Author Topic: Infuriating Sox/Tanaka article  (Read 12075 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Infuriating Sox/Tanaka article
« Reply #15 on: April 23, 2014, 01:32:30 PM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
If the Red Sox braintrust want to pinch pennies, then why should I follow them as a fan and put money in their pocket on ticket sales, t-shirt sales, etc?

Because they've brought the city three titles in ten years?

In 2004 and 2007, the Sox had one of the highest payrolls in baseball. Both of those rosters were filled with high profile players on high profile contracts. They did business similar to the way the Yankees did business, and it worked!

As for 2013, to me, that was an anomoly. It was just the perfect storm of players staying healthy and having career years.

Every now and then, a team just gets all the right breaks. I wouldn't call it luck, but certainly luck plays a role. To think what happened in 2013 will just happen again is EXTREMELY unlikely.

To make a long story short....2 of the 3 titles were won with a combination of lucrative contracts and yes, contributions from the farm system (really no different than the Yankees.)

To me, that's how a team should be run.

This new "moneyball" or "short term contract" method (whatever you want to call it) does not usually work.

Also, to say "ownership won 3 titles in 10 years" is a bit inaccurate.

Maybe they were the partial architects of those title teams (remember alot of 2004 were players from the Duquette regime) but the players won those titles, not the owners.

I noticed may are quick to give credit to one certain party or person as opposed to the whole team.

Yankees have won one World Series since 2000.  I wouldn't exactly say their business model is succeeding in a rousing manner.  Dodgers have been spending tons of money and have nothing to show for it.

Looking at the recent string of World Series champions, I'm not sure a clear pattern can be established for what is working & not working.  I don't even know how you'd classify those St. Louis & San Francisco teams. 

The only pattern I can really establish is that spending to the max hasn't gotten the desired results.

If you're talking about baseball, no, but I would say the Yankee's business model (in the proper sense) is working wonders.
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.

Re: Infuriating Sox/Tanaka article
« Reply #16 on: April 23, 2014, 01:35:06 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
I don't think the Sox problem right now is not getting Tanaka. The problems, as I see them, are twofold:

1. They did nothing to replace Ellsbury's baserunning, Drew's defense, and Saltalamacchia's power, and

2. They didn't anticipate that Nava, Carp, and Gomes are likely to revert to being... well, Nava, Carp, and Gomes.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: Infuriating Sox/Tanaka article
« Reply #17 on: April 23, 2014, 01:37:22 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58549
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
This group has made playoff appearances in '03, '04, '05, '07, '08, '09, & '13.     Not bad at all.  Like I mentioned before, most fanbases would die for something like that.

Yeah, my cousin is a pitcher with the Pirates, so we root for them.  It was a huge success for them just making the playoffs last year, and how do they follow that up?  By reducing payroll (slightly) and letting A.J. Burnett (who was a leader for the younger pitchers) walk. 

Whenever I get frustrated by the Sox, I try to use some perspective.  I'm not sure that there's another team in MLB that has been more fortunate over the past ten years.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Infuriating Sox/Tanaka article
« Reply #18 on: April 23, 2014, 01:44:36 PM »

Online Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30937
  • Tommy Points: 1607
  • What a Pub Should Be
If the Red Sox braintrust want to pinch pennies, then why should I follow them as a fan and put money in their pocket on ticket sales, t-shirt sales, etc?

Because they've brought the city three titles in ten years?

In 2004 and 2007, the Sox had one of the highest payrolls in baseball. Both of those rosters were filled with high profile players on high profile contracts. They did business similar to the way the Yankees did business, and it worked!

As for 2013, to me, that was an anomoly. It was just the perfect storm of players staying healthy and having career years.

Every now and then, a team just gets all the right breaks. I wouldn't call it luck, but certainly luck plays a role. To think what happened in 2013 will just happen again is EXTREMELY unlikely.

