moonslav59

His decline started in 1984, but 1986 was much better than "decent." My bad.

That was a great year, but we're talking decades. The 70's teams were way more fun to watch almost all 10 years. How about the amount of seasons finishing 10 or more games out? 2- 2000's 2- 2010's 4- 1970's 5- 1990's (less if you count GB wild card) 5- 1980's How about 90+ win seasons? 7- 2000's (8 straight years with 86 or more wins- 7 of those with 93+) 5- 2010's (1- 89 wins) 4- 1970's (10 seasons with 83 or more wins) 2- 1990's (Not more than 88 wins until 1998) 1- 1980's (1- 89 wins) The 90's won more than the 80's, and the new playoff set-up helped us make the playoffs more often.

Lol!

Certainly '67 was so surprising, the magic was plentiful. (I was not following baseball back then.)

I suggested we sign Moose instead of Moreland a couple years back. $64 is a lot of money. It looks like prices are not going down.

While Rice had a decent 1986 season, it was not the old Jim Rice. Evans was buttah as he aged, and yes, he was fun to watch all through the 80's. I just think of him as a 70's guy, but he was better in the 80's. (My bad.)

If we trade JBJ, we'll need to acquire an OF'er. Why go out of our way to get a LF'er? This is not about metrics. It's about keeping Beni where he belongs: LF.

It would be easier to just acquire a CF'er not a LF'er, so we don't need to put Beni to the test.

The guy Leon replaces in Cleveland was a better hitter and a good defender. I guess other teams also value great defense from the catching position- not just the Sox. Leon was a plus on this team despite his sub .600 OPS. Just Sale's numbers with him vs Vaz were enough to make him a plus. Career with Sale: 2.51 w AJ P (226 innings) 2.79 w Leon (436 innings) 3.02 w Flowers (97) 3.36 w Phegley (88) 3.53 w Avila (112) 4.61 w Vaz (84) Also, with Price... 2.67 Avila (111) 2.85 Molina (473) 2.96 Leon (204) 3.06 Jaso (191) 3.09 Navarro (128) 3.61 Shoppach (162) 4.27 Vaz (360)

Beni in CF can never make sense.

The only thing great about the 80's was watching Clemens and Boggs, and both soured by either using PEDs and/or signing with the Yanks.

True, just the 1 is 4, the 2 is 1, the 3 is 2 and the 4 is 3.

You have it almost backwards. 00's> 10's>70's>90's>80's

He wouldn't hit 9th for most teams. An OPS of around .730 is about average for CF, these days.

Trade Simulator has him with a plus value of $2M. I think he gets traded not non-tendered.

Those 70's teams were fun to watch. I was a kid, at the time, so maybe that is part of the nostalgia, but we had some colorful and/or talented players to cheer for: Luis Tiant, Fred Lynn, Jim Rice, Yaz, Bill Lee, Rico, Fisk, Evans, Burleson and on and on... The ring in 2004 beats them all, though. I wasn't sure I'd ever see one. Thanks, Henry. Thanks, Theo. Thanks, Dan D for setting the table. Thanks, Papi, Manny, Schill, Pedro, VTek and everyone who helped make that dream come true.

I have no complaints. I enjoyed watching the Sox for over 3 decades without a ring, too. It was super frustrating, at times, but it was fun. The playoff system was different back then, so it's hard to really compare. We made the playoffs once in the 70's but missed by 1/2 game, a play-in loss and a 2.5 GB second place. We made the playoffs twice in the 80's and finished 2.5 games out one year. That's 20 years of really being serious contenders for 7 seasons. The 90's were maybe better: 4 playoffs, but no WS appearances. (I'll tell you, I liked the 70's and 80's better, despite less playoff runs.) What's not to like about Henry's tenure? 17 seasons 10 playoff appearances 6 League Championship appearances 4 World Series appearances 4 World Series victories Also, 5 seasons finishing 11 games or more behind & 7 seasons 7 or more GB. I'm thinking the last 17 seasons have been like what I have described as being optimal. I'll take our current history over making the playoffs 17 times instead of 10, but with no rings. That's all I'm saying. I'm fine with people who prefer 17 straight playoffs with no rings, and it's not all about the rings, to me, but being just good enough to make the playoffs (or coming very close) and nothing more gets frustrating for me.

No, there are never any guarantees, but having a top 3 favorite 2-3 years out of 10 increases the odds of a ring. I know Kimmi and others disagree, but I like our chances of winning a ring better being a top 3 contender 3 times every 10 years than a top 4-6 contender 4-5 times every 10 years.

AP has Utah 5th. I'd put OK there. Florida 7th is ahead of one-loss Baylor and Alabama (same losses as Fla.) Not sure why Oregon is ahead of ND, but no big deal. Coaches poll is the same.

Yes, I'm assuming we don't sign anyone to much more than min salary, and we lose JBJ's $10-11M estimate and about $9-10M of Betts's pro-rated contract (1/3 of $28-30M). That would be enough to put us comfortably under.

Trading JBJ this winter and Betts at the deadline gets us under.

The best remedy is to trade him.

This is going to burst Jacko's bubble. The results were positive with the starter getting the go-ahead to immediately start throwing with an eye on participating in spring training.

"Three layers?" 2000-2009- 2 rings in 6 playoff runs 2010-2019- 2 rings in 4 playoff runs

MLBTR reports... While Red Sox second baseman Dustin Pedroia intends to resume his career in 2020 after multiple knee surgeries, “the most optimistic projection for Pedroia would be playing for the Sox in late May or June,” Pete Abraham of the Boston Globe hears from multiple sources. Pedroia has appeared in only nine games over the last two seasons, and with so much uncertainty around his availability, second base is a clear area of need for the team this winter. Both Abraham and WEEI.com’s Rob Bradford were surprised by Boston’s decision to waive left-hander Brian Johnson earlier this week, though Johnson remained with the Red Sox (and outrighted off the 40-man roster) after going unclaimed. Johnson is also out of minor league options, which dimmed his value to other teams, Abraham hears from an evaluator. The timing of the move may have been tactical on the club’s part, Bradford notes, as Johnson was waived not long after other teams had set their 40-man rosters in advance of the Rule 5 Draft, and thus didn’t have the space to spare on a southpaw who pitched well in 2017-18 before struggling last year. The transaction caught Johnson himself by surprise, as he told Bradford, though “in the grand scheme of things I’m just not on the 40-man. My goals don’t change. I have the same goal going into spring training, fighting for a job either in the bullpen or starting.”