Red Sox: Off Season '23-'24

[moonslav59]

What would BTV have thought about the original George Scott trade?

 

Scott

Lonborg

Billy C

Lahoud

Pavletich

 

for

 

Tommy Harper

Lew Krausee

Marty Pattin

Pat Skrable

 

Why are current GM scared to do TalkSox assed nine player trades like this???

 

That trade doomed all of you, more than you know.

 

(It is what made me a Sox fan. I was a big Tommy Harper fan while living in Milwaukee, and when we moved at the same time of the trade, I switched teams.)

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

There were a few purges in the 70's that left the team far from "sustainable" in the 80's. The 90's had a few rough patches, too.

 

 

 

My point about "SUSTAINED" is that good players made good teams, and there was no need to justify direction back then; nobody used the adjective because the Red Sox were usually winners.

 

You can dig up all the stats and seasons where you thought they were unworthy, but the fact is from '67 to '91, Boston only had losing records twice in 24 years. From Yaz' Impossible Dream to Clemens twilight (before his rigorous training with innuendo), seeing only two losers out of two dozen seasons made for some exciting times for fans.

[jad]

My point about "SUSTAINED" is that good players made good teams, and there was no need to justify direction back then; nobody used the adjective because the Red Sox were usually winners.

 

You can dig up all the stats and seasons where you thought they were unworthy, but the fact is from '67 to '91, Boston only had losing records twice in 24 years. From Yaz' Impossible Dream to Clemens twilight (before his rigorous training with innuendo), seeing only two losers out of two dozen seasons made for some exciting times for fans.

 

Sure was. But you know, the rest of the division has a much easier schedule now, given that they get to play the RS.

Edited February 13, 2024 by jad

[moonslav59]

My point about "SUSTAINED" is that good players made good teams, and there was no need to justify direction back then; nobody used the adjective because the Red Sox were usually winners.

 

You can dig up all the stats and seasons where you thought they were unworthy, but the fact is from '67 to '91, Boston only had losing records twice in 24 years. From Yaz' Impossible Dream to Clemens twilight (before his rigorous training with innuendo), seeing only two losers out of two dozen seasons made for some exciting times for fans.

 

Fair enough.

 

When you said the final decades of the century, I was thinking the 80's and 90's.

 

We did have some fun teams to watch and plenty of stars- many homegrown.

 

Having just 6 losing seasons from 1980 to 1999 sure beats 6 losing seasons in the last 12 years.

 

The extra playoff slots in these later seasons make playoff appearances unfair to compare, but it did suck that we made the playoffs just 6 times in those 20 seasons, which included 2 in the last 2 seasons (1998 & 1999.)

 

In those 20 seasons, we finished ...

 

1st 4 times (We won over 90 games 3 times.)

2nd 3 times

3rd 3 times

4th 3 times

5th to 7th 7 times

 

I really enjoyed watching the Sox over every decade. I did not mean to slight those teams, but we were not really perennial winners those last 2 decades:

 

10 seasons 1st to 3rd

10 seasons 4th to last

 

 

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Fair enough.

 

When you said the final decades of the century, I was thinking the 80's and 90's.

 

We did have some fun teams to watch and plenty of stars- many homegrown.

 

Having just 6 losing seasons from 1980 to 1999 sure beats 6 losing seasons in the last 12 years.

 

The extra playoff slots in these later seasons make playoff appearances unfair to compare, but it did suck that we made the playoffs just 6 times in those 20 seasons, which included 2 in the last 2 seasons (1998 & 1999.)

 

In those 20 seasons, we finished ...

 

1st 4 times (We won over 90 games 3 times.)

2nd 3 times

3rd 3 times

4th 3 times

5th to 7th 7 times

 

I really enjoyed watching the Sox over every decade. I did not mean to slight those teams, but we were not really perennial winners those last 2 decades:

 

10 seasons 1st to 3rd

10 seasons 4th to last

 

 

 

I'll never complain about the '80s, especially the second half, with Clemens and Boggs at the top of their professions with annual HOF seasons, leading the Sox to three first-place finishes ... (counting '90 as an extension of '88, with the new guard of Greenwell-Burks-Reed etc.).

 

Would you accept that trio's production if the now-Sox top three prospects performed at similar levels? Jody Reed was a solid .280 batter with 40 doubles a year in his prime.

