Do 1997 and 2003 mean much to Marlins' fans? They do as a diversion. I didn't start following the Sox until September in 2013 and 2018 gave me some hope that ownership was willing to consider the investment they made in championships when they started, but as we can see.... I was at the 4th game against the Angels in 2009 and I saw it as the end of the Dynasty and I haven't been proven wrong yet. Meanwhile, I couldn't care less about how much the players are or aren't making. The question is what and how are the owners investing. How do the Dodgers and Yankees invest? That's my expectation from the billionaires in charge of the Red Sox, a racing team, and Liverpool..... after all it isn't my money and they aren't paying taxes on what they make. Or give me the A's or the Royals to cheer for....
Borrowing Trouble....What happens to YOU If Bogaerts and Devers Go the Way of Mookie?
- Thread starter Shaky Walton
- Start date
What happened after 2007 that would cause such a hot take? The Manny trade? 2012 is obviously Bobby Valentine.
If you write off 2 WS wins for whatever reason you want, yeah... you haven't been proven wrong yet.
Also, comparing the Red Sox fanbase that's been around forever to a Marlins fanbase that was around for 12 years is rich.
Your energy is needed in the game thread. Please, go post this there. I bet something magical will happen for your sacrifice... of your extra time spent posting in there, that is.
So now their owners will be distracted and the Dodgers will eventually be run like the Royals right? That's how it works isn't it?
I am comparing the pure luck of the Marlins victories with the pure luck of the Red Sox in 13 and 18. The Marlins championships were immediately torn down. The Sox in 2014 were 20 games under 500 and in 2019 six game over. 2002-2008 was a juggernaut even better than the Yankees and the modern Dodgers.
So you would rather have a Yankee type team, that competes every year, but wins once every 20 years or so, to a team that wins four titles in 20 years, with a lot of dogshit seasons in between?
I have a solution to your fandom issues then. Look south, about 210 miles.
and 2018 was an historically dominant team. where was the luck?
I imagine Eddie Albert reading this in Drucker's Store as patriotic music swells in the background
Yes, but what's forever for, if not that?
I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt on Valentine, I feel they knew it was a likely transition year, they knew that someone they wanted might be available the next year, and they knew Bobby would be incredibly easy to fire without consequence after a year (i.e. they purposely didn't hire a young rising star). Why do I cut them all that slack? Because that's pretty much exactly what they did with what's-his-name in 2020.
Maybe it's me who's gone crazy
But I can't understand why
All these posters keep hurtin' each other
When love is so hard to come by
So what's the glory in posting?
Doesn't anybody ever root together anymore?
And if love never lasts forever
Tell me what's forever for?
Pure luck in 18? They won 108 games which 5 games better than anyone in the AL and beat the Yankees, Astros, and Dodgers en route to the title. How is that lucky?
Not only that, the Sox went 11-3 in the playoffs against teams that won 100, 103 and 93 games.
2016 1st place, 93-69
2017 1st place, 93-69
It's not like it was sandwiched between 2 last place finishes and 3 last place finishes in 4 years. So the whole "repeatable" excuse doesn't work either.
I'm guessing 2012 was the first year you tried to understand anything more complex than Super Mario?
I'd rather get in Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park.... and it offers an actual functioning democratic government!
2012 and the bits that form Super Mario would have been a better choice than the twisted freak known as Bobby Valentine...
And the only reason they didn't sweep the World Series is Ian Friggin' Kinsler pulling a Tony Graffanino.
Those who have pointed out in this thread that my opening question is almost impossible to consider without factoring in what comes next are right, as far as I'm concerned.
I had not thought that part through all the way when I posted. Like for some others, losing home grown talents like these two, after seeing Betts go, would be a terrible gut punch for me, regardless of what comes next. But it's also true that if the Sox somehow bounced back quickly and became a serious contender, that it would soften the blow tremendously and bring me back, to whatever extent that was necessary.
I think that my unstated and not fully considered premise is that the Sox being a real contender will not happen if they suffer Bogaerts and Devers leaving.
And if it gets tested, I hope that premise is flat wrong.
I had not thought that part through all the way when I posted. Like for some others, losing home grown talents like these two, after seeing Betts go, would be a terrible gut punch for me, regardless of what comes next. But it's also true that if the Sox somehow bounced back quickly and became a serious contender, that it would soften the blow tremendously and bring me back, to whatever extent that was necessary.
I think that my unstated and not fully considered premise is that the Sox being a real contender will not happen if they suffer Bogaerts and Devers leaving.
