moonslav59

Isn't this trying to force your idea of what a Sox fan should be like on us? What's the difference? Is it okay for your side to use this type of argument, but those of us who disagree with you are not supposed to ever bring up the possibility of a cliff? Everyone around me think of me as being an optimist. Go back and look at all my pre-season projections here and on the "other site". I almost always over projected our wins. I projected 100 wins last spring. I'me super excited about next year and 2019. I'm pretty optimistic about 2020, because I think Henry will allow us to go way over the luxury tax in 2018 and 2020. (Just my opinion) however, I see some very difficult odds being against us after that. The system has changed since the Theo and Ben eras. We don't look to have high draft picks or easy international pickings going forward. DD does not have a track record of finding the Mookie Betts' of the world with lower round picks and a more open free agent marketplace. Now that the system is more difficult, it's almost impossible for a prgmitist like myself, no matter how optimistic I try to be, to have a lot of hope for 2021 and beyond. That does not mean I am without hope. I have said countless times, I am very happy with our recent draft picks and international free agent signings. The lost year of international signings hurt. The death of Flores hurt, but I have not lost hope. I have not stopped mentioning that hope either, but that hope is not based on any tangible evidence. (BTW, we have been told to have faith that the farm will be rebuilt in time for 2020 or 2021. If it's not Groome or anyone in the system already, how likely is it we draft someone next year that will be ML ready and significant enough to help by the time 2020 or 2021 arrives?)

Ben certainly made some major blunders. They directly led to our failures in 2014 and 2015- no doubt in my mind. He deserves the blame for that. I'm not one to try and pin anything on Larry- good or bad. What some of us feel is that Ben is not given enough credit for providing a foundation, including an incredibly strong farm (weak on pitching, yes) that enabled DD to acquire strong pitching (Sale, Pom & Kimbrel) and get us back to the playoffs again. Winning two division titles was very nice as well, yet it seems like Ben is given very little credit for those achievements by us being blinded by the 3 last place finishes. Compare the teams and farms Ben started with vs what DD started with. Yes, Ben had a nice rotation, but their years of team control were dwindling, while Beckett was having a riches to rags issue. The farm Ben was given had a few gems, including the meteoric rise from an unheralded Betts. Maybe we have a Betts or two in the system right now, and we don't even know it, but what are the odds?

I like that definition better than mine, and in that light, some of Ben's last place finishes would not be considered "cliff" worthy, since a fair amount of people felt we'd compete for the playoffs.

Nobody is "requiring" anyone to agree with us. It sounds like some cliff deniers are trying to silence us for not thinking the way you guys do. The condescension and righteousness is running both ways.

We'd be in a lot better shape after 2018, when Kimbrel's deal expires. We'd have also had more money to spend along the way, but of course not enough to replace what Kimbrel gave us. Margot might allow us to trade JBJ, or he could be traded now. Many of us were not against trading prospects. I had suggested trading Guerra many times. His stock has fallen immensly since the trade, making the deal look better in hindsight, aloing with the sharp rise in closer contract costs. Pom did poorly in 2016 and great in 2017, while Espi got hurt. That doesn't make the trade a slam dunk success. While I mostly look at rings won as a guide to success (like with the HRam/Sanchez for Beckett/Lowell trade), it's not always really all that fair for the GM. Unless we win a ring next year, the Pom & Kimbrel trades cannot be fully judged until we see what those prospects amount to, and even if they all fail, they'll always be the "what ifs" on who else we might have acquired-- younger players with more years of team control, a starter instead of reliever and countless other permutations.

Yes, both Ben guys who were acquired through a high draft pick and a more laxed international signing set up. For those who poo-poo'd Espi and Kopech and others as too far away to have any faith in, now want us to suddenly have faith that Groome or some other prospect acquired with lower picks of in a more restricted FA market are going to plug the holes left by a couple or more significant departing free agent vets.

Since when has the local media had any cred on any Sox talk sites?

If that floats your boat, by all means, take a poll. My vote is that nobody even has brought it up 25% of the time- and more likely it's under 20%, so yeah, gross hyperbole.

If "the word 'cliff means' 2-3 consecutive years of missing the playoffs," the Red Sox have accomplished that twice in the last eight seasons. I'm sure others think of "the cliff" as maybe 3 losing seasons in a row or maybe even 3 last places back-to-back. I'm not sure I'd call 3 last places surrounding a championship a cliff, but it does meet the requirement I set in my example. Perhaps I should have said 3 consecutive and not 2-3 years. That's one of the problems discussing things like this; not everyone even agrees on what the term "cliff" means. Add to that the speculative nature of projecting that far into the future, and it's no wonder there are so many differing viewpoints. It's a bit amusing that the discussion has now morphed into a discussion about the discussion and its participants. Man this is a slow time of the year!

Post whatever opinion poll you wish. It proves nothing, except what posters think. I'd say between Kimmi and myself only, I've brought it up about 2 or maybe 3 to 1 vs her only. Throw in everyone else and I'm not even near 50%, and I post much more than just about anyone but you. Why not chime in on my poll?

That would be opinion not fact. Maybe this poll would be more enlightening: Assuming the word "cliff means" 2-3 consecutive years of missing the playoffs (I know others may define it differently, but for argument's sake follow along.) Where would posters here place the odds of this happening starting somewhere between 2020 and 2021? A) 91%+ 75-90% C) 66%-74% D) 50-65% E) 33-49% F) Under 33% I'd choose B, but I'd say the odds are closer to 90% than 75%.

Probable is a better word than possible, but I agree it is not inevitable.

I was going to say the exact same thing!

Matt Adams, Drew Smyly and Mike Fiers were non tendered.

MLB reports Aaron Boone is the man.

So, we're going to pay Holt $2M plus the luxury tax. (I guess we could DFA him after we sign a FA, but does that mean we still owe him $2M, if nobody claims him?)

Gross hyperbole. Even between just Kimmi and myself, nobody is near 90%.

Can we all agree on one thing? Talking about the debate on the cliff is worse than talking about the cliff, potential cliff or cliff denial.

I'm sure I'm near or at the top of the list for most posts on the subject, but as a percent of posts made maybe not number one .

Maybe kimmo brought it up first? I'm not sure who has brought it back up the most.

JBJ might be better than Beni, but the extra years of team control makes Beni >JBJ.

With our track record with drafting and developing SP'ers this might make the most sense. Use the farm to build up non pitchers and use trades and free agency to stock the staff.

Yes, I get it, but that doesn't mean I agree with 29 innings or the high ERA and WHIP.

Many times I speak of it, it is in response to someone else who brought it up.

I think the CWS are looking at a rebuilding window that looks at least 2 years down the road. I don't think JBJ fits into that model.