Red Sox Roundup, Oct 12: Offseason Questions, Injury Concerns, Non-Tender Risks

[drewski6]

2 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

No, but I can understand the confusion.  What I said, or meant to say, is that winning a championship is more difficult that it once was.  We're in a division where we are 3rd in payroll.  Assuming we make the playoffs, we have a 1:12 of winning the WS, and probably less.  Assuming we finish 1st, there is a 1:3 chance that we have to win 4 series.  Even if we are one of the two teams with a bye, we have to win 3 series.

So even in a very good year, we probably have a 1:8 chance of winning a WS.

 

Sounds like youve built a nice little excuse for yourself to avoid having to analyze failures.  I understand winning a championship is hard, nobody is denying that.  But not everyone who makes the playoffs has an equal likelihood, and talent does matter.  SO do many other things.

But in 5 years, we havent won a single playoff series or finished higher than third.  And if we keep tyring to merely be good enough to make the playoffs (we wouldnt have made it in the NL btw), then the percentage chance that we make a deep run will suppress.  

One reason why its harder to win in the playoffs is because other playoff teams are generally good.  So rather than striving to be one of the 12, maybe you should adjust and strive to be the best of the 12.  But that would shatter your excuse that playoffs are just a crapshoot.

[JoeBrady]

32 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

Its gross.  Billionaires just want to collect things for status.  I was reading an article on the psychology behind it and its mostly about how possession creates faux validation.  This is why autocrats are alwasy stealing trophies and certain powerful people obsess over things like nobel peace prizes.

It's not just the rich.

Of the use of status symbols, Wolfe has said, "I think every living moment of a human being's life, unless the person is starving or in immediate danger of death in some other way, is controlled by a concern for status."

I read this probably 30 years ago.  I believed it then and I believe it now.  Everyone wants something that looks good.  A faster car, a nicer house, BB cards, coins, a nicer garden, a better degree, a higher ranked school, either for themselves or their children.

[JoeBrady]

3 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

But that would shatter your excuse that playoffs are just a crapshoot.

The use of math is not an excuse.  You seem to think that wanting to win is something that you are interested in.  Everyone in here wants to win.  They just have different opinions of how to do so.  I just read something recently about "I was just reading an article about how minds that work like this, develop rules/hard conclusions and run everything by those , are not great minds.".

[mvp 78]

17 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

No, but I can understand the confusion.  What I said, or meant to say, is that winning a championship is more difficult that it once was.  We're in a division where we are 3rd in payroll.  Assuming we make the playoffs, we have a 1:12 of winning the WS, and probably less.  Assuming we finish 1st, there is a 1:3 chance that we have to win 4 series.  Even if we are one of the two teams with a bye, we have to win 3 series.

So even in a very good year, we probably have a 1:8 chance of winning a WS.

It's the same with how it worked in 2004! Need to win 3 series! What's the big deal? 

[moonslav59]

On 10/14/2026 at 7:49 AM, JoeBrady said:

The article mentioned 'recent'.  This century (with JH), we're the best in the game.  The past 8 years, the NYY have been better.

But many here count success only based on advancing in the playoffs. The Yanks have not done very well at that in the last 8 years.

(Yes, advancing one round is better than none, but this is not great playoff success.)

2019: advanced one round only

2020: advanced one round only

2021: bounced in round 1 by BOS

2022: advanced one round only (but made it to ALCS)

2023: No playoffs

2024: advanced two rounds and lost WS

2025: advanced one round only vs BOS

2026: advanced one round only vs BOS

Of course this is better than the Sox in the cherry-picked 8 year span, but it's not like they lit the world on fire in the playoffs.

They made the WS once and the ALCS twice.

The Sox made the ALCS once with no WS shows.

[mvp 78]

2 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

But many here count success only based on advancing in the playoffs. The Yanks have not done very well at that in the last 8 years.

(Yes, advancing one round is better than none, but this is not great playoff success.)