To make a long story short....2 of the 3 titles were won with a combination of lucrative contracts and yes, contributions from the farm system (really no different than the Yankees.)

To me, that's how a team should be run.

This new "moneyball" or "short term contract" method (whatever you want to call it) does not usually work.

Also, to say "ownership won 3 titles in 10 years" is a bit inaccurate.

Maybe they were the partial architects of those title teams (remember alot of 2004 were players from the Duquette regime) but the players won those titles, not the owners.

I noticed may are quick to give credit to one certain party or person as opposed to the whole team.

Yankees have won one World Series since 2000.  I wouldn't exactly say their business model is succeeding in a rousing manner.  Dodgers have been spending tons of money and have nothing to show for it.

Looking at the recent string of World Series champions, I'm not sure a clear pattern can be established for what is working & not working.  I don't even know how you'd classify those St. Louis & San Francisco teams. 

The only pattern I can really establish is that spending to the max hasn't gotten the desired results.

If you're talking about baseball, no, but I would say the Yankee's business model (in the proper sense) is working wonders.

Well, yeah.  Duh!


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Re: Infuriating Sox/Tanaka article
« Reply #19 on: April 23, 2014, 01:48:50 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58549
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley

If you're talking about baseball, no, but I would say the Yankee's business model (in the proper sense) is working wonders.

Well, yeah.  Duh!

It's a hard business model to replicate, though.

Step 1:  Win 20+ championships with larger-than-life legends like Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio and Mantel;
Step 2:  Play in the cultural and media capitol of the country;
Step 3:  Make money



I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Infuriating Sox/Tanaka article
« Reply #20 on: April 23, 2014, 01:49:22 PM »

Offline ChiefDK

  • Oshae Brissett
  • Posts: 65
  • Tommy Points: 7
I am really happy you brought this up and as an avid baseball fan, this is why I now support the Yankees over the Red Sox.

The Yankees always spend the necessary amount of money to put a winning product on the field whereas the Red Sox pick and choose when they want to spend the money and usually, just don't spend it.

The Yanks always keep the money "on the field."

I actually enjoyed watching Tanaka shut down the Red Sox yesterday.

If the Red Sox braintrust want to pinch pennies, then why should I follow them as a fan and put money in their pocket on ticket sales, t-shirt sales, etc?

Your points don't hold much weight. The Red Sox are the more successful team over the last 10-12 years. When the Yankees go on these big spending sprees (like in '09,'14 and the early 2000s), it generally only gives them a 1-2 year window before things start to unravel. And it's usually due to the age of the roster which causes diminishing returns and injuries. How good will Ellsbury and McCann be in 3-4 years? The Yankees could probably care less *now*, but it could be a real problem. They are currently seeing it with Teixiera/Jeter.

The Red Sox are trying to build a long term winner in the same vein as St. Louis...moving guys through the farm system and not paying a premium for players at the tail end of their primes.   


Re: Infuriating Sox/Tanaka article
« Reply #21 on: April 23, 2014, 01:52:54 PM »

Offline Nerf DPOY

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2509
  • Tommy Points: 377


2. They didn't anticipate that Nava, Carp, and Gomes are likely to revert to being... well, Nava, Carp, and Gomes.

In fairness to Nava, heading into the season he had an OBP vs RHP of over .380 in nearly 800 PA's. How many at bats does a guy have to have to establish a legitimate track record? I put more stock in the last few years than the first three weeks of this season. Hopefully he straightens it out in Pawtucket.

Wow, out 3.5 games on April 23....honeymoon's over I guess.

Re: Infuriating Sox/Tanaka article
« Reply #22 on: April 23, 2014, 02:03:23 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294


2. They didn't anticipate that Nava, Carp, and Gomes are likely to revert to being... well, Nava, Carp, and Gomes.

In fairness to Nava, heading into the season he had an OBP vs RHP of over .380 in nearly 800 PA's. How many at bats does a guy have to have to establish a legitimate track record? I put more stock in the last few years than the first three weeks of this season. Hopefully he straightens it out in Pawtucket.

