What Type Of Red Sox Team Makes You Happy In The Pants?

[Rasputin]

I think I hate this trade more than any other in my decade or so as a Sox fan (and I've disliked a lot of decisions that have been made the last few years).

That's just nuts.

I get that Kimbrel cost a lot, but have you looked at the market for guys who are both excellent and have a track record? Those guys cost a ton.

If this is what an established closer costs on the open market then (a) I want no part of them and (b) I simply don't understand how the Sox have failed to add really significant prospects at the trade deadline for either Koji or Taz in either of the last two years when they both should've been valuable chips.

The current rotation--and the current rotation depth options--have a relatively high expectation for some short outings, and some reasons why we might want to cut otherwise good outings short. A team with this rotation cannot afford to skimp on the bullpen and hope to compete.

Seems to me that a combination of the Sox's high payroll and a consistent long-term focus on value should be able to generate a team that's in contention most years, especially if you believe the Sox are one of the smarter teams (I'm afraid I find the evidence for this unconvincing). After all, if the Sox are spending an extra $80m a year or so over the average team, that 10 WAR right there, even at $8m per WAR. So a neutrally smart team with that budget, doing neutral NPV trades ought to be looking at 91 wins per year.

91 wins per year? I think you need to gain some perspective.

If you're smart and/or prepared to delay gratification with positive NPV win-later trades you should (in theory) be able to do better than that. For me, the Kimbrel trade is the exact opposite of this approach.

Win-later trades are how you end up being a perennially decent team that doesn't ever win anything. You don't win with theoretical value, you win with actual players. Sometimes that means you're going to have to pay a little more than you want to shore up a weak spot. That's what the Sox did with Kimbrel, and they paid a premium to get the best available non domestic abuser. You're free to dislike anything you want, but it was a perfectly cromulent trade.

 

[NobodyInteresting]

I get that Kimbrel cost a lot, but have you looked at the market for guys who are both excellent and have a track record? Those guys cost a ton.

I have. I agree they cost a ton. That's why I'd prefer to try to find excellent players who don't have a track record yet, or maybe very good players paid like good players, or basically any alternative to overpaying for past performance.

91 wins per year? I think you need to gain some perspective.

I agree 91 wins is a lot. But why is the math wrong? All else equal, why shouldn't a team spending $80 million a year more expect to be able to 10 extra games a year more? Obviously there will be variability, but as an average it's not clear to me why that shouldn't be a target. I'm not even arguing for Theo's 95 games a year here.

I think it's pretty clear that Ras and I have very different ways of looking at things, which is fine. I would say that my personal preferences are probably not shared by most people here - I probably get more pleasure than others from watching the prospects develop and less pleasure than others on winning after spending a lot of money. That's just an individual choice, which obviously feeds into my view of this trade.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

You don't win with theoretical value, you win with actual players. Sometimes that means you're going to have to pay a little more than you want to shore up a weak spot.

Moncada, Espinoza, Devers and Benintendi? Still here.

One of the best things about building a strong, deep farm system is that it allows you to occasionally overpay for a premium player to fill a key short-term deficit, and still have several high-quality prospects left to build the long term around.

 

[Lowrielicious]

That's why I'd prefer to try to find excellent players who don't have a track record yet,

DD got one of those too....Carson Smith.

 

[Rasputin]

I have. I agree they cost a ton. That's why I'd prefer to try to find excellent players who don't have a track record yet, or maybe very good players paid like good players, or basically any alternative to overpaying for past performance.

Ones without a track record come with a heaping help of uncertainty. Reliever performance is one of the most erratic things in American sports and there's not really much you can do about it. DD paid extra for the track record because our bullpen sucked and the other guy we had who could close is 40. He wanted someone whose likelihood of suckage was minimal.

I agree 91 wins is a lot. But why is the math wrong? All else equal, why shouldn't a team spending $80 million a year more expect to be able to 10 extra games a year more? Obviously there will be variability, but as an average it's not clear to me why that shouldn't be a target. I'm not even arguing for Theo's 95 games a year here.

There's nothing wrong with your math but expecting 91 wins every year isn't reasonable.

I think it's pretty clear that Ras and I have very different ways of looking at things, which is fine. I would say that my personal preferences are probably not shared by most people here - I probably get more pleasure than others from watching the prospects develop and less pleasure than others on winning after spending a lot of money. That's just an individual choice, which obviously feeds into my view of this trade.

I love watching prospects develop. I spent tons of time watching Trot Nixon in Pawtucket. I changed my seats to see Dernell Stenson play first base close up. I made the trip to Trenton to see Donnie Sadler and Michael Coleman. I'm pretty sure I'll me making a trip or two to Columbia to see Anderson Espinoza.

But the goal is not to develop prospects. The goal is not to win trades. The goal is not to get the most value for the least money. The goal is to win the World Series as many times as possible before we die.

 

[NobodyInteresting]

Ones without a track record come with a heaping help of uncertainty. Reliever performance is one of the most erratic things in American sports and there's not really much you can do about it.

Yes exactly. It's the fact that they're so erratic that makes me not want to pay over the odds for someone because who might after all turn out not to be the greatest thing since sliced bread. What with relievers being erratic and all. I'm happy to be convinced that Kimbrel is special in some way that makes him immune from this but I don't see that evidence right now. And even if he does continue to put up elite performance, the Sox gave up a tremendous amount of upside to get him.

Steamer projects him for a 2.62 ERA and 1.2 WAR (yes reliever WAR nonsense blah blah). He'll be making $11m. For me, there's a decent possibility we could end up in 3 years time not liking this trade even ignoring the prospects given up. After all, it's not like we've not seen highly priced closers flop before...

