I’m tired of these types of posts

[nrockway]

14 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Can't believe how many times Getz has been compared to Stearns on this board. 

Also, this is Getz second year while most of those guys are still in their first. In Getz first year he set the record for worst team in MLB history. None of the guys you are critiquing have come close to that level of ineptitude. In fact, everyone on that list is better than this year's White Sox after the great "progress year" from Getz. Pretty funny.

I think I'm the only one doing it. Maybe not, but I mention it quite a bit. I think it's a funny bit because the Mets are not as good as they ought to be with an unlimited budget and with the guy everyone thinks is the best GM in the league. I mean, the Mets were way better in 2022, weren't they. I suspect Stearns probably has his fingerprints over the excellent Brewers team this year, systems he developed, but if we follow your logic, the Brewers are a better team because of their new GM and all it took was replacing Stearns. The MLB roster has clearly improved since Stearns left, the W/L record isn't up for debate.

To that point, I think many realize that Rome wasn't built in a day. What you're describing is a team that Hahn/Kenny built and decisions the new GM made to get "prospects" who didn't play for the Major League team last year or most of this year or still aren't in MLB. That singular record is not indicative of future success. "Worst team ever" stings a little, but ultimately I'd rather have the prospects than keeping Tanner Banks, Erick Fedde, Greg Santos, Dylan Cease, etc. Or signing a bunch of veterans without a future on the team. Not all of those trades are working out as we might hope, but we would've obviously performed better if we kept them and what would be the end result? A playoff berth? The team was on a downward trend because of decisions the previous FO made, it seems illogical to stick it on the new guy in his first season. It's simply not how baseball works, did you really expect him to magic up some superstars? Or to make Moncada, Eloy, Benintendi suddenly play well? To go back in time and not hire Grifol? I wish our GM could do magic but it seems like an unrealistic expectation. In terms of magicking up superstars, perhaps Colson doesn't perform like he is now without the new-and-improved Arizona complex. Hahn had years and years to do that but didn't. Kenny's ego would have never delegated responsibility to someone like Brian Bannister or Ryan Fuller. At the time, I thought it was cool that the Sox posted an open position for 'biomechanics analyst' and it seems to be helping and to be the sort of thing that modern MLB teams do that we previously did not.

The organizational culture is clearly much better, it's not two guys micromanaging everything, consequently the players appear to be having fun. There isn't the 'white guy clique' anymore. We're not hearing players talk about how dysfunctional the team is. I probably wouldn't have done the Bummer or Mena trades, ostensibly the in-place systems that scouted those players who were acquired were from the previous front office. Maybe the new GM learns something about acquiring players like Rojas and Nicky Lopez, though it's not like they were paid handsomely or for multiple years; otherwise pretty much every player on the worst team ever was a Hahn/Kenny guy. Some of the reliever signings and trades were a miss, Booser this season is clearly a miss, but they're just relief pitchers and ultimately it's pretty marginal. Are Fajardo and Mena moving the needle? You'd probably prefer to have them, but it's not of the caliber of trading Tatis or Semien for bad, old pitchers. Although, seems like there was improvement in that department, the free version of 'Inside Edge' seems to think the Sox are pretty good at that this season relative to other MLB teams (see bottom).

In terms of building a team for the future, you ought to be paying attention to what the rest of the organization is doing. It takes time in baseball relative to other sports. To me, that's a lot of the fun about talking about baseball. It takes some time to bear fruit. Some amount of guesswork and prediction is involved and I could be totally wrong, I'm not the sharpest mind, but we all have access to the same information to help guide our perspective. The White Sox will probably bear fruit before the Bulls though, that's an actually poorly-run organization.

In fairness, I can understand why that's not appealing to a lot of people, to go through a rebuild, especially when we fans have been burnt before. It's still a necessary evil unless you're the Yankees or Dodgers. The Sox weren't fun to watch last year. Birmingham was a lot of fun to watch and I bought some of their merchandise. Although I'm still waiting for someone to say "hey nice hat" instead of "why are you wearing a Red Sox hat?". Some homeless guy in my neighborhood yelled at me because I was wearing my '83 Sox hat too much ("we stopped wearing that hat 40 years ago!" or something), but I digress. Now some of those Birmingham guys are in the MLB and are still fun to watch, they're actually performing, at the highest level. And are continuing to improve. I completely tuned out of the Sox by this point last season, I'm heartened by the performance of our young players and I wonder why we all aren't. It's fun when they have good games and I don't really care when Owen Wilson or whatever 30-year-old reliever who won't be on the team next year blows the game. Baseball is fun, it isn't that serious, and sometimes being optimistic is the same thing as being logical.

 

Anyway, this is my essay for the week.

Edited August 26 by nrockway

[caulfield12]

1 hour ago, nrockway said:

I don't want to do a whole thing, I think it's a fair perspective, and I'd echo Tony's post (if I think he's saying what I think) and say that "it's hard to tell at this point" but I'll make a few points in response.