Wow, out 3.5 games on April 23....honeymoon's over I guess.
His BA/OBP against RHP is still decent this season (.280/.350), not that far off his career averages.

The problem is that Nava was hitting LHP out of his mind last season (.250, up from a career BA of .210 vs LHP) -- did they think this was sustainable?
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: Infuriating Sox/Tanaka article
« Reply #23 on: April 23, 2014, 02:07:19 PM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239

If you're talking about baseball, no, but I would say the Yankee's business model (in the proper sense) is working wonders.

Well, yeah.  Duh!

It's a hard business model to replicate, though.

Step 1:  Win 20+ championships with larger-than-life legends like Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio and Mantel;
Step 2:  Play in the cultural and media capitol of the country;
Step 3:  Make money

So easy even a Steinbrenner could do it.
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.

Re: Infuriating Sox/Tanaka article
« Reply #24 on: April 23, 2014, 02:12:48 PM »

Offline Nerf DPOY

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2509
  • Tommy Points: 377


2. They didn't anticipate that Nava, Carp, and Gomes are likely to revert to being... well, Nava, Carp, and Gomes.

In fairness to Nava, heading into the season he had an OBP vs RHP of over .380 in nearly 800 PA's. How many at bats does a guy have to have to establish a legitimate track record? I put more stock in the last few years than the first three weeks of this season. Hopefully he straightens it out in Pawtucket.

Wow, out 3.5 games on April 23....honeymoon's over I guess.
His BA/OBP against RHP is still decent this season (.280/.350), not that far off his career averages.

The problem is that Nava was hitting LHP out of his mind last season (.250, up from a career BA of .210 vs LHP) -- did they think this was sustainable?

Well I thought a platoon with Gomes against LHP was the plan, but I think that with Victorino's injury leaving Gomes as the only RH OF, that plan's been on hold for now and Nava has looked out of place in right.. Also, I think you're looking at OBP/SLG instead of BA OBP re: Nava. He hasn't hit from either side in these first few weeks.

Re: Infuriating Sox/Tanaka article
« Reply #25 on: April 23, 2014, 04:10:32 PM »

Offline ddb

  • Joe Mazzulla
  • Posts: 135
  • Tommy Points: 17
seriously, guys?  Give me a break.  The Red Sox have won THREE World Series Titles in the last 10 years.  F'in THREE!  More then any other team in baseball during that duration.   You sound like spoiled brats complaining that mommy and daddy didn't buy you a Range Rover for your 16th birthday. 
Not to mention it's April.  Relax. 

As far as expectations go...It's hard enough to win ONE World Series.  Repeating is nearly impossible.  I'd be surprised if the Sox even make the playoffs.  and when they miss the playoffs I won't be complaining. 

give it a break

Re: Infuriating Sox/Tanaka article
« Reply #26 on: April 23, 2014, 04:57:12 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
seriously, guys?  Give me a break.  The Red Sox have won THREE World Series Titles in the last 10 years.  F'in THREE!  More then any other team in baseball during that duration.   You sound like spoiled brats complaining that mommy and daddy didn't buy you a Range Rover for your 16th birthday.
So, we should ignore poor managerial decisions because we won a lot in the past decade? Based on payroll alone, we should be in the running every season.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: Infuriating Sox/Tanaka article
« Reply #27 on: April 23, 2014, 05:06:03 PM »

Offline gpap

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8224
  • Tommy Points: 417
If the Red Sox braintrust want to pinch pennies, then why should I follow them as a fan and put money in their pocket on ticket sales, t-shirt sales, etc?

Because they've brought the city three titles in ten years?

In 2004 and 2007, the Sox had one of the highest payrolls in baseball. Both of those rosters were filled with high profile players on high profile contracts. They did business similar to the way the Yankees did business, and it worked!

As for 2013, to me, that was an anomoly. It was just the perfect storm of players staying healthy and having career years.