There is one thing you can do about it. Not pay huge prices. Carson Smith projects for a 3.01 ERA and 0.8 WAR (ditto). Can we agree we gave up a lot less for him? This is what I'm talking about - trying to get a player who looks very good and doesn't cost much rather than a player who looks really good and costs a ton, given that there is so much uncertainty about whether they're both going to be very good, good, great, terrible, injured or what.

There's nothing wrong with your math but expecting 91 wins every year isn't reasonable.

But hold on, if the math is right then why isn't 91 reasonable? That just doesn't make any sense to me at all. Either the math isn't right (or more reasonably, is ignoring critical factors) or 91 should be reasonable.

If you'd said "because winning 91 games means you're drafting lower, which means you get a pick worth x rather than a pick worth y, and the higher pick is worth say $15m more, which means you're losing out on an expectation of 2 wins, which brings you down to 89" I'd have said that's a reasonable counter to my argument and maybe 89 is a more realistic base.

If you'd said "because the evidence of past free agent signings suggest that while teams appear to be paying $8m per win based on projections, free agents who change teams tend to underperform those projections on average, which means that maybe for your $80m you think you're getting 10 wins but you only get 8 in reality" I'd have said that's reasonable too.

If you'd said that you'll end up with too much value in the minors and not enough in the majors because you can never translate future wins into current wins efficiently I'd have said that you might be right on that, but I'd like to see some evidence rather than just conjecture.

If you'd said the Sox aren't paying $80m a year more than the average team I'd even agree (looks like they were about $56m above average in 2015, based on a $178m payroll, though that excludes things like the Moncada bonus/tax which ought to be included in this calculation), though I'd suggest that's kind of missing the point.

But there are other factors that work in favour of winning more games. Assuming you can systematically gain "value" by trading fewer wins today for more wins tomorrow, that pulls you back upwards. And it seems that you'd agree with me that it should be possible to do that (or not? Feel free to clarify if you don't agree on that point).

And I haven't mentioned anything about being smarter than your opponents here. One would hope that a team with the resources of the Sox could a least aim to be a little better than average on that front.

Basically I'd be interested to hear why you think 91 is unreasonable. It's not obvious to me that a smart team with high payroll shouldn't be trying to achieve that. Since 2000 the Cardinals have averaged 91.5 without spending anything like that amount of money.

But the goal is not to develop prospects. The goal is not to win trades. The goal is not to get the most value for the least money. The goal is to win the World Series as many times as possible before we die.

Here we just flat out disagree. My goal for the Red Sox is for them to provide me with as much pleasure, in whatever form that comes, before I die. Yes I get a lot of pleasure from winning the WS, but I'll also get a lot of pleasure from other things. I'll get pleasure from winning the division. I'll get pleasure from watching Pedroia laser-show the monster. I'll get pleasure from Mookie, and JBJ and hopefully when he arrives from Espinoza and all the others. I got huge pleasure from 2013 because it was a wonderful season all round, and I don't expect to see a better one, but the my champagne moment highlight that year wasn't winning the series. The highlight was sticking a dagger in the Yankees heart on three successive nights at a crucial point in their season. That was just exquisite.

I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong. I'm saying we see things differently.

This trade gave me negative pleasure.

 

[Rovin Romine]

(snip) Here we just flat out disagree. My goal for the Red Sox is for them to provide me with as much pleasure, in whatever form that comes, before I die. Yes I get a lot of pleasure from winning the WS, but I'll also get a lot of pleasure from other things. I'll get pleasure from winning the division. I'll get pleasure from watching Pedroia laser-show the monster. I'll get pleasure from Mookie, and JBJ and hopefully when he arrives from Espinoza and all the others. I got huge pleasure from 2013 because it was a wonderful season all round, and I don't expect to see a better one, but the my champagne moment highlight that year wasn't winning the series. The highlight was sticking a dagger in the Yankees heart on three successive nights at a crucial point in their season. That was just exquisite.

I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong. I'm saying we see things differently.

This trade gave me negative pleasure.

This is a point of view with a lot of merit to it.

FWIW, I don't think that the extreme ends of the ML/MiL club patterns would be enjoyable to a certain generation of Red Sox fans. I'd hate to see the Sox turn into KC, circa early 2000s - trading off the best players as they approached FA. I'd equally hate to see them turn into the Yankees of the late 90s. While they had a core, they relentlessly went through the cream of the FA market and grossly outspent their way to victory with mercenaries. Then there's the firesale model of the Marlins.

Clubs have a sort of ethos or personality to them. To me the Sox are in the sweet spot - a combination of develop, trade, and sign to make a club with some touchstones and some dynamism on the roster. While I'd always be a fan, I'd follow the club less closely if it wasn't competitive, or if the roster was completely volatile.

 

[JimD]

And since this will probably be my only post in this thread, I think I hate this trade more than any other in my decade or so as a Sox fan (and I've disliked a lot of decisions that have been made the last few years). If this is what an established closer costs on the open market then (a) I want no part of them and (b) I simply don't understand how the Sox have failed to add really significant prospects at the trade deadline for either Koji or Taz in either of the last two years when they both should've been valuable chips.

Why would you want to trade away Tazawa, though? He is exactly the type of reasonably-priced player that they should have held on to.

I was generally OK with the idea of trading Koji in July 2014 but I'm going to assume that there was a reasonable explanation for hanging on to him, especially since they had no problem with getting a good deal for Andrew Miller's services. Maybe the market for Koji wasn't as robust as we all had hoped.

 

[NobodyInteresting]

Why would you want to trade away Tazawa, though? He is exactly the type of reasonably-priced player that they should have held on to.

Because of the line of thinking that says
1) Taz is worth less to us than he is to someone else, because we're not going to the playoffs [value]
2) People will overpay for high quality relievers - giving up significant future value to win now... [inefficient market]
3) ...especially at the trade deadline when demand v supply is most in your favour* [timing]
4) He's been really good in the first-half, but he's probably not going to be that good going forward [timing]

So let's give up a guy who is a good but not great player, who is non-essential, who is no longer "cheap" (as he approaches the end of his arb years he's more realistically described as medium-priced reliever), who is replaceable....in the hope that we can get someone who turns out to be a key cost-controlled player over a period of years. I don't want to trade away Taz, I want to improve the long-term quality of the club.

