No Playoffs 4 out of the 5 Past Years

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ma6dragon9. Show ma6dragon9's posts

    Re: No Playoffs 4 out of the 5 Past Years

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ma6dragon9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I'm not cherry picking anything, I'm dealing with the current 5 year stretch...what is so hard to understand about that?

    [/QUOTE]

    Ha ha...good one.  It's the very essence of cherry picking.  Who decided that 5 years was the most relevant time frame?

    You did.  You chose the one time frame that best suited your position.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    You really don't understand what cherry picking is. I didn't fish for some specific 5 year stretch that proves my point...I'm dealing with the current, and past 5 year reality of this team.

    Sorry if the CURRENT time frame fits what I'm saying.

    You desperately want to hold on to things that happened 5+ years ago...try addressing any of the multiple things I said rather than whining about phantom cherries.

    It's like I'm in 3rd grade again and said something about someone's mother. 

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ma6dragon9. Show ma6dragon9's posts

    Re: No Playoffs 4 out of the 5 Past Years


    Let me be perfectly clear about a few things:

    - I don't EXPECT the Sox to win or be in the playoffs, quite the opposite and it's alarming how delusional some people can be and truly read whatever they want. That's the very BASIS for wanting to deal Lester, I don't think this team can win in the next few years, so set it up better going forward.

    - Using a time frame of 2010 - present is anything BUT cherry picking. Cherry picking would be saying "2012, 2011, 2005, 2003, 2001....See how the team is horrible!!!" I didn't do that. I guess a lot of sox glasses wearing, pom pom waving fans didn't realize the Sox had missed the playoffs so often in recent years. Sorry to be the bearer of bad new and bring you back to reality.

    If I see something I don't like...I will voice my displeasure. Being a fan doesn't mean just blindly waving your flag and singing sweet caroline as the "best team ever" collapses in the final game of the season and misses the playoffs. I don't even know what that is...a fking joke perhaps. The pink hats took 2013 as a chance to rub their fandom in everyone's face...objective baseball fans saw this fall coming a mile away. It was obvious by the years leading up if you weren't fooled by one of the most fortunate runs in MLB history. Luck never lasts.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: No Playoffs 4 out of the 5 Past Years

    In response to ma6dragon9's comment:


    You really don't understand what cherry picking is. I didn't fish for some specific 5 year stretch that proves my point...I'm dealing with the current, and past 5 year reality of this team.


    Sorry if the CURRENT time frame fits what I'm saying.


    You desperately want to hold on to things that happened 5+ years ago...try addressing any of the multiple things I said rather than whining about phantom cherries.


    It's like I'm in 3rd grade again and said something about someone's mother. 




    Here are the retrospective time frames to choose from for the current ownership, with % of playoff appearances for that time frame: 


    2 years = 50%


    3 = 33%


    4 = 25%


    5 = 20%


    6 = 33%


    7 = 43%


    8 = 50%


    9 = 44%


    10 = 50%


    11 = 55%


    12 = 58%


    13 = 54%


    As you can see, the time frame you chose just happens to be the one with the lowest %. 


    Unless you can explain exactly why 5 years is more relevant than any other time frame, you're cherry-pickin'.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: No Playoffs 4 out of the 5 Past Years

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ma6dragon9's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    You really don't understand what cherry picking is. I didn't fish for some specific 5 year stretch that proves my point...I'm dealing with the current, and past 5 year reality of this team.

     

    Sorry if the CURRENT time frame fits what I'm saying.

     

    You desperately want to hold on to things that happened 5+ years ago...try addressing any of the multiple things I said rather than whining about phantom cherries.

     

    It's like I'm in 3rd grade again and said something about someone's mother. 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Here are the retrospective time frames to choose from for the current ownership, with % of playoff appearances for that time frame: 

     

     

    2 years = 50%

     

    3 = 33%

     

    4 = 25%

     

    5 = 20%

     

    6 = 33%

     

    7 = 43%

     

    8 = 50%

     

    9 = 44%

     

    10 = 50%

     

    11 = 55%

     

    12 = 58%

     

    13 = 54%

     

    As you can see, the time frame you chose just happens to be the one with the lowest %. 

