moonslav59

I'm higher on Monty than most. I don't think the fact that he just turned 31 is such a bad thing. He has never been overworked, his whole career. He may certainly drop off year 4 and 5, but it beats a 7 year deal. I'd sign him to $100M/5, and if he ends up signing for $84M/4 or $100M/5 somewhere else, I will count it as a big missed opportunity. (Same as Sonny Gray.) I do not think he will be an issue in 3-4 years, so if the rebuild is about 2025 or even 2026, he should be a plus, then, too.

No doubt, these guys are sham artists. They aren't very good at it. It's bad art, and I know it when I see it. They talk of sustainability as a code word for planning for tomorrow more than for today. They think it gets them off the hook. Improving the farm is all they have to hang their hat on, so they are milking it for all it's worth, even if the "worth" is nearly all just speculative wealth.

Very true, but often the names of those stars changed, and I think the continuity of stars is a key point in the nostalgic posse.

Papi, Pedey, Lester & Uehara became one.

Soler got $42M/3 from SFG. I don't think that takes them out of the running for one of the remaining top pitchers on the market. They may end up with Snell or Monty. Word down here is that TEX does not want to give Monty what he wants.

Both, and in both cases, the last 2 decades beat any 20 year stretch you can come up with since maybe when the Sox had the Babe. Perhaps, the best 20 games stretch was 1999-2018.

Sounds fair. BTW, Mata can't be sent down, either.

These overly bulky guys get hurt more than others in all sports- even football. Ideally, we should DH him to limit those chances, but we have Yoshi for that, and O'Neill is a decent defender, especially in LF.

I'm glad we did not overpay for a LF/DH type.

I provided records and standings as evidence to my position. I lived and breathed every moment of those 3 last decades of the century. That has nothing to do with stats and standings. I never understand how some people think people who enjoy stats are blinded by them and can't relate to the love of the game at the same level as those who don't. I played baseball for over 20 years. It's in my blood. I used to dream about playing, often. I never dream of stats. There was a lot of fun and excitement. Even when we did poorly, which was about half the time, during the last 2 decades, we had something or someone to watch and enjoy. As many times that I felt heartbreak and frustration, it was still fun watching the Sox. That being said, there was always an underlying feeling with many fans I knew that our management/ownership team were either bozos or people who would not invest just enough to get us over the top and win a ring. There was no sense that management was trying to build a "sustainably" highly competitive team. Instead, we felt like they were doing just enough to keep us interested and hopeful, most springs and early summers. Don't get me wrong, they built some very competitive teams from 1970 to 1999. Good enough to win it all, with a little luck, perhaps. My point was, I never felt their goal was sustainability, and that is the only word I am focusing on for those decades. I do think the FO tried to give the fans some great players to follow. Except for the purges in the 70's, most of our best players played until retirement or late in their careers. I appreciated that. The teams of the 2000's and 2010's did not do that, but we won 4 rings and finished in first or second place more often that the teams of the 80's and 90's. Both 2 decade periods saw 6 last or 5th or lower place finishes. As much as I loved watching the Sox for those last 3 decades of the last century, I enjoyed the last 2 decades more. These last 3-5 years have been difficult, but there were difficult stretches back then, too. As for not understanding the WORD, you wrote... Boston fans never even heard the phrase "sustained" contenders in the final decades of last century, since it was a given the Sox already were... I'm disagreeing. We were non contenders as often as contenders. Being an optimistic Sox fan, I do remember feeling we "had a chance" more often than not, most springs, but deep down, I knew we were longshots more often than not, those last 2 decades. Interestingly, I like our team in '87, for obvious reasons. I had strong hopes, that spring. Many, many springs, I did not have realistic hopes.

Not all who work out and look like that take roids. I'm giving him the benefit of doubt. I do worry about injury to guys built like that.