Or more generally - if the market systematically overpays for good relievers then I want to be systematically a seller of good relievers. Especially when we can't tell very well from year to year who the good relievers will be.

I want the Red Sox to build a Patriots-like dynasty. That's obviously a very hard thing to do. It's even harder with no Tom Brady. It's essentially impossible if you significantly overpay in trades and if you're not prepared to give up players you'd like to keep when someone else will give you more than they're worth.

I was generally OK with the idea of trading Koji in July 2014 but I'm going to assume that there was a reasonable explanation for hanging on to him, especially since they had no problem with getting a good deal for Andrew Miller's services. Maybe the market for Koji wasn't as robust as we all had hoped.

Maybe so. In which case I'm keeping Koji and I'm trying to fill my pen with guys like him who the rest of the league don't value so highly and leaving the Kimbrels to someone else. Would slightly surprise me if there wasn't an offer I would've accepted out there though.

Still, could be worse...at least I'm not a Diamondbacks fan...

* Yeah I'm British, land of the excess 'u's

 

[DanoooME]

Here we just flat out disagree. My goal for the Red Sox is for them to provide me with as much pleasure, in whatever form that comes, before I die. Yes I get a lot of pleasure from winning the WS, but I'll also get a lot of pleasure from other things. I'll get pleasure from winning the division. I'll get pleasure from watching Pedroia laser-show the monster. I'll get pleasure from Mookie, and JBJ and hopefully when he arrives from Espinoza and all the others. I got huge pleasure from 2013 because it was a wonderful season all round, and I don't expect to see a better one, but the my champagne moment highlight that year wasn't winning the series. The highlight was sticking a dagger in the Yankees heart on three successive nights at a crucial point in their season. That was just exquisite.

I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong. I'm saying we see things differently.

This trade gave me negative pleasure.

This is fine, but the problem is the Red Sox exist not for you specifically, but for everyone that chooses to be a fan. Every team has one goal every year: Win the World Series. You can argue that it's not realistic, but teams exist solely for the purpose of making money, just like any other corporation. And the best way to make that money is by winning and investing in players that make winning happen. There are plenty of different approaches to accomplish that and one of which is the approach you suggest. But the Red Sox have determined that they think there is a better way by developing a top notch farm system, keeping certain players, but also making other players available to improve the major league team immediately instead of waiting for those players to develop (and in most cases, that never happens). No one is ever going to agree on one approach being the best option. And that's the nice thing about baseball; there are so many different ways to win. If the way they do things is in conflict with your goals, that's a shame for you because they are doing what they think they need to do to win. I may disagree with individual decisions they make, but it still comes down to the team winning. It gives most people (especially the casual fans that are the backbone of the team's revenue stream) the most satisfaction and in the end that is what's going to rule the day and I can accept that fact.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

I don't think anyone will argue that having a good-great bullpen and closer isn't a key to winning. The Red Sox needed Foulke. Then they needed Uehara. I remember K-Rod as a rookie. More importantly, we all know about the Tigers.

So the only argument seems to be - how much is a team willing to pay for a "volatile" position (even assuming great relievers are "volatile" - which should be backed up by evidence). If a team needs a great bullpen to advance to/through the playoffs, how can one criticize one of 3 ways to build that bulllpen? It's either trade, free agency or development. Criticizing a team for picking from Door #1 or Door #2 is kind of self-defeating. The bottom line is building the pen.

 

[NobodyInteresting]

Every team has one goal every year: Win the World Series. You can argue that it's not realistic, but teams exist solely for the purpose of making money, just like any other corporation

These seem like two contradictory things to me...your one goal can't be to win the WS if you exist solely for the purpose of making money. Can we compromise and agree that teams have multiple goals, of which two of the most important are "winning the WS" and "making money", and somewhere further down the list there is "make your fans happy"?

Listen, I know that other people don't want the Sox run the way I would run the Sox if I were in charge and that's completely fine. They're not my team and "make your fans happy" doesn't mean "make NobodyInteresting happy". (By definition if you're trying to make Nobody happy you're doing something wrong...) We all want the Sox to win. Most people in this thread have suggested that the Kimbrel trade helps on that front. I would agree that it helps, this year. I think the cost in future years was too great. I think overall it hurts. That's all.

But I think my views do at least have the virtue of being considered and thoughtful and honest with respect to my personal feelings. And if anyone wants to join me on the dark side of believing that the Sox aren't necessarily going about the job of winning the most WS in the best way they could they're welcome. And if anyone else wants to try to convince me that what they're doing is in fact the optimal approach to maximising WS wins they're welcome to do that. I'm all ears to rational arguments.

(And if you're just sick to death of my constant misspelling of perfectly good American words then go right ahead and ignore me.)

how can one criticize one of 3 ways to build that bulllpen? It's either trade, free agency or development. Criticizing a team for picking from Door #1 or Door #2 is kind of self-defeating. The bottom line is building the pen.

I'm not criticising any of those ways. I'm fine building a bullpen whichever way is the best. We've seen two significant trades for high quality relievers this off-season. I like one of them. I don't like the other. It's not trading I have a problem with, it's significantly overpaying for the value you're getting regardless of the method.

 

[Rasputin]

This is a point of view with a lot of merit to it.

This point of view is in direct conflict with the goals of the organization. The organization is trying to win the World Series. Adopting the mindset of enjoyment uber alles is going to put you at odds with the organization fairly often and I'd imagine that would be less than enjoyable.

Take the notion of trading Tazawa, for instance. If all you're interested in is winning trades and such, then sure, you make the trade. You take a farm system that was already ranked as one of the best in the game and make it slightly better.

