Maxbialystock

I had to go back to page 348 to see the reaction to the Martinez signing. On this page I saw the mention of Brentz and was totally confused, which only underscores how little I keep up with the Sox during the offseason. Not to take sides, but notin clarified it all by saying the Sox, having signed Nunez and Martinez, had to get rid of two from the 40 man roster, something I rarely think about. So now would someone tell me what is the mostly likely lineup come April? To me we seem to be knee deep in catchers and infielders and DH's but not so deep in outfielders, which must delight Brock Holt no end.

I consider all acquisitions to be risky, but I also think acquisitions ended the 86 year drought. When you make as much money as this club does, you should be willing to spend on acquisitions--even though I personally am always skeptical. I hated the Price contract, but right now I'm hoping he will finally make a difference this year. And so on.

Dead right about the Army, into which I was born and later served. It integrated in 1948, a year after MLB integrated, and I can promise you that there were still integration and discrimination issues into the 1970's and beyond. Before 1948 the Army simply reflected American society. Interestingly, however, US Colored Troops were a significant part of the Union Army and suffered significant casualties. This might have helped the US Congress vote for the 13th amendment and later the 15th amendment which ended slavery and gave all races the vote--but not women, of course.

Impressive and way beyond anything I did. Especially teaching ESL now. Inaction is the right word for Yawkey. And my judgment--obviously different from yours--is that there were worse things to do back then than doing nothing. I'll go further and say that his unwillingness to sign black baseball players had very little effect on the ones he didn't sign because they could sign with other clubs. Still, given your experience, I do understand your insistence that anyone who wasn't helping was hurting racial equality in this country.

Must be pretty comfortable to say that in this day and age. Did you ever actively opposed racism? I have, more than once, but I have also failed to do so when I was in a segregated high school and 5 years later when I was in Korea. I left out of my OP that I am fine with John Henry changing the name of Yawkey Way and the support he is getting from Boston. Times and attitudes have changed for the better and changing that name is great way to show it. And this. I love the story of what Branch Rickey and Jackie Robinson did. I even like that both served in the Army--Rickey in WW I and Robinson in WW II (he never deployed but through no fault of his own--a story itself). Both were truly heroic. Ken Burns was right to make the integration of MLB a centerpiece of his series on Baseball. I believe it truly helped this country and made desegregation easier--beginning in 1948 with the desegregation of the armed services and then Brown vs. the Board of Education in 1954. If we now vilify Tom Yawkey for not doing the same thing Rickey did--at least, not for 12 years--doesn't that diminish that mighty deed of 1947? By the way, I also agree there were lots of people in the 1940's who weren't racist. In 1939 Marian Anderson, the great African-American contralto had been touring mostly in Europe because it was easier then trying to get a venue here in the States. But then Sol Hurok booked Constitution Hall in DC. Unfortunately, the DAR owned the Hall and chose to abide by the segregated policies of DC and refused to let Marian sing. Eleanor Roosevelt, a member of the DAR, promptly resigned from the DAR and thousands of American women--DAR members-- joined her. Hurok moved the concert to the Lincoln Memorial where Marian sang to 75,000 people, black and white, and millions on the radio. Three years later Marian was invited by Constitution Hall to sing there as a benefit for the Red Cross, and she was very happy to do so.