I don't think I'm holding teams to a higher standard per se, I just think there are other factors at play. Namely the owner. Also the geography. Also the position they started from. I feel like the Mets should be better than they are with an unlimited budget and the fact they play in New York City. Not only is is it the most important city in the country, it's also close to the Dominican Republic and has a large Dominican diaspora. I think the Sox should've been better for the last 60 years because Chicago is an important city and media market too. I'd hold JR accountable and pretty much every other previous owner before the GM in that regard. I think I'm holding the GMs to the same standard when controlling for other factors (not very mathematical, just my opinions as I see it). I think I try to be objective about the two teams I like, the Sox and Bulls, and I think the Sox have a better front office than the Bulls do regardless of the winning percentage. Sometimes losing and being bad is the correct strategy compared to treadmilling. I'd rather they be terrible this year than win 70 games by signing a bunch of veteran stopgaps. More opportunity for the young guys and another opportunity to draft high and potentially get a real difference maker compared to picking at 15. I pretty much hated the Hagen Smith pick and liked Konnor Griffin, JJ Wetherholt and Braden Montgomery specifically. Sox selecting Smith with his profile seemed like a previous front office sort of move. Still not a big fan of Jac. It's not like Hagan is a bust though, he's just not moving as fast as anticipated and his control issues are concerning. Jury is still out on him and Schultz. This year's draft seems a lot better.

The Mets have been second fiddle to the Yankees forever, but that's changing somewhat, arguably because of the cash infusion from the owner, and it was happening before Stearns was hired. Maybe he did a bunch to persuade Soto to join the Mets over the Yankees, if so he should be credited. I bring him up because he's been super hyped for years and I'm not sure what he actually did that's so great. Maybe he turned the Brewers organization into a really good one and it's still paying fruit under a new regime (this is the obviously best they've been though as soon as he left. Many seem to be holding Getz to that same standard relative to Hahn/Kenny). I just don't think he's made a bunch of great peripheral moves with the Mets and they should be better considering the other factors. Mets have 4 top 100 prospects per Pipeline, but Stearns FO only picked one of them. 4 of the 5 White Sox top 100 were selected under Getz (or traded for in the case of Montgomery, maybe we just say 3 of 5). Antonacci is probably going to be on the top 100 soon enough. There might be a few other guys like Fauske and Lodise who could be end up there. McDougal has taken HUGE steps forward and looks like an ace this year when he looked pretty marginal the previous two years. There is a ton of depth in the White Sox system if we're paying attention; that didn't exist with the previous front office. Jeral Perez, from the Fedde trade could be there. The Fedde signing and trade was big and I wonder why the Mets or any other team didn't do that. That's an example of creating something out of nothing.

I'd quibble specifically with the Red Sox and Twins. Twins had a fire sale and didn't get much of anything in return. Maybe that's pressure from the owner, but I bet they could've made smarter moves and set up their 'rebuild' better. I like our rebuild better than theirs, frankly. Really early to tell though. The Twins are headed to the dumpster and I'm not sure how they'll get out of it. They might transcend the Rockies/Sox in terms of all-time bad. This just seems like a general trend in MLB as it was in NBA, the 'middle class' of the league is falling out. All of their top prospects were picked by the previous regime besides Culpepper and they seem to be on the same path they were before the new GM took over. 

I think the Red Sox should also be better. Completely alienating Devers and getting pennies on the dollar in a 'win now' move doesn't seem to be working out because they're not winning now. Toronto shouldn't be the clearly best team in that division. The Crochet trade was a win for both teams, but Crochet's injury concerns are still a question. Payton Tolle is the #28 prospect in baseball but I don't think he's measurably better than Schultz or Smith. He's walking fewer guys to be sure, that's going to be the thing to address with our lefty prospects. Schultz just had a real nice outing after coming back from injury, Smith walked a bunch of guys but his K rate is great. I still think it was the wrong pick. 

Anyway, that list I posted is only to suggest that Getz is not actually doing a bad job, and to give him no credit is just pessimism for the sake of it or otherwise not paying attention to anything but the MLB team. The system is genuinely exciting. Sox management is doing things that we weren't doing before. As stated, I only really pay attention to the Sox and Bulls and Getz is way better at his job than Karnisovas is. Pretty much every trade or free agent acquisition has been a loser. Every draft pick that he didn't trade (most of them) have pretty much been a bust. Re-signing bust Patrick Williams to a giant extension was the last straw for me. I'm all, "fire AK" (I post about it on RealGM all the time) and I'd be consistent and say, "Fire Getz" if there was actually a reason to suggest he was worse than his predecessor. The Major League record isn't the end all be all in this case. Once more, I think it's time to start adding MLB talent and not prospects, so we'll see what he does in that regard. I'd change my tune if the team isn't performing reasonably well by 2027. I hope the front office makes intelligent trades eventually that trade 'prospects' for actual performers. If they sign another Benintendi, I'd rationally be annoyed by it. I am a "homer" in the sense that I am supportive of the team and my glass is half full, but I'm not a fool.

