's their turn to pick the best player available.

 

What really defines GMs are players they acquire from other organizations -- and not just signing free agents (if their owners allow it). If Abreu and Valdez become MLB regulars -- for what became a few months of a back-up catcher -- that deal will be known as Bloom's best move.

[Old Red]

DD would have been a failure (after 2019) with that budget and demands to trade top salaries, too. It wasn't so much the choice to dump DD as the choice to dump salary. The 2019 results is evidence.

 

Some saw the bleak times ahead, even before 2019 came. Some thought it could never happen and would never happen.

 

It did.

 

I know you think you know, but obviously you don’t to know that DD would have been a failure. By the way he’s in the postseason AGAIN. On the other hand Bloom was a failure, and I knew it, and said it the day he was hired. It was a disaster to get fid of DD, and replace him with Gloom, and Doom Bloom. AWESOME it wasn’t. Far from it.

[mvp 78]

This post sums up my feelings -- and fears, when Bloom was hired -- all along. Even blowhard Kevin Millar has said the same things: it's all about star power. And that includes multi-tool position players combined with ace pitchers.

 

I'm glad owners fired Bloom, but only if it truly signifies the end of the Bloom Era (which was never about the guy whose name will forever mar this period in Sox history). As for Bloom's legacy, I refuse to laud him for doing his job and drafting players who someday may become big leaguers. On draft day, every GM, along with an entire front office staff, crosses off names on a list until it's their turn to pick the best player available.

 

What really defines GMs are players they acquire from other organizations -- and not just signing free agents (if their owners allow it). If Abreu and Valdez become MLB regulars -- for what became a few months of a back-up catcher -- that deal will be known as Bloom's best move.

 

He made SOME good moves, but not enough of them to keep the team above .500. It's clear he wasn't fit for the job. Let him go be the GM for the Rockies or some other club that is happy to just field a team every year. Sox fans can bear one or two down years, but I don't think we saw a path forward that wasn't solely farm built and fingers crossed on the FA acquisitions. That direction takes too long to do. Sox need to sign FA or use the farm to fill holes as needed either through direct promotions or through trades.

[Old Red]

He made SOME good moves, but not enough of them to keep the team above .500. It's clear he wasn't fit for the job. Let him go be the GM for the Rockies or some other club that is happy to just field a team every year. Sox fans can bear one or two down years, but I don't think we saw a path forward that wasn't solely farm built and fingers crossed on the FA acquisitions. That direction takes too long to do. Sox need to sign FA or use the farm to fill holes as needed either through direct promotions or through trades.

I agree that Bloom was way in over his head in Boston.

[Bellhorn04]

DD would have been a failure (after 2019) with that budget and demands to trade top salaries, too. It wasn't so much the choice to dump DD as the choice to dump salary. The 2019 results is evidence.

 

Some saw the bleak times ahead, even before 2019 came. Some thought it could never happen and would never happen.

 

It did.

 

I guess I'll have to keep saying this, but the 2019 team was not that bad, and the 2021 team also did OK.

[mvp 78]

I guess I'll have to keep saying this, but the 2019 team was not that bad, and the 2021 team also did OK.

 

Pythag had 2019 as a 87 win team. They weren't a dumpster fire. The pitchers just had a hangover from the year before (13-17 in April). It was fine. I give that team a pass.

[moonslav59]

I know you think you know, but obviously you don’t to know that DD would have been a failure. By the way he’s in the postseason AGAIN. On the other hand Bloom was a failure, and I knew it, and said it the day he was hired. It was a disaster to get fid of DD, and replace him with Gloom, and Doom Bloom. AWESOME it wasn’t. Far from it.

 

It's my opinion- just like yours. Do I have to write IMO, before every post?

 

If you think DD could have won in 2020 by slashing the budget as much as Bloom had to, fine. That might be your opinion.

 

I do not "know" DD would have failed in 2020, but my opinion is that any GM would have.

 

I'm not si sure many would have succeeded in '21.

[moonslav59]

I know you think you know...

 

Classic wrong assumption, again.