February 21, 200620 yr being the superstitious guy that I am, it always comforted me to see the critics ignoring the sox, knowing deep down that my team could come through now that we have on paper the best team in baseball, repeat predictions are flowing through, and it worries me I have complete faith in ozzie to keep the players away from media pressure, but nonetheless, I don't enjoy the predictions Am I all alone here?
February 21, 200620 yr Im with you. Im not really "superstitious" and all that, just feels different, and feels like were setup to be failures. But i don't see that happening with the team we have, just seems like a nightmare. =)
February 21, 200620 yr Yeah, I agree. After The way they responded last year to all the naysayers, and people who said they couldn't do it, it kind of gets me worried about the high expectations set on us this year, but hey, the Sox are just going to have to prove what they can do. Overall I think (and I hope) that they'll prove everybody right.
February 21, 200620 yr Author QUOTE(SnB @ Feb 20, 2006 -> 08:12 PM) can i delete this thread yet? because this is ridiculous c'mon is it really bad I'm not saying were going to lose 100 games because of this I was just thinking that I'd rather fly under every ones view, than have to be the refuted front runner although I'll take this position with a championship any day
February 21, 200620 yr Agreed, were deff. not going to be out of contention (well probablly..) But I just want a "perfect" season like last year, and want everything to stay the same, and not change.
February 21, 200620 yr I'm much more concerned about Jim Thome's back then any prognastication from the mainstream media. PECOTA I'll raise an eyebrow over--Buster Olney or Jason Stark no.
February 21, 200620 yr It almost sounds to me we're getting picked as the favorite by default. Let's be honest, there's not a whole lot of really good teams out there. Even the Yankees and Red Sox aren't getting jocked like they normally do. I still believe most people think we're incapable of repeating. I've heard all off-season how "lucky" we were and that all our players just had "career" years" and that the umpires "saved" us and so on and so forth. I think that will be plenty of motivation for our guys. We have a chance to from a great team to a special team in 06.
February 21, 200620 yr QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 12:30 AM) It almost sounds to me we're getting picked as the favorite by default. Let's be honest, there's not a whole lot of really good teams out there. Even the Yankees and Red Sox aren't getting jocked like they normally do. I still believe most people think we're incapable of repeating. I've heard all off-season how "lucky" we were and that all our players just had "career" years" and that the umpires "saved" us and so on and so forth. I think that will be plenty of motivation for our guys. We have a chance to from a great team to a special team in 06. I agree, there are a lot of people and critics out there that think the Sox should not have won last year. That alone will be enough motivation. Also, most of the players have their own personal motivations: Are Garland and Conteras one year wonders? How will Conteras do without El Duque? Can Thome rebound from injury? Is Pods going to be the same after surgery? Can Anderson play CF? How will Uribe do batting 2nd? How will Iguchi play in his 2nd year? Can Jenks handle the Closer job? Was Crede's post season a fluke? Will his back hold up? Will AJ rebound from a down year? Can Vazquez return to form? How can the Sox win without Timo?
February 21, 200620 yr Look, this is ridiculous. Expert or non-expert opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one. The only thing that matters is what happens on the field. You have to like the Sox' chances, but a couple of key injuries and they could be screwed. That's what the six month soap opera is all about.
February 21, 200620 yr QUOTE(wsox08 @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 12:32 AM) Who else likes lettuce on their sandwich? Not me, really. MAYBE only on a BLT. I even pull the lettuce off of a Whopper. It just has a funky texture that I'm not crazy about. I'll take MAD tomatoes, though!!! PILE 'EM UP!!!
February 21, 200620 yr Anything can happen. I don't know if you remember 1984, but after the 1983 domination, the Sox acquired Tom Seaver, who turned out to be their best pitcher in 1984. With Hoyt, Dotson, Bannister, and Burns, it, on paper, was one of the most dominant 5 man rotations ever. For some reason or another, things didn't work out in 1984, probably they kept too much intact, and they finished below .500. All you can ask for at this time is a team with a legitimate chance to win. The Sox are clearly that. They made a lot of changes, I think for the better. I think many of the players can have better offensive years. The bullpen is my main concern.
February 21, 200620 yr QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 08:27 AM) Anything can happen. I don't know if you remember 1984, but after the 1983 domination, the Sox acquired Tom Seaver, who turned out to be their best pitcher in 1984. With Hoyt, Dotson, Bannister, and Burns, it, on paper, was one of the most dominant 5 man rotations ever. For some reason or another, things didn't work out in 1984, probably they kept too much intact, and they finished below .500. All you can ask for at this time is a team with a legitimate chance to win. The Sox are clearly that. They made a lot of changes, I think for the better. I think many of the players can have better offensive years. The bullpen is my main concern. Excellent point. Baseball is the quirkiest of all sports. That said, on paper it's hard not to be optimistic about the Sox. We've talked a lot about the pitching and the pickup of Thome, but nearly all Sox hitters last year had lower-than-expected BA's. Imagine if even half of them pick up their individual pace. Wow! This year could be beyond fantastic.