 

The '90s was tougher to stomach, until Mo Vaughn and Nomar made it big... and then came the Pedro trade. Now those are the types of stars we're led to believe -- by the front office -- that Anthony-Mayer-Teel will soon become.

[moonslav59]

I'll never complain about the '80s, especially the second half, with Clemens and Boggs at the top of their professions with annual HOF seasons, leading the Sox to three first-place finishes ... (counting '90 as an extension of '88, with the new guard of Greenwell-Burks-Reed etc.).

 

Would you accept that trio's production if the now-Sox top three prospects performed at similar levels? Jody Reed was a solid .280 batter with 40 doubles a year in his prime.

 

The '90s was tougher to stomach, until Mo Vaughn and Nomar made it big... and then came the Pedro trade. Now those are the types of stars we're led to believe -- by the front office -- that Anthony-Mayer-Teel will soon become.

 

All true, but the last 20 years of the century saw 10 finished at 4th or worst. We were not sustainable at winning. That was my only point.

 

Yes, it was fun, Yes, we had some of the best players to ever play. I'm not complaining, but we had some down year.

[notin]

My point about "SUSTAINED" is that good players made good teams, and there was no need to justify direction back then; nobody used the adjective because the Red Sox were usually winners.

 

You can dig up all the stats and seasons where you thought they were unworthy, but the fact is from '67 to '91, Boston only had losing records twice in 24 years. From Yaz' Impossible Dream to Clemens twilight (before his rigorous training with innuendo), seeing only two losers out of two dozen seasons made for some exciting times for fans.

 

But they also only made the post season 5 times in that stretch, and NOBODY looked at the bulk of those teams and was satisfied with 3rd and 4th place finishes on the outside looking in while someone else - usually the Yankees - continued in October.

 

The 1984 and 1985 teams finished 18 and 18.5 games back - but they weren’t under .500. Who thought those teams were sustaining success? The 2015 Sox were 78-84 but only 15 games out. Were they really that much worse than some of those “not under .500” non-postseason teams from 1968 to 1991?

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

But they also only made the post season 5 times in that stretch, and NOBODY looked at the bulk of those teams and was satisfied with 3rd and 4th place finishes on the outside looking in while someone else - usually the Yankees - continued in October.

 

The 1984 and 1985 teams finished 18 and 18.5 games back - but they weren’t under .500. Who thought those teams were sustaining success? The 2015 Sox were 78-84 but only 15 games out. Were they really that much worse than some of those “not under .500” non-postseason teams from 1968 to 1991?

 

Who said anything about satisfaction? NOBODY is happy when their team loses the final game of their season, whether that is the end of September, the end of October or even in November.

 

You can cite all the stats you want of what in your opinion defined sustained success, but the phrase never had to exist back then for clubs who consistently kept or recruited star players. Less teams made the postseason, but that doesn't mean fans didn't enjoy watching and rooting for their favorites performing at high levels every summer trying to get there.

 

And spare me the Trout-Ohtani Angels comparison. The fact is for a long time, the Red Sox used to be almost always good. People who run them also used to care more about being good.

[moonslav59]

The playoff structure was way different, but I agree. Nobody felt like we were sustaining any kind of winning, in any sense of the word.

 

The amount of 4th or lower place finishes (10 in 20 years) was no better than the last 20 years.

 

2004-2023

5 first

5 second

4 third

0 fourth

6 fifth

 

The best 20 consecutive years in the latter half of the last century?

 

1967-1986 (Granted, larger divisions for most seasons, so 3rd out of 7 beats 3rd or 4th out of 5.)

3 first

4 second

7 third

2 fourth

5 fifth to seventh

 

 

 

 

 

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

The playoff structure was way different, but I agree. Nobody felt like we were sustaining any kind of winning, in any sense of the word.

 

 

Again and again -- that's not what I posted about the WORD. But I understand that certain posters can't possibly see beyond statistics.

 

Final records and final places in the standings do not factor into my point of the total lack of "sustained" coming from the front office -- back when the experience and enjoyment of being a baseball fan was more about the fun of watching good players, following and rooting for their favorites on their favorite teams.

 

Everyone knew -- even after realignment in 1969 -- how hard it was to even make the postseason: only two clubs in each league, playing off to see who goes to the World Series. Few fans freaked if their teams -- even good teams -- didn't make it every year.

