5GoldGlovesOF,75

But think of the t-shirts sales. Chuck Nasty would be his own entire band of bearded brother.

Odorizzi, Lester, Hand, Yates, Kike, Marisnick... the latter two are placeholders, the four pitchers are to hold my hair in place (what's left of it).

If Bloom agrees to take Blackmon, the Rox would be required to throw in Jon Gray; I have a feeling this is the kind of deal he's aiming for in all his trade scenarios... and maybe that's why nothing has happened yet (since everyone seems to be waiting for big free agent dominoes to fall before acting).

I think there's almost as much of a chance of JBJ staying as LA trading us Betts' albatross contract and throwing in Josiah Gray as an incentive.

The only way JD gets near the outfield grass is if he smokes it.

Don't forget the guy from the ring reunion, when a-hugging Pesky yelled, "Leskanic, you sonuvabitch!"

This is good stuff, lots of factors to consider. What about the strategy of managers of runaway division champs who take their foot off the gas the last week before the postseason to rest regulars and limit innings for key pitchers? It seems like a requirement of every dominant club that clinches early to coast until October...

This is a set-up: who was hotter than our '04 champs in winning their last eight games vs. the team with the best AL record, and then the club with the best overall record?

But maybe -- "since momentum is the next day's starting pitcher" -- the hotter teams more often than not just have the hotter pitchers. This may also be a direct product of the freshest arms; the '71 O's Big Four each started 30 games or more, 90% of Baltimore's schedule... meanwhile, the Pirates had seven guys start at least 13 games.

I remember '71 well -- it went seven games with a 2-1 Game Seven -- a good example of hot pitchers tipping the scale: Blass, Briles and Kison were just a little better than Palmer, McNally and Cuellar.

I always appreciate those who cite quantitative data, as long as they don't discount qualitative data. Many factors beyond just chance can determine outcomes between two good teams in the postseason. Some of those aspects can include head-to-head records, and who's hotter, healthier and hungrier; the latter Hs often combine to form the concept of momentum -- which may just be late-season additions at the trade deadline or rookie call-ups (whose young, supple muscle tissues have an advantage over more brittle veterans on cold October nights). Exhibit TB: Randy Arozarena. Many GMs talk of increasing their odds by constructing rosters "built to win in the postseason" -- so there must be something to it. For those of us who remember the '88 and '90 seasons, the Red Sox were clearly overmatched by the mighty A's. But while Boston couldn't win one single game vs. Oakland, seemingly inferior teams like LA and Cincy pulled off major upsets by dominating. How? Are we overanalyzing? Does the old adage Good Pitching Beats Good Hitting still supersede all other theories?

If Beni goes, they're signing Rosario. Cora likes him, and he's half the cost of Ozuna.

Well, it wouldn't make sense to look back before there were Wild Cards -- eight-team leagues where only the pennant winner advances isn't crappy at all. Maybe Bellhorn's idea of comparing fates of the hottest teams down the stretch is worth a look -- like Washington. Then again, in '07 there was Colorado, which won 21 of 22 to get to the Series -- only to get swept by Papelbon's Sox. And who could forget the Moneyball A's of '02, who won 20 in a row and then lost in the ALDS first round to the Twins (was that their last postseason win?)... while the second-place Angels went all the way (why didn't they make a movie about them?). Teams with the best overall records certainly have to be favored, even slightly, though... if only because they stayed hot all season long.

World Series winners in the entire Wild Card Era: in 26 years -- 7 had the best record in the MLB that year and 5 more had the best record in their leagues. So 12 of 26 or 46% -- almost half the top teams -- went on to win it all. Of the remaining 14 champs, 7 were division winners and the other 7 were Wild Cards. So first place teams won rings in 19 of 26 years or 73% -- nearly three-fourths of the time. Wild Cards won 7 of 26 or 27% -- a little better than one-fourth of the time. Clubs with the best overall records that finished the deal include three from Boston ('07, '13, '18), along with the '09 and '98 Yanks, '16 Cubs and '20 LA. Bet on big markets when they're good.

Lasorda was a lifetime Dodger -- the first guy I ever heard say the color of his blood was Dodger blue. Pitched for the 1955 world champs in Brooklyn, won a few rings managing LA in the 80s... but his best trait was as an ambassador for the sport. Personalities with the enthusiasm of Tommy Lasorda are the MVPs of life.

Good take.

You mean: we all know Manfred has all the facts in a secret report he won't release... but who really wants to disrupt our time of healing with the truth?

There was never I doubt I wouldn't be, before it even happened.

I still like the Sale trade more, adding a bonafide ace without having to deal any MLB players from an already-first-place team. That was a rare opportunity, and one -- in retrospect -- too easy to take for granted when your team is on top. Price helped stabilize the staff his first year, and played a big part turning a doormat into a division winner -- but remember, it was Porcello who won the Cy Young, and Steven Wright who was an All-Star. It's arguable that Price was worth it for three quality starts in October of 2018, but even the Red Sox admitted his contract was too-much/too-long when they agreed to pay LA to take him -- and had to throw in a Hall of Famer about to enter his prime -- to get it done.

Guys and gals like us also realize it, especially when Bloom -- to his credit -- has been candid about the reasons the Sox aren't in the position right now to trade for a player like Snell or sign someone like Bauer. If other cheerleaders in his office would be as transparent, it'd be more respectful to fandom. I think Red Sox Nation can handle the facts -- and would be even more appreciative during a pandemic in a country so exhausted by disinformation this year.

I like your adjective relevant. It'd be great if the MLB expands the playoff tourney again, and the Sox stay in the hunt all summer. But even if they add a couple starting pitchers that were injured last year, let's be honest -- the entire rotation would still be in question (and more than most staffs). Serious question: what would be more surprising in '21 -- a playoff contender or another cellar dweller? I'm rationally thinking somewhere in between. Posters can say it's still early as much as the Sox did in '19 (until the trade deadline died), but Spring Training is a month away... maybe.

The Red Sox need really good players in many areas to become really good again. For optimistic realists hoping for our 2020 doormats to improve to mediocrity in another pandemic season, the timing will be much more primed for a splash a year from now. Now that Lindor is and most likely will be a Met for awhile, the best position players available this year and next year, at least -- in free agency (that will only cost money and draft picks, but not actual trade bait) -- are Story, Correa and Baez. Few clubs will be in a better position than Boston to be able and hopefully willing to add major talent.

Until Bloom actually signs a regular who hit better than .156 last year or a pitcher who doesn't have a career losing record, I am uncertain.

But not Sugano.

And he was an All-Star in, you know, the Major Leagues.