example1

You are arguing into thin air. Nothing you are arguing has anything to do with my point. I think the big market teams have an obligation to set realistic expectations for the number of wins they get, and that expectation should be high. The Red Sox under Theo set their goal as 95 wins on a yearly basis, because that number would get them to the playoffs. 6 times out of 9 they got 95 wins or more, and all 6 times they made it. 3 times they did not get it, and they missed the playoffs. Seems like 95 wins is a pretty good expectation if making the playoffs is something you would also like to accomplish. Your point was that small market teams can have goals around "wins" but big market teams have to base success and failure on making the ALCS. I'm saying that all teams have goals around wins, with certain numbers of wins correlating with making the playoffs every year, and other amounts not correlating with that. You are making a strawman argument about whether 2011 was successful or something.... I'm not saying it was successful. They didn't get 95 wins. They missed it by 5 games. If they had reached it, they would have been in the playoffs. The difference is that your view (playoffs: yay/nay) vs my view (number of wins) gives me a scale of success. Yours has two categories. In measurement, it is better to have an interval or ratio level scale than a nominal scale whenver possible.

What did that win percentage get those guys? It seems that by any measure we might pick, division titles is the least relevant. Not winning a division didn't prevent them from making the playoffs, winning in the playoffs or winning the world series. They are in the same division as the Yankees. Given that it seems that division titles would be a poor choice of measures to evaluate success. They cam gave baseballs second best record in the beat division in the tougher league yet still be considered a failure in terms of success. I still prefer wins.

This is silly. The team can't hold it's ultimate measure of success as something outside of it's control. Their nu Bet one goal every year--as agreed upon by theo and the entire front office was to win 95 games. In mist years that was the amount necessary to make the playoffs historically and because of that it offered a reasonable benchmark. That benchmark exists independent of what other teams do and is therefore a better aim than making the playoffs, or winning the ALCS. Both of those require luck that cannot be controlled. Winning 95 games is not easy, and it doesn't assure you of a playoff spot but more often than not it will get you there. It also allows you to build a team with certain parameters in mind, because run differential is highly predictive of won-loss record. Notice that my claim is not that they succeeded in the goal of 95 wins every year. They didn't. In the years they missed the playoffs the responsibility is on them, nobody else. What I'm saying is that if there is one golden mark that this team aims for year in and year out, it is wins. Without enough wins to get to the playoffs an ALCS is impossible. Wins are tangible and predictable based on runs scored or prevented. Winning the ALCS is not. Just ask every other team in baseball. How are the yankees doing in your categories lately? Why isn't Cashman fired? Because they recognize that making the playoffs is a much better indicator of consistent quality team construction than the reams arbitrary performance in a short playoff series. Which team would you put money on, the 2011 phillies or the 2011 cardinals? I go with the Philadelphia ten times out of ten. Five of those ten times the cardinals aren't even in the playoffs while the phils would be there every year.

Also, I'm curious if you've thought about this as a percentage. You listed off the totals of their accomplishments during your fandom prior to this ownership. Would you mind presenting that as a percentage? This ownership group has made the playoffs 6 times in 9 seasons. Just a quick use of Excel shows that this ownership group has averaged 93 wins in 9 years. The previous 9 years averaged 83 wins. (1994-2002) The previous 9 years averaged 83 wins. (1986-1994) The previous 9 years averaged 85 wins. (1976-1985) The previous 9 years averaged 88 wins. (1967-1975) The previous 9 years averaged 73 wins. (1958-1966) The previous 9 years averaged 84 wins. (1949-1957) The previous 9 years averaged 85 wins. (1939-1948) Even when I cherry pick seasons to include the 9 best seasons around multiple 90 win runs it doesn't approach 93 wins: (1975-1979): Best 9 years including those years: 1971-1979 averaged 89.7 (round to 90) wins (1946-1950): Best 9 years including those years: 1946-1954 avearaged 87.6 (round to 88) wins I don't see how any argument could be made that this team has ever had such a sustained period of success. This doesn't even mention the fact that they have won two world series in that time. I think WINS are a much better barometer of success than playoff appearances. Wins are something the team can control. Playoff appearances depend on the play of other teams over the course of a season. Hell, not counting 2007, this team has finished in first place 13 times. In those seasons, the team averaged FEWER wins than this current ownership has: Average wins for 13 first place teams: 92.84 Average wins for 9 JH/TW/LL teams: 93.22

This ownership has won the 2nd most games of all teams in baseball during its tenure. That's not an inflated record, its a fact. The existence of the wild card was a strategic reality for this team, meaning they didn't have to win the division. It simply didn't matter as much as entering the playoffs healthy. People may not like that, but it is also a fact about how this team strategized.

Well, if there is anyone you could imagine being a good DH for awhile it would be Pujols. He's the best hitter in baseball and has been since he entered the league.