Roman Anthony might be a Top Five or Ten player in baseball next year.

Rafael Devers was not necessarily the greatest teammate…comes across a bit like Frank Thomas at mid-career.  That might have been an addition by subtraction case.  Did you watch the entire Netflix show?  It was basically Breslow’s vision or Devers…once he called him out so publicly.

They’re doing all this without Campbell and Marcelo Mayer, too.

Have to credit vets like Bregman Story Lowe Giolito Bello Chapman…

[nrockway]

18 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

Roman Anthony might be a Top Five or Ten player in baseball next year.

Rafael Devers was not necessarily the greatest teammate…comes across a bit like Frank Thomas at mid-career.  That might have been an addition by subtraction case.  Did you watch the entire Netflix show?  It was basically Breslow’s vision or Devers…once he called him out so publicly.

They’re doing all this without Campbell and Marcelo Mayer, too.

Have to credit vets like Bregman Story Lowe Giolito Bello Chapman…

Anthony was drafted in 2022 a full year before Breslow was hired. Maybe the Red Sox did some developmental magic, wouldn't rule it out. Probably he was just a good player scouted by someone the previous regime hired. Sometimes over-slot 3rd rounders turn out to be pretty good.

I dunno that Devers had a vision, nobody was questioning his personality in his previous seven years with the team, he was simply jerked around this past year and had enough. I don't think he looks very good either, but clearly he was pushed into it recently, otherwise they wouldn't have signed him to that giant contract. It's only addition by subtraction because he was fed up. At the same time, he was clearly better with Boston than he is with San Francisco, 151 OPS+ vs 116. He is also exclusively playing 1B/DH with the Giants and seems to be happy about it. Our man Liam Hendriks had a similar impression about the front office. BoSox traded the OF prospect in that deal for Dustin May who's pitched to a 4.50 ERA with them. Jordan Hicks has a 6.19 ERA in 16 innings since joining them. Kyle Harrison is in AAA and is worse than he was with SFG's AAA affiliate. Similar ERA, but went from a 4.75 Strikeout:Walk ratio to 1.84. 20-year-old Jose Bello looks OK after 14.1 IP at A ball. I think Harrison will be good, but if that's what you're getting back for a career .853 OPS hitter, it doesn't look like a good trade.

The vets are nice additions, but Story was there for a while, Bello was also there before the new GM and was clearly good, Lowe has 20 plate appearances with the ugly sox, Chapman is pretty much just some guy. Bregman is a good player, but he's not exactly a diamond in the rough. He's being paid a lot of money.

Luv Gio, but he's well-paid for what he is doing and plenty of teams might've paid him. It was dead salary for a year. He's had an awesome year and I hope he keeps it up for a while. It's funny that they keep acquiring our pitchers, frankly. Why can't they develop their own?

[caulfield12]

20 minutes ago, nrockway said:

Anthony was drafted in 2022 a full year before Breslow was hired. Maybe the Red Sox did some developmental magic, wouldn't rule it out. Probably he was just a good player scouted by someone the previous regime hired. Sometimes over-slot 3rd rounders turn out to be pretty good.

I dunno that Devers had a vision, nobody was questioning his personality in his previous seven years with the team, he was simply jerked around this past year and had enough. I don't think he looks very good either, but clearly he was pushed into it recently, otherwise they wouldn't have signed him to that giant contract. It's only addition by subtraction because he was fed up. At the same time, he was clearly better with Boston than he is with San Francisco, 151 OPS+ vs 116. He is also exclusively playing 1B/DH with the Giants and seems to be happy about it. Our man Liam Hendriks had a similar impression about the front office. BoSox traded the OF prospect in that deal for Dustin May who's pitched to a 4.50 ERA with them. Jordan Hicks has a 6.19 ERA in 16 innings since joining them. Kyle Harrison is in AAA and is worse than he was with SFG's AAA affiliate. Similar ERA, but went from a 4.75 Strikeout:Walk ratio to 1.84. 20-year-old Jose Bello looks OK after 14.1 IP at A ball. I think Harrison will be good, but if that's what you're getting back for a career .853 OPS hitter, it doesn't look like a good trade.

The vets are nice additions, but Story was there for a while, Bello was also there before the new GM and was clearly good, Lowe has 20 plate appearances with the ugly sox, Chapman is pretty much just some guy. Bregman is a good player, but he's not exactly a diamond in the rough. He's being paid a lot of money.

Luv Gio, but he's well-paid for what he is doing and plenty of teams might've paid him. It was dead salary for a year. He's had an awesome year and I hope he keeps it up for a while. It's funny that they keep acquiring our pitchers, frankly. Why can't they develop their own?