2019: advanced one round only

2020: advanced one round only

2021: bounced in round 1 by BOS

2022: advanced one round only (but made it to ALCS)

2023: No playoffs

2024: advanced two rounds and lost WS

2025: advanced one round only vs BOS

2026: advanced one round only vs BOS

Of course this is better than the Sox in the cherry-picked 8 year span, but it's not like they lit the world on fire in the playoffs.

They made the WS once and the ALCS twice.

The Sox made the ALCS once with no WS shows.

They won 7 playoff series by your count. The Sox have won 2? 

[drewski6]

19 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

It's not just the rich.

Of the use of status symbols, Wolfe has said, "I think every living moment of a human being's life, unless the person is starving or in immediate danger of death in some other way, is controlled by a concern for status."

I read this probably 30 years ago.  I believed it then and I believe it now.  Everyone wants something that looks good.  A faster car, a nicer house, BB cards, coins, a nicer garden, a better degree, a higher ranked school, either for themselves or their children.

Im not 100% its a concern for status, maybe a concern for admiration - which status brings.  Some people want to be admired for not seeking status, but they are still seeking admiration just like status seekers do.

Regardless, this is a good post from you.

[drewski6]

11 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

It's the same with how it worked in 2004! Need to win 3 series! What's the big deal? 

Well, the league has gone top heavy.  Even if the number of series he had to win stayed constant, it was obviously much easier for Olajuwon to win when MJ was playing baseball.  But thats not an excuse to just be complacent because its tough to win.  In fact, it should make us more focused, determined, willing to do everything we can.....Not shrug that championships are hard

[JoeBrady]

1 minute ago, drewski6 said:

Im not 100% its a concern for status, maybe a concern for admiration - which status brings.  Some people want to be admired for not seeking status, but they are still seeking admiration just like status seekers do.

Regardless, this is a good post from you.

IMHO, it is the same thing.  Even people that devote their lives to honorable not-for-profit work, probably still want to be recognized for that honorable work.  Certainly not everyone, but they certainly exist.

This is off-topic, but imho, this is why people become day-traders, or house flippers, or invest in bit coin.  It's not just to make money, but to have a story about how they made their money.  Saying that you're a day trader has a lot more cache than saying 'I'm a 9-5 accountant who invests in low-cost index funds'.  It's probably more lucrative, but a heck of a lot more boring.

[JoeBrady]

7 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

Even if the number of series he had to win stayed constant, it was obviously much easier for Olajuwon to win when MJ was playing baseball.

It is one more series for most teams.  That's kind of a sizeable difference.

But you get points for mentioning the most underrated b-ball player of all tiem.

[JoeBrady]

9 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

In fact, it should make us more focused, determined, willing to do everything we can..

All the top teams already do that, within the constraints of their payroll.  Just because Mil had gotten knocked out several years in a row doesn't mean that they weren't willing to do whatever they could do to win.

[drewski6]

19 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

The use of math is not an excuse.  You seem to think that wanting to win is something that you are interested in.  Everyone in here wants to win.  They just have different opinions of how to do so.  I just read something recently about "I was just reading an article about how minds that work like this, develop rules/hard conclusions and run everything by those , are not great minds.".

My point is that our ability to win a championship is not 1/12 consistently, it varies widely.  Not just based on if we get the bye.  Not everyone has an equal chance in a series.  What the playoff outcome showed we are well behind the Yankees who are well behind the Rays.   So we've got work to do.  And clearly that work needs to be heavy on teh offensive side of things because we didnt have the offense to make a deep run.

Now moons point, is that our offense then isnt our offense next year because we are adding Mead, RA to it, but I think most here would like another bat added (at least) in addition to those 2.

[drewski6]

7 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

IMHO, it is the same thing.  Even people that devote their lives to honorable not-for-profit work, probably still want to be recognized for that honorable work.  Certainly not everyone, but they certainly exist.