     

    Unless you can explain exactly why 5 years is more relevant than any other time frame, you're cherry-pickin'.

    [/QUOTE]

    I do not think that five years is any less reasonable a time frame to choose than any other time frame. 

    WE ARE ALL JUST POPPYSEEDS IN THE BAKERY OF LIFE

     

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from crazy-world-of-troybrown. Show crazy-world-of-troybrown's posts

    Re: No Playoffs 4 out of the 5 Past Years

    The Qualifying Offer is going to be a big hang-up for Trades. Teams don't want to give up Draft Picks, never mind Prospects.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: No Playoffs 4 out of the 5 Past Years

    Whether you're looking at the past five years or any other time block since this ownership has taken over, every year, this FO has fielded a team that, on paper, was competitive.  Of course you still have to play the games, and the results are not always what we would have hoped or expected.

    But, even though the team did not make the playoffs some of those years, the FO has consistently spent big money and put together a team that should contend.  Even the 2012 team, as bad as their record was, had the talent to contend.

    It would be one thing if the FO did nothing for 4 out of the 5 years, then decided for the 5th year they better field a winner to keep the fan base happy.  It's an entirely different thing when the FO is spending and is fielding a good team every year, but things don't work out because of injuries, underperformances, or Bobby Valentine.

    Continue to field competitive teams year in and year out and your chances of being in the playoffs and winning championships improves.   As a fan, that's really all I can ask, since nothing is guaranteed.

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from ma6dragon9. Show ma6dragon9's posts

    Re: No Playoffs 4 out of the 5 Past Years

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ma6dragon9's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    You really don't understand what cherry picking is. I didn't fish for some specific 5 year stretch that proves my point...I'm dealing with the current, and past 5 year reality of this team.

     

    Sorry if the CURRENT time frame fits what I'm saying.

     

    You desperately want to hold on to things that happened 5+ years ago...try addressing any of the multiple things I said rather than whining about phantom cherries.

     

    It's like I'm in 3rd grade again and said something about someone's mother. 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Here are the retrospective time frames to choose from for the current ownership, with % of playoff appearances for that time frame: 

     

     

    2 years = 50%

     

    3 = 33%

     

    4 = 25%

     

    5 = 20%

     

    6 = 33%

     

    7 = 43%

     

    8 = 50%

     

    9 = 44%

     

    10 = 50%

     

    11 = 55%

     

    12 = 58%

     

    13 = 54%

     

    As you can see, the time frame you chose just happens to be the one with the lowest %. 

     

    Unless you can explain exactly why 5 years is more relevant than any other time frame, you're cherry-pickin'.

    [/QUOTE]


    Ummmmm...it's MORE relevant because it has MORE to do with this team RIGHT NOW, and GOING FORWARD.

    This was never meant to be a discussion about ownership, overall. You're confusing different things I've railed about. Where did I say ownership has done a bad job during their tenure? I DO NOT LIKE ownership, but I haven't argued they don't deliver wins. 

    Unless YOU can explain EXACTLY how 2009, or 2008, or 2007, or 2004 has N-E-THING to do with THIS TEAM, or 2015, or 2016, go right the f ahead.

    And if anyone wants to try and convince me the 90 wins in 2011 was a good thing, I challenge you to do that as well. Oh WOW! It was more than probably 25 other teams though!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I know I shouldn't get p i s s e d off...but I do. It's a problem I deal with, but the utter stupidity is amazing. 

    Stop trying to create arguments we aren't having. Stop bring up IRRELEVANT histories that have NOTHING to do with this team going forward.