The argument is what they do with Devers’ money instead…payroll/salary allocation.

See Magglio C-Lee and Valentin traded before 2005.

Part went to Devers and bringing in Lowe, for example.

Obviously what additional freedoms do they have to make moves now in the offseason?

 

The biggest mistake in recent Red Sox history was clearly Bloom trading Betts to the LaD for Verdugo, but that was 100% John Henry.  But he let his GM take the fall for that terribly unpopular move with the fanbase.

[nrockway]

3 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

The argument is what they do with Devers’ money instead…payroll/salary allocation.

See Magglio C-Lee and Valentin traded before 2005.

Part went to Devers and bringing in Lowe, for example.

Obviously what additional freedoms do they have to make moves now in the offseason?

 

The biggest mistake in recent Red Sox history was clearly Bloom trading Betts to the LaD for Verdugo, but that was 100% John Henry.  But he let his GM take the fall for that terribly unpopular move with the fanbase.

That's a good point, can't argue with that. To the original point, I'd probably prefer Bloom over Getz. 

[caulfield12]

5 minutes ago, nrockway said:

That's a good point, can't argue with that. To the original point, I'd probably prefer Bloom over Getz. 

His TB pedigree was second to only Andrew Friedman, and he didn’t really get a fair shake…a lot of it was Fenway Sports Group acting they were a mid-market team like St. Louis or Seattle all of a sudden.

Also Getz 100% on board with Grifol due to time in KC together.  Brought in Gene Watson as well as their contracts guy as well to replace Hahn/Haber in that area of expertise.  

Edited August 26 by caulfield12

[nrockway]

4 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

His TB pedigree was second to only Andrew Friedman, and he didn’t really get a fair shake…a lot of it was Fenway Sports Group acting they were a mid-market team like St. Louis or Seattle all of a sudden.

Also Getz 100% on board with Grifol due to time in KC together.  Brought in Gene Watson as well as their contracts guy as well to replace Hahn/Haber in that area of expertise.  

Yeah, FSG strikes me as even worse ownership than Jerry considering how valuable the two assets are that they own. I guess they own the Penguins too and I don't know anything about NHL, but they haven't been very good since the acquisition. Liverpool is also historically cheap under Henry but still a great team, although they just went on a spending spree and will likely dominate the EPL again and maybe make some noise in the Champion's League. Wirtz might be a bust but according to my brother, Ekitiké is a star. 2 goals and an assist in 2 matches is certainly a good start.

I wonder if Red Sox fans think the Devers trade is simply to offset the Liverpool spending. Guess we'll see what they do.

[caulfield12]

2 hours ago, nrockway said:

Yeah, FSG strikes me as even worse ownership than Jerry considering how valuable the two assets are that they own. I guess they own the Penguins too and I don't know anything about NHL, but they haven't been very good since the acquisition. Liverpool is also historically cheap under Henry but still a great team, although they just went on a spending spree and will likely dominate the EPL again and maybe make some noise in the Champion's League. Wirtz might be a bust but according to my brother, Ekitiké is a star. 2 goals and an assist in 2 matches is certainly a good start.

I wonder if Red Sox fans think the Devers trade is simply to offset the Liverpool spending. Guess we'll see what they do.

As long as they make the playoffs, season has to be considered a overall success after the last three years or so.

If not, it will be expressing disappointment over the lack of a big move at the deadline and likely losing both Devers/Bregman in the span of six months.

[caulfield12]

Labeling Devers as a “malcontent” who earns too much money at his age to be nothing more than a designated hitter, Heyman believes the move was necessary for the Red Sox’s chances of making it to the postseason this year and for the long-term health of the organization moving forward.

“From the Red Sox standpoint, it was a godsend. Let’s be honest about it. I mean, I know Devers was doing well, but they didn’t have a ton of teams in on him. This was a DH for them,” said Heyman.

 

Conspiracy theory quickly debunked…

Brendan Dargan

“They already spent more than half of it on two soccer players for the Liverpool team Henry owns. Literally two days after they traded Devers they signed one guy for over 100 million and another got like 30 million…”

 

Rick Collins

“Being spent in Liverpool. Maybe NESN will start broadcasting them on all the nights that NESN doesn't carry the Red Sox games ( 2 out of 3 this weekend alone).”

 

 

Edited August 26 by caulfield12

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

4 hours ago, nrockway said:

I think I'm the only one doing it. Maybe not, but I mention it quite a bit. I think it's a funny bit because the Mets are not as good as they ought to be with an unlimited budget and with the guy everyone thinks is the best GM in the league. I mean, the Mets were way better in 2022, weren't they. I suspect Stearns probably has his fingerprints over the excellent Brewers team this year, systems he developed, but if we follow your logic, the Brewers are a better team because of their new GM and all it took was replacing Stearns. The MLB roster has clearly improved since Stearns left, the W/L record isn't up for debate.