There is a lot that could go wrong for the angels. Very very risky. Will be good for a few years, beyond that it is anybody's guess.

That's exactly what the sox are doing, waiting out the market and taking the best of what's around at that point. Bullpen arms are so freaking variable that I can't say I blame them once the best arms are gone. I doubt it is strategy they can use every year but when short of money it makes sense. Also, it's not that they are short of money, there is just a huge disincentive to break the LT again this year which will open better opportunities for the future. All that said I wouldn't hate it if they blew it up for Darvish if they think he is the real deal. He'll, there is nothing wrong with winning the posting just to keep him from the Yankees and Rangers. I suspect they feel the same way though. There could be a huge price for this posting.

Yu Darvish: Being Posted Thursday - 12/7/2011 10:24:30 PM Update: Darvish has confirmed on his blog that he will be posted Thursday. Recommendation: Darvish is considered Japan's top pitcher and perhaps the best player to come over from Japan since Ichiro Suzuki. He's 18-6 with a 1.44 ERA and 276 strikeouts in 232 innings this season. Expect a significant bidding war to ensue as he's believed to be a higher upside arm than Daisuke Matsuzaka was upon arrival to the Red Sox. http://www.rotowire.com/Yu-Darvish-googid384418-spmlb.htm

If nothing else, this move gives them a contract that they can drop next year in an effort to open up money for a FA pitcher like Hamels or Cain (assuming they don't get extensions, etc.,). With Dice-K, Jenks and Scutaro all coming off the books at that time, they would be looking at something like $35m coming off the books. Hopefully with another year of Kalish/Reddick, Lavarnway, Middlebrooks, Iglesias or Lowrie all finding a spot, they will have just about every position locked down and could use most of that money on the rotation. It's wishful thinking, but is a reasonable rationale for their approach. Also, as far as we know, they could have other things up their sleeves for 2012. NWIH they are planning on just sitting around hoping things go well, and wasting the prime years of guys like Lester, Buchholz, Gonzalez, Pedroia and Ellsbury.

Doesn't being at the winter meetings as a reporter sound like a great job? Geez, these reporters with their innane tweets. Why do they even bother 80% of the time. A quiet day should be just that, QUIET! A700, someday when I'm old and wealthy, we should meet up down there and do a talksox update thread. Interview random agents, occasional press conferences with GMs, lots of sitting around, arguing across the table from one another over drinks. Sounds fun, actually.

He's one of the few MLB players I literally know nothing about. Perhaps ^ this is why.

Yes. This is all based on his health report, of course. With Zumaya as a MR from the RHP side and Morales from the LHP side they would have two pretty good situational relievers. Neither are long relief options, but in particular matchups they would be tough.

I agree with just about everything you're saying here. The Sox can deal with him for multi years before his decision on arb, I believe. That would basically be him declining arbitration and resigning. Perhaps they want him to decline it so they can do the multi year deal immediately, and move on to other issues. Maybe that's what the article was implying with the deny and sign discussion. That would make sense. If he goes on the market I think he will struggle to get a deal bigger than two years/$16m on the market. Maybe he would get it, I just think that's a lot of money for an aging DH. Plus, if he declines arbitration and goes out to look for better offers, the Sox can basically just hover with a reasonable offer (for them) that probably pays less than they are offering currently. Tough spot for both sides, honestly. Plus, once he's on the market he

No, not that much. The guy hasn't thrown more than 40 innings since 2006. Perhaps the opportunity for a major role and playing on a contender would entice him to Boston?

Although I don't understand the strong push for Ortiz either, I suspect they might be using public statements about wanting him back in the place of the money that he wants. In other words, they offered him arbitration which they are clearly willing to accept on a one-year deal. He wants a multi-year deal. They might bid really low on a multi-year deal, throw in some good publicity and hope that it works. If he leaves, no harm. They have money to spend on pitching, have Lavarnway and others to fill his spot, and get some draft picks. Either way, the publicity plays to Ortiz's ego and plays to whatever portion of the fanbase might be sad--particularly if he lands in NY. It just doesn't seem like he's worth a multi-year deal for significant money at this point. He thinks he is. Usually when that's the case, the player is free to go, or accept the Sox terms. They are trying to sweeten it with priority visits by Bobby V and some really good press about how much they want him back. If they REALLY wanted him, they would reach deep, fork over the 3 year, $12m deal he wants, and go bargain hunting for a pitcher.

Any team that leads the league in OBP, SLG, OPS, Total Bases, Runs, Hits, and XBH is far from mediocre.

Your numbers about Bard sure don't paint a pretty picture. Of course, they are somewhat misleading. Bard was, by all measures, one of the leagues best RP last year. As for facing Teixeira and being uncomfortable, I was uncomfortable with papelbon facing him too. That's not going away regardless of who they sign. That's what happens with good hitters and is how opposing closets feel about some sox players.