sk7326

I think there is a gap between disappointment and the darkest hours as a Red Sox fan. I have 300 games of the Butch Hobson managerial experience to sell you on the latter.

Yeah, I thought it was Bruce Hurst too. Also, IIRC Barrett was the ALCS MVP. I felt awful - just a fiesta of poor managing by McNamara. If you actually look at the matchup, our win would have been a heck of an upset. Another thing, if you look at the two World Championships Boston sports lost out in 1986 ... the teams that won titles, the Bears and the Mets probably should go down as a couple of the biggest underachievers in the history of the sport. That the Mets only got two playoff appearances out of that core is kind of amazing.

Papelbon's agent deserves some kind of award ... to get that contract JUST at the time the industry started to realize how stupid an idea that sort of contract is generally.

The trivia answer is ... Phil Bradley ...

The way I think about the ALCS in 1986 at this point though - it's one of this team's greatest achievements, though the season ended in disappointment. For a youngster like Thunder, I'd place it in the same house as the near comeback against Tampa in 2008, which is EXTREMELY underrated among proud moments for the franchise. The Red Sox in that series by the sixth inning of Game 5 were DEAD, throw them in a shallow grave by the interstate and drive away level dead. And to come off the mat and tease us like that. I wish they had won, but you have to be proud of them.

1986 was a blast generally ... I remember so many random games. The game that was called due to fog in Cleveland which causd Oil Can Boyd to observe "that's what happens when you build a ballpark by the ocean". Virtually every start Roger made - he was pretty amazing then. Nothing beats a championship - and the three we have are great. But there is the buzz in 1986 and 1999 about Roger and Pedro starts which we have not had since, even with our amazing success. There really was a sense that each start you had a chance to really see something you'll tell your kids about ... the 2007 and 2013 teams have lacked that, although that is not a dig at the titles at all (in any way).

He might - but as a 33 year old with a ton of miles on him (7 straight 200 inning seasons) and a sharp drop in strikeout rate ... lot of evidence he might have to reinvent himself as a more command/control guy. It is possible he could be an elite pitcher again, but the odds are not high. Yankees levered so much of their rotation success to him - and his drop in form is a huge issue within that framework.

Well it was even outside of the SABR movement ... the Yanks were doing this in 1994 during the Paul O'Neill-Jimmy Key days. Even more recently, David Robertson would have been the best pitcher in the Red Sox bullpen every season since 2009 outside of 2013 Koji. As MVP noted, the reason modern Sox-Yanks games take forever is that neither team swings at balls. If anything, Girardi has too many anti-sabermetrics tendencies, running an offensive powerhouse (at least in prior years) at times like it's an NL team with overmanaging (too many bunts, willy nilly running). Aged pitching and the injuries have caused the Yankees problems ... in 2009 they placed a massive bet on Sabbathia, which largely worked until father time has started to kick in. Now the rotation is just not restaurant timber without a guy delivering prime-Sabbathia level horsepower. Sabbathia was a true #1 when they signed him, and is not anymore - and with it went their chances to be a dominant short series team. Add the injuries and it has been a decline.

True - although any honest evaluation of the division showed 5 teams that were probably 10 games apart talentwise. You look at the rosters and not the hype and you could see Boston was not really that bad, and if only they could avoid the injury bug, they had a chance to be pretty good. Add some extreme right side of the expectation curve work from Lackey, Uehara and Victorino and suddenly, wow. If you seeded the 10 teams in the field when the playoffs started, the Red Sox were no worse than #2 ... and they beat the only legitimate choice for #1 on the way to the title. Sox were the first team since the 2009 Yanks that were the favorite entering the tournament to win the whole thing. Now I will acknowledge you could say the Tigers were the favorite - maybe ... but that's about it.

