moonslav59

I thought the talk was about ALE trades. You always blast me for going off tangent.

I think they did give Bloom enough spending money to do better than what he did, although 2021 did redeem him to some small extent. Bloom could have drafted college players and seen results during his term, here. I'm not sure how much range he had on trading top prospects, but he never did. Bloom and Ben were both easy "fall guys," but I think there is more to it than just that. I think they never viewed Ben or Bloom as the type of GMs to "get over the hump" with, but Ben surprised them, and Bloom nearly did in '21. I honestly can't imagine DD being part of the 2020 team and budget cuts. Apparently, he was close to trading betts to LA in 2019, but we went on a winning stretch, but I doubt he felt they would never replace him, in kind, shortly after trading him. I'm not saying DD would have quit, but if there was bickering during 2019, I can imagine the escalation during 2020 and the winter before 2021.

I think it was more about the infighting and the differing opinions on the direction the team was moving towards.

Exactly. For some reason, super rich team owners are expected to behave differently than those who do not own teams.

LOL! If someone could just go 2 for 4!

Not a bad choice- fresh off two losing seasons in a row, but the David Price signing and Kimbrell trade were a major splash additions that previous winter. We still had Papi, Betts, a JBJ in his prime, Bogey, Pedey, HRam, beni, Vaz and others. The rotation was going to be Price, Porcello, ERod, Buch, and maybe Wright/Kelly/Owens as the 5th guy. Before '13, we had lost AGon, Beckett and others. We added Vic and Dempster. Our rotation was: Lester (4.82 in '12) Lackey (missed the 2012 season with an injury) Dempster (4.80 in '11 and 3.38 in '12 with CHC) Doubront (4.86 in '12) Buccholz (4.56 in '12) I don't recall anyone being excited about this rotation or the team's chances. Certainly, some other teams were close.

I don't know how to answer this. I did feel like the plan was a rebuild, but they just couldn't come out and say it. They tried to convince fans we would be remaining "competitive," except for the lost 2020 COVID season. That part, to me, was a sham. The unexpected success of 2021 strengthened their narrative, that they did not have to spend big to be competitive, but it also stifled their choice to ever fully unload and rebuild in 2022 or 2023 (at the deadline.) I admit, I fell for it. I kept expecting them to spend more and go for it, but I don't think they ever planned to do that. Even 2024 might not be "the year." The fram that was built up is due to start producing in about 2025. It won't surprise me if the "scam" goes on one more year- maybe even two. When the kids are ready, then we may go all in. I've said it a few times, this fall: I'll believe it when I see it. Fool me once: shame on you! Fool me twice: shame on me. Fool me 3-4 times, go F yourself! I'm not buying it, until I see it. That does not mean I have lost hope for something serious to happen in 2024. I'm just not expecting it, anymore. I thought Ben had a 5 year plan. I figured Bloom would be given 5 years. Neither made any major top prospect trades. I felt both were on the cusp of doing so, but the job was handed off to the next guy, so we'll never know. I felt last winter was the time to make a serious move. I called it Bloom's "legacy winter" and "make or break" point. The prices went off the charts, but he spent on Yoshida, Duvall, Mondesi, Turner and the pen. He chose $10M for the rotation that lost Nate, Wacha and Hill. That is his legacy- not JH's or Sam's. That does not take either off the hook. They scammed us in '22 and '23. Let's see, if it continues another year or two.

Be honest. Don't use hindsight. Between 2003 and 2019, what team looked the worst, on paper?

I did not see Dewmpster as being enough for the staff. Vic and Napoli looked like good signings, but nobody expected what they gave us. Uehara was our third strin closer. Personally, I did not think we had a real chance in 2013, or at least the worst chance between 2002 and 2020. Least does not mean no chance. While Valentine season looked awful, on paper, I don't think many felt we had no chance going into the season. We had Lester, Beckett, Buch, Dice-K and Doubront in the rotation and still had Papi, Jake, AGon, Pedey, Youk and Crawford to start the season.

Don't see it like what? Yes, there is a pattern, but each had their own unique set of circumstances with maybe Ben & Bloom being the only real similar ones. Just because there has been a very defined pattern of 4 year changes, does not mean the cause is JH's volatility. If you think it is, fine. I saw nothing volatile with Theo leaving. it seemed like a natural progression for a successful GM to go where he was given more power. I think ben should have been given one more year, but certainly the 3 last place finishes in 4 years was enough to not call bringing in DD brash or volatile. DD's departure seems like the outlier. One bad year does not cause a change, but it was obvious there was serious friction. Was the friction a direct result of JH's volatility? I don't think so. I think there was a major disagreement in the direction the team wanted to go and where DD felt it should be going. The major friction seemed to be between Sam and DD, not with JH. Had JH fired Sam, would that have made him less "volatile?" The Bloom firing was easily understandable and reasonable. It was not the result of a volatile owner, IMO. Have there been shifts in overall team philosophies under JH? I'd say yes. IMO, there were 2-3. The obvious 2 were after Ben and after DD. A third one might be harder to pinpoint, as it did seem we always gave the perception we were legit contenders going into every season. (I would argue that perhaps going into 2013 was the lowest expectations from 2003 through 2019.) I have talked about JH's cycle of spending big, resetting, and repeating as a patter. The Sox have gone more than 1 year under the tax line, several times. We are not the only team that has done that. I don't think that is reason to claim volatility. Yes, 4 GMs in 16 years is a lot of change. I just wouldn't blame it on JH or the belief that he has been volatile.

