5GoldGlovesOF,75

Good points. Gotta think there are lots of adjustments we take for granted, like menus and diets affecting mind-body connections. Probably other reasons we don't even know about that makes Japan the country with the third-longest lifespans, compared to the USA... We're #47!

Instead of just replying for days with ways to mock nostalgia and one poster's suspicion of "sustainability" -- how about giving your take? Why did the front office suddenly feel like they needed to elaborate about what everyone who runs any sports team already is supposed to do? How has that specific word signified maybe an actual change in roster building? For better or for worse? How can anyone look at the team the Red Sox are currently promoting and not think they're Fulla Shittle.

Guy's family owns a farm and like a good son he helps in the offseason, hefting bales of hay. At night they all crowded around the radio in the parlor. The Shadow knows.

"Sustained" has arguably been a stain, a Boston excuse to contrive a direction that every sports franchise naturally aspires to: developing a consistent winning organization, based on the longevity of prospects drafted, acquired or signed who blossom into high-performing big leaguers. When the Red Sox front office started publicly saying its goal was building sustained contenders is when they stopped investing big money into free agents for upgrades. It goes without saying that every team wants to win every year, for years. There are few instances when a club like the 2023 Mets tries to buy a title in one specific season, and it actually works. Then again, since free agency began in the late-70s, how many champs fielded entire rosters of homegrown players, without spending on established recruits? Baltimore won 101 games last year but wouldn't even swap trade capital for legit pitching at the deadline, and got swept out of the playoffs. This winter -- the day after the Orioles sold the team -- they dealt for Corbin Burnes.

Again and again -- that's not what I posted about the WORD. But I understand that certain posters can't possibly see beyond statistics. Final records and final places in the standings do not factor into my point of the total lack of "sustained" coming from the front office -- back when the experience and enjoyment of being a baseball fan was more about the fun of watching good players, following and rooting for their favorites on their favorite teams. Everyone knew -- even after realignment in 1969 -- how hard it was to even make the postseason: only two clubs in each league, playing off to see who goes to the World Series. Few fans freaked if their teams -- even good teams -- didn't make it every year. The Red Sox had a lot of near misses, with '78 obviously being the worst. But the year before, the Sox won 97 and finished tied with Baltimore, 2 1/2 games behind the Yankees -- I lived in Boston (walking distance from Fenway) and believe me, it wasn't the end of the world. If anything, because the Red Sox' roster was so loaded with talent, you couldn't wait until the next season to see star-filled line-ups vying and try, trying again. Now what are we waiting for?

Who said anything about satisfaction? NOBODY is happy when their team loses the final game of their season, whether that is the end of September, the end of October or even in November. You can cite all the stats you want of what in your opinion defined sustained success, but the phrase never had to exist back then for clubs who consistently kept or recruited star players. Less teams made the postseason, but that doesn't mean fans didn't enjoy watching and rooting for their favorites performing at high levels every summer trying to get there. And spare me the Trout-Ohtani Angels comparison. The fact is for a long time, the Red Sox used to be almost always good. People who run them also used to care more about being good.

I'll never complain about the '80s, especially the second half, with Clemens and Boggs at the top of their professions with annual HOF seasons, leading the Sox to three first-place finishes ... (counting '90 as an extension of '88, with the new guard of Greenwell-Burks-Reed etc.). Would you accept that trio's production if the now-Sox top three prospects performed at similar levels? Jody Reed was a solid .280 batter with 40 doubles a year in his prime. The '90s was tougher to stomach, until Mo Vaughn and Nomar made it big... and then came the Pedro trade. Now those are the types of stars we're led to believe -- by the front office -- that Anthony-Mayer-Teel will soon become.

My point about "SUSTAINED" is that good players made good teams, and there was no need to justify direction back then; nobody used the adjective because the Red Sox were usually winners. You can dig up all the stats and seasons where you thought they were unworthy, but the fact is from '67 to '91, Boston only had losing records twice in 24 years. From Yaz' Impossible Dream to Clemens twilight (before his rigorous training with innuendo), seeing only two losers out of two dozen seasons made for some exciting times for fans.

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... probably because the Red Sox continually developed star players, and almost always found a way to keep the best ones. Someone noted recently about a short span in the 1970s when the Red Sox traded away Reggie Smith, Cecil Cooper, Ben Oglivie and Juan Beniquez -- all became either home run champs, RBI champs, .300 hitters, Gold Glovers or All-Stars -- and Boston fans hardly missed any of them, except Cooper, who got serious AL MVP votes for five straight years (while the guy he was swapped for bounced into a million double plays). The lack of regret for losing good players is that the Red Sox always had plenty of worthy replacements -- Brady Anderson was expendable because they had Ellis Burks -- and management was always ready to supplement the roster with any stars that became available from other clubs. The Yankees were also always on the prowl for upgrades; still are, but now they can have more of their picks, with their old archrivals sitting this one out.