    No matter how you twist things, this team still hasn't gone to the playoffs four out of five years, once this season is complete. Go ahead and cling to desperate fantasies of them clawing into a wild card game, it's extremely unlikely, but go for it. That's what being a 'real fan' is I guess. I'm not rooting against them, I'm just trying to deal with the reality of this club, right now, and options going forward.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from ma6dragon9. Show ma6dragon9's posts

    Re: No Playoffs 4 out of the 5 Past Years

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Whether you're looking at the past five years or any other time block since this ownership has taken over, every year, this FO has fielded a team that, on paper, was competitive.  Of course you still have to play the games, and the results are not always what we would have hoped or expected.

    But, even though the team did not make the playoffs some of those years, the FO has consistently spent big money and put together a team that should contend.  Even the 2012 team, as bad as their record was, had the talent to contend.

    It would be one thing if the FO did nothing for 4 out of the 5 years, then decided for the 5th year they better field a winner to keep the fan base happy.  It's an entirely different thing when the FO is spending and is fielding a good team every year, but things don't work out because of injuries, underperformances, or Bobby Valentine.

    Continue to field competitive teams year in and year out and your chances of being in the playoffs and winning championships improves.   As a fan, that's really all I can ask, since nothing is guaranteed.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    On this, we agree entirely. Again, I didn't start this thread to discuss ownership overall. I just wanted to discuss options going forward.

    Yes, they spend money every year. Sometimes to their detriment. THIS team, right now, how they are constructed, I don't agree with spending that money on the next 5 years of Lester. I've said I think he's a good pitcher. I'd put him in the 10-15 overall range. Probably closer to 10th. I've also said I don't think long term contracts work out well for pitchers over 30. I have done research, and put it in different posts on different threads. I don't agree with knowingly taking on bad, back end years to overpay for what are hopefully premium years. 

    The Sox have the money to pay pretty much whatever they want. They have built up a farm system with highly regarded prospects throughout. I pocket that money, and target the specific people, at the leading edge of their prime years. Stanton coming up...it's not a pipe dream, MLB is littered with guys who got moved, sometimes more than once as they came up towards free agency, in their mid-late 20s. Sabathia. G Gonzalez, Cliff Lee, Texeira, Cabrera, Rizzo, V Martinez, Pence, Sherzer. Likely going to happen to Price as well, though he's a little older. Pitchers tend to start to break down around 32 these days. Halladay and Sabathia are two shining examples. I don't want to pay Lester guaranteed money at, or over 20/season until he's 34+.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Flapjack07. Show Flapjack07's posts

    Re: No Playoffs 4 out of the 5 Past Years

    I don't see the problem with the five-year sample...besides being a nice round number, it does highlight a recent period in which the RS have struggled (last year aside) to reach October for one reason or another.

    Everyone manipulates sample sizes to make a point or to draw attention to a trend. If I tell you that Player A is hitting .330 over the last 30 days, and you ask why I didn't go back 60 or 90 days instead, you probably completely missed (or did not want to acknowledge) the point I was making.

    Go back to 2003-09 and we made the playoffs six out of seven years - which is pretty amazing. I think we all know that here, and looking at the last five years for purposes of this thread does not take away from that success. But the fact is, recently, we have been on the outside looking in at the postseason more often than not, and it's perfectly valid to ask why that is and what can be done to change it going forward.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: No Playoffs 4 out of the 5 Past Years

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    World Series champs almost always have at least one ace pitcher who carries them through the playoffs.  History definitely supports that.  Red Sox history: 2004 - Schilling 2007 - Beckett 2013 - Lester. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Ace Closers in all 3 cases---Foulke, Papelbon and Koji

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: No Playoffs 4 out of the 5 Past Years

    In response to ma6dragon9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    On this, we agree entirely. Again, I didn't start this thread to discuss ownership overall. I just wanted to discuss options going forward.