I think everyone knows he is today branded as an unmitigated racist. So, because my nature is contrarian, I offer the following in mitigation-- 1. Yes, he probably was racist. But when MLB was integrated in 1947, Boston was a very racist city and continued to be so for many years. Don't take my word for it, read what Bill Russell used to say about Celtics fans and Boston when he was here, 1956-69. He did not hate whites per se because he admired and liked his coach, Red Auerbach, and the owner, both white. He hated the racism of Boston, however, and was quite vocal about it. 2. And don't just take Russell's word for it either. Look at the attendance figures for the racially enlightened Boston Celtics during the Bill Russell era when the Celtics won 11 NBA championships in 13 seasons, by far the most successful run by any major sports franchise in the history or American sports. During that run they never sold out a single game in Boston Garden, seating capacity 14,000 (13,909). Their best season in the Russell era was 10,517, which was also the first season they ever won the NBA championship. By 1961-62, smack dab in the middle of the Russell era, the most successful in professional American sports history, it was 6,852, which was less than half of capacity. In 1955-56, the season before Russell arrived, attendance was 8,063. 3. Then there's the Branch Rickey-Jackie Robinson saga taking place in Brooklyn and the National League. Anyone remember the movies about Jackie (there have been at least two)? Almost everywhere Jackie played he was subject to abuse because Boston was not the only racist city in America. Just about every city was, and the fans (some of them) made that abundantly clear. 4. Then there's the issue of what form Tom Yawkey's racism took. To read some of the commentaries, you would think he was a slave owner or regularly throwing African Americans in jail or at least putting a big dent in their chances for employment. 5. Well, not really. He denied excellent baseball players employment with his ball club for 12 years (1947-59), but it was a small part of the whole and actually didn't prevent those very few African-Americans from playing for other MLB clubs. 6. Plus this. Roughly three years after MLB was integrated (and so were the Minors), the Negro Baseball League, "among the largest and most prosperous black-owned business ventures, were allowed to fade into oblivion." This is not an argument that Yawkey was doing a good thing by not integrating the Sox, but does say it wasn't quite as harmful as has been claimed. 7. Yawkey bought the Sox in 1933 when their average game attendance was 3,732. The very next year it more than doubled to 7,930, still far short of the 33,000 capacity, however. The next big jump came 12 years later, 1946, the first season after World War II, when attendance shot up to 18,166 per game and stayed that way for 4 seasons, then ground slowly down and stayed there thru the 1966 season when it was 10,014. Then came 1967, Yaz, etc, and attendance more than doubled to 21,000 and basically stayed close to that until Yawkey died in 1976 (attendance that year 23,406). He had his faults as an owner, but was still better than those who proceeded him. 8. Meanwhile, Boston itself was changing demographically. In 1940 it was 97% white, and in 1970 it was 82% white and in 1990 it was 62.8%, about where it is today. I think we can assume that attitudes have changed with the demographics. Heck, Bill Russell has even deigned to return. And word is that during his later years Yawkey got along quite well with the African Americans on the Sox.

I see his knees (and age) as his only problems. I have repeatedly rewatched the so-called dirty slide that reinjured the knee and think it was clean as Pedroia did, thus no need to throw at Machado which, however, the Sox decided to do anyway. 2017 not a good year, but his WAR in 2016 was 2d best on the team. In 2015, 4th best in just 93 games. I am against no trade, but disagree he should be traded away for nothing just to get rid of him.

Brentz the 29 year old minor leaguer whom soxprospects doesn't like? Yes, that one--but he also hit 31 dingers in 120 games at Pawtucket this year. Given our few dingers this year, he deserves a look.

This to me is more credible than moonslav's list. To be perfectly honest, even though I was a solid Sox fan as early as 1949, I was mostly oblivious of the managers because I was literally unable to watch or listen to Red Sox games--except for the 1953 and 1954 seasons when I lived in western Massachusetts--until 2003 or 2004 when I could get them on satellite TV. But like almost every Sox fan, I know about the 86 year drought which John Henry ended. Tito did a good job, but he also had awfully good hitting anchored by Manny and Papi for both WS titles and good enough pitching. Ditto for Farrell in 2013 but without Manny.

This might not fit this thread, but I hesitate to start another. Has anyone else commented that the three coaches--Butterfield, Davis, and Willis--just let go by the Sox were immediately picked up by successful teams, the Guardians and the Cubs? Relatedly, was this DD or Cora's decision to let them go?

Couldn't watch it--school night--but agree with your thoughts anyway. Agree especially with "will actually feel bad for whichever team loses."

Thanks for the reminder. Somehow, both home team crowds seem very energized this year.

Make that 4 games, and I entirely agree. I'm sort of rooting for the Astros because they are AL, but like seeing the Dodgers back in the thick of things. I remember the WS in the 1950's when radio was huge and inning by inning results were made known in school during day games--specifically Johnny Podres in the 1955 WS. Plus I think "Dodgers" is one of the really good team names in all of pro sports even though they were first the Brooklyn Trolley Dodgers (and several other names before that). Still, the name reeks of American history. So too, sadly, the name of yankees, which the NYC team stole from New Englanders.

That's what I thought too.

Agree.

I read that revenues are down like 15%. Why won't that be a factor?

Meh. I also said that I had previously expressed--several times last year and this year--my then dislike of Farrell. That said, I did not hear the WEEI stuff and suspect that was as definitive as anything on why Farrell got fired. Somewhere else I read that DD had told someone that he was going to make a change regardless of how far the Sox went in the postseason. So both of those items suggest Farrell had lost the clubhouse or something like that, and I freely admit I was oblivious to that possibility.

I hear you, but would argue again two basic points: 1) those rectangles are misleading; the "bad" calls are rarely that bad and even more rarely that influential because good pitchers adjust; 2) umpires are an important part of the game and would be completely marginalized if they were taken out of calling balls and strikes.