To that point, I think many realize that Rome wasn't built in a day. What you're describing is a team that Hahn/Kenny built and decisions the new GM made to get "prospects" who didn't play for the Major League team last year or most of this year or still aren't in MLB. That singular record is not indicative of future success. "Worst team ever" stings a little, but ultimately I'd rather have the prospects than keeping Tanner Banks, Erick Fedde, Greg Santos, Dylan Cease, etc. Or signing a bunch of veterans without a future on the team. Not all of those trades are working out as we might hope, but we would've obviously performed better if we kept them and what would be the end result? A playoff berth? The team was on a downward trend because of decisions the previous FO made, it seems illogical to stick it on the new guy in his first season. It's simply not how baseball works, did you really expect him to magic up some superstars? Or to make Moncada, Eloy, Benintendi suddenly play well? To go back in time and not hire Grifol? I wish our GM could do magic but it seems like an unrealistic expectation. In terms of magicking up superstars, perhaps Colson doesn't perform like he is now without the new-and-improved Arizona complex. Hahn had years and years to do that but didn't. Kenny's ego would have never delegated responsibility to someone like Brian Bannister or Ryan Fuller. At the time, I thought it was cool that the Sox posted an open position for 'biomechanics analyst' and it seems to be helping and to be the sort of thing that modern MLB teams do that we previously did not.

The organizational culture is clearly much better, it's not two guys micromanaging everything, consequently the players appear to be having fun. There isn't the 'white guy clique' anymore. We're not hearing players talk about how dysfunctional the team is. I probably wouldn't have done the Bummer or Mena trades, ostensibly the in-place systems that scouted those players who were acquired were from the previous front office. Maybe the new GM learns something about acquiring players like Rojas and Nicky Lopez, though it's not like they were paid handsomely or for multiple years; otherwise pretty much every player on the worst team ever was a Hahn/Kenny guy. Some of the reliever signings and trades were a miss, Booser this season is clearly a miss, but they're just relief pitchers and ultimately it's pretty marginal. Are Fajardo and Mena moving the needle? You'd probably prefer to have them, but it's not of the caliber of trading Tatis or Semien for bad, old pitchers. Although, seems like there was improvement in that department, the free version of 'Inside Edge' seems to think the Sox are pretty good at that this season relative to other MLB teams (see bottom).

In terms of building a team for the future, you ought to be paying attention to what the rest of the organization is doing. It takes time in baseball relative to other sports. To me, that's a lot of the fun about talking about baseball. It takes some time to bear fruit. Some amount of guesswork and prediction is involved and I could be totally wrong, I'm not the sharpest mind, but we all have access to the same information to help guide our perspective. The White Sox will probably bear fruit before the Bulls though, that's an actually poorly-run organization.

In fairness, I can understand why that's not appealing to a lot of people, to go through a rebuild, especially when we fans have been burnt before. It's still a necessary evil unless you're the Yankees or Dodgers. The Sox weren't fun to watch last year. Birmingham was a lot of fun to watch and I bought some of their merchandise. Although I'm still waiting for someone to say "hey nice hat" instead of "why are you wearing a Red Sox hat?". Some homeless guy in my neighborhood yelled at me because I was wearing my '83 Sox hat too much ("we stopped wearing that hat 40 years ago!" or something), but I digress. Now some of those Birmingham guys are in the MLB and are still fun to watch, they're actually performing, at the highest level. And are continuing to improve. I completely tuned out of the Sox by this point last season, I'm heartened by the performance of our young players and I wonder why we all aren't. It's fun when they have good games and I don't really care when Owen Wilson or whatever 30-year-old reliever who won't be on the team next year blows the game. Baseball is fun, it isn't that serious, and sometimes being optimistic is the same thing as being logical.

 

Anyway, this is my essay for the week.

Great post . I read the part about Inside edge thinking the Sox are doing something right this year but I cant figure out what youre referring to or what the numbers represent. Perhaps you can give a link. Seems like it has something to do with ranking production from transactions by your description but Id like to know for sure instead of having to guess.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

I love how you criticize Stearns because of his year 1 results, but then absolve Getz of any blame (as If he was an outsider brought in and not the guy in charge of PD on that historically bad team) because it was the prior regime. The mental gymnastics people will go through is remarkable. 

Also, I said it elsewhere but one sign of a great leader and builder is that when you leave, things don't miss a beat. 

[hogan873]

Honestly, I'm tired of the negativity.  No one, at least no one who wasn't delusional, thought the Sox would be contenders this year after an absolutely dismal 2024 season.  We were hoping for moderate improvement and a possible light at the end of the tunnel.  I think what we're seeing is beyond expectations, and not just in the record.  They're going to win upwards of 20 more games than last year, but that doesn't tell the whole story.  They're doing this with a lot of young players that will be the future of this team.