    Yes, they spend money every year. Sometimes to their detriment. THIS team, right now, how they are constructed, I don't agree with spending that money on the next 5 years of Lester. I've said I think he's a good pitcher. I'd put him in the 10-15 overall range. Probably closer to 10th. I've also said I don't think long term contracts work out well for pitchers over 30. I have done research, and put it in different posts on different threads. I don't agree with knowingly taking on bad, back end years to overpay for what are hopefully premium years. 

    The Sox have the money to pay pretty much whatever they want. They have built up a farm system with highly regarded prospects throughout. I pocket that money, and target the specific people, at the leading edge of their prime years. Stanton coming up...it's not a pipe dream, MLB is littered with guys who got moved, sometimes more than once as they came up towards free agency, in their mid-late 20s. Sabathia. G Gonzalez, Cliff Lee, Texeira, Cabrera, Rizzo, V Martinez, Pence, Sherzer. Likely going to happen to Price as well, though he's a little older. Pitchers tend to start to break down around 32 these days. Halladay and Sabathia are two shining examples. I don't want to pay Lester guaranteed money at, or over 20/season until he's 34+.

    [/QUOTE]


    As far as the options going forward are concerned, I think a lot of that depends on whether one thinks the Sox can contend next year or not.  I think they can, and that is why I feel it is important that they re-sign Lester.

    I am not a fan of big contracts either, and even less so for pitchers.  However, I would have no problem with signing Lester to a 5 year contract.  I would not guarantee a 6th year.

    Since I think the team can contend next season, I think it is important to have Lester in the rotation, not only because he is good, but also for his veteran presence and to maintain pitching depth.  It's very risky to have a rotation with 2 young/unproven pitchers in it.  If Lester leaves, that would give us 3 or more youngsters in the rotation.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: No Playoffs 4 out of the 5 Past Years

    In response to dannycater's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Ace Closers in all 3 cases---Foulke, Papelbon and Koji

    [/QUOTE]


    I will grant you that having a good closer is one of the 3 factors that had any statistical significance to winning in the post season, the other two being a power pitching staff and a good defense.

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from slasher9. Show slasher9's posts

    Re: No Playoffs 4 out of the 5 Past Years

    WE HAVE NOT WON A WORLD SERIES IN 9 MONTHS!  NINE MONTHS!!!!  OWNERSHIP SHOULD BE FORCED TO SELL AS IF THEY WERE VIDEOTAPED SAYING RACIST THINGS!  9 MONTHS WITHOUT A WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP IS COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE.  I DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THIS.  ACCOUNTABILITY!

    other names i have posted under:  none

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: No Playoffs 4 out of the 5 Past Years

    In response to Flapjack07's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I don't see the problem with the five-year sample...besides being a nice round number, it does highlight a recent period in which the RS have struggled (last year aside) to reach October for one reason or another.

    Everyone manipulates sample sizes to make a point or to draw attention to a trend. If I tell you that Player A is hitting .330 over the last 30 days, and you ask why I didn't go back 60 or 90 days instead, you probably completely missed (or did not want to acknowledge) the point I was making.

    Go back to 2003-09 and we made the playoffs six out of seven years - which is pretty amazing. I think we all know that here, and looking at the last five years for purposes of this thread does not take away from that success. But the fact is, recently, we have been on the outside looking in at the postseason more often than not, and it's perfectly valid to ask why that is and what can be done to change it going forward.

    [/QUOTE]

    It's okay to look at the last five years, but I think when you do it, you have to put it in context of the success of the previous seven years.  Because there is a cyclical nature to success of sports franchises.  It's virtually impossible to stay on top for long because of the turnover of players, the economics of free agency, the draft system etc.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from BogieAt12oclock. Show BogieAt12oclock's posts

    Re: No Playoffs 4 out of the 5 Past Years

    In response to BmoreCommie's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Average wins in last five years = 88

    Removing 2012, average in last four years =93. 

    Average for all of baseball = 81

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Are we gonna remove this year also?

