moonslav59

Thanks for these updates. It's still very early, but it's better to see more good things going on than bad ones.

Did anyone see those two years as inevitable? Something out path was driving us towards? Maybe I missed that pulse. We had just come off a ring year in 2013, that many felt was a miracle or confluence of good luck, but I didn't get the sense that we were making moves for the "here and now" at the expense of the future, in fact, I got the sense a sizable amount of people thought we were not trying hard enough for the "here and now." Big difference.

There were a few posters (on that "other site") who preached gloom those off seasons before those seasons, but it didn't seem like something our philosophy was driving us towards. We were still spending big and had some rising young stars, a decent farm, and decent pitching until maybe 2015. The fire sales we had were summer choices, too.

It in no way is political. There were clearly two sides to the debate over whether the philosophy we chose to use under DD would lead to a down turn or not. I really don't care what it's called, but the word "cliff" was pretty much what most chose to call it and talk about. I don't think I was the one who coined the phrase, but it became the accepted term- like it or not. Am I wrong to notice that many of those who denied we'd have a "down turn" are now super sour, pessimistic or projecting doom & gloom, or at best less wins than many of those who expected a "down turn". Those who saw the writing on the wall, seem to be more optimistic, now. It seems to me, and I could be wrong, although nobody has tried to say I'm wrong on this point. Am I wrong? What's the big deal about calling those who thought the idea of a re-set and downturn "cliff deniers?" What's the big deal about calling those who expected a re-set and downturn "cliff dwellers?" (BTW, there were some who did not really take sides or were somewhere in the middle, or who said something like, "How can we know what will happen 2-4 years from now, so why worry or debate the issue, now?")

It speaks to a very specific time frame and a very heated debate about what the "win now" philosophy was doing to our future outlook. The time period many spoke of is here and now. I'm not sure why it should be a word that bothers anyone. You or others may think another word was or is more appropriate. That's fine. I use the word, because most here know what I'm talking about by just saying one word. Part of that debate centered on how long the "downturn" would last. (There, I changed the word for you.) Many stated things like, "We'll build the farm back up, like we always do (in no time was implied)." I disagreed on how quickly the farm could be rebuilt, due mainly to how the rules have changed since our glory days of farm building while still winning. I wanted to point out that I felt like our farm has been getting better at a faster pace than I imagined back in the days of that discussion, and the context of that discussion is needed, IMO. The trades we made, last summer helped. The Betts trade gave the farm a significant boost. That was not really expected back from 2017-2018. We got higher than expected draft picks last year and very high one coming up, this year. Our IFA signings have been flat for years.

Ok, I'll just say back from 2017-2019. I'm not sure why there is a need to "cancel" that word.

I'm not sure how that changes my point.

Not really. I was talking about a certain time period. Do you prefer another name for "it?"

It's simple: they want to put off the tax for one more year.

I totally agree. Even if we don't suck, we'll need to spend next winter.

It does "lengthen" the line-up, but goes against everything the new era line-up philosophies say to do.

That's what I think, too. I was kind of shocked we paid him that much, despite still being able to re-set. I'm sure Boras is part of the issue, too.

Agreed. and we did spend way more this winter than last. Also, with Pedey's deal ending after this season, and a bunch of 1 year deals expiring (plus Barnes & ERod), I'm thinking next winter we'll see major expenditures.

I can see why people are down on the Sox. I, too, doubt we win more than 82-85 games, but that doesn't mean there isn't going to be a lot of excitement and storylines to watch. I'm way more optimistic about 2021 than 2020, and also that our farm is being built up faster than I imagined back in the days of talking about "the cliff."

Yup, LOL!

again, you're not fooling me.

You're not fooling me.

I'm sure there is more than the OF he's down on. The season is a disaster in his eyes.

My statement was not made based on 2 games. The team philosophy was not to improve our defense with acquisitions but more about trying to get the most out of what we have by focusing on the fundamentals and preparation.

I have to think it's kind of funny some of the "cliff deniers" are the now projecting doom & gloom, and many of the "cliff dwellers" are the more optimistic ones.

Maybe cut Richards a little slack?

Did you look at who started the vast majority of our games in 2020? Pro-rated to 162 games (2.7 x GS'd): 19 Godley 16 Mazza 14 Weber 11 Brewer 8 Hart 5 Kickham 5 Triggs 14 these 5 combined: Lever, Hall, Osich, Brice & Brasier That's 92 TOTAL! Give those to ERod, Richards, Sale and more from Houck & Pivetta. Maybe Perez & Eovaldi stay about the same as their pro-rated 2020: Perez 32> 32 Eovaldi 23>23 All you see is 7-12 more wins due to ERod?

I've been saying EHern is our best defensive CF'er almost from the day we signed him, but our second base options aren't all that great. I like Renfroe and Cordero better than Arroyo. Even with EHern in CF, our overall defense is a minus. Catcher: Vaz has some good metrics. I don't like the way he handles the staff, but I'm not sure that's called "defense." Call this position a push or a slight plus. 1B: I have faith that Dalbec can be a plus, but until he shows he is, I'm leaving this one as a slight minus. 2B: Arroyo/Chavis? Minus. EHern? Maybe a push. Overall? Lucky to be a push. 3B: Devers has the potential to be a plus, this year. He has plus range and a strong arm. It's the arm accuracy that makes this position a minus, for now. SS: People will argue with me, but he has some of the worst metrics over his career. At best, one could argue he's 18th or 20th out of 30, but I'd disagree. Okay, okay, he makes the plays he gets to. I want a SS that gets to make plays others dream about. Minus. LF: Maybe Renfroe & Cordero as a platoon can end up better than Beni. Push. CF: Cordero? Lost of promise, but a minus. EHern in CF? A plus. Overall? Maybe a puch to a minus. RF: Verdugo is a plus.

You really must have thought last year's team way over performed, if you think this team is just 5 wins better.

Our 2020 winning % projected to less than 65 wins. You really don't see us winning significantly more than that? Even 81 wins is 25% improvement, which I would think seems pretty meaningful to a lot of fans. I can't say I like your pessimism. Offense: we lost JBJ- you know the guys that drove 90% of this site nuts with his repeated and prolonged mega slumps. We gained Renfroe, EHern & Cordero. We have several young players (Devers, Bogey, Verdugo, Dalbec, Vaz, Renfroe and others nearing or in the meat of their primes. One can project a decline from JD due to his age, but I have to think he'll do better than 2020. Defense: Lost JBJ, which hurts. We gained EHern, Renfroe, Cordero and will see more from Dalbec and nothing from Moreland. Net loss. Pitching: Beating a dead horse. I won't spell it out, but between returning pitchers like ERod & Sale, more innings from Houck, Pivetta & Hern and additions like Richards, Ottavino and others versus the loss of the clowns we put out there last year, this isn't even close. If we can't gain 14-20 wins, I'll be shocked. My guess is, we win 16-24 more games.