35thstreetswarm

Yeah, I try to avoid blaming the refs except when it's really egregious, but I thought last night was pretty egregious, especially early on, which prevented us from really getting traction. The wheels came off and the injuries hurt us for sure, but the refs set the tone early. It was gonna be tough to win that game with that kind of officiating, and it will be tough to beat them in a series if three of their players are getting the "star treatment" from the refs. We really miss Caruso, but I think we've got an emergency at the 4 and need a trade soon.

That's a really interesting topic at the moment. I think we're in a reshuffling period for our popular conception of NBA superstars, with the old guard of consensus superstars aging out and a big group of potential "next wave" superstars jostling for position. As a result we're going to see teams winning that are going to "surprise" a lot of people because they lack a consensus superstar (even if they shouldn't be surprised, and even if their victory mints a brand new superstar). To me that's part of what makes this such a great NBA era. 1) To me the only clear-cut consensus "superstars" in the league are: Lebron KD Steph Giannis Kawhi (when occasionally healthy) (I think Harden was on the edge of this list but is dropping out with the way he's being officiated.) 2) Then there are some guys who I think should be considered superstars but for whatever reason aren't broadly placed in that category yet. Guys like: Jokic Luka Anthony Davis Embiid 3) Then there's a whole mess of guys who are in the conversation, and some of whom will be making the leap (along with some in tier 2) to superstar status in the coming years, depending in large part on how their teams perform in the playoffs. This is where I think you slot Lavine and Derozan (who are probably heading in opposite directions on this list in the longer term), along with the likes of CP3, Jimmy Butler, Devin Booker, Dame, Paul George, Trae Young, Bradley Beal, Julius Randle, Donovan Mitchell, etc. Lakers aren't winning it this year imo. Unless the Nets, Warriors, or Bucks do, which is far from certain, you're going to see a team breaking that "no superstars" mold, and its star becoming a superstar. Kind of like what happened with Toronto - they didn't have a superstar until they won, then all of a sudden they did. You could say the same of the Bucks and Giannis, at least in terms of his status in the mind of the casual fan.

46, lurker since '03/'04, occasional poster since '06 (though less occasional in the last couple years.) Surprised by the range (though I guess the sample is far from perfect--would like to see the results when the board is most active). Thought it it skewed a lot younger. Way to go Olds!

I have a few problems with this argument. First, your last paragraph aims this screed at people who "care" about the MLBPA's interests but don't "care" about those of teachers and nurses. Fair point -- those people are awful hypocrites. But who exactly are these monsters, and how many of them are there? Probably not too many. I haven't seen anyone on this board express this sentiment anyway. Same goes for the implication that pro-labor hearts are somehow bleeding for millionaire baseball players. I think everybody understands that these guys are (mostly) very wealthy and privileged in the extreme, and I don't think any reasonable person "cares" on an emotional level about pro athletes' ability to afford a larger mansion in the way they "care" about a teacher's ability to achieve a decent quality of life (though I do think people often overlook many MLB players impacted by these negotiations whose playing careers do *not* give them generational wealth). Lastly, I think that suggesting someone cannot take a principled stand on a negotiation simply because the parties are motivated by their respective economic self-interest kind of misses the point. *All* labor vs. management fights involve parties pressing their economic self-interest, not just this one. Parties aren't willingly giving up ground based on pure altruism in too many labor negotiations (maybe teachers' unions do). People who root on labor don't do so because they think unions are "nicer" during negotiations, (they shouldn't be - that's why workers have unions!) they do so because they think that gains by labor contribute to the greater public good in a way that management victories do not. Now I think most would concede that the outcome of the MLB negotiation will far have less impact on the public good than negotiations involving teachers and nurses, but imo it's not irrational to take a consistent, principled pro-labor stance on all negotiations , including in professional sports.

Boy does it make me feel old that we're now OK Boomering Lebron James ? Totally agree, though. The Lakers roster is such a weird 2011 all-star team.

I feel like people forgot very quickly that the guy was playing in the big leagues at a stage of his career when most prospects would have been in Birmingham...and then asked to learn a new position! The dude was thrown into the deep end with an anchor tied around him and still held his own.