Every now and then, a team just gets all the right breaks. I wouldn't call it luck, but certainly luck plays a role. To think what happened in 2013 will just happen again is EXTREMELY unlikely.

To make a long story short....2 of the 3 titles were won with a combination of lucrative contracts and yes, contributions from the farm system (really no different than the Yankees.)

To me, that's how a team should be run.

This new "moneyball" or "short term" method (whatever you want to call it) does not usually work

Is the "Yankees' Way" working?  One title in the past 13 seasons.  The Sox have committed plenty of big money, as well, including high-profile signings of John Lackey, Carl Crawford, Dice-K, etc.  In general, they haven't received a huge return on investment.

Also, as Fafnir noted, the Sox have consistently been in the top-4 in payroll for the past decade.  Plus, I'm not sure things have changed that much since 2004:

2004 Sox payroll: $125.2 million
2004 Yankees payroll: $182.8 million
2004 payroll gap:  $57.6 million

2007 Sox payroll: $143.0 million
2007 Yankees payroll: $189.6 million
2007 payroll gap:  $46.6 million

2014 Sox payroll: $162.8 million
2014 Yankees payroll: $203.8 million
2014 payroll gap: $41 million

So, compared to our two prior championship teams, the gap between the Red Sox payroll and the Yankees payroll has actually shrunk.

Quote
Also, to say "ownership won 3 titles in 10 years" is a bit inaccurate.

Maybe they were the partial architects of those title teams (remember alot of players from the 2004 team were players from the Duquette regime) but the players won those titles, not the owners.

I have noticed many are quick to give credit to one certain party or person as opposed to the whole team.

Well, you're claiming that there's no reason to support ownership, because they haven't invested in the team sufficiently.  A solid counter-argument to that seems to be that the team has, in fact, been winning, even moreso than teams that have spent more.

This ownership group has made a strong financial commitment to the team, and has hired smart personnel for the front office.  Of course it's the players winning games on the field, but the organization top-to-bottom has put the team in a position to succeed.

Understood...I enjoy a little banter back and forth, even if it's not Celts related

Re: Infuriating Sox/Tanaka article
« Reply #28 on: April 23, 2014, 05:11:27 PM »

Offline gpap

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8224
  • Tommy Points: 417
seriously, guys?  Give me a break.  The Red Sox have won THREE World Series Titles in the last 10 years.  F'in THREE!  More then any other team in baseball during that duration.   You sound like spoiled brats complaining that mommy and daddy didn't buy you a Range Rover for your 16th birthday. 
Not to mention it's April.  Relax. 

As far as expectations go...It's hard enough to win ONE World Series.  Repeating is nearly impossible.  I'd be surprised if the Sox even make the playoffs.  and when they miss the playoffs I won't be complaining. 

give it a break

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I HATE this line of thinking.

Essentially because the Sox won 3 WS in 10 years, the team's management should now have a get out of jail free card every year to do whatever they want or should I say not do anything?

It's like essentially saying it's okay to follow a championship season with 20 or 30 years of a putrid product.

Sorry, but as fans, I believe we should expect the best from our teams every year.

The origin of my argument (and someone else mentioned this) is that the Sox literally did nothing this offseason.

They didn't replace Ellsbury
They didn't sign any decent free agents
They also put way too much stock into rookies and role players like Bogaerts, Bradley, Middlebrooks, Gomes, Nava and Carp.

I can see giving Bogaerts his shot as his scouting reports would dictate he COULD (NOT guaranteed) end up being a really good player.

But guys like Nava, Gomes and Carp are all bench players.

And to the point of this article, I think it's also kinda ridiculous to expect to sign really good pitchers on 4-5 year deals under 100 million.

I understand today's market has dramatically risen in terms of free agent value, but that's the reality of the situation. If the Sox are expecting someone to agree to an economical offer, when the same player could probably get 10 times more on the open market from another team then they shouldn't be holding their breath.