This is off-topic, but imho, this is why people become day-traders, or house flippers, or invest in bit coin.  It's not just to make money, but to have a story about how they made their money.  Saying that you're a day trader has a lot more cache than saying 'I'm a 9-5 accountant who invests in low-cost index funds'.  It's probably more lucrative, but a heck of a lot more boring.

My dad was never interested in fancy stuff, keepiong up with the joneses, cars, material goods, early retirement, money.  But he wanted to be admired just as much as the people who chase that stuff.

So both he, and the people whom he considered his opposites, were similar as they both sought admiration.  The other people wanted to be admired for obtaining those things (money and power) but my dad wanted to be admired for not caring about those items.

SO yes, I agree, there is a large similarity there.  But Im not sure if they both sought "status".  What they both sought was admiration, one via obtaining symbols of status and my father wanted to be admired for "being above it".  Im just not sure its fair to say my dad sought status.  BUt I do agree he wasnt as far from the people seeking status as he wanted to believe.

Although, maybe the type of admiration my dad was after counts as status.  I do agree with your gist.

[drewski6]

14 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

It is one more series for most teams.  That's kind of a sizeable difference.

But you get points for mentioning the most underrated b-ball player of all tiem.

Okay, I can give you that.  So like lets say the western conf goes to a game 7, and whomever wins would be a 2-1 favorite vs the team that has already won the east.  The eastern team is 33% and so are both western teams because they are splitting the other 66%.  So even though whomever comes out of the west is a favorite, all 3 teams are 33% at that point in time becausse the two western teams have one more round to go through, even though they are both beter than the team that won the east.

But I do think its silly to suggest that this is the crux of getting through the playoffs.  Home field, talent, who is playiung well also heavily factor in.  Its not like both teams have an equal chance of winning a playoff series, which is what yoru 1/12 implies.

I think we would have lost the three game series to the yankees 8-10 times out of ten.  We wee that far behind them.  And if we make the playffs again next year but dont close that gap, our chances of advancing will not be super high.

So like I said yesterday, demand more.

[Old Red]

1 hour ago, moonslav59 said:

But many here count success only based on advancing in the playoffs. The Yanks have not done very well at that in the last 8 years.

(Yes, advancing one round is better than none, but this is not great playoff success.)

2019: advanced one round only

2020: advanced one round only

2021: bounced in round 1 by BOS

2022: advanced one round only (but made it to ALCS)

2023: No playoffs

2024: advanced two rounds and lost WS

2025: advanced one round only vs BOS

2026: advanced one round only vs BOS

Of course this is better than the Sox in the cherry-picked 8 year span, but it's not like they lit the world on fire in the playoffs.

They made the WS once and the ALCS twice.

The Sox made the ALCS once with no WS shows.

Ah the old cherry picker, and I agree the Yankees have not only been a better team in the regular season the last 8 years, but the postseason as well especially the last two. This was all pretty much known though, but good list anyways.

[moonslav59]

2 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

They won 7 playoff series by your count. The Sox have won 2? 

Yup, including many short series then done.

They have done better than us in the cherry-picked 8 year sample size.

[Old Red]

32 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Yup, including many short series then done.

They have done better than us in the cherry-picked 8 year sample size.

Ah there’s that Cherry-picked thing again. I agree let’s just go back to 1900, so there won’t be any kind of cherry-picking, and settle this.🤫

[moonslav59]

6 minutes ago, Old Red said:

Ah there’s that Cherry-picked thing again. I agree let’s just go back to 1900, so there won’t be any kind of cherry-picking, and settle this.🤫

Choosing 2019 as the starting point had an obvious motive and reason to it. That is what cherry-picking means. There is nothing wrong with doing it. I do it often to emphasize or support my position.

Yanks have won seven playoff series to the Sox two in the last 8 years.

It's 8-5 if you cherry-picked 9 years.

