5GoldGlovesOF,75

One has been tried since the invention of baseball; the other since before "striking out, while trying to hit a home run" was invented, and could be used as a metaphor (but not necessarily always in public).

In a somewhat related tangent to these lists: it's no coincidence that the Red Sox contended and even won titles with the first group, who were all high performing starting pitchers at the time of acquisition (counting the expenditure of top prospects traded for Sale). The second group were all either mediocre and/or rehabbing bounceback candidates... and we got what we paid for.

Hey -- I read all the prospect ratings on the other thread, and we do have two (2) pitchers in the entire system whose ceilings project to be mid-rotation starters!

Ever since I joined this forum, posters have stressed annual budgets. And I have ignored them, mainly because a lot of the totals every year reflect contracts proffered by former CBOs signed by players either retired, useless because of injury, or on other teams that were subsidized by Boston to take them. As a fan, when it comes to my club spending, I'm only concerned each year about who the CBO signs or extends in that particular year. Some might call that impractical, while others might say worrying about the future is even more impractical. And I totally agree with you that Henry's CBO the past five years did not spend wisely -- underspending on needs, overspending on busts, and just spending time doing anything but using valuable trade resources to improve the Red Sox.

There is a vas deferens between the first 15 years of current bonership than the last five...

Schreiber is the nucleus they're building the cell around right now. They don't want to waste his prime. Or his chromosomes.

Today is the first official day when pitchers and catchers report to Florida. It's traditionally a big day for baseball fans, especially New Englanders who can see light at the end of winter. But the Red Sox are now so irrelevant that there's hardly any mention of it in local news. Happy V-Day (today's contest: identify the V-word... vapid, vacate, vague, venomous, vetc.)

Yep, but in reverse. After about a decade of timing 12-foot arcs, I joined a new over-30 hardball league... and basically sucked at both. Way behind a real fastball, I finally got my first hit; laid one down.

Last time there were this few .300 hitters, MLB lowered the mound by 33%. If they would do that again, might as well just have pitchers throw from a rubber on flat ground -- like in softball. Who here wasn't a better batter in slow-pitch softball than in hardball?

It's really, really difficult to say, because if he told us what he really, really knows, we'd all give him a difficult time.

... for deciphering secret codes created to deceive opponents. Whether it's zoom lenses on video cameras or telescopes that have been documented in use by baseball teams for at least 70 years, remember this: the fingers or taps or whatever catchers flash can mean whatever the batteries want them to mean. And they can even change them, at any time! It's not forbidden, in any rulebook! Same thing with the secret codes flashed by base coaches to baserunners... or from managers in the dugout to players on the field... or from one infielder to another... or even behind his back to outfielders paying attention to what's in front of them instead of someone flashing something else in the third row of the grandstand.

With one quote, AC may have just got himself an early axe when the team nosedives, but don't think he doesn't realize exactly what that means: a few months paid leave, and the freedom to field phone calls from prospective employers who really are trying to win.

I understand the sentiment, but every year the Red Sox refuse to sign good starting pitchers takes another year off the life of the tendons and ligaments of elbows and shoulders of their own diehard posters... not to mention existing pitching staffs.

I don't look at a Monty signing as making the Sox a playoff team this year nor do I consider giving him market value as any sign of Boston going all-in. Instead, it's a natural move the Sox should make to upgrade a hideous starting rotation, put a more legitimate product on the field, and most importantly, provide innings to stabilize the entire pitching staff -- allowing others to develop as either starters or relievers (and for those who do go to the bullpen, give them proper rest to prevent burn-out, and preserve arms for when the Sox really are contenders).

Probably, he only won five games in the postseason, and the Rangers won all six that he started. Texas also made some summer moves -- like trading for Montgomery, who won also won key games in the playoffs. Not that the Red Sox couldn't make a big trade at the deadline -- which they've only done never so far in the Bloom Era. The Rangers also made a big fall move -- promoting Evan Carter. That's the kind of move Red Sox fans are told is the one reason to keep watching...

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."