This board has never gotten over the Springs trade. It's all we talk about.

...and the Yanks probably wish they protected Whitlock.

I don't see why it matters. Certainly, winning makes tension and friction way more bearable. My point is that I don't see JH as being volatile or that his volatility is the reason we've had 4 new decision makers since Theo. We've had different needs at different points of the team's history. DD was a good hire to get a team over the hump. Ben and Bloom looked like logical choices for a more rebuilding-type scenarios. All were replaced, when the direction shifted. Some argue the direction changed after the change, and skliis of the GM is what created the winning or losing results.

I think preseason 2013 was similar to 2021 and maybe even 2022, but the results were different. Injuries and unexpected decines by veterans in their primes or near it, are unforeseeable and common reasons why some teams never met preseason expectations. I do see the rotations of teams before 2020 as being better. Many teams had better offenses and defenses. Few had a better pen than the 2022 one, before it was raided to fill open rotation slots. I did not expect us to make the playoffs in 2013 or 2021. I did in many years we missed out or missed by a longshot.

There was obvious tension, for whatever reasons. I don't see JH's volatility as being the or even a major factor in his departure. A change in direction is commonplace in all sports. I think volatile is too strong a word.

Newsflash! Sox looking to add to their rotation, this winter... https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2023/...on-market.html ...Ian Browne of MLB.com suggested in an appearance on the ITM podcast that the Boston front office prefers Montgomery to Snell or Nola... ...It’s also possible the Sox look to the trade market for rotation help. It’s difficult to envision the Rays trading Tyler Glasnow in division. Players like Corbin Burnes or Shane Bieber could be available as they enter their final seasons of arbitration eligibility...

The "myth" point was about the perception he was fired.

I think it would have been against the team's plan of scamming the fans and media to come out and say, "We let DD go, because we are about to tear down the team and start from scrtach and... A) we did not feel DD was the GM for that task and new direction." or DD was not on board with the plan and was actively challenging our new direction, so we felt we had to let him go." If either of these were true, do you really think JH or some team spokesman would have uttered those words?

I think many teams use a plan where they do not try hard to win it all, every year. They realize there are times where there is a confluence of factors that indicate it is a good time to build up or begin to rebuild. It's not a sure fire plan, and outlier seasons happen along the way- good and bad. We have had some seasons where it looks like we should have been contenders, on paper, but were not, and others that showed the opposite. That doesn't change the fact that this type of plan is a bad one. I don't think the description "volatile" fits.

I thought you felt it was now Cora.

You think he'd have wanted to stay on through the massive budget cut and change in the organizational shift towards farm-building and the long term future? To me, that was one major reason for the friction that began building up after 2018. Whether DD was told not to trade major prospects or to not spend large and long on anyone beyond the Sale & Nate extensions is something up for debate, but I think it was real. I'm not 100% sure DD would have been the "right GM" for that new direction. One could argue Ben and Bloom were not the "right GMs" to man a team about to go "all in," as well.

I disagree, but I can see how some see it that way. There are times in almost every organization, where there is a shift to or from rebuilding or seriously trying to compete. Even under Theo, it seemed like they "went for it" much harder in some years vs others. Under Ben, the 2013 season was not "planned," IMO. It was supposed to be a rebuild season towards 2014 and beyong being better. (It just didn't turn out that way.) Many of us saw the writing on the wall from 2017-2018, and knew we'd have to regroup and reset, at some point. I don't view the cycle plan as being volatile. I think it's been a successful plan at winning rings every 3-5 years. We are overdue, now.

I meant in terms of which selectee has a better chance of becoming really good.

I'm not sure what the issue is. Did most of us want Ben and Bloom to stay longer? I don't think it's volatile to drive away two guys who led the team to 3 last place finishes in 4 years. The issue is really about 2 guys and why they left or were fired: Theo and DD. I see no pattern of volatility, here. Argue that JH & Co. made mistakes in hiring Ben & Bloom, in the first place, if you must, but replacing them was what most Sox fans likely wanted and thought was the right thing to do. One can argue, both were hired to do something many Sox fans don't want to accept, namely rebuild a team, and to some extent, that's what they both did. Theo wanted more control, and chose to move on, when he was not given it. DD, in my opinion, was not willing to go along with the "new plan" of a major rebuild, which included a massive tightening of the budget after 2019 and a priority of not trading away anymore top prospects for immediate gains. IMO, had he stayed, it would not have worked out for either party, and he'd probably have left the following year, anyway. Just my take. To me, the only real similarity in departures was between Ben and Bloom, in terms of their 4 year histories, failure rates and a shift in team plans about to start. However, one was fired and one left when it became known his powers would be greatly diminished. That is a difference, but to me, it doesn't matter much, but it also does not support the claim that JH is volatile, IMO. They both left because they failed. Keeping them could have been viewed as volatile. Dareing a fan and media revolt.

He might be the one guy we really regret not protecting.