example1

I don't care about the ticket prices, actually. I have the opportunity to see them maybe once a year, often zero times. I don't lose sleep over it.

Who cares if the media gets fired up? Thats what they are paid to do. It has no barring on reality necessarily.

I would say "he might not get more than one more manager to turn it around". If the next hand-picked guy has a legitimate run (which, with this management team, will be 3-4 years most likely) and fails then bye bye Theo. It isn't one more year. That's too quick IMO. Especially if they make the playoffs or contend for the division. With the 2nd Wild Card potentially on the way, many of you may never get your dream of seeing Theo shown the door.

Thanks for the clarification about Real Madrid. I see them 'competing' with Barcelona and their high payroll and figure that they are a top team. I guess I was wrong. MLB doesn't have the equivalent of the FA cup, league cup, etc., but the closest thing would be the division. Needless to say, MU hasn't won the Champions League for a few years despite being a consistent contender. I realize your knowledge of football is stronger than mine. I'd be happy to debate any of the other sports that I listed if you would rather.. college football, NBA, NHL, NFL. Next time I won't be so accomodating.

If you are thinking of starting a thread with "I hope" or "Why don't" or some similar declarative statement, just stop yourself. Either make it an interesting topic ("Do people have their hopes up?") or find another, pre-existing thread to make your point. That is all.

Nice A700. I'm not saying it isn't his fault. I'm saying that "it" isn't the end of the world. A team that is the front runner to get in the playoffs. A team that led the AL East with the 2nd best record in baseball going into September. A team that has the 3rd best record over the past 4 years. The difference between where they are now and winning the AL East and being favorites to win the AL might be Theo's fault, but that's not the same as saying that if Theo weren't here they would be doing better. There is no assurance of that at all. None.

Would you be happier with a mediocre non-playoff team for half the ticket prices?

Given tht records are variable based on opponents and division, I would say that consistently being the 3rd best team means you are truly among the game's elite teams year after year. Take a poll of any fan about the best franchises of the 2000s and undoubtedly the Yankees, Sox, and Phillies will be in the top 5 every time. What would I want to see before they make a move at GM? Probably multiple seasons where they weren't in contention for a playoffs spot by early August. Probably teams that are so bad that a "collapse" isn't even a possibility because they suck too bad all year long. Teams that are incapable of beating the Yankees and other good teams head-to-head. Certainly not a team that has the 3rd best record in the sport over the past 4 years. Again, with the comparison to other sports in mind, I would need to see the team have a period of futility much closer to that of Notre Dame than that of Texas (who haven't won since 2005). If you don't follow college football, then the better comparison would be Manchester United or Real Madrid. Neither is Barcelona, but nobody would say they suck and should be entirely overhauled for an off season here or there. Have some freaking faith!

This needs to be said (mostly because I just spent a few hours compiling the numbers in Excel) : Since 2008, the Red Sox have averaged the THIRD most wins in baseball: NYY-95.5 PHI-95 BOS-91.75 LAA-90.5 TBR-90.5 STL-87.25 TEX-86.5 MIL-84.5 ATL-84.25 LAD-84 To put that in perspective, here are the teams in their respective sports who have averaged the 3rd most wins in the game during that time: NBA: Los Angeles Lakers- 59 Boston Celtics-59 Orlando Magic-56 San Antonio Spurs Dallas Mavericks NHL: San Jose Sharks- 50.3 Detroit Red Wings-49.0 Washington Capitals-48.8 Pittsburgh Penguins-47 Vancouver Canucks-46.8 NFL: Patriots (12.75) Colts (12.25) Steelers (10.75) Chargers (10.25) Giants (10) Packers (10) Cowboys (9.75) Saints (9.75) Eagles (9.5) College Football: I gathered a list of all teams that had finished in the top 25 in the past 4 years. Then I averaged the top THREE end of season ranks for all of those teams. Using that system, the most consistently good college football teams over the past 4 years (not counting 2011, obviousy) are (with Best 3 average): Ohio State--5 TCU--5 Texas--5.33 Alabama--5.66 Florida--5.66 Oklahoma--6.33 Boise State--8 Oregon--8 LSU--8.66 USC--9.33 To want to fire a team's GM because the team has 'only' managed to have the 3rd best overall record during the last 4 years seems pretty spoiled, if you ask me. I expect this team to win it all again soon, even if they have a s***** September. Yes, some moves will need to be made, but it isn't like we are starting with a really s***** team as some are arguing.