February 21, 200620 yr QUOTE(RME JICO @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 07:43 AM) I agree, there are a lot of people and critics out there that think the Sox should not have won last year. That alone will be enough motivation. Also, most of the players have their own personal motivations: Are Garland and Conteras one year wonders? How will Conteras do without El Duque? Can Thome rebound from injury? Is Pods going to be the same after surgery? Can Anderson play CF? How will Uribe do batting 2nd? How will Iguchi play in his 2nd year? Can Jenks handle the Closer job? Was Crede's post season a fluke? Will his back hold up? Will AJ rebound from a down year? Can Vazquez return to form? How can the Sox win without Timo? Nice one
February 21, 200620 yr QUOTE(GoRowand33 @ Feb 20, 2006 -> 07:50 PM) Am I all alone here? yes.......in thinking this was topic worthy
February 21, 200620 yr QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 07:27 AM) Anything can happen. I don't know if you remember 1984, but after the 1983 domination, the Sox acquired Tom Seaver, who turned out to be their best pitcher in 1984. With Hoyt, Dotson, Bannister, and Burns, it, on paper, was one of the most dominant 5 man rotations ever. For some reason or another, things didn't work out in 1984, probably they kept too much intact, and they finished below .500. All you can ask for at this time is a team with a legitimate chance to win. The Sox are clearly that. They made a lot of changes, I think for the better. I think many of the players can have better offensive years. The bullpen is my main concern. Yes, I've thrown 1984 as an example out there a couple times to those that think we are going to waltz to a repeat. 1984 was a nightmare, due to the facts the we flopped and the Cubs won their division. Thank goodness for Leon Durham.
February 21, 200620 yr QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 01:09 PM) Yes, I've thrown 1984 as an example out there a couple times to those that think we are going to waltz to a repeat. 1984 was a nightmare, due to the facts the we flopped and the Cubs won their division. Thank goodness for Leon Durham. The 1983-1984 example is not a really good comparison to 2005-2006. Squires, Cruz, Dybzinski, and Vance Law compared to Konerko, Iguchi, Uribe, and Crede? The team went from 1st in Runs scored to 10th and 3rd in ERA to 10th from 1983 - 1984. The team OBP in 1984 was a spectacular .312. The pitching staff seemed to all have career years: Dotson, after his 22 win season in 1983, had a total of 1 more winning season and ended his career 111-113. Bannister's 16-10 was his career best in 1983. He never won more than that in one season. Hoyt never came close to 24 wins again after 1983. He was out of baseball after 1987. Those guys don't even compare to MB, JG, FG, JC, and JV.
February 22, 200620 yr QUOTE(RME JICO @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 12:45 PM) The 1983-1984 example is not a really good comparison to 2005-2006. Squires, Cruz, Dybzinski, and Vance Law compared to Konerko, Iguchi, Uribe, and Crede? The team went from 1st in Runs scored to 10th and 3rd in ERA to 10th from 1983 - 1984. The team OBP in 1984 was a spectacular .312. The pitching staff seemed to all have career years: Dotson, after his 22 win season in 1983, had a total of 1 more winning season and ended his career 111-113. Bannister's 16-10 was his career best in 1983. He never won more than that in one season. Hoyt never came close to 24 wins again after 1983. He was out of baseball after 1987. Those guys don't even compare to MB, JG, FG, JC, and JV. It's comparable in this way ... we had a great staff '83 and added Seaver to it during the off season. We had a great staff in '05, and added Vazquez to it in the off season. We went into '84 as the prohibitive favorites, as we will do into '06. Edited February 22, 200620 yr by YASNY
February 22, 200620 yr QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 03:00 AM) It's comparable in this way ... we had a great staff '03 and added Seaver to it during the off season. Ya, looking back on it, I'm shocked Seaver could still go in 04 at his age.
February 22, 200620 yr QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 03:02 AM) Ya, looking back on it, I'm shocked Seaver could still go in 04 at his age. Fixed.
February 22, 200620 yr QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 12:09 PM) Yes, I've thrown 1984 as an example out there a couple times to those that think we are going to waltz to a repeat. 1984 was a nightmare, due to the facts the we flopped and the Cubs won their division. Thank goodness for Leon Durham. Leon Durham Day was especially sweet for those of us fans who also cheer for the Bears. What the hell happened to Floyd Bannister? Great stuff, but diddly/squat between the ears.
February 22, 200620 yr QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 02:00 AM) It's comparable in this way ... we had a great staff '03 and added Seaver to it during the off season. We had a great staff in '05, and added Vazquez to it in the off season. We went into '84 as the prohibitive favorites, as we will do into '06. The main difference I see in the "Let's do it again!" Sox of '84 vs. the 2006 Sox is that the '84 team was built based on plug-and-play formulas and lateral moves with a GM that largely stood pat in the off-season. They brought pretty much everyone back, and they didn't even have a winning season. Rarely if ever are teams good enough to fool the rest of baseball two years in a row with the same mix of players. Even when you look at a team like Boston between '04 and '05 that was kept largely intact with Pedro Martinez being one of the only exceptions, they could not sustain the success of the year before and they had a team full of All-Stars. A lot of people picked them to go all the way again.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.