And if it gets tested, I hope that premise is flat wrong.
Henry and co. have helmed one of the most successful franchises in the MLB for the past 2 decades. They've had missteps, of course, but more often than not, they make the right decisions. I trust them to make the right decisions in regards to Bogaerts and Devers. I hope they stay because I enjoy rooting for them, but I'll understand if they take their talents elsewhere. I'll continue to root for them as individual players, but it'll be through box scores and highlight reels. I'll be too busy watching the next crop of young Red Sox superstars come into their own. More than anything, I'll be happy that I got to watch two incredible players play for my team in their prime. Lamenting the fact that these players may not finish their careers with the Sox is pining for a game that doesn't exist anymore.
Last edited:
I have been a fan since 1967 when I was 12 and I survived the Haywood Sullivan and Buddy LeRoux years, so this is nothing new.
Based on my history I lose a little interest when they suck. But that is it.
Based on my history I lose a little interest when they suck. But that is it.
I don't think it's merely wanting X and Devers to finish their careers here. Moreso, it's about wanting the Sox to retain their best players and compete for a title. If letting each walk is the best way to accomplish the latter, fine. But there's certainly no guarantee that there are minor leaguers who can replace the production of those two.
When an elite player who’s 25-30 years old signs an 8-12-year contract, one of the primary benefits of taking that deal is they won’t have to re-enter free agency in their mid-30s. In essence, that player who’s committing to X team is likely going to finish their career with X team. Unfortunately for the Red Sox (or fortunately, depending on your perspective), that’s likely the cost of retaining their best players (Devers and Xander) unless they agree on something more team-friendly.
And I agree that there’s no guarantee that our minor leaguers will enjoy the same individual success as our current superstars. Odds are, they probably won’t. But if they do… man, that’s what makes this game exciting.
I'm just contending that I suspect the reason people are nervous about what may happen with X and Devers isn't due to some antiquated notion of seeing "our guys" retire in a Sox jersey like Yaz. It's much more because it could be a sign that, for whatever reason, this franchise will not commit big dollar/long length contracts to star players (anymore). And the risk is that the Sox will be relying on a yet unproven development pipeline to replace said stars, which may make us uncompetitive.
And sure, for some folks seeing prospects blossom is perhaps the part of the game they find most exciting. Nothing wrong with that. But some find it more exciting to retain great players and have more of a consistent shot at winning.
Sure, but in most cases you can't really have one without the other. Certainly that's the case with acquiring Xander and Devers - X is 30 and I doubt he's interested in signing anything less than a 6-7 year deal. Devers might as well go to free agency if we're not buying out a significant portion of the backend of his career.
And FWIW, we just signed Story - not a "mega" contract, but inking a two-time All Star shortstop to a six-year deal doesn't indicate to me that we're not willing to commit to the right player. It at least indicates that Bloom is willing to sign a top free agent to a 5+ year deal. You could make the argument that he should've done this earlier, but has there really been a guy we've missed out on? Ozuna/Springer in 2020-21? Suzuki/Rizzo this past year?
I guess the larger question is whether "committing big dollar/long length contracts to star players" is the best way to build a successful franchise. The most obvious case against this type of team building in the mega-contract era is Anaheim, who have gotten burned by many of their big acquisitions and filled the majority of their roster with flotsam and jetsam. I think committing to both Devers and Xander (or Devers and Soto for that matter) is different than complementing a nearly-complete roster with an elite player (Sale, Kimbrel, etc.). That's the core we'd be building around for the better part of the next decade. That's what's happening in San Diego (Tatis), in Philadelphia (Harper), in Texas (Seager/Semien). I have yet to see it pay off.
I will not have a hard time with Xander going the way of Mookie at all. If he signs a huge deal elsewhere then I'd actually prefer that to him signing a huge deal with the Sox. I don't think that's a risk work taking. If he signs a really team friendly deal again then I'd of course love for him to stay. I just don't see him as a player that it'd be a good idea to commit a huge amount of money and years to.
Devers, on the other hand, I'd be more inclined to see stay. If he leaves it's not going to break my heart or anything, but I can see it being potentially worth the risk to sign him to a large, long term deal. There are very few players that I'd say that about, and Devers is one of them.
Devers, on the other hand, I'd be more inclined to see stay. If he leaves it's not going to break my heart or anything, but I can see it being potentially worth the risk to sign him to a large, long term deal. There are very few players that I'd say that about, and Devers is one of them.