How long has it been since we've seen this?  They have Quero, Teel, Meidroth, Montgomery, Sosa, Baldwin, Vargas, and now even Mead performing every day, making this team exciting to watch.  Add to that veterans like Robert and Tauchman playing well and fitting in with the youth movement.

And I'm not absolving Getz of anything, although he made some seemingly good moves recently.  Time will tell.  I think a lot of this team's success is due to the coaching staff.  Venable and his guys have done a great job with a now very young team.  They know they're not contending, yet you see a guy like Vargas stretch two single into doubles last night.  You see Robert and Montgomery with special handshakes.  You see smiles, high fives, and guys just having a lot of fun.  We didn't see any s%*# like this the past few years.

So, I'm fine with seeing posts about how much better the Sox are this year than last.  Sure, the bar is low, but why can't we be excited about what we're seeing?  I'm tired of being pissed about my favorite team.  I'm tired of being negative.  Those who wish to remain negative and always look at the dull side of life - go ahead.  I'm done with that.

[Snopek]

19 minutes ago, hogan873 said:

Those who wish to remain negative and always look at the dull side of life - go ahead.

Man, I was in complete agreement with you for the whole post until this part at the very end. You lost me here.

These type of comments never sit well with me.

The assumption that because someone feels negatively about their team, they must be miserable in all aspects of their life (and are doing so by choice!) is incredibly judgmental and really just kind of misses the point altogether.

[caulfield12]

Last year their Pythagorean was 48-114…they somehow managed to play even seven games worse than expectations with the following season’s Cy Young winner under Grifol.

In fact, to the worst record in history.

This year, statistically, they should be 58-73.  Instead, they are a full ten games worse at 48-83.

They should be finishing the year at 72-90 instead of struggling for barely 60 wins.

Average out the two Pythagoreans over 2024-25 and they’re 60-102…which very well might be where they end up this season.

Differentials of 8 and 10 wins to the negative/positive over two consecutive seasons is almost unheard of.

[caulfield12]

3 minutes ago, Snopek said:

Man, I was in complete agreement with you for the whole post until this part at the very end. You lost me here.

These type of comments never sit well with me.

The assumption that because someone feels negatively about their team, they must be miserable in all aspects of their life (and are doing so by choice!) is incredibly judgmental and really just kind of misses the point altogether.

If everyone looked at the glass as being half full instead of half empty and refused to be realistic or objective…that would be a really dull world.

It’s like the two sides of love and hate.  They can’t exist without the opposite emotions to fully appreciate the high points in life.

[hogan873]

28 minutes ago, Snopek said:

Man, I was in complete agreement with you for the whole post until this part at the very end. You lost me here.

These type of comments never sit well with me.

The assumption that because someone feels negatively about their team, they must be miserable in all aspects of their life (and are doing so by choice!) is incredibly judgmental and really just kind of misses the point altogether.

I was obviously talking about in regards to the team.  You read way too much into that sentence.

[WestEddy]

44 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

If everyone looked at the glass as being half full instead of half empty and refused to be realistic or objective…that would be a really dull world.

It’s like the two sides of love and hate.  They can’t exist without the opposite emotions to fully appreciate the high points in life.

Looking at the glass as "half full" isn't "refusing to be realistic or objective". 

Unless you have a crystal ball on your kitchen table, you don't know the outcome of the season. Positive expectations are as realistic as negative ones. Of the people who bet the under on 49.5 wins or declared the 2025 team would lose more than the 2024, nobody called them unrealistic or subjective. 

[ptatc]

53 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

If everyone looked at the glass as being half full instead of half empty and refused to be realistic or objective…that would be a really dull world.

It’s like the two sides of love and hate.  They can’t exist without the opposite emotions to fully appreciate the high points in life.

So you're saying that the glass half full people are the only realistic and objective ones? That's just as wrong as the other view.

Once again its not a dichotomy of one or the other. Both are wrong if you only have the two choices.

Objectivity means you don't have the ideology of it has to be one or the other. It means looking at the information and evaluating without the preconceived notion.

[caulfield12]

36 minutes ago, ptatc said:

So you're saying that the glass half full people are the only realistic and objective ones? That's just as wrong as the other view.

Once again its not a dichotomy of one or the other. Both are wrong if you only have the two choices.

Objectivity means you don't have the ideology of it has to be one or the other. It means looking at the information and evaluating without the preconceived notion.

In the end it doesn't really matter.

Ishbia is likely to replace Getz. 

In fact, he might move on even if he thinks he's an average MLB GM if he still believes there's someone even better out there that can lead his new organization back to the post-season.

Personally, I think Getz is closer to 22.5 in a ranking out of 30 MLB GM's, you might think he's actually #15/16, but it's not up to SoxTalk to decide quite obviously.