Actually, I think Henry Kissinger said something like that: even paranoids have real enemies. And in my case I'm pretty sure I'm one of A700hitter's targets because I can get argumentative as well as longwinded. But moonslav? That's nuts. I'm sorry you don't post here more because I know from BDC days you are excellent.

I am certainly one of the apologists even though I too have expressed dismay on occasion. In the event, as I said elsewhere, I have always believed that no manager is indispensable. Some are better than others, no doubt, but all are expendable. But since you brought this up, I would add the following-- First, to remind, I am fine with Farrell being fired for whatever reason. Second, however, he did manage a team that won the AL East 3 times and the WS once in 5 years. Third, granted, he lost three straight to the Guardians last year and 3 of 4 to the Astros, but in both instances had starting pitchers who absolutely stunk--Price and Porcello in 2016 and Sale, Pomeranz, Fister, and Porcello this year. On top of that his ace reliever Kimbrel absolutely blew game 4 this year. Fourth, of the four teams--Cleveland, Houston, New York, and Boston--in the ALDS, the Red Sox had by far the lowest net runs scored--+117. The other three, in order, had +254, +196, and +198. Interestingly, two of the latter three are in the ALCS. And, if the Nationals beat the Cubs, they and the Dodgers will also constitute 2 of the top 3 in the NL in net runs scored (the 3d is Arizona). Fifth, the Sox had by far the best record in MLB this year in extra inning games, which are those games mostly likely to demand more of a manager. Sixth, however, I mean it when I say I have no quarrel with DD's decision. Yes, Ortiz was gone. Yes, Price spent a lot of time on the DL. Nevertheless, there was some real talent on this team and it is entirely possible Farrell did not get the most out of what he had. I don't think so, but don't mind saying I could be wrong. Seventh, on the other hand, espn, ever the rabble rousers, have a new article on the Sox: "With Farrell gone, Red Sox are all Dave Dombrowski's mess now." I personally think DD has done more good than harm and also think John Henry won't want to fire him. Still, Price needs to deliver on that hefty price tag, Porcello does too, Sale may need to be rested more than a typical ace would need to be, I still have my doubts about Pomeranz, the Sox may in fact need to hire a big bat, etc.

I didn't think that at the time because i was ignorant, but it would have made a lot more sense. But, you know, other GM's have goofed as badly as Cherington on Pablo--see Ellsbury and the NYY and Crawford with the Dodgers. Actually, Yankees fans have kind of warmed to Ellsbury this year despite that salary and having to DH.

Really? That lineup looks awfully good to me, but at what cost?

I started this thread and by and large have defended Farrell but have always believed upper management, including the owner, should have final say on the field manager. In this case, as with Francona, this was not exactly a firing but rather an unwillingness to give Farrell a new contract. Back in the day I also defended Francona regularly but in the end was fine with the decision to let him go. I honestly believe that, while some managers are better than others, almost no manager is indispensable. If DD and JH don't like what they see on the field or what they think they see in the clubhouse (or hear about), they are absolutely entitled to make a change.

This, I have to say one more time, is one of the reason why I think you are one great poster. We can agree to disagree on a whole bunch of stuff, but you have it all over me on assembling stats and numbers. In a NY Times review of Rick Atkinson's brilliant 3d book of his trilogy on the US Army in World War II--this volume is called Guns At Last Light--his narrative style was compared to a pointillist artist who uses many small facts and insights to create a larger tapestry that tells a compelling story. You do something like that when you produce these gems.

Moreland had 22 home runs this year. The most in MLB at 1b this year was 39. I think you need to work on your math a little. You know way more about trade possibilities than I will ever know, but you have convinced me (as have others) that a big deal next year would definitely put the Sox in luxury tax territory which I gather John Henry wants to avoid. So here is my view of things-- 1. Everyone had a down year this year except I think Vazquez. I think the hitting will improve next year if the same guys are back, including Devers--whether or not DD decides to hang onto Moreland. I definitely want to keep Beni in LF next year and think his homer production will increase even though 20 wasn't all that bad. 2. If Sale and Price are healthy, the rotation could be pretty good and better than this year. Again, no big acquisitions needed. Ditto the bullpen. 3. As it is/was, this team won its second straight AL East title and this time gave a better account of itself in the ALDS against an Astros team with much better hitting and, as it turned out, a better rotation. 4. The problem with my sanguine view of things is that the Yankees are looking very tough next year (and this year). Ditto the Astros and Guardians. Thus the pressure to do something productive in the offseason. Still, I would be fine with a stand pat approach even though, as you pointed out on page one, even that ain't cheap.