It's 8-5 if you go to 10 years. (9-5, if you count the Yanks won a WC game and the Sox got a bye and lost rd 1) We are talking series.

It stays Yanks 8- Sox 5 back to 2013, when it becomes 8-8.

Yanks go up 9-8 since 2012 and 10-8 in 2010.

It's at 12-8 after NYYs WS win in 2009.

The Sox bring it to 12-9 after 2008 and tie it up 12-12 in 2007. (20 year sample size.)

The Sox only get the lead when we cherry pick a 21 year sample size (Sox up 15-13.) -2004

2003: BOS 16- NYY 15

In 2001: The Yanks grab the lead back at 17-16, and before that, they lead until the start of baseball.

Yes, cherry-picking can yield desired results.

Want a mini lesson on the meaning of "strawman?"

 

 

[JoeBrady]

4 hours ago, drewski6 said:

So both he, and the people whom he considered his opposites, were similar as they both sought admiration

Have you ever considered that this isn't necessarily a bad thing?

[notin]

6 hours ago, drewski6 said:

Sounds like youve built a nice little excuse for yourself to avoid having to analyze failures.  I understand winning a championship is hard, nobody is denying that.  But not everyone who makes the playoffs has an equal likelihood, and talent does matter.  SO do many other things.

But in 5 years, we havent won a single playoff series or finished higher than third.  And if we keep tyring to merely be good enough to make the playoffs (we wouldnt have made it in the NL btw), then the percentage chance that we make a deep run will suppress.  

One reason why its harder to win in the playoffs is because other playoff teams are generally good.  So rather than striving to be one of the 12, maybe you should adjust and strive to be the best of the 12.  But that would shatter your excuse that playoffs are just a crapshoot.

“We wouldn’t have made it in the NL” is straight up conjecture.  Sure their record against AL opponents didn’t have enough wins, but the Sox were also the only team in the postseason to play in a division with two other teams that won 90 games.

The folks who like the negative hypotheticals are always the first to speak out against the positive ones…

[notin]

5 hours ago, Old Red said:

Ah the old cherry picker, and I agree the Yankees have not only been a better team in the regular season the last 8 years, but the postseason as well especially the last two. This was all pretty much known though, but good list anyways.

So if we’re going to compare the postseason frustrations of the Sox, why are they getting compared to another team that isn’t winning titles and then went and got sent home 3 games later?  Is that really the new benchmark for success?  “I just want the Sox to suck less!”

[Old Red]

3 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

Choosing 2019 as the starting point had an obvious motive and reason to it. That is what cherry-picking means. There is nothing wrong with doing it. I do it often to emphasize or support my position.

Yanks have won seven playoff series to the Sox two in the last 8 years.

It's 8-5 if you cherry-picked 9 years.

It's 8-5 if you go to 10 years. (9-5, if you count the Yanks won a WC game and the Sox got a bye and lost rd 1) We are talking series.

It stays Yanks 8- Sox 5 back to 2013, when it becomes 8-8.

Yanks go up 9-8 since 2012 and 10-8 in 2010.

It's at 12-8 after NYYs WS win in 2009.

The Sox bring it to 12-9 after 2008 and tie it up 12-12 in 2007. (20 year sample size.)

The Sox only get the lead when we cherry pick a 21 year sample size (Sox up 15-13.) -2004

2003: BOS 16- NYY 15

In 2001: The Yanks grab the lead back at 17-16, and before that, they lead until the start of baseball.

Yes, cherry-picking can yield desired results.

Want a mini lesson on the meaning of "strawman?"

 

 

Ah The Man Behind The CURTAIN.. Pay NO attention to the Man Behind The Curtain. The last two years means the most right now. 0-2, or just 0-1 in the all important here, and NOW.😜

[mvp 78]

16 hours ago, JoeBrady said:

IMHO, it is the same thing.  Even people that devote their lives to honorable not-for-profit work, probably still want to be recognized for that honorable work.  Certainly not everyone, but they certainly exist.