But if you're trying to win the world series, you sit there at the trading deadline in 2014 knowing that you have a reasonable chance of being a very good team in 2015 with relatively few moves. Those moves would include bringing in arms to help fix the bullpen and trading Tazawa--unless it brings back a piece that will play in 2016--puts you further away from the goal rather than getting you closer to it.

We had this discussion last year at the trading deadline about both Taz and Koji. People who thought it would be years before the team could be competitive wanted to trade them while those of us who knew what we were talking about argued otherwise. Rightly or wrongly, the team felt it could compete in 2016. The season hasn't started yet and there are a million things that could go wrong, but this team looks like it's built to compete.

 

[lurker42]

This point of view is in direct conflict with the goals of the organization. The organization is trying to win the World Series. Adopting the mindset of enjoyment uber alles is going to put you at odds with the organization fairly often and I'd imagine that would be less than enjoyable.

I don't want to hijack this thread too badly, but I'm going to chime in because I also cringe a little every time I read Ras's line about "the goal is to win the world series as many times as possible before we die." For me, it's all about winning as many games as possible, all season long, every year. I'm a little happier on days the Sox win, and a little less happy on days they lose. Playoff wins matter more, but not so much as to completely devalue the rest of the season. For example, I had much more fun watching the 2008-2010 Red Sox (3 winning seasons, 2 playoff appearances, no titles) than I did watching the 2013-2015 Red Sox (1 title, 2 last-place finishes).

Here's a silly thought experiment: If you could guarantee one of the following outcomes for the 2016 Sox, which would you choose:

Option A: Win 115+ games, but go cold in the postseason and fail to win the world series (ie, the 2001 Mariners)
Option B: Finish barely over .500, but squeak into the playoffs, go on a tear, and win the world series (ie, the 2006 Cardinals)

Assume either option happens with the same players (you don't get rookie Adam Wainwright in option B, and you don't get Bret Boone's impending steroid withdrawal in option A)

Pre-2004, we all obviously choose B. But now, I would choose A. And I think a lot of other fans would, too. Just because a season ends on a down note doesn't mean it wasn't a great season, it just means it doesn't get the cherry on top.

As for which choice the Sox' ownership would make...I think that's a very interesting question. As mentioned, their #1 priority is making money. Which is better for them: a team thats successful start to finish and keeps fans engaged all season, or a team that scuffles with ups and downs through the season, but who the fans go crazy for in the postseason (and afterwards with memorabilia purchases)? I don't know the answer to that. But I also don't care - the team's making a shitload of money either way, so I'm still choosing A.

 

[Lowrielicious]

B.

And it's not even a contest. Who gives a shit about ~30 extra wins over the course of a whole season. That's about 1 extra win a week. Who cares.
115 win season and no WS win you have all offseason to think about what could/should have been.
~.500 with a ring you get all offseason to bask in the glory.

 

[Rasputin]

I don't want to hijack this thread too badly, but I'm going to chime in because I also cringe a little every time I read Ras's line about "the goal is to win the world series as many times as possible before we die." For me, it's all about winning as many games as possible, all season long, every year. I'm a little happier on days the Sox win, and a little less happy on days they lose. Playoff wins matter more, but not so much as to completely devalue the rest of the season. For example, I had much more fun watching the 2008-2010 Red Sox (3 winning seasons, 2 playoff appearances, no titles) than I did watching the 2013-2015 Red Sox (1 title, 2 last-place finishes).

Being a great regular season team and winning the world series aren't in conflict, though. While being a great regular season team certainly doesn't guarantee you a world series, or really anything but a trip to the division series, the differences between a team built to win in the post season and a team built to win in the regular season are pretty slim. If you set out to win the world series as many times as possible before you die, you're going to have to win a whole lot of regular season games in the process.

Which is to say, having world series wins as the goal doesn't devalue the regular season at all.

Here's a silly thought experiment: If you could guarantee one of the following outcomes for the 2016 Sox, which would you choose:

Option A: Win 115+ games, but go cold in the postseason and fail to win the world series (ie, the 2001 Mariners)
Option B: Finish barely over .500, but squeak into the playoffs, go on a tear, and win the world series (ie, the 2006 Cardinals)

Assume either option happens with the same players (you don't get rookie Adam Wainwright in option B, and you don't get Bret Boone's impending steroid withdrawal in option A)

Pre-2004, we all obviously choose B. But now, I would choose A. And I think a lot of other fans would, too. Just because a season ends on a down note doesn't mean it wasn't a great season, it just means it doesn't get the cherry on top.

As for which choice the Sox' ownership would make...I think that's a very interesting question. As mentioned, their #1 priority is making money. Which is better for them: a team thats successful start to finish and keeps fans engaged all season, or a team that scuffles with ups and downs through the season, but who the fans go crazy for in the postseason (and afterwards with memorabilia purchases)? I don't know the answer to that. But I also don't care - the team's making a shitload of money either way, so I'm still choosing A.

I'd take B in a heartbeat, of course.

I would also point out that team A did a pretty good job of putting together a team to win the world series, and that if you had team A for several years, it would be more likely to win the world series a bunch than team B.

 

[JoePoulson]

Would you rather be the 2007 Pats or Giants? Exactly, you *always* take the championship.

 

[snowmanny]

So Ras, I think you're saying (and I agree) that B is the greater season, but really the front office should deserve greater credit for delivering season A.

 

[Adrian's Dome]

So Ras, I think you're saying (and I agree) that B is the greater season, but really the front office should deserve greater credit for delivering season A.

Should, perhaps.

But we all know damn well that's not the way it works in sports, and it probably never will.

 

[Rasputin]

Should, perhaps.

But we all know damn well that's not the way it works in sports, and it probably never will.