I have a feeling we're not going to do much on the SP front until the deadline. They've been on the sidelines for a lot of relatively affordable SP free agents that would have been good fits, and I think they've moved on from Rodon for reasons I've explained before. Not ideal *but* I'm OK with it if they address it at the deadline. I think our real need is for a playoff starter and that our current rotation can propel us within the Central, especially if it's only for half a season.

Yeah, the game 4 crowd was very good at the beginning of the game, especially considering it was mid-day on a work/school day after being canceled the day before and scrambling thousands of peoples' plans. I hope we can see a lot of night games in the future, especially weekend night games. I think that's when you'll really see the crowd at its full, fully-lubricated best.

Yes, I agree that it makes sense to look at their payrolls when they're attempting to compete rather than dinging them for having low payrolls during years when it was literally the point to have low payrolls. Here's their payroll ranks in years before the above chart, i.e. the last time they were really in a contending period. 2005: 13th 2006: 4th 2007: 5th 2008: 5th 2009: 12th 2010: 7th 2011: 5th Man, it's like Groundhog Day around here sometimes. The point is, the Sox have a history of top-of-market payrolls during contention periods.

They were rebuilding/tanking for much of this time, though.

Yeah, the Giolito reaction was priceless as well.

As we hunker down for a long, lockout-frozen Winter...remember the time we had a wild, electric, delirious, up-for-grabs crowd for a playoff game on the South Side? One that was at peak decibel level for hours and never seemed to let up? Remember cane guy? It's easy to forget given all that followed, but for one night that place was pure baseball joy. It was special. I had friends from across the country texting me about how insane the crowd looked and sounded on TV. Maybe I had gotten ground down by all the "attendance jokes" over the years, but I was honestly shocked at how great it was. Turns out we have the best crowd in MLB. This is good. Here's to hoping for lots more October blackouts.

So is it too early to praise the Sox for their high payroll, but not too early to rip them for their incomplete roster? The answer, of course, is it's too early to praise or trash the Sox for their work this offseason, but folks should probably pick a lane.

I'd like to bring Carlos back (obviously assuming the medicals are ok), but I have a sneaking suspicion the org is not that high on Carlos. I've heard the rumors about his work ethic, and TLR's public statements about his recovery at the end of the season were so strikingly negative that it almost seemed like the team was fighting his effort to build up value. Admittedly this is all pretty speculative, but I just got the strong impression in September and October that the team had already cut ties.

My cousin knew a guy who said Mendick is the starter. Can you believe that? Outrageous. Also, watch out for hypodermic needles with AIDS in the gas pump handles downtown, my other cousin said the ISISes are doing it

Can we just retitle this the "Leury Disinformation Thread"?

Phew

The latter.

OK, Cesar Hernandez, 32 opening day. Leury Garcia, 31 opening day. You're missing the point that the three players being compared are essentially the same age, so pointing out the age of one of them as some sort of differentiating factor is wrong.

Because it's November, so -- "duh." We have only cut players loose and haven't added almost anything yet. That statement is true for at the beginning of the offseason for essentially every team that didn't just sign a huge free agent yesterday. 2021 is also currently only 11/12ths as long as 2020 was.

Jean Segura: 31 Cesar Hernandez: 31 Leury Garcia: 30

Choose your WAR—he’s historically outperformed Hernandez and Garcia in all.

I have him at a 3.7 WAR for 2021, he has had multiple ~4 WAR+ seasons (one 6+, when he received 13 MVP votes), and is in fact a two-time all-star. He could be the same player as Cesar Hernandez or Leury Garcia, but it would be a fairly dramatic departure from all three players' known histories for that to happen.

They would literally have all-star talent at every position. If that's not enough for you I truly don't know what to tell you.

A "C" by what measure? Because those moves would result in one of the best and most balanced rosters in baseball. This is my problem with offseason talk. Fans get so myopic and wrapped up in grading who had the splashiest offseason and forget that the name of the game is having the best baseball team overall. It's the reason you can see people unironically say things like "it must be nice to be a Rangers fan..." No, it's not.