This is off-topic, but imho, this is why people become day-traders, or house flippers, or invest in bit coin.  It's not just to make money, but to have a story about how they made their money.  Saying that you're a day trader has a lot more cache than saying 'I'm a 9-5 accountant who invests in low-cost index funds'.  It's probably more lucrative, but a heck of a lot more boring.

I think it's just your worldview TBH.

[mvp 78]

14 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

Yup, including many short series then done.

They have done better than us in the cherry-picked 8 year sample size.

Yes, recently they have done MUCH better than the Sox. They also are in the playoffs year in and year out. We can't say that about the Sox. 

[mvp 78]

10 hours ago, notin said:

So if we’re going to compare the postseason frustrations of the Sox, why are they getting compared to another team that isn’t winning titles and then went and got sent home 3 games later?  Is that really the new benchmark for success?  “I just want the Sox to suck less!”

If you'd like to compare them to the Dodgers post Betts trade, go ahead. It'd be far more depressing though!

[notin]

1 hour ago, mvp 78 said:

If you'd like to compare them to the Dodgers post Betts trade, go ahead. It'd be far more depressing though!

I’d at least understand why.  Although part of me thinks even the most gluttonous free agent hoarder might be overwhelmed by the spending that team has done…

[mvp 78]

7 minutes ago, notin said:

I’d at least understand why.  Although part of me thinks even the most gluttonous free agent hoarder might be overwhelmed by the spending that team has done…

"Yeah, we've spent too much recently. We probably DON'T need Skubal this time." 

I'm not sure many Dodgers fans are thinking this. 

[drewski6]

11 hours ago, JoeBrady said:

Have you ever considered that this isn't necessarily a bad thing?

That people strive to be admired / accepted ? Ive never considered it a universally bad thing.

[drewski6]

11 hours ago, notin said:

So if we’re going to compare the postseason frustrations of the Sox, why are they getting compared to another team that isn’t winning titles and then went and got sent home 3 games later?  Is that really the new benchmark for success?  “I just want the Sox to suck less!”

I would like to put up more fight in the playoffs.  Tis a bit deflating when we are never really in the series.  But we were in it in 2025, we won game 1 and game 2 was close.  Sure game 3 got away a bit but end result isnt always indicative of how tight the series was.  But yes, if we put up more fight and lose, I will be happy.

Its the complacency / acceptance that bothers me , not that we dont win every year.  I just want to try to get more offense without Brez's ego/mouth getting in his own way.  But Moon would point out that we are seeeing that with Mead and AR, and I was happy with those moves.

But I dont like all the poo-pooing of quality guys we could help.  For example you, and you know Im a big fan of yours, chalking up my desire to get alonso/bregman to thirst that if was quenched, was only quenched for appeasement.  

Its not really fair to say that Alonso would have been just for a thirsty fanbase when he led the AL in homeruns and we so clearly lacked slug.

[drewski6]

Alonso got what a 170M contract, there are contracts in teh 300m range, 400m range, 500m, 600m, 700m range.  To not spend 170m on 45 HR when you need them, and not even make an effort....And then have the fans tell us that we should be glad they didnt feels off.

But the past is the past.  And Im not sure we can recover 2027 from the mistakes we made in 2026 (not getting any of alonso, bregman, schwarber) - but you and moon are doing a good job of showing me that avenues to improve are usually present and suzuki would be a good add.

Im not certain we are screwed, but Im certain that if we are complacent with an offense that has been stuck in the mud, we arent exactly doing everything we can to get over the hump.  To go from 20th to 11th (passing those 9 teams) is easier than going from 11th to 2nd (passing the next 11 teams).  

One of my favorite things that Joe Brady ever said was you can pass a lot of teams in the AL by just standing still, cuz many are jogging backwards.  Like the Rangers trying to shave money after winning it all. But that was extenuating circumstances cuz their tv deal went south.