If you were to plan on squeaking into the playoffs and getting hot, chances are you're never going to win squat. If you build a team to win a gajillion games, you've got a chance of winning some in the world series. If, along the way, you eke into the playoffs and get hot and win one ,then bully for you.

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

Is it better to be a 30-year-old Marlins fan or a 30-year-old Cardinals fan?

 

[lurker42]

B.

And it's not even a contest. Who gives a shit about ~30 extra wins over the course of a whole season. That's about 1 extra win a week. Who cares.

I do. I thought I made that clear in my original post. And while I am clearly in the minority among those of us reading Red Sox message boards in mid-December, there are a lot of us old farts who enjoy success over a long season more than winning the all-or-nothing tournament at the end (brought to you by FOX!)

115 win season and no WS win you have all offseason to think about what could/should have been.
~.500 with a ring you get all offseason to bask in the glory.

Ok, I am going to call you out a bit on this. From your tone, I am guessing that you think my point of view is absurd - and it's entirely within your right to think that way. But I also get to turn that around and say that I think it's absurd that you spend all off-season "basking in the glory" of other people's accomplishments.

Is it better to be a 30-year-old Marlins fan or a 30-year-old Cardinals fan?

I know what you're going for here, but the Cardinals are probably not the best example given that they've won just as many world series over that span as the Marlins. Better examples might be the Tigers of the last 5-10 years, or the 1995-2005 Indians, or the Sox of the '70s. I think the fact that it's so difficult to find a team that was good for a long stretch of time but never won anything makes Ras's point for him - if you're good enough for long enough, eventually the breaks will fall your way in the postseason and you'll win a title.

 

[Adrian's Dome]

If you were to plan on squeaking into the playoffs and getting hot, chances are you're never going to win squat. If you build a team to win a gajillion games, you've got a chance of winning some in the world series. If, along the way, you eke into the playoffs and get hot and win one ,then bully for you.

Unless you're the NY football Giants. Where the squeak and an improbable and unprecedented amount of sheer fluky luck hooked up and made a championship baby.

Twice.

Not that I'm bitter or anything.

But I digress. You're absolutely correct on this one, and I don't see how any rational fan could see it in a different way: you want to root for the team that uses all of its resources as efficiently as possible to consistently win as many games as possible, which therefore gives you a higher chance of winning the World Series. There's no other goal. As much as I enjoyed 2013, you can't consistently build championship teams in that manner (hoping to piece together somewhat random somewhat undervalued cogs hoping they somehow create a complex yet perfect machine.)

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

[QUOTE="lurker42, post: 1509526, member: ]
I know what you're going for here, but the Cardinals are probably not the best example given that they've won just as many world series over that span as the Marlins. Better examples might be the Tigers of the last 5-10 years, or the 1995-2005 Indians, or the Sox of the '70s. I think the fact that it's so difficult to find a team that was good for a long stretch of time but never won anything makes Ras's point for him - if you're good enough for long enough, eventually the breaks will fall your way in the postseason and you'll win a title.[/QUOTE]

Despite the fact that both teams have won the same number of World Series, it is indisputable that it is better to have rooted for the Cardinals than the Marlins over the past 20 years. It is therefore untenable to say that the only thing that matters is winning the World Series.

 

[lurker42]

Despite the fact that both teams have won the same number of World Series, it is indisputable that it is better to have rooted for the Cardinals than the Marlins over the past 20 years. It is therefore untenable to say that the only thing that matters is winning the World Series.

Doh - Ok, I really didn't realize what you were going for there. My apologies. I agree with you completely; the teams that are the most fun to root for are the ones that win the most, and that does not *only* include World Series titles.

World Series titles are awesome, but not the only measure of a successful team.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Doh - Ok, I really didn't realize what you were going for there. My apologies. I agree with you completely; the teams that are the most fun to root for are the ones that win the most, and that does not *only* include World Series titles.

World Series titles are awesome, but not the only measure of a successful team.

Yup. I think the problem with your thought experiment was that it only covered a single season. In that scenario it's pretty easy to choose the mediocre team that squeaks to a championship. What if you spin that out over a whole decade (which is a more relevant way to look at it if you're critiquing team-building strategies)?

For the next ten years, either

A: Sox are a perennial powerhouse, always in contention, usually in the playoffs, even make it into a WS or three but don't win any of them;
B: Sox are mired in mediocrity, often in the cellar, occasionally good enough to taunt us with false early hopes they can't deliver on, except that ONE year they somehow play over their heads and win a championship.

Which do you choose? Maybe my answer would have been different before 2004, but I'd take A, and it wouldn't be that hard.

But maybe I'm a weird fan (though it sounds like I'm not the only one). I don't really give a crap about bragging rights or duck boat parades or ring ceremonies. I like watching baseball. I especially like watching Red Sox baseball. And I like watching Red Sox baseball best when they're really good, and winning a lot, and still playing meaningful games in September and October. I want as much of that as I can get. The occasional title is hopefully a fringe benefit of being really good, but it's not the hope of a title that keeps me coming back. It's the hope of watching a great Sox team play great baseball.

 

[Saints Rest]

Yup. I think the problem with your thought experiment was that it only covered a single season. In that scenario it's pretty easy to choose the mediocre team that squeaks to a championship. What if you spin that out over a whole decade (which is a more relevant way to look at it if you're critiquing team-building strategies)?

For the next ten years, either

A: Sox are a perennial powerhouse, always in contention, usually in the playoffs, even make it into a WS or three but don't win any of them;
B: Sox are mired in mediocrity, often in the cellar, occasionally good enough to taunt us with false early hopes they can't deliver on, except that ONE year they somehow play over their heads and win a championship.

Which do you choose? Maybe my answer would have been different before 2004, but I'd take A, and it wouldn't be that hard.