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: No Playoffs 4 out of the 5 Past Years

    In response to ma6dragon9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:
    [QUOTE]1-On one hand, paying SPs until age 35 is pretty risky.  OTOH, what else do you do with the money?  Our payroll commitment is $78M next year, and $15M for 2016.  Rookies are always underpaid, so even if Lester winds up overpaid, we can still afford it.

    2-I'm a big fan of a good farm, but you still need veteran leadership.

    3-And it is not like the old when you could bring up 6-8 kids and have a good team for 10-12 years.  For a team like ours, you have to be looking at winning every year.

    4-And your desire to go with the kids, and also wanting to sign Salty to a l/t contract, are contradictory.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    1) Having money shouldn't equate NEEDING to spend it. That thinking led to Crawford. Being able to spend money is nice...I NEVER, as a fan, feel like they should just pile money until they hit some minimum payroll number. They did that coming into 2013 and I RIPPED them for it...and they got away with it because of outside circumstance.

    2) Agreed. That good leadership could be Pedroia, Lackey and Ortiz. You just need a few solid ones, not a lot.

    3) I agree with looking at winning every year. Expecting it, however, is a different story. Feeling ENTITLED to it, which I believe a lot of fans have gotten to that point, is disgusting. Sometimes you have to take a step back, and Sox have not been willing to do this since Theo tried in 2010, and the fans and media's heads all fking exploded when he said "bridge".

    4) Don't agree. Satly's contract, as it sits, is easily movable. He was a clubhouse leader, community giver, and had earned the trust and respect of the pitching staff. Mia is currently very happy to have him if you read any articles. He could've held down the position all year and not necessitate a mid-season purge. It may seem contradictory on the surface, but the devil is in the details.

    [/QUOTE]

    ma6dragon9,

    Your item 1) is a stunner and calls into question anything you say about 2014.  Why?  Because you admit you predicted a disastrous 2013 campaign--coming as it did after a losing season, 2012--and were completely wrong.  Now you want us to believe that 2013 was entirely blind stupid luck and everyone should have seen it. 

    I have not problems with 2) or 3).

    But 4) blows my mind because you can't convince me that benching Saltalamacchia wasn't the key to beating the Cardinals 4 games to 2 in the WS.  Salty was outplayed by a 38 year old part-timer, but also one (Ross) who was a much better fit.  Salty vs. Pierzynski, I agree, the edge goes to Salty, but the Salty bridge was burned in the 2013 postseason, especially with not one but two good catchers--Vazquez and Swihart--coming up through the minors.

    One final thought.  I have been a Sox fan since 1949 and believe now is the best time period to be a Sox fan, even when they miss the playoffs "4 out of the 5 Past Years."  This is not only true because of the team's success during the John Henry era--way, way, way, way better than the Tom Yawkey racist era--but also true because I can get all the games on TV while living in another part of the country. 

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: No Playoffs 4 out of the 5 Past Years

    I do not think that five years is any less reasonable a time frame to choose than any other time frame.

    It is still cherrypicking.

    If you pick 6 years, it is 2 playoffs and 1 WSC

    If you pick 7 years, it is 3 playoffs and 1 WSC

    If you pick 8 years, it is 4 playoffs and 2 WSC.

    If there 12 combinations in the past 12 years, and 11 of the 12 combinations are better than the year the OP chose, I am reasonably sure it was cherrypicked.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: No Playoffs 4 out of the 5 Past Years

    Are we talking about the current owners tenure or about Red Sox history ? 

    Stabbed by Foulke.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: No Playoffs 4 out of the 5 Past Years

    The 2013  championship trumps no playoffs in 3 of 4 seasons, hands down. The 5th season is not in the books yet. Any fan of any team would take that result. The value of a championship can't be over-stated.

    But it is also true that the Red Sox, as well as the Yankees, are in a transition phase. Old stars are fading out and there have not really been any comparable replacements yet. Neither team is the powerhouse they once were. The balance of power has shifted in the AL East. This is part of the reality of competitive sports. 