 

The Red Sox had a lot of near misses, with '78 obviously being the worst. But the year before, the Sox won 97 and finished tied with Baltimore, 2 1/2 games behind the Yankees -- I lived in Boston (walking distance from Fenway) and believe me, it wasn't the end of the world. If anything, because the Red Sox' roster was so loaded with talent, you couldn't wait until the next season to see star-filled line-ups vying and try, trying again.

 

Now what are we waiting for?

[moonslav59]

Again and again -- that's not what I posted about the WORD. But I understand that certain posters can't possibly see beyond statistics.

 

Final records and final places in the standings do not factor into my point of the total lack of "sustained" coming from the front office -- back when the experience and enjoyment of being a baseball fan was more about the fun of watching good players, following and rooting for their favorites on their favorite teams.

 

Everyone knew -- even after realignment in 1969 -- how hard it was to even make the postseason: only two clubs in each league, playing off to see who goes to the World Series. Few fans freaked if their teams -- even good teams -- didn't make it every year.

 

The Red Sox had a lot of near misses, with '78 obviously being the worst. But the year before, the Sox won 97 and finished tied with Baltimore, 2 1/2 games behind the Yankees -- I lived in Boston (walking distance from Fenway) and believe me, it wasn't the end of the world. If anything, because the Red Sox' roster was so loaded with talent, you couldn't wait until the next season to see star-filled line-ups vying and try, trying again.

 

Now what are we waiting for?

 

I provided records and standings as evidence to my position. I lived and breathed every moment of those 3 last decades of the century. That has nothing to do with stats and standings. I never understand how some people think people who enjoy stats are blinded by them and can't relate to the love of the game at the same level as those who don't. I played baseball for over 20 years. It's in my blood. I used to dream about playing, often. I never dream of stats.

 

There was a lot of fun and excitement. Even when we did poorly, which was about half the time, during the last 2 decades, we had something or someone to watch and enjoy. As many times that I felt heartbreak and frustration, it was still fun watching the Sox.

 

That being said, there was always an underlying feeling with many fans I knew that our management/ownership team were either bozos or people who would not invest just enough to get us over the top and win a ring. There was no sense that management was trying to build a "sustainably" highly competitive team. Instead, we felt like they were doing just enough to keep us interested and hopeful, most springs and early summers.

 

Don't get me wrong, they built some very competitive teams from 1970 to 1999. Good enough to win it all, with a little luck, perhaps. My point was, I never felt their goal was sustainability, and that is the only word I am focusing on for those decades.

 

I do think the FO tried to give the fans some great players to follow. Except for the purges in the 70's, most of our best players played until retirement or late in their careers. I appreciated that.

 

The teams of the 2000's and 2010's did not do that, but we won 4 rings and finished in first or second place more often that the teams of the 80's and 90's. Both 2 decade periods saw 6 last or 5th or lower place finishes.

 

As much as I loved watching the Sox for those last 3 decades of the last century, I enjoyed the last 2 decades more. These last 3-5 years have been difficult, but there were difficult stretches back then, too.

 

As for not understanding the WORD, you wrote...

 

Boston fans never even heard the phrase "sustained" contenders in the final decades of last century, since it was a given the Sox already were...

 

I'm disagreeing. We were non contenders as often as contenders. Being an optimistic Sox fan, I do remember feeling we "had a chance" more often than not, most springs, but deep down, I knew we were longshots more often than not, those last 2 decades. Interestingly, I like our team in '87, for obvious reasons. I had strong hopes, that spring.

 

Many, many springs, I did not have realistic hopes.

Edited February 13, 2024 by moonslav59

[Bellhorn04]

The Red Sox are showing us all how to Sustainably Suck. They should have no trouble Sustaining their Streak of Sub-.500 Seasons.

[Bellhorn04]

Full Throttle Additions:

 

Giolito 2023 fWAR 1.0

O'Neil 2023 fWAR 0.8

Grissom 2023 fWAR -0.7

[Randy Red Sox]

Soler to the Giants. Another guy the Sox had "interest" in gone by the wayside

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

"Sustained" has arguably been a stain, a Boston excuse to contrive a direction that every sports franchise naturally aspires to: developing a consistent winning organization, based on the longevity of prospects drafted, acquired or signed who blossom into high-performing big leaguers.

 

When the Red Sox front office started publicly saying its goal was building sustained contenders is when they stopped investing big money into free agents for upgrades. It goes without saying that every team wants to win every year, for years.