I'd say we have about 10-15 pitchers that could "take a leap," this year. Gain more control. Uptick in velo. Both. I think a few will. Most, probably won't. One problem is, many are starting so low, a "leap" might bring them to a ceiling of a 4th starter or decent set-up man in the bigs. Our best bet is for 2-3 from this group to "leap" from a decent ceiling to a much better one: Wikelman Perales Slaten Mata Campbell Guerrero Monegro maybe Hoppe

The playoff structure was way different, but I agree. Nobody felt like we were sustaining any kind of winning, in any sense of the word. The amount of 4th or lower place finishes (10 in 20 years) was no better than the last 20 years. 2004-2023 5 first 5 second 4 third 0 fourth 6 fifth The best 20 consecutive years in the latter half of the last century? 1967-1986 (Granted, larger divisions for most seasons, so 3rd out of 7 beats 3rd or 4th out of 5.) 3 first 4 second 7 third 2 fourth 5 fifth to seventh

All true, but the last 20 years of the century saw 10 finished at 4th or worst. We were not sustainable at winning. That was my only point. Yes, it was fun, Yes, we had some of the best players to ever play. I'm not complaining, but we had some down year.

Fair enough. When you said the final decades of the century, I was thinking the 80's and 90's. We did have some fun teams to watch and plenty of stars- many homegrown. Having just 6 losing seasons from 1980 to 1999 sure beats 6 losing seasons in the last 12 years. The extra playoff slots in these later seasons make playoff appearances unfair to compare, but it did suck that we made the playoffs just 6 times in those 20 seasons, which included 2 in the last 2 seasons (1998 & 1999.) In those 20 seasons, we finished ... 1st 4 times (We won over 90 games 3 times.) 2nd 3 times 3rd 3 times 4th 3 times 5th to 7th 7 times I really enjoyed watching the Sox over every decade. I did not mean to slight those teams, but we were not really perennial winners those last 2 decades: 10 seasons 1st to 3rd 10 seasons 4th to last

He was just warming up. That is not his normal delivery.

I can't believe we are just 12 days from the first ST'ing game for the Sox. (Feb 24 vs BAL)

Good choices. I'd add Slaten to the RP group. My Longer shots: Mata, E R-C & maybe Troye. My Longer shots to start? Gambrell, Walter, I Coffey. (I think Murphy graduated.)

That trade doomed all of you, more than you know. (It is what made me a Sox fan. I was a big Tommy Harper fan while living in Milwaukee, and when we moved at the same time of the trade, I switched teams.)

The sad thing is, we might be lucky to get just two to three decent pen arms out of our entire farm system of pitchers. Maybe we get lucky and get a 4th starter and 3 decent RP'ers. That's probably the farm ceiling.

I did not ignore everything else. You complain my posts are too long, then if I don't go in great detail about every aspect of CC's game, "I'm ignoring it?" I know he was a plus defender, when we got him. I know he was a plus runner, when we got him. We paid him enough to be an all around great player, and he never was vs LHPs. He was "glorified" because of his D and BR'ing. I would not have given him top dollar to be great in 65% of the games, and a poor hitter in 35% of the games. His plus D and BR did make up for some of that poor hitting, but not at that money, IMO.

Smith was a better defender than Rice, so Rice to DH. Cooper was traded because the manager said, "He'll never hit in MLB." or something like that, as I recall. They also traded 1Bman Cecil Cooper for 1Bman George Scott, who did play 1B.

Defensive Runs Saved is related to batting splits?

Not when the one vs LHPs is above .700. Career: Papi .981/.817 Crawford: .798/..682 (To be fair, I think CC's was like .695 when we signed him.) You should have used Yaz: .891/.693, but that was a different era, and the Sox did not have anyone that could give the all around game Yaz gave, to take his place v LHPs.

There were a few purges in the 70's that left the team far from "sustainable" in the 80's. The 90's had a few rough patches, too. 78-84 in '83 (6th place) 86-76 in '84 (4th place) 81-81 in '85 (5th place) After going to the WS in '86, we went 78-84 in '87 (5th place.) In the 90's: 73-89 (7th) in '92 80-82 (5th) '93 54-61 (4th out of 5) '94 78-84 in 97 (4th) From '87 to '97, an 11 year stretch, we only won over 55% of our games once (in the shortened '95 season at .557. From '80 to '87, we did it once ('86.)