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: No Playoffs 4 out of the 5 Past Years

    In response to BmoreCommie's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to JimfromFlorida's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Why isn't it acceptable? You theory has no money included in the process you employed. You through in the money aspect like it should change a teams out come and yet we all know what a teams salary structure is or was has no effect on the out come of a game or the season or playoffs.

    based upon your addition of the salary number at the end you would expect some teams with half the salary numbers of the RS or NYY and the Dodgers never to come up to even your average yet we know it happens

     

    sIn response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I am not a mathematician, to be sure, and someone who is better at this can correct my line of thinking. 

    In the past five years, including this one, there have been 22 playoff spots available to the 15 AL teams (I know Houston migrated over, but for simplicity, lets assume they have always been here). In the past five years there have been, essentially, 75 teams then vying for one of those 22 playoff spots. So the chance of making the playoffs in any one year of those five is 22/75 or 29% or .29. If it were random, therefore, any team by pure random chance should make the playoffs in those five years .29x5 years or 1.45 times. Is this correct? If it is, why is it acceptable for a big budget team like the Red Sox to have made the playoffs less often than random chance would dictate?

    WE ARE ALL JUST POPPYSEEDS IN THE BAKERY OF LIFE

    [/QUOTE]
      

    LOVE my  Red Sox, Bs, Cs, Pats and enjoy the ride every year. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I think there is a correlation, though not a direct one. between teams that make the playoff more often and those with larger budgets. I have not looked at it in detail; its just a guess. I would think that the teams in the upper third of payroll numbers tend to make the playoffs more often than those, say, in the lower third. When I have more time I will look at it in more detail. We have not even made the playoffs as often as would be expected by random chance in the past five years. No, that is not OK with me. It speaks of poor management.

    WE ARE ALL JUST POPPYSEEDS IN THE BAKERY OF LIFE

     

    [/QUOTE]
    2011 we lost on the last day when Papelbon blew the save. Can't blame management for all the players suking that month plus the injuries. So we should have two teams in playoffs in last five years. That is better than average.

    [/QUOTE]

    CC should have caught the ball, but he did what did best...not help the Sox.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: No Playoffs 4 out of the 5 Past Years

    2003,04,05,06,07,08...The Camelot Years....That is why when the team misses the playoffs 4 out of 5 years but win the World Series, fans are lost in the lack of consistency. They figure the team should always be in the playoffs. If only it was that easy.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxpride34. Show redsoxpride34's posts

    Re: No Playoffs 4 out of the 5 Past Years

    This trade deadline/offseason we need to gear up and reload. We have the money and resources (prospects/players) to turn this team around in a big way. That starts by re-signing lester. We cannot afford to let him walk, especially since he could sign with a team like the yankees. The next move is go big in free agency. We have the money to make some big signings. We will have drew ($10 mil), AJ ($8 mill), Gomes ($4 mill), Lackey ($18mill drops to $500k), Peavy ($16 mill), Uehara ($4.5 mill) all coming off the books. The 2 guys we should go after and sign are Hanley Ramirez and Max Scherzer. Hanley can play either SS or 3B, depending on where the sox want to put bogaerts. He would give us a right handed middle of the order bat that we desperately need.  Scherzer would give us a proven AL #1/2 pitcher to pair at the top with lester. Our rotation would be Lester, Scherzer, Lackey, Buchholz, then one of ranuado/barnes/de la rosa. On top of signing hanley, we should pursue a trade for stanton. If they don’t deal him, then you can add owens to the list above and we would have a line up that looks something like this :


    Betts


    Bogaerts


    Pedroia


    Ramirez


    Ortiz


    Napoli


    Victorino


    Vasquez


    Bradley jr


     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: No Playoffs 4 out of the 5 Past Years

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Are we talking about the current owners tenure or about Red Sox history ? 

    Stabbed by Foulke.

    [/QUOTE]

    I can only speak for myself, but I'm talking about the current owners tenure. 

     

     

Share