sk7326
-
Posts
7,633 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Boston Red Sox Videos
2026 Boston Red Sox Top Prospects Ranking
Boston Red Sox Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
Guides & Resources
2025 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker
News
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by sk7326
-
That is not realistic. Every team faces this. Prospects graduate - and then there might be more but they are in Single A or something.
-
The cliffs were not because they didn't try - or because of weird financial constraints. They were because the players did not perform as planned. That is a huge difference than pretending the Red Sox are a mid-tier college football team.
-
If a team built with Betts, Benintendi, Devers and a ginormous pile of money cannot keep a contender going - then somebody is doing it wrong. Nobody argues that decisions have to be made - I am certainly not arguing keeping this team together until Bradley is 37. But letting 27-28 year old Top 20 players walk on principle is not what fans should have to expect. If you are defining a cliff by "oh bother, look at all these decisions - I guess we'll be a 70 win team in 2021" - then that doesn't make any sense.
-
Every team will go through that. If there is a legitimate cliff in 2 years where none of a wildly high revenue team's core is even 28 then it raises questions about what the heck this is all for.
-
There is not actually much evidence that Moose is a great 3B defensively vs just letting a 21 year old grow in the way he has since he was 17
-
They charge fans more than virtually any other team ... that is my answer. Winning rings is better than just missing 10 years in a row. But baseball affords almost no control of winning vs just missing. If you can make the tournament 8 years out of 10, that is 8 legitimate chances to win the title. Baseball is not like the NCAA Tournament where MD-Eastern Shore is happy to be there to be a first round speed bump for Kansas or Duke. You make the draw - you can just get hot for a month and presto. In a world where in my lifetime, an 83-78 team and an 85-77 team won the whole thing, the only thing a team builder can do is give his team a swing at winning the 11-12 games.
-
I know! One whole season. But the sentiment is right. True #1 seeds guarantee very little. If you do WS (best team - I mostly went with best record, but used some judgment to account for differences in division strength) 2017: Astros won (Dodgers) 2016: Cubs (Cubs) 2015: Royals (Cardinals) 2014: Giants (Angels) 2013: Red Sox (Red Sox) 2012: Giants (Nationals) 2011: Cardinals (Phillies) 2010: Giants (Phillies) 2009: Yankees (Yankees) 2008: Phillies (Rays) 2007: Red Sox (Red Sox) 2006: Cardinals (Yankees) 2005: White Sox (White Sox) 2004: Red Sox (Yankees) So - realistically 5 times in 14 years where what felt like the best team did not win the title. I think this reflects the reality of baseball. While it is not purely random (the cream rises somewhat) ... there is almost never a baseball playoffs where I would bet ANY team against the field.
-
Since playoffs are so flukey - there is no proven way to ensure continued tournament success - better to get to the tournament and see what happens. Seriously, the Cubs were the best team in baseball by a mile last year - and still had to be life and death to beat Cleveland. The Dodgers were the best team in baseball by a mile this year - and lost a Game 7 at home. The best team wins pretty darn rarely in this sport.
-
If the window closes in 2 seasons it is because the Red Sox chose not to serve their fans properly.
-
The cliff is entirely self-determined. It cannot be a true cliff if none of your stars will be even 29 by then.
-
Really Moose vs Hosmer is whether you prefer Hosmer's vastly superior on base skills vs the Moustakas being an average-little above average 3B. Citing UZR for 1st basemen value has a lot of problems anyway. It seems like Hosmer is perfectly fine there - there are a few in the Bellinger/ old timey Keith Hernandez level ... but the vast majority are meh, and Hosmer is in that pile.
-
The 2013 season was in large part the 2011 team which won 90 games (while blowing a playoff spot of course) with some decent health and a couple of out of nowhere seasons (which you always need). So much of the 2012 disaster was injury related that simply normal health was going to put them at least above average.
-
Except the Red Sox in 2012 had (on paper) an 85-90 team already if they just stayed healthy!
-
Most teams use WAR, but their own proprietary flavor ... of course you knew that.
-
OThey screwed up the sell-off in 2014 by trying to add major leaguers - I agree. But what I was referring to more was that they turned their team over to younger players over those years, the way the Yankees did. They had a couple of last place finishes where they played younger players ... but they also were still trying to win. The Yankees were certainly trying to win as well. Moreover - I have to push back on this idea that the Astros and Red Sox are galaxies apart here - the teams are fairly close.
-
This
-
A lot of the time. But again, the level of scouting and competition is much higher. Not every start is against the Cubs or Astros.
-
I think there is some scattered - it also has to be noted that the quality of competition skyrockets, which might be a bigger factor than anything. And - this is relevant with Kershaw and Price - a lot of the time the issues have been 3rd time through the order and whatnot ... which are things which managers are increasingly vigilant about attacking. (see last night)
-
We kind of did in 2014-15
-
Price delivered 1 decent season - which instantly makes his contract better than Carl Crawford
-
The big lesson is that the postseason is awesome - but yes, a crapshoot. The Astros won the games - and winning titles is why you do this. But this shows the fragility - and luck you need to win the 11-12 games.
-
And Springer was awful in the ALCS ... clutchiness changed
-
Rivera blowing the 2001 World Series was a great example here. He threw a perfect pitch that Luiz Gonzalez fought off into a game winning dump.
-
Clutch exists to me as a fan. I got nervous as hell during that amazing Game 5 - and I did not even care who won! However - I do not know a view of clutch which is meaningfully separate from good. Ortiz has been an amazing clutch hitter for the Red Sox. The Red Sox have always largely been very good and given him a ton of chances to be clutch. Ortiz is also a very good hitter every second of every day. The pecking order of quality vs the pecking order of quality in big spots ... is - for all intents and purposes - identical.
-
The Astros were old and talentless without a super loyal fan base. They went through a massive rebuild. I don't use the word tank - it is the correct decision that playing a promising kid is better than a mediocre veteran. They knew they would not be good for 3 years and made all their decisions with that in mind. The Red Sox have never really bottomed out that way - nor could they. There have been a few awful seasons sprinkled in - but they were awful due to decisions not working out ... not kids getting reps. I am not sure there are many larger lessons - the teams are not very far apart. Red Sox just need to get better in a few places, but Sox are in the same cohort as the Astros.