But maybe I'm a weird fan (though it sounds like I'm not the only one). I don't really give a crap about bragging rights or duck boat parades or ring ceremonies. I like watching baseball. I especially like watching Red Sox baseball. And I like watching Red Sox baseball best when they're really good, and winning a lot, and still playing meaningful games in September and October. I want as much of that as I can get. The occasional title is hopefully a fringe benefit of being really good, but it's not the hope of a title that keeps me coming back. It's the hope of watching a great Sox team play great baseball.

Another way to say this:
Which 5-year Red Sox run would you prefer to see replicated?
1975-1979
2011-2015

 

[JimD]

Another way to say this:
Which 5-year Red Sox run would you prefer to see replicated?
1975-1979
2011-2015

2011-2015, because I like having competent management in charge that doesn't lose players in free agency because they forget to meet deadlines.

 

[JoePoulson]

2011-2015 for me as well, because 2013 was the best season of baseball ever and far outweighs the other four seasons. Plus I love championships.

 

[phenweigh]

Another way to say this:
Which 5-year Red Sox run would you prefer to see replicated?
1975-1979
2011-2015

As much as I loved those mid-late 70s teams, I have to choose 2004-2008.

 

[moondog80]

As much as I loved those mid-late 70s teams, I have to choose 2004-2008.

That doesn't appear to have been one of the choices.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

As much as I loved those mid-late 70s teams, I have to choose 2004-2008.

I bet you're one of those people who, when the waitress says "baked potato, fries or rice pilaf?", answers "polenta."

 

[Rovin Romine]

Another way to say this:
Which 5-year Red Sox run would you prefer to see replicated?
1975-1979
2011-2015

Nice hypothetical choice. I'd take 2011-2015. There was always something to watch and the seasons were dynamically good or bad with a lot of swing issues that could have decided different outcomes. The WS victory absolutely makes the difference.

When I think of the dominant but can't quite seal the deal teams, I tend to think of the '90s Braves. Granted, they won a WS, but between '91 and '05, they made the post-season every year there was one (excepting the '94 strike). That's four pennants and one WS in 14 consecutive post-season appearances. They had 6 100+ win seasons in that run. Only one of those 100+ win teams, the '99 squad, won a pennant (but lost the WS).

I don't know how to check it, but that's got to be close to the winningest regular season team for 15 years. However, I'm not sure I'd want that sort of experience as a fan.

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

Another way to say this:
Which 5-year Red Sox run would you prefer to see replicated?
1975-1979
2011-2015

After getting thisclose in '75, you want me to choose to relive August of '78 and Bucky F'n Dent?? No thank you.

...For the next ten years, either
A: Sox are a perennial powerhouse, always in contention, usually in the playoffs, even make it into a WS or three but don't win any of them;
B: Sox are mired in mediocrity, often in the cellar, occasionally good enough to taunt us with false early hopes they can't deliver on, except that ONE year they somehow play over their heads and win a championship.
Which do you choose? Maybe my answer would have been different before 2004, but I'd take A, and it wouldn't be that hard.
...

Wow, I think the VAST majority of Sox fans would view this differently if there were no 2004. Seriously, for me and a lot of other Sox fans I know, including most posters on this board back in '03, having really good, competitive teams that came close only to lose, again, sometimes in excruciating '86 or '03 fashion, was brutal. I pay too much attention to sports, especially baseball, and have an unhealthy amount of my emotional well-being tied up in how my teams do. After 2004, I'm better (really) though not cured.

But if '04 never happened? There is absolutely zero chance I'd choose option A over option B. Does that make me deeply flawed in a Faustian way? Probably. But that's what being a "sports fan" (you know, short for fanatic?) means to me. YMMV.

 

[lexrageorge]

I seem to recall at one point Theo Epstein mentioning that the Sox approach is to build a team that would win ~95 games in the regular season. That is normally more than enough to qualify for the playoffs, after which luck and short sample sizes play a much bigger role than many of us would care to admit (never mind the mass mediots that pretend neither exist).

That approach seems sound. Of course, it is extremely difficult to build such a team consistently. Players age or leave on their own volition via free agency. There are only so many players that are available via trade for free agency at any given time. Projections have large error bars around them and cannot take unexpected injuries into account. So some years it's just not possible to even build such a team, requiring the FO to aim lower and hope for the best, aka the dreaded "bridge year". And there will be seasons where the team simply does not win as many as it's projected to (2011 comes to mind). And there will be others where everything goes better than expected (2013).

With regards to the question up thread in terms of building a consistent regular season winner vs. one that occasionally squeaks in and wins the title... I'd much rather the Sox keep trying to achieve the 95 win target and be a strong contender come playoff time. As some have pointed out, such a team is likely to win the title one or more of those successful years. The other option requires building a team that will win somewhere between 85 and 90 wins; such a team is as likely to miss the playoffs entirely as they are to "squeak in". And it is simply not possible to somehow craft such a team that it would be more likely to win the 3 (or 4) playoff series necessary to win the World Series than any others. Yes, you may end up like the NY Giants or the Marlins. But you're more likely to end up as one of the 8 teams that become a future trivia question answer.

Finally, from a business perspective, fans (and TV ratings) are drawn to teams that win consistently.

EDIT: Sorry abs, just saw your post.

 

[themanwithoneredsock]

Team I like to see is:

1. Legit elite proven vets on market contracts. We're the red sox, we can afford to pay stars star money.
2. Cheap depth coming from a great system and clever cheapo free agent/trade pickups.

That's the team I like to see.

The team of the last couple years - with no legit elite players (except Holt! of course) and a whole lot of overexpensive depth - made my eyes bleed. I never want to see us head into a season without even one likely allstar on the roster, like we did last season, ever again. Not on our budget.

 

[Rice4HOF]

Here's another hypothetical: Red Sox fan from 1975-2003. (Always "almost" good enough, lots of close 2nd place finishes and playoff heartbreak; 0 championships) or royals or pirates fan in same period (usually irrelevant, each one won a WS)?

