moonslav59

Big market. Winning team. Low draw. Move the team. (I always felt like maybe Florida should have one team that plays 41 games in MIA and 41 in Tampa Bay or Orlando. The other should move to NC or CA.)

Sounds like you think we needed 3-4+ moves at the deadline. Maybe trading for Schwarber was a mistake and we should have done less or been sellers.

I don't blame them, and I had those thoughts, too. I don't expect fans to think, "but what did the Cubs want from the Sox and was it too much?" after that play, but I think that. I don't want us trading too much for anyone, especially not in a year where I think we are just a player or two away from being a top 2-3 favorite. I never felt that was about this team, this year, even when we had the best record or top 3 record. I don't expect casual or even non casual fans to think like that.

I'm not doubting what you are saying, but maybe (hopefully) this is just a phase or slump he's going through. Sometimes players get away from what has made them successful, and they figure it out and get back to doing well. I think "sold out" may be harsh, but it could be true, too.

2012, 2014, 2015...

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.