If we broke it down to quartiles or quintiles and polled the entire board, Getz would probably get 80-85% of votes between #13-30 and 10-15% in the #7-12 range.

I'd love to hear anyone make the case he's one of the six best GMs in the game today already.

[nrockway]

4 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

I love how you criticize Stearns because of his year 1 results, but then absolve Getz of any blame (as If he was an outsider brought in and not the guy in charge of PD on that historically bad team) because it was the prior regime. The mental gymnastics people will go through is remarkable. 

Also, I said it elsewhere but one sign of a great leader and builder is that when you leave, things don't miss a beat. 

"mental gymnastics"

Be nicer. Stop with the personal attacks. I'm not going to call you mentally ill like you called me, or stupid or a butthead or something else childish despite the fact that you misinterpreted what I wrote and used that misinterpretation to insult me. That's not even what mental gymnastics is. You know, it's possible to disagree about something as trivial as a child's ball game and not be rude and mean-spirited. Are you mean because it's the internet? Would you say it to someone offline? I would probably say "hey, another Sox fan, neat! so what if we have differing perspectives?"

All I'll say is "Mets = win now. NYC = better geography. Fraudster insider trader = better owner; they should be better on the field". It's strictly an opinion to say something like "the Sox are still bad on the field in 2024 and 2025 if they have Stearns or anyone else as the GM. They would likely be better with a bad GM who acquired a bunch of vets who don't make us a contender. Rebuilding was the right decision, it just sucked to lose that many games. They weren't a fun team to watch last year. They're showing signs of life this year with all the young players performing well".

I think you should say you're sorry and maybe learn to treat people more kindly. Maybe my baseball take is completely wrong, but I think the 'bully tendency' reflects more poorly on you than 'optimistic ball fan' does on me. It also just isn't good argumentation. I think a neutral bystander would probably agree with my side whether or not I'm correct solely because of how the information is presented.

5 hours ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

Great post . I read the part about Inside edge thinking the Sox are doing something right this year but I cant figure out what youre referring to or what the numbers represent. Perhaps you can give a link. Seems like it has something to do with ranking production from transactions by your description but Id like to know for sure instead of having to guess.

https://myinsideedge.com/MLB/Team?id=12

"Inside Edge scouts analyze every play of every MLB game, capturing detail far beyond the basic game state transitions found in conventional run models. Rich data enables a more precise estimate of run potential compared to simple league averages. Greater probabilistic precision makes our new Expected Runs Added metric the most accurate assessment of team strength available to the public."

The RP one is just "expected runs prevented by relievers". I'm not sure how they calculate it. But I just discovered this site and really like it. They have a Chrome extension that works with the various box score sites, shows who's hot and such.

This is what it shows if you hover over Edgar Quero for example. Matchup specific info. Pretty neat I think.

Edited August 26 by nrockway

[champagne030]

2 hours ago, nrockway said:

"mental gymnastics"

Be nicer. Stop with the personal attacks. I'm not going to call you mentally ill like you called me, or stupid or a butthead or something else childish despite the fact that you misinterpreted what I wrote and used that misinterpretation to insult me. That's not even what mental gymnastics is. You know, it's possible to disagree about something as trivial as a child's ball game and not be rude and mean-spirited. Are you mean because it's the internet? Would you say it to someone offline? I would probably say "hey, another Sox fan, neat! so what if we have differing perspectives?"

All I'll say is "Mets = win now. NYC = better geography. Fraudster insider trader = better owner; they should be better on the field". It's strictly an opinion to say something like "the Sox are still bad on the field in 2024 and 2025 if they have Stearns or anyone else as the GM. They would likely be better with a bad GM who acquired a bunch of vets who don't make us a contender. Rebuilding was the right decision, it just sucked to lose that many games. They weren't a fun team to watch last year. They're showing signs of life this year with all the young players performing well".

I think you should say you're sorry and maybe learn to treat people more kindly. Maybe my baseball take is completely wrong, but I think the 'bully tendency' reflects more poorly on you than 'optimistic ball fan' does on me. It also just isn't good argumentation. I think a neutral bystander would probably agree with my side whether or not I'm correct solely because of how the information is presented.

https://myinsideedge.com/MLB/Team?id=12

"Inside Edge scouts analyze every play of every MLB game, capturing detail far beyond the basic game state transitions found in conventional run models. Rich data enables a more precise estimate of run potential compared to simple league averages. Greater probabilistic precision makes our new Expected Runs Added metric the most accurate assessment of team strength available to the public."

The RP one is just "expected runs prevented by relievers". I'm not sure how they calculate it. But I just discovered this site and really like it. They have a Chrome extension that works with the various box score sites, shows who's hot and such.

This is what it shows if you hover over Edgar Quero for example. Matchup specific info. Pretty neat I think.

Your definition of mental gymnastics isn’t what it really means.