I was a Sox fan during that period and loved it. Don't know if I'd have stayed as much of a baseball fan if I was a follower of one of those other franchises.

I suppose reasonable minds may disagree, but I think these are the real life examples we're comparing.

 

[RFDA2000]

Team I like to see is:

1. Legit elite proven vets on market contracts. We're the red sox, we can afford to pay stars star money.
2. Cheap depth coming from a great system and clever cheapo free agent/trade pickups.

That's the team I like to see.

The team of the last couple years - with no legit elite players (except Holt! of course) and a whole lot of overexpensive depth - made my eyes bleed. I never want to see us head into a season without even one likely allstar on the roster, like we did last season, ever again. Not on our budget.

So, going into last season, you didn't think there was even one likely allstar on the roster?

 

[themanwithoneredsock]

So, going into last season, you didn't think there was even one likely allstar on the roster?

not one of our guys projected to be top-3 at his position, or a top 5 sp or rp, so no.

holt being our only allstar was not much of a surprise to me.

 

[snowmanny]

I don't think the front office goal each year is to "win the World Series." At least that's not what Theo said when he was in Boston or what Billy Beane has said. Their goal was to make the playoffs a lot (Theo said pretty much every year, right?) so that by chance some World Series titles would come. It worked for Boston but not for Oakland. And if we replayed the set of seasons 2003-2011 a thousand different times the Red Sox would usually win the World Series at least once but it wouldn't usually be 2004 and 2007.

Here's another hypothetical: Red Sox fan from 1975-2003. (Always "almost" good enough, lots of close 2nd place finishes and playoff heartbreak; 0 championships) or royals or pirates fan in same period (usually irrelevant, each one won a WS)?

I was a Sox fan during that period and loved it. Don't know if I'd have stayed as much of a baseball fan if I was a follower of one of those other franchises.

I suppose reasonable minds may disagree, but I think these are the real life examples we're comparing.

This is a very good point. It's not even close. You can even throw the Marlins and their two titles in there from 1993-2003.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Team I like to see is:

1. Legit elite proven vets on market contracts.

Who were the "legit elite proven vets" available on the free agent market in the past two offseasons that you think the Sox should have signed? Do we wish now that we had those contracts?

Lest we forget, the last "legit elite proven vet on a market contract" we signed was Carl Crawford.

 

[williams_482]

not one of our guys projected to be top-3 at his position, or a top 5 sp or rp, so no.

holt being our only allstar was not much of a surprise to me.

If memory serves, Fangraphs had Ortiz projected as the best DH in baseball for 2015. Uehara, Pedroia, Hanley, Sandoval, Porcello, and Betts were also projected well enough that some of them would probably find their way onto a bloated All Star roster.

Obviously it didn't work out like that, and none of those guys was projected as a true superstar, but that team had quite a few players who were supposed to be very good.

 

[JoePoulson]

Here's another hypothetical: Red Sox fan from 1975-2003. (Always "almost" good enough, lots of close 2nd place finishes and playoff heartbreak; 0 championships) or royals or pirates fan in same period (usually irrelevant, each one won a WS)?

I was a Sox fan during that period and loved it. Don't know if I'd have stayed as much of a baseball fan if I was a follower of one of those other franchises.

THIS is a much better scenario. The Royals from 76-85 were pretty awesome:

- 1976 - lost ALCS
- 1977 - lost ALCS
- 1978 - lost ALCS
- 1980 - lost WS
- 1981 - lost DS
- 1984 - lost ALCS
- 1985 - won WS

obviously a whole lotta shite from 1986-2003.

The Pirates had some decent years:

- 1975 - lost NLCS
- 1979 - won WS
- 1990 - lost NLCS
- 1991 - lost NLCS
- 1992 - lost NLCS

with a whole bunch of suck in between.

The Sox:

- 1975 - lost WS
- 1978 - UGH
- 1986 - lost WS
- 1988 - lost ALCS
- 1990 - lost ALCS
- 1995 - lost DS
- 1998 - lost DS
- 1999 - lost ALCS
- 2003 - lost ALCS

I know this was all your point when posting this scenario, but it's fun to see it laid out. All of the answers probably depend on your age, as I'm sure if you were of a decent age in the 70s-80s, you'd take the Royals without question. But if your formative years were from 1986-2003, the Sox no question.

Overall, I'm with you and would take the Sox, BUT it's hard to remove the amazing years we've had from 2004-2015. I'm trying to put myself in the pre-2004 state of mind, but obviously it's difficult. Without 2004, I'm not sure I'd take the Sox years over the Royals.

 

[themanwithoneredsock]

Who were the "legit elite proven vets" available on the free agent market in the past two offseasons that you think the Sox should have signed? Do we wish now that we had those contracts?

Lest we forget, the last "legit elite proven vet on a market contract" we signed was Carl Crawford.

I am glad we signed price. I would have been happy to sign Scherzer. or Heyward. or Miller. or Robertson.

I would have preferred to sign lester and ellsbury instead of porcello and ramirez, even if those two weren't quite the dependably elite players i'd want to target in general - at least we knew that they could perform in Boston and in primetime roles on a championship team.

 

[themanwithoneredsock]

If memory serves, Fangraphs had Ortiz projected as the best DH in baseball for 2015. Uehara, Pedroia, Hanley, Sandoval, Porcello, and Betts were also projected well enough that some of them would probably find their way onto a bloated All Star roster.

Obviously it didn't work out like that, and none of those guys was projected as a true superstar, but that team had quite a few players who were supposed to be very good.

yeah we had plenty of guys with legit allstar potential, but nobody I would have bet on.

(As for Ort, he was 39yrs old and has been outhit by Vmart, EE, and Cruz in 2014.)