This doesn't make sense to me. They should spend money to send away Crawford, the very money they free up by letting Ortiz go? Then they should plug the hole in LF with... whom? Someone with a better track record than Crawford? That player will end up costing as much if not more than Crawford because they will be using the Ortiz money and a good portion of Crawford's salary to pay for him. I understand you are frustrated--and you have a right to be--but I really think it is best to focus on what might realistically happen with this team. This is an instance on this team and this board where the cooler heads really must prevail. There's a lot of Chicken-littleism going on here (not just you) that really should be tempered a bit.

He doesn't even allow a catcher to do his job. He reinforces teams' ability to run against the Sox at will. If he were a "standard" 5th, 6th, 7th or 8th starter than yes. But he gives up a hit, allows a SB, throws a passed-ball, and then a hit turns into a run with a ground ball to the right side. This team is too good for that s***. Hang 'em up Tim. Thanks for the memories.

You don't think they've improved? That's laughable. The 2011 team was on pace to put up huge numbers and slowed down the last month of the season. They have guys who can win GG and be all stars at multiple positions and aren't super old, as far as age goes. The results this season are much more a blip on the radar than a patented failure. They added a cornerstone offensive and defensive player (basically a Teixeira, maybe better) and a guy in his prime who is a multi-time all star to replace Bay. Let's check in about whether or not Gonzalez and Crawford were good additions in a few years.

I just don't have any way of knowing how hungry Theo is or isn't lately. I don't have the fortune of knowing him personally to make a claim like that. I bet you would have thought he was pretty hungry if this team had 100 wins and was competing for the best record in the league. That makes me think it isn't hunger you are really measuring but results, which is fair but different. I'm willing to bet that Theo is losing sleep over these results just like Tito because they actually care. I don't think they are complacent they are just in a tough spot right now.

Also, about the depth issue, also a Theo issue. I just don't decapitate the organization because of it. In previous years, he tried to mitigate this by signing guys like Smoltz, Miller, Penny, Colon, etc., and they ended up being ineffective or hurt and everyone complained about the strategy itself. It seems that Theo can't win for losing... That's the reality of being the GM in Boston, I suppose.

I think that a GM can take accountability, but just as you don't release an otherwise established quarterback for a few poor performances, you don't get rid of someone who is obviously very talented because you are impulsively frustrated with the direction the team has gone. I think the 2010 offseason was a combination of big spending to improve the team, AND to improve the sellability of the team. In my heart I think Theo was very happy with the Adrian Gonzalez deal, but I just don't believe that he would have selected Crawford as the player he wanted to spend 20m on. I think that was ownership saying "you're going to get another established star and we're going to sell season tickets". Now, they might throw him under the bus for that. As GM he's certainly not in a position to say "no" when Warner and Henry tell him to get someone (and, it should be noted, Warner pledged on WEEI in the early offseason that they were going to make a significant trade and significant FA signing... before Crawford was even rumored). At the same time, the ownership group may know that Theo didn't choose to put an Ellsbury clone in LF to create an overabundance of LHH OFs with Crawford having no obvious spot in the lineup. Crawford's low OBP and patience, combined with only decent power makes me wonder what the plan was for him. I still like him a lot and am happy with him on the team moving forward (don't have much choice) but he doesn't seem like a Theo guy... does he? Basically, I don't think you let a probably HOF caliber FO guy go in his late 30s. It seems like a potential disaster. He has two WS and has populated the rest of the game with his proteges, with likely more to come. You don't let him go because the team shat the bed over a few week period. I actually think the calls for him to be let go are ridiculous, but we can disagree on that. As for accountability, I think Tito might be worthy of some blame. I like the guy personally, and think he's done well, but in terms of being able to shake up the culture of this team a little bit, they could probably do that effectively with the right guy. With the wrong guy it could be disasterous, but I like what I see from Joe Madden and Mike Scioscia and a few other seemingly reasonable managers who play a little bit of small-ball, seem to be good players-managers, and get W's. Of course, the grass is almost always greener, no? I would put this season's blame mostly on the feet of the players. A combination of key injuries like Youkilis and Buchholz, and s***** play from Lackey and Crawford. Lackey in particular has been absolutely terrible. Perhaps the hardest part of all of this is that it potentially squanders the best season Josh Beckett will have for the rest of his career. A good Josh Beckett is a WS winning Josh Beckett. Hopefully he's put it together to be an elite arm at this point, but his success has been fleeting and I hope he's able to keep it going.

