moonslav59

Would saying it's the players' or manager's fault have more meaning? Would saying, if we had more fans come to the games, watch the games on TV and buy team merchandise, we could spend more and win, so it's mostly your fault be better? Would saying, "Hey, we live in a small market, and I'm not throwing my money away, so you all can cheer on a WS winner, is the reason we sucked, this year," any better?

By far, yes, but I think when a team wins without spending big, they can take more pride in pulling it off. In some ways, I think Henry did not want to be known as the modern day George Steinbrenner.

It does belong more to 2022, but it is also about the team we have now being deeper, especially from the 18-40 slots from last year. (Next year, we work on some of the 1-18 slots.)

It wasn't meant to be an apology as much as an explanation, IMO. They take ownership for us not winning this year, but also say they had our future as a higher priority and no deals looked worth it to them, except the ones they made.

Of course. I'm not celebrating, but our record should be taken in context- as should teams who played easier opponents than us, so far. If we are still behind, after the schedules even up, some, then yes, it mattered little.

They have also been a low budget team for much of their history. I'm not sure how much they spent in '97 and '03.

The 2015 KC Royals had a $113M opening day budget, but they did add some deadline money.

They would make more money, if they won more often, but yes, not nearly as much as the big market or big fan base teams. I remember watch old Oriole and Pirate World Series games that we not sold out. That blew my mind.

It's a necessity for many GMs. Hopefully, Bloom can do what he did with the Rays and also add some big money players that work out.

It does not help that we have played 84 games vs .500+ (43-41) teams and only 37 vs .500- teams (26-13), but we do still have a winning record vs winning teams. As a reference point: The A's 35-38 vs .500+ (73 games) 34-15 vs .500- (49 games) NYY 40-36 vs .500+ (76) 30-16 vs .500- (46) One might argue, we'd be ahead of NYY and OAK, right now, had our schedules been balanced.

For some reason, players don't perform as expected for many time frames. They slump and they streak. We rarely know why. We also don't know why some did or didn't in playoff situations. It could have just been a poorly placed slump or a lucky break streak. It could be choke or clutch, too. There is just no way to know for sure, and just because a few players have had numerous bad or good playoff stretches does not prove any reasons why they did.

I don't disagree, but I do think he was prepared to trade some of the future for some 2021 help- just not the prospects other GMs wanted. He held firm to the values he placed on our players/prospects.

We have way less holes and will actually have a bit of a roster crunch at the 40 man slot. Sure, nobody is going to cry, if we DFA Potts or Rosario, but Bloom has greatly improved the roster depth. Even some of our Rule 5 candidates for protection were acquired by Bloom, but I doubt Ort or Reed end up being protected. He also set up this next off season, nicely, due to many 1 year or 1 year + option year deals. We found out what we needed to know about Whitlock and pretty much Houck, too. We'd probably have liked to have been able to play Cordero more, but he did get one somewhat long look. Duran is still a question mark. Seabold never got tested. The Dalbec question is still a hard one to answer, so I think we'll add a 1Bman, this off season- even if just on a 1 year deal. (The Casas issue could force a 1 year deal, too.) The only real FAs needing to be replaced with top quality are ERod & Ottavino. We should have enough money to go large & long, if we want to at several positions/slots. I see our biggest 2022 needs as this: 1. SP 1/2 2. Closer/Set-Up 3. 1B 4. Pitcher 5. Utility That's a lot less holes than we had, last winter. Whitlock filled one. Houck filled one. Renfroe filled one. Kike more than proved he can fill 2B and or CF very well. Sawamura, Rios, Valdez and a few others still have some lingering questions, but our pen should be rather deep after we replace Ottavino and add one more pitcher.

Yes, I've always felt that trying to improve your current 5th starter by acquiring a "better on" is sheer folly. That's not to say adding starter depth is not worthwhile, but if you are weak at the top of your rotation, strengthening the bottom will not win you a ring, unless you're like KC or something.

I did say we didn't win every time we had 2 aces, and I should have left off the examples of not winning it all. (That being said, I'll do it again, also, in 1978, we had Eckersley & Tiant)

Because I do not think any other team was making a serious off like we did, but I did say "I think" not "I know."

Repeating good luck is unsustainable.

I do think we could have gotten him for less, but I loved and still love the deal, so maybe that is a veiled complaint, but what the hay.

It was about as late as big signings like his have been.

I've often pointed out that every winning Sox team had a second "ace." That doesn't mean every year we had two top pitchers, we won, but IMO, every year we won we did. We didn't win until we added Schilling. We didn't win the second time, until we replaced Pedro with Beckett. We didn't win again, until we added Lackey to Lester. We didn't win again, until we added Sale to Price. 1967: we had just Lonborg. 1975: just Tiant. 1986: just Clemens.

That's not a complaint. I think we were all happy to see JD join the team and still are. Those two things are a rarity.

Great observations. I think, when all is said and done, we will be very happy with what Bloom did to our team and system from top to bottom.

That's how I see it, and we also had Arroyo returning at some point. Maybe it was all a house of mirrors. I seriously doubt the fact that we only added Schwarber, who by the way was no minor addition, deflated the team's morale so much, it turned a sure winner into a flailing horror show. That idea seems rather comic to me.

No manager would really want to play him in the OF. As he gets even older, that becomes even more important. Yes, he can play corner OF, especially a short one. He could also learn 1B, if a team has someone else they want at DH.

All players adjust, at some point. I'd like to see some other payer's K rates after 85 PAs and what they are now.