 

There are few instances when a club like the 2023 Mets tries to buy a title in one specific season, and it actually works. Then again, since free agency began in the late-70s, how many champs fielded entire rosters of homegrown players, without spending on established recruits?

 

Baltimore won 101 games last year but wouldn't even swap trade capital for legit pitching at the deadline, and got swept out of the playoffs. This winter -- the day after the Orioles sold the team -- they dealt for Corbin Burnes.

[Bellhorn04]

"Sustained" has arguably been a stain, a Boston excuse to contrive a direction that every sports franchise naturally aspires to: developing a consistent winning organization, based on the longevity of prospects drafted, acquired or signed who blossom into high-performing big leaguers.

 

When the Red Sox front office started publicly saying its goal was building sustained contenders is when they stopped investing big money into free agents for upgrades. It goes without saying that every team wants to win every year, for years.

 

There are few instances when a club like the 2023 Mets tries to buy a title in one specific season, and it actually works. Then again, since free agency began in the late-70s, how many champs fielded entire rosters of homegrown players, without spending on established recruits?

 

Baltimore won 101 games last year but wouldn't even swap trade capital for legit pitching at the deadline, and got swept out of the playoffs. This winter -- the day after the Orioles sold the team -- they dealt for Corbin Burnes.

 

The Sox have outdone themselves this offseason, they really have. It's almost fascinating to watch just how stubbornly they're refusing to do anything to interest us in the team, outside of Sham and Tommy's off-field feel-good stories of Theo and Netflix.

[moonslav59]

Soler to the Giants. Another guy the Sox had "interest" in gone by the wayside

 

I'm glad we did not overpay for a LF/DH type.

[notin]

Again and again -- that's not what I posted about the WORD. But I understand that certain posters can't possibly see beyond statistics.

 

Final records and final places in the standings do not factor into my point of the total lack of "sustained" coming from the front office -- back when the experience and enjoyment of being a baseball fan was more about the fun of watching good players, following and rooting for their favorites on their favorite teams.

 

Everyone knew -- even after realignment in 1969 -- how hard it was to even make the postseason: only two clubs in each league, playing off to see who goes to the World Series. Few fans freaked if their teams -- even good teams -- didn't make it every year.

 

The Red Sox had a lot of near misses, with '78 obviously being the worst. But the year before, the Sox won 97 and finished tied with Baltimore, 2 1/2 games behind the Yankees -- I lived in Boston (walking distance from Fenway) and believe me, it wasn't the end of the world. If anything, because the Red Sox' roster was so loaded with talent, you couldn't wait until the next season to see star-filled line-ups vying and try, trying again.

 

Now what are we waiting for?

 

I think you’re overromanticizing some of these years.

 

It wasn’t until the 1990’s that any team really started “rebuilding” because until Kirby Puckett signed that $3mill / year deal with the Twins and a slew of “wait I can top that” contracts followed, teams never had any direction but one.

 

The Sox absolutely had bad seasons in that stretch. If you watched any local sports broadcast, you are consistently reminded of this. Im not sure if the Boston media back then was the most pessimistic bunch of writers ever, or if they thought only being negative made them look smarter. I actually think many of them got into sports journalism solely to write about how passionately they hated sports. I’m positive this was the case with Bob Ryan. I have no idea what Bob Lobel’s deal was, but he was certainly not about spreading cheer about the Red Sox. He was easily the worst sports journalist ever and his repeated schtick of saying “why can’t we get players like that?” every time a former Sox player got a key hit didn’t mask how much he ripped that same player when he wore a Boston uniform.

 

So we certainly didn’t get this annual optimism from the media.

 

What I got from those years is that stars don’t make teams winners. The Sox trotted out Hall of Famers in left field for over half a century and got zero rings for it. Didn’t it seem of that when it comes to Sox left fielders, Jonny Gomes has more rings than Yaz, Rice and Williams combined? (Oh wait. Does that count as a stat?)

Edited February 13, 2024 by notin

[Bellhorn04]

Soler to the Giants. Another guy the Sox had "interest" in gone by the wayside

 

Hey, we've got Story, O'Neil and Grissom for right-handed bats. We're all set.

[Nick]

Again and again -- that's not what I posted about the WORD. But I understand that certain posters can't possibly see beyond statistics.

 

Final records and final places in the standings do not factor into my point of the total lack of "sustained" coming from the front office -- back when the experience and enjoyment of being a baseball fan was more about the fun of watching good players, following and rooting for their favorites on their favorite teams.