Watching the national pastime last night, the one parallel to the Red Sox was ten guys standing around a ref flipping a coin. That's how the front office decides every trade deadline: "heads we buy, tails we sell"... until Henry walks in and says, "Head will roll if you spend."

At first, I thought he was just trying to win a bet with some other bored billionaire, like Mortimer on the old Trading Places movie. But on second thought, maybe he already lost a challenge, and is suffering a long punishment at sub-Murr, sub-Sal levels...

I'm in the Old Red camp in claiming the vast majority of fans actually care more about -- their team, this season -- compared to one iota (or why I oughta) who even think about a player's years of control in the future. I also think Scott Boras is overrated if he can't convince Montgomery to sign with Boston, while NESN's top sponsor is Jordan's Furniture (no, I don't work for them -- but Monty should soon, and extend a cut to his agent).

Then we should be World Series favorites -- like the Yankees were every single year the past decade -- and already are, again, because they got Stroman and Soto to compliment Verdugo. "Nice necklace, Alex... but there's a typo on your durag."

But, they were speeding while injured! I swear...

I live in Yankees country, so know Thorpe was their top pitching prospect -- but who knows if he's breaking camp in the majors this year. For this season, there's no doubt King is a big league starter, coming off '23 when he had a higher WAR and lower ERA than any member of the Red Sox woe tation. At least we know New York won't be giving us Fitts, since they already did.

Held off commenting for two days so as not to sound negative... but if I posted the idea of SD trading King for Duran, I would expect an immediate reply to go something like: So you're saying the Padres -- whose rotation just lost Cy Young, Lugo, and Wacha (that only talksox regulars bash for leading the majors in winning percentage the past two years), plus MLB's top closer -- will want to give up their best piece they just got in a deal for their generational hitter... for a fast leadoff type with a shaky glove? How will San Diego diehards on talkpads.com react when they realize they effectively traded Juan Soto for Jarren Duran?

Damelo.

Cooper and Carbo would've been longterm and short term impact players, but the guy Yaz lamented most was Tiant. He didn't have much left, but Looie was a clubhouse leader -- and they let him go to the Yankees.

I don't work for the Red Sox, whose front office has made their pitching a crappy joke for so long. So I won't ask if you've heard the one about their plan to improve a brutal starting rotation by just coaching them better.

They're also both something that can fit in one hand... and be thrown. Unless you're a pitcher who just had surgery and was signed in the Bloom Era to rehab for at least another year, before you start chucking apples and oranges on flat ground -- and then progress to some Southern forests to longtoss them to wild animals -- before finally graduating to toss fruit salad in mess halls to prospects in the Destructional League.

Fair point. Fisk was the future Hall of Famer, but he was already 32. Lynn -- who may've made Cooperstown if he played his whole career in Fenway -- was 28. I still can't get over that Mookie was only 26...

In today's Globe, Dan calls Sam a human shield for John Henry (picture Sam with arms outstretched, in defensive position on the sidewalk, while the other 47 VPs stuff Henry into a limo). Regarding Epstein, "He knows the Sox farm system is mediocre with no pitching." "Theo can be honest about it while supplying some cover for the beleaguered Kennedy."

2-10-2020 from the Pay Mookie! thread... 5GG Post #297: "I feel Mookie's career and contract will be defined by his performance over the next half decade, during which time I fully expect him to produce another 30 WAR and lead his new club to at least 450 wins. If he helps win another World Series, it will be worth it to that franchise and its fan base. Boston losing Betts can't be as bad as losing Babe Ruth, but I fear it will be the biggest Red Sox mistake since -- one that media and rival fans will haunt our sons with for a long time... especially, if the Bosox blow much of their savings on free agent busts filling unavoidable voids, trying to win back fans. Giving away Bagwell while a prospect was bad enough, but the Red Sox had a HOFer about to enter his prime... and couldn't keep him."

Wish they would all lay off Sam, who has been nothing... but on the level with the Nation for all these years. Such a fountain of information, consistently updating fans on plans for roster upgrades and organizational direction in the marketplace -- our Old Faithful of Yellowstone Park (where a volcano will someday erupt to blot out the sun with ash... and Sam will reassure us of a sustained nuclear winter).

"Withering Depths"