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

Here's another hypothetical: Red Sox fan from 1975-2003. (Always "almost" good enough, lots of close 2nd place finishes and playoff heartbreak; 0 championships) or royals or pirates fan in same period (usually irrelevant, each one won a WS)?
I was a Sox fan during that period and loved it. Don't know if I'd have stayed as much of a baseball fan if I was a follower of one of those other franchises.
I suppose reasonable minds may disagree, but I think these are the real life examples we're comparing.

Yes, and I like Poulsonator's breakdown. But at no point along the way were opponents chanting "1918" at the Royals or Pirates. Point being: The Sox had gone a looooong time before '75 without having won, and that affects fans' collective psyche, the older we get. '75 to '03 were my formative Sox years, and the heartbreak experienced in that time frame would have been bad enough without 2004. Add in the understanding that the Sox had been playing second (or worse) fiddle to the Yankees for 50+ years beyond that time frame, and it definitely weighed on me, as a fan.

But we're probably asking two different questions here: the fact-specific questions involved with being a Sox fan, and the more general what kind of team would you like to root for over time, divorced from a specific franchise's historical failures or success. If the Sox had won in '67, for example, I'd have experienced '75-'03 differently. Maybe joy mixed with bitter-sweetness rather than sisyphean hope dashed with agony, over and over.

In general, sure, I'd rather have a realistic hope every year that my team is going to contend, and to watch a contending team, that brings in pricey vets to fill holes while developing (and keeping the best) young talent. That's a great business model, for baseball and elsewhere.

 

[lexrageorge]

I am glad we signed price. I would have been happy to sign Scherzer. or Heyward. or Miller. or Robertson.

I would have preferred to sign lester and ellsbury instead of porcello and ramirez, even if those two weren't quite the dependably elite players i'd want to target in general - at least we knew that they could perform in Boston and in primetime roles on a championship team.

Did you forget to look at Ellsbury's 0.663 OPS/85 OPS+ and 9 CS last season?

 

[Rasputin]

Despite the fact that both teams have won the same number of World Series, it is indisputable that it is better to have rooted for the Cardinals than the Marlins over the past 20 years. It is therefore untenable to say that the only thing that matters is winning the World Series.

But nobody has suggested that winning the World Series is the only thing that matters. This whole argument has gotten all twisted.

You can't build a team that is going to win the World Series. At best, you can build a team that can win the World Series. If you want to win a World Series--or, you know, more than one--what you do is build a really good team and keep it really good as long as you can. The byproducts of trying to win the World Series are a whole bunch of times where you have really good seasons, a lot of post season success but where you don't end up winning the World Series.

This whole question about whether you'd rather be a mediocre team for a long time with one great World Series win snuck in there or a great team for a long time without winning is a canard. Talking about past stretches for teams is irrelevant. The argument is about how you want management to go about building teams.

nobodyinteresting wants a team that tries to win every trade, concentrating more on the talent in the organization than on trying to win. He or she would probably argue that there would be a lot of winning that comes as a byproduct of that strategy, and I wouldn't disagree. I'd just argue that more winning comes from a strategy of actually trying to win.

We could have traded Koji and Taz last year at the deadline but we didn't because we knew they'd be important to winning in 2016.

 

[phenweigh]

I bet you're one of those people who, when the waitress says "baked potato, fries or rice pilaf?", answers "polenta."

Only at Italian restaurants.

But nobody has suggested that winning the World Series is the only thing that matters. This whole argument has gotten all twisted.

You can't build a team that is going to win the World Series. At best, you can build a team that can win the World Series. If you want to win a World Series--or, you know, more than one--what you do is build a really good team and keep it really good as long as you can. The byproducts of trying to win the World Series are a whole bunch of times where you have really good seasons, a lot of post season success but where you don't end up winning the World Series.

This whole question about whether you'd rather be a mediocre team for a long time with one great World Series win snuck in there or a great team for a long time without winning is a canard. Talking about past stretches for teams is irrelevant. The argument is about how you want management to go about building teams.

nobodyinteresting wants a team that tries to win every trade, concentrating more on the talent in the organization than on trying to win. He or she would probably argue that there would be a lot of winning that comes as a byproduct of that strategy, and I wouldn't disagree. I'd just argue that more winning comes from a strategy of actually trying to win.

We could have traded Koji and Taz last year at the deadline but we didn't because we knew they'd be important to winning in 2016.

Right ... which is why I didn't take either of the two offered five year periods. It's a false choice. The best a franchise can do is to attempt to build good teams year-after-year. Which gets back to the Kimbrel trade. I don't think anyone can argue it attempts to make the 2016 Red Sox better. It may look like it hurts the Sox in the long term if those traded prospects all develop into all-stars. But that's unlikely, and it's not like the Red Sox with their financial strength may not figure out how to get other good players.

Put another way, if trades help make the Red Sox a consistently very good team and they win a world series or two along the way, it matters not if they "lose trades".

 

[pokey_reese]

I am glad we signed price. I would have been happy to sign Scherzer. or Heyward. or Miller. or Robertson.

I would have preferred to sign lester and ellsbury instead of porcello and ramirez, even if those two weren't quite the dependably elite players i'd want to target in general - at least we knew that they could perform in Boston and in primetime roles on a championship team.

I'm down with Price, at least somewhat if I squint, and I could maybe give you Lester, but we should all thank our lucky stars every day that they didn't resign Ellsbury. That contract looked terrible before the ink was dry, and even worse since then, and I think that goes to the discussion here. I want to root for a team that uses its resources at least somewhat wisely, and doesn't simply overpay for a guy because he played under the bright lights in Boston, or once had a great postseason series. I don't expect or need them to be perfectly efficient, or never 'lose' a free agent signing or trade, because ultimately outcomes are unpredictable and even a good approach will lead to failures some of the time, just like a sub-optimal approach can lead to success (though less frequently). I don't want to hold them to a standard that I wouldn't want to be held to at my job.