I'm starting this early because, in the face of frustration about the current team, we have already started talking about the offseason. As noted in my Optimism Thread, I'm not at all giving up on rooting for this team, but why waste good offseason discussion in a tread like the 9/21 game thread, or the "This has to be said" thread. Lots of potential departures/moves for this team, but for better or worse I suspect that the core of this team will remain intact. The best players on the team next year are likely to be (in no apparent order): Beckett, Lester, Buchholz, Ellsbury, Pedroia, Youklis, Crawford, Gonzalez, and Bard. Not a bad core, if you ask me. Questions remain about the longterm role of Ortiz and Papelbon... What should this team do? What do you think they will do? Hopefully this thread has a long future... enjoy when you are ready.

I'm pulling this from another thread I posted it in, trying to bring back some of the good fortune that this thread brought us earlier this year. If you don't have something optimistic to say, or at least neutral, just post it somewhere else please... If you remember, at the beginning of the season I did a B-R search to see which teams had ever started that poorly to have success at the end of the season. I found a few that made it to the playoffs and a couple that won the WS. (see beginning of this thread) I tried to do the same thing for this type of finished and really struggled to find one. In fact, I think there is only one comparable recent example that offers any optimism: 2000 NY Yankees That Yankees team went 5-16 in its last 21 games. They won the division by 2.5 games over the Sox. They won only 87 games. They lost their last 7 games. They ended up winning the World Series. It is little hope, I realize. In order for the Sox to match that last 21 games the Yankees had, they would need to go 2-4 the rest of the way. Given that, I wouldn't say it is out of the realm of possibility. The Yankees played better ball in September than the Red Sox have this year, despite their s***** finish. However, the Sox already have more wins than that Yankees team had at the end of the season, so maybe that equals out? All in all, given the very few teams who have ever started as poorly as the Sox did and still ended up in the playoffs, this team has come a long way--no matter what the initial expectations were. Once they were 2-10 (or whatever) they were in a select group of longshots. If they make the playoffs they will be one of those teams to have made it despite s***** starts. That may end up being a disappointment to all of us, but it is a reality in 100+ years of baseball results.

Is he? He's only 32 years old?!?!

Why can't Aviles be that utility role? He seems like a better bat, is younger, faster, etc.,? CJ Wilson will also be targeted by NYY, no? Not that that should dissuade them, but it seems unlikely. How about Buehrle? He's not that good, but he has 11 seasons of 200+ IP in a row, and is known as an effecient innings eater who can go and go. He's only 33 years old too. Seems like the kind of fit the Sox could push, especially with high incentives even for 200+ IP of healthy pitching.

Congrats to the Yankees. Another f*** you in my soul, but good for them. This is an impressive accomplishment.

They are not getting rid of Crawford. I think you should probably put that out of your mind at this point. After watching his performance tonight, I am actually heartened by his potential. He's a really dynamic player. Remember, Ellsbury looked completely overmatched for substantial periods of previous seasons too, and Curtis Granderson looked like s*** in his first year in NY. Even really good players can suck. I probably wouldn't sign him again if they had the opportunity to go back in time. I also hate the cost of his contract no matter how good he is. However, I think we're stuck with him. EDIT 1: Hell no you shouldn't add Bard to that list. If you're advocating for Papelbon to stick around, you have to give Bard a chance despite a s***** month. He was really, really good for a long time, has tremendous stuff and pitchers like him don't come around often. EDIT 2: The rest of that list can go, but they shouldn't move guys like Reddick or Lowrie for nothing. At least get good young talent or a decent reliever or something.

Aceves should get a 2 year extension, and should be a serious contender for the #5 starter spot, if they can't find anyone better.