To be fair, the Yankees have been "take and rake" the last 20 years - Boston only took leave of it in 2012 (along with everybody getting hurt). What has been interesting with the Yankees since George's death has been the relative penny pinching of his sons - They want the fruits of the labor, but not paying the price. Imagine George Costanza pointing out that the Yankees decided to sign a top shelf complementary set of players while letting their one true superstar walk. What makes the baseball playoffs fascinating is that the skills to win in October are not enough (in themselves) to qualify for October. You can win a World Series with knockout starting pitching and below average offense - the Giants did it twice. It is very difficult to win 95 games with that formula though. Conversely with a deep lineup that can mash #4 starters forever while having decent pitching can win 95 games, but can be beaten in short series. You need both - and the Red Sox were able to do so last season. But the best team in the field has managed to "not win the world series" quite frequently - last year was a case where the best team in the draw won, but 2012, 2011, 2010 that wasn't the case let alone 2006 or 2008.

Keith Law farm system rankings up via insider (http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/10354393/houston-astros-top-farm-system-rankings-mlb)

I remember, although it is impossible to separate the team switch within the context of both teams being extremely good and relevant while it was happening. I think it can add some spice to a rivalry, but not a substitute for the bedrock stuff - good teams being good at the same time.

I am skeptical there - the Sox-Yanks have had SO MANY guys play on both sides of the fence for so long ... it has not affected the rivalry as much as the teams records themselves. Babe Ruth, Ralph Houk, Sparkly Lyle, Mike Stanley, Johnny Damon, David Wells, David Cone, Don Baylor, Mike Torrez, Wade Boggs, Roger Clemens etc etc etc

For the players, they are gigs ... at the end of the day, the same cartel trying to make as much money as possible. Some owners are better than others, like any other company in competitive space. That said, rivalries are about the games. Even the blessed Yankees rivalry - I felt nothing during the Stump Merrill/Hensley Muelens years. What is funny about Sox-Yanks is how rarely the teams have been good at the same time ... basically the 70s and now. Indeed it took until 1999 for us to play in the postseason. For that reason, Tampa is not much less of a rival - we have a long history of important games with them since their rise to power.

Well a lot of teams go to the World Series because this is baseball. Football, where not one position can truly dominate (even QB) and physical talent wins the day - there you can legitimately say a team should beat another 10 out of 10 times. In baseball, pitching - and starting pitching - is a consistent equalizer in a short series competition. Because of having King Felix for instance, the Mariners at least one out of five days, usually have the better team on the field against a given opponent. (this is why a bad baseball team is the equivalent of a 5-11 NFL side, which would be bad but not league worst in NFL terms) The Yankees have missed the playoffs twice since the strike (and would have made the playoffs in the strike year), so yeah their run has been amazing - their market and resources help there. And their management has largely been good, large payroll teams have floundered too. The Yankees 1994-2000 stretch was built on old fashioned home grown talent and opportunistic free agent signing (like a great buy-low on Paul O'Neill). But fortunately, it doesn't buy a whole lot to actually win a title. This is what Billy Beane noted about GM'ing - at the end of the day the playoffs are a crapshoot, in a way the GM's/ownership/purse strings work is done when September ends. Is it a weakness of the system? Not really - everybody is getting rich, and every team has a chance to produce a winning product. The Yankees have the ability to produce a winner every year - but then so do the Rays. What Bud manages to leave is an economic system that is probably the best you can do to assure competitive balance in a world where a LOT of revenue is not centralized (unlike the NFL). The economic system plus the impacts of Moneyball have made the sport better. Now, the current CBA does threaten some of that with its changes in draft and international signing - that is worth watching.

I agree, the marketing benefits are silly. But the benefits on the field of a #2 level starter for the Yankees are very high - the value for a win starts to get much higher as you get through the 80s to 90s and higher in win total, and the Yankees bang for win is pretty high. If he is good - which is a gamble, but a gamble on a 25 year old - the money is not a problem. Is it possible for Dice-K to happen here? No doubt, although the scouting reports indicate a much cleaner approach than Matsuzaka had. I think it was a good move for New York, but not a game changer - they might have only been the 4th best team on paper last season in the division, and I'm not really sure the moves they made this offseason gets them in the Top 2. Yanks are too far away for any starter to be enough to close the entire gap.