I don't remember if it was this thread or another, but a post stated that if Getz is fired today he will never have another GM job in his life.  Stearns will be hired tomorrow if the Mets cut him loose.  That's reality.  Twisting an argument into a pretzel to frame it another way isn't reality.

Edited August 26 by champagne030

[nrockway]

1 hour ago, champagne030 said:

You’re definition of mental gymnastics isn’t what it really means.

I don't remember if it was this thread or another, but a post stated that if Getz is fired today he will never have another GM job in his life.  Stearns will be hired tomorrow if the Mets cut him loose.  That's reality.  Twisting an argument into a pretzel to frame it another way isn't reality.

Well, I didn't define "mental gymnastics", did I? so what's my definition of it? Stearns was GM of the Brewers for eight years, would you not give Getz the same eight years? That would make your comparison logically consistent anyway. TBH, If Stearns was fired right now, he probably wouldn't get another job, ostensibly because he did something unethical unrelated to baseball. BTW, well-regarded GMs Billy Eppler and James Click do not have GM jobs after performing well. Will Kim Ng get another GM job after leading the Marlins to the playoffs?

You've invented a hypothetical and it's clearly fallacious. If Stearns is fired in his second season ("Getz today"), do you think he gets another job? That's not really how it works though.

I think it's funny that you called a logically-inconsistent hypothetical situation "reality" so boldly. It literally isn't reality, it's a mental exercise you just made up! lol, lmao even. That last sentence you wrote is sort of what you're doing, isn't it. 

You should also take that advice about being nicer, guy with a "no fat chicks" avatar. I like family guy but it's a curious choice of avatar for an adult...

[JUSTgottaBELIEVE]

7 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

I love how you criticize Stearns because of his year 1 results, but then absolve Getz of any blame (as If he was an outsider brought in and not the guy in charge of PD on that historically bad team) because it was the prior regime. The mental gymnastics people will go through is remarkable. 

Also, I said it elsewhere but one sign of a great leader and builder is that when you leave, things don't miss a beat. 

To the last part, why does Stearns get all this credit and not Doug Melvin? Melvin’s role in turning the Brewers into a perennial playoff contender when they were a perennial doormat prior to his arrival is much more impressive than anything Stearns did imo.

And again, Getz has sucked in his own right so this isn’t a pro-Getz post. Getz is tasked with doing what Melvin did two decades prior, and I highly doubt he’s the guy to successfully do it.

[mmmmmbeeer]

21 hours ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

Maybe I'm the oddball but why have expectations at all ?

 

Habit.  I truly believe Sox fans are a group who are preconditioned to b****, moan and whine about this franchise.  It's the result of damn near 50 years of incompetent ownership and underperforming rosters....it's essentially part of Sox fanhood to complain. 

You can't follow this team closely and not complain. I don't watch NEAR as much Sox baseball as I used to...the LaRussa/Grifol debacles were the last straws.  When I do happen to watch a game and jump in the game thread, I'm amazed at how negative they usually are.  And then I remember, these are the DIE HARDS still watching damn near every game no matter the Sox record.  They have a completely different perspective than I do.  I'm fucking thrilled to see the young guys hitting..could mean I can get back to regularly watching the Sox again (I miss them!).  People that watch every game?  They sure as s%*# aren't happy consistently losing.  Losing means far more to them than me, and a month and a half of good offense means a lot more to me than it does to them.

 

 

[champagne030]

1 hour ago, nrockway said:

Well, I didn't define "mental gymnastics", did I? so what's my definition of it? Stearns was GM of the Brewers for eight years, would you not give Getz the same eight years? That would make your comparison logically consistent anyway. TBH, If Stearns was fired right now, he probably wouldn't get another job, ostensibly because he did something unethical unrelated to baseball. BTW, well-regarded GMs Billy Eppler and James Click do not have GM jobs after performing well. Will Kim Ng get another GM job after leading the Marlins to the playoffs?

You've invented a hypothetical and it's clearly fallacious. If Stearns is fired in his second season ("Getz today"), do you think he gets another job? That's not really how it works though.

I think it's funny that you called a logically-inconsistent hypothetical situation "reality" so boldly. It literally isn't reality, it's a mental exercise you just made up! lol, lmao even. That last sentence you wrote is sort of what you're doing, isn't it. 

You should also take that advice about being nicer, guy with a "no fat chicks" avatar. I like family guy but it's a curious choice of avatar for an adult...

WTF?  A "mental exercise" is another term for "mental gymnastics".  Are you really calling me the "R" word or "mentally challenged"?  I'm so offended, be nicer!  The point that flew over your head was that Getz will never GM again when he's fired and Stearns will get a job the day he leaves the Mets.

And an avatar of a comedy show depicting a fat guy wearing a shirt that says "no fat chicks" is humor and making fun of the person wearing it, not of some "chick".