 

Everyone knew -- even after realignment in 1969 -- how hard it was to even make the postseason: only two clubs in each league, playing off to see who goes to the World Series. Few fans freaked if their teams -- even good teams -- didn't make it every year.

 

The Red Sox had a lot of near misses, with '78 obviously being the worst. But the year before, the Sox won 97 and finished tied with Baltimore, 2 1/2 games behind the Yankees -- I lived in Boston (walking distance from Fenway) and believe me, it wasn't the end of the world. If anything, because the Red Sox' roster was so loaded with talent, you couldn't wait until the next season to see star-filled line-ups vying and try, trying again.

 

Now what are we waiting for?

 

Curt Flood says hello.

[notin]

Soler to the Giants. Another guy the Sox had "interest" in gone by the wayside

 

Good. Sox don’t need any more players who can’t field…

[Bellhorn04]

What I got from those years is that stars don’t make teams winners. The Sox trotted out Hall of Famers in left field for over half a century and got zero rings for it. Didn’t it seem of that when it comes to Fred Sox left fielders, Jonny Gomes has more rings than Yaz, Rice and Williams combined? (Oh wait. Does that count as a stat?)

 

Do you define success by regular season success or rings? Stand up and be counted.

[notin]

Hey, we've got Story, O'Neil and Grissom for right-handed bats. We're all set.

 

At least all three of them know what a glove is for…

[notin]

Do you define success by regular season success or rings? Stand up and be counted.

 

Why are we relying on my definition?

 

What is the definition of a successful season?

[Bellhorn04]

Why are we relying on my definition?

 

What is the definition of a successful season?

 

Not just answering with a question, but two completely different questions! Well done.

[moonslav59]

Do you define success by regular season success or rings? Stand up and be counted.

 

Both, and in both cases, the last 2 decades beat any 20 year stretch you can come up with since maybe when the Sox had the Babe.

 

Perhaps, the best 20 games stretch was 1999-2018.

[Bellhorn04]

What I got from those years is that stars don’t make teams winners. The Sox trotted out Hall of Famers in left field for over half a century and got zero rings for it. Didn’t it seem of that when it comes to Sox left fielders, Jonny Gomes has more rings than Yaz, Rice and Williams combined? (Oh wait. Does that count as a stat?)

 

The 2004/2007/2013/2018 Red Sox teams had stars aplenty, though. Don't think those teams would have gone far without those stars...

[notin]

Not just answering with a question, but two completely different questions! Well done.

 

Thank.

 

And kudos to you for avoiding answering by pointing out the avoidance of answering…

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

I think you’re overromanticizing some of these years.

 

It wasn’t until the 1990’s that any team really started “rebuilding” because until Kirby Puckett signed that $3mill / year deal with the Twins and a slew of “wait I can top that” contracts followed, teams never had any direction but one.

 

The Sox absolutely had bad seasons in that stretch. If you watched any local sports broadcast, you are consistently reminded of this. Im not sure if the Boston media back then was the most pessimistic bunch of writers ever, or if they thought only being negative made them look smarter. I actually think many of them got into sports journalism solely to write about how passionately they hated sports. I’m positive this was the case with Bob Ryan. I have no idea what Bob Lobel’s deal was, but he was certainly not about spreading cheer about the Red Sox. He was easily the worst sports journalist ever and his repeated schtick of saying “why can’t we get players like that?” every time a former Sox player got a key hit didn’t mask how much he ripped that same player when he wore a Boston uniform.

 

So we certainly didn’t get this annual optimism from the media.

 

What I got from those years is that stars don’t make teams winners. The Sox trotted out Hall of Famers in left field for over half a century and got zero rings for it. Didn’t it seem of that when it comes to Sox left fielders, Jonny Gomes has more rings than Yaz, Rice and Williams combined? (Oh wait. Does that count as a stat?)

 

Instead of just replying for days with ways to mock nostalgia and one poster's suspicion of "sustainability" -- how about giving your take?

 

Why did the front office suddenly feel like they needed to elaborate about what everyone who runs any sports team already is supposed to do? How has that specific word signified maybe an actual change in roster building? For better or for worse? How can anyone look at the team the Red Sox are currently promoting and not think they're Fulla Shittle.

[notin]

The 2004/2007/2013/2018 Red Sox teams had stars aplenty, though. Don't think those teams would have gone far without those stars...

 

Who would you classify as the stars of the 2013 team?