Well, Games 6 and 7 were on Saturday and Sunday night - I remember being at a watering hole to watch the Drew homer

Oh don't worry - everybody has their own memories. I'm 36. For me, Aaron Boone was really the first time I felt the curse as it were. In 1986, I was too young to think in those dire terms, and otherwise the losses were all very reasonable (better teams). 2003, we had that game won, and kicked it away. It was the first time I thought "never". But even for younger folks, the comeback in 2007 against Cleveland and Josh Beckett's heroics should not be discounted. That was a heck of a rally, including the JD Drew grand slam from nowhere. 2013 contained no real life and death moments (only trailed a series once and it was a 2-1 deficit), but still what a season.

Upside is spectacular. Also has a worrisome injury history where he has missed 80 games over the last two seasons. I don't doubt he would cost a lot - I am asserting my hesitation to pay it. Marlins should ask for a lot. I see a guy with 80 power who has back problems as a 24 year old and shudder a little. "Productive when he's healthy" is not something I want to describe that sized acquisition. I am more inclined to pay that price for known durability AND quality/upside. If the Mariners had been smart about their offseason and cashed in their best player for some legitimate position relief, that would be the sort of investment that would make sense. The non-Betts/Cecchini whatever level ... that is the stuff you use to plug in holes during the season possibly. Now, as a matter of ideology I am with Danny Ainge - I will talk about ANYBODY, just depends on the offer. But if I were sorting players into guys for us vs guys that will be assets for somebody's big league club ... that's how I'd do it.

I say that about Butch Hobson's run as manager - why would I want to remember. 1986? Hendu's homerun in Game 5 was one of the greatest moments of my baseball lifetime. Down 3-1, win or go home - leading to a shocking comeback. The Mets Game 6 did not even bother me - I fell asleep as an 8 year old. Blowing the Game 7 after having a 3-0 lead ... with a special night to stay up? That is when the waterworks came. I wish we had won - but I can't regret having a taste ... most teams don't even get that.

Team I fell in love with - too young to realize what a bunch of weirdos a lot of those dudes were, and what a bad manager McNamara was. For me, the Curse was a curse because the Red Sox since 1967 have largely been good! Nobody talks about the curse of the Clippers - the team has just been poorly run, and for the most part that describes the Cubbies.

Depth is invaluable, but when you are the Red Sox (as opposed to an A's or Rays), you have to honestly assess your top dozen prospects and evaluate who is really going to impact the big club, and who is thusly spinnable. Obviously each year sees development spikes or Lars Anderson like pratfalls - these are kids after all. Now that being said, I'd probably have Owens, Ball, Cecchini and Betts as my "top tier" (not counting Bogaerts and Bradley who to me are graduates). Yes they are not the top 4, but from the realities of position scarcity combined with top end potential and the Red Sox ability to source the position alternatively. Swihart and Vasquez are potentially competing for one serious big league position. The Barnes-Ranaudo tier gives some solid mid-rotation depth, but I think the Sox would be comfortable paying for that in the market if need be. Flags fly forever, and I think the remaining prospects are a fair price for the fourth title since 2004, assuming that is what it takes.

We do - although is Stanton the sort of guy you empty the farm for in our position? That is more interesting. Ball can't be traded (at least not until June although he can be a PTBNL). I'd have hard time trading Betts or Cecchini. The rest we can have conversations definitely.

It's a dropoff. And Salty's year was sort of more remarkable considering that he is basically unplayable against lefties. I just think that the loss at catcher is relatively minor and fixable. The general production level at catcher is pretty terrible, after all a 3 win player is still a below average run creator. I tend to rate the Red Sox offseason as a B- or so ... but I am not sure their position in the league has changed a whole lot. On paper, Detroit (that rotation) and Texas (who ended up suffering some unexpectedly poor offensive seasons combined with continuing to have an incompetent manager) are better - but that was the case a year ago too, so hooray.

Replacement level at catcher is so low - essentially someone who can walk without falling down - that the dropoff in WAR might actually exaggerate the actual impact to run production. I think the Red Sox looked at this move entirely from a contractual perspective. They did not want to tie up the catcher position because they have some inventory. Pierzynski is a lateral move or drop off - but it is also a bit of a bet that Vasquez can develop his hitting at AAA enough to warrant a big league look. If he could hit at all, he would have a starting gig. IF he had a huge development spike which shows in the first few months, I could see Pierzynski getting Matt Flynn'd out of there.