a700hitter

The wanting to see your team win when you go to the game argument really wasn't the best way to make the argument. So, would you rather the Sox average 95 wins a year for 10 years, but finish second to the Yanks every year, or average 90-91 wins and finish first every year?

Boise State and Alabama? I can't relate to that, because I don't care much about any college sports. I never said that it wasn't more difficult to beat the Yankees than other teams. My point is that it has always be more difficult to beat the Yankees than other teams, not just since 2002. The Sox from 1972 -2002 did a better job of beating the Yankees more often. The Yanks have been owned by the Steinbrenner family for the entire period and it was always tough to beat them. That being said, we used to beat them more often in the first 30 years of Steinbrenner than the last 10, so it is not an excuse for this ownership vs. past ownership.

This is a huge cop out. Steinbrenner has owned the Yanks since 1972 and he always lavished money on the team, yet we beat the Yanks in the standings more often before this ownership took over. Yankee money is not an excuse, because Steinbrenner always spent big. Also, the Rays have beaten the Yanks twice in 10 years just like us and they have a lot less money than either team.

Win percentage means little. That's my point. As you point out, the Sox are in the same division as the Yankees, their chief rivals. Beating the Yanks is a good measure of success. We've done it twice in 10 years and one of those times the Rays beat us out for the division. Prior to this ownership, we used to beat the Yankees more often.

For all the great things the ownership has done in building this financial giant of an enterprise the team management from the GM down should have done better than win 1 Division title. Finishing first once in 10 years is nothing great to crow about. It's just not. I don't care how many wins we have averaged. Both Zimmer Little had a better win percentages with the Sox than Francona, but I wouldn't say either that he was a better manager than Tito. Average # of wins don't mean a whole lot.

Another possible under the radar move for Ben & Cherries?

I never said that this ownership's tenure had been a laughingstock, but the last couple of years have been a big disappointment. As you have pointed out this has been a period of "great wealth" and because the Sox owners have built this huge financial enterprise, they (not us the fans) can't tolerate back to back years like 2010 and 2011 and follow it up with no playoffs in 2012. The brand they have built is one of excellence. What happened in 2011 with the collapse hurt that brand whether you want to believe it or not, because it was a collapse that was not only unprecedented in Red Sox history but in the history of baseball. It was the reason why the owners cleaned house with regard to FO and onfield management. Whether you want to believe Theo was shown the door or not, in the words of Hawk Harrelson--"He gone!" Based on Ben's statement this week, they really have little interest in getting compensation for Theo. It is because of the great pains that the current ownership has made in building this tremendous brand that I think they will build a team in 2012 that will return to the playoffs even if it means breaking the LT cap. Up to this point of the off season, the FO has made no moves in that direction. The moves that have been made are going in the wrong direction IMO. Until Ben & Cherries starts making moves in the right direction I will remain uneasy and upset about 2011. It was a disgrace and it did turn the Sox temporarily into a laughingstock as result of poor leadership and dysfunctional management.

Did you even bother to read my last post before posting this? As usual, you overreact to everything.

I'm not hammering the current ownership. You always take things that way. I realize the things you are saying. I am, however, saying that the team that captured my interest in 1967 and kept it throughout the decades since was not a team of failure as some would like to think, but rather a very exciting, competitive and successful team for many of those years. The single thing with regard to which this ownership has completely outstripped its predecessors has been making money. They have turned this franchise into a huge financial success. It is for this reason why they must continually put out a successful, not just a competitive team. That is the byproduct of having created this huge financial enterprise.

The Sox I grew up with missed the playoffs by 1 game and one time they even missed by half of a game. They also made the post season 8 times. This includes 3 trips to the World Series, 6 League or Division Championships (5 more than current ownership) and 2 Wild Card Trips all before current ownership took over the team. Five of those trips were prior to the existence of a Wild Card. If the Wild card had existed in the prior years, they would have had a few more post seasons. The Wild Card opportunity has made this ownership look much better in its record than it is. With no Wild Card like in the time when I grew up, this ownership would have made the post season once in 10 years. There's your perspective.

He makes $9 million? Screw that!! We can do better than him.:thumbdown

I'm not complaining about him not doing anything. I am waiting for him to do something positive. So far, he has done two things given Papi arbitration, which was a bad move and letting papelbon walk-- good move or bad move it makes us weaker. If he pays Madson almost the same as Papelbon, he's a jackass.

He could be useful as a swingman, spot starter depth guy.

Because for 4/$50 they could have kept a far superior pitcher in Papelbon.

A possible under the radar acquisition for Ben & Cherries?

A Salty jersey? Talk about your AAAA players.

But for the next 3-5 years the Angel's fans will get to watch a very special player.

If the Sox sign Madson for 4/$44, I will be so pissed.

The thing about the Hall of Fame is that there are no levels of distinction. The guys there are just the best in the history of the game. Pujols and ARod should both end up in Cooperstown, and people can debate about who was the better player. Yes, Pujols is the superior hitter, but the game includes more than that. ARod could run like the wind, steal tons of bases, play great SS covering lots of ground with a canon arm. I'd probably pick ARod to start a team, but maybe my metrics for base running and fielding etc. are a little different from WAR. No single stat is definitive in determining who is the better player. It may be the best measure out there, but it is not definitive.

Stealth Aircraft. :lol: Very funny.

That type of attitude tends to spread if it goes unchecked.