The Second Evil Empire...

I agree

I agree.
Several years ago, they got a new ownership group that could spend like the Yankees and proceded to play copycat with the Yankees.
Don't get me wrong, they have used that money to create a insane minor league system and the ability to spend (much) more money on free agents(see K, Dice).

You can field an entire Major League team with the difference in the payrolls of the Sox and the Rockies.

Go Rockies.

by jroman on Oct 24, 2007 1:52 PM EDT reply actions

great quote I saw recently

"the Yankees team is insufferable, but their fans are really OK. The Red Sox team is OK, but their fans are insufferable."

Then I went to see the Sox game at a non-baseball pub the next day and a few guys in the back with Sox caps on were just incredibly obnoxious. Wow.

by siddfynch on Oct 24, 2007 1:54 PM EDT reply actions

That's not really accurate

I find the Red Sox team is just as insufferable as the Yankees.

"A great catch is like watching girls go by; the last one you see is always the prettiest." - Bob Gibson

by stl tyler on Oct 24, 2007 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions

threesome

Between manny, papelbon, and beckett.... insufferable is pretty accurate. Big Papi is the only redemption - just can't help but seeing an enormous teddy bear when he steps up....

by cdb on Oct 24, 2007 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions

Foursome

Add Youklis.

"A great catch is like watching girls go by; the last one you see is always the prettiest." - Bob Gibson

by stl tyler on Oct 24, 2007 6:41 PM EDT up reply actions

That quote is so true

After the 2004 Series I had an extended business trip to New England. Everyone I met would say something like, 'Oh you are from New York huh. Yankees suck! worse collapse in baseball history!'

I would say, "Well, actually I am a Cardinal fan." That would be followed by in my face laughter. After a couple of days of meeting these classless and crude people I snapped. At a formal dinner meeting I heard the "Yankees Suck" song and dance.

I spoke up loud enough for all to hear. "That's right the Yankees suck. The only reason why the Sawx won was because the Yankees collapsed. Not because the Sawx had the greatest come back ever. NO! Not because the Sawx had a great team! NO! They only won because the Yankess sucked and collapsed!"

They looked at me with a puzzled look. I am not sure if they understood. I will never root for anything from New England again. Not because I dislike the teams but, because their fans are, " Tiny brained whipers of other peoples bottoms."

by nybirdfan on Oct 24, 2007 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions

Couldn't agree more

It's the "in your face" attitude that I don't get. I came into work the day after after game 2 or 3 of the 2004 WS to find my cubicle littered with xerox'd newspaper WS stuff. I was really bummed about my team, and I didn't need that. Right then, I told the guilty Sawx fan he was becoming like a Yankee fan.

Same guy at the beginning of this year's post season, asked me if I remembered when the Cardinals used to make the post-season!

I honestly don't understand the attitude. Cheer for your team, be a fan, but don't dump on the other team's fans...what's so hard about that.

by Edbird on Oct 24, 2007 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions

Ha!

Same guy at the beginning of this year's post season, asked me if I remembered when the Cardinals used to make the post-season!

That's pretty funny considering the Sawx didn't make the postseason last year. Did you remind him of this fact?

by redbirdnation8206 on Oct 24, 2007 5:29 PM EDT up reply actions

Nah

It's just not in my nature. About five seconds after he said it, he followed with a comment about the Cards being the defending champs and all, so I think he realized how stupid he sounded.

by Edbird on Oct 24, 2007 6:11 PM EDT up reply actions

NY fans

I lived in NYC for a few years and you know I actually came to really enjoy the Yankee fans. NYC is a TRUE baseball town. When the Yankees are hot, there is a feel different than if it were the Giants/Jets, Knicks or Rangers. I can't really explain it.

by MrPlow on Oct 24, 2007 2:12 PM EDT reply actions

i should add....

that it was funny to NOT see the same dynamic with regard to the hated Mets. Of course their fans are just as loyal as the Yankee fans, but they are so clearly the little brother in that town, try as they might, they will never match their older bro's cool swagger. And Shea, how many games did I grit my teeth through at that dump. A friend from Cincy visited once, and I was ashamed I had to take him to Shea because the Yanks weren't in town. Its like eating at McDonald's when there is an Emeril Lagasse place two doors down.

by MrPlow on Oct 24, 2007 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions

The Yankee fan

for the most part is knowledgeable baseball fan. The Mets fan can be very borish and even nasty. At Shea I was with my wife and the Cards were loosing 6-0 in the nineth inning Guerrero and Brunansky hit back to back shots. I stood and cheared after Brunansky's shot left the yard.
Then I was pelted with hotdog bits and pretzels from every direction.

The differance between Giant and Jet fans is the same way.

by nybirdfan on Oct 24, 2007 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions

NYC / Boston Fans

I recently attended games at Fenway and at Yankee Stadium, and to my surprise, the Yankee fans were more loud and obnoxious than Sox fans. This is the complete opposite of what I thought. I wore my Cards hat to both games, and anticipated lots of grief from the Sox fans, but received none; on the other hand, Yankee fans never passed up an opportunity to point out how "fuckin harrible" (accent inserted) the Cardinals are. In fact, many of the people sitting around me at Fenway were asking about the new stadium, the city's feelings about the team, etc. and everyone was very cordial.

Maybe this was because I went to Yankee stadium for the Sox / Yankees game (where Jeter became the all time Yankee hit leader), while I was at Fenway for a Sox / Orioles game. Maybe it was also pure chance -- I sat by assholes in New York, but nice folks in Boston. Who knows.

Whatever the case, however, I do agree that the Red Sox have become (well deservedly, I might add) the most hated team in baseball. The whole "feel sorry for us because we get picked on by the Yankees" bit has run its course. Oh yeah, and I also hate all the bandwagon Sox fans. They're even more insufferable than drunk Yankee fans.

by Ray Lankford on Oct 24, 2007 2:47 PM EDT reply actions

I got

to do something similar this summer, going to Yankee Stadium and Fenway Park on consecutive nights. I thought the Yanks fans were kind of obnoxious and loud, but not the horror stories that I've heard. All the ones I talked to were at least courteous. The Sox fans around me seemed genuinely interested in the fact that I was a Cardinals fan, were asking me about Ankiel, etc. I thought the atmosphere at Fenway was amazing, it was almost like a college football game instead of a baseball game.

by redbirdnation8206 on Oct 24, 2007 5:46 PM EDT up reply actions

disagree

i completely, wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that yankees fans are somehow "knowledgeable" or "classy." arod isn't good enough for these people. they turned on mussina, who has been a rock for them for so many years, after a few bad months this year. they "cheered" when the yanks signed clemens, with all the joy of microsoft buying youtube - it was more like a birthright than a pleasure. then they booed him when he did poorly.

these people are happy to chant "bernie williams" and wish they could do the same for paul o'neill, and chant "asshole" by the sectionful at anyone wearing another team's hat/jersey. any time you're at the stadium and the score is more than 3 runs apart, you're guaranteed to see at least two fistfights.

these people, as a group, are dusty-baker-level willfully ignorant about baseball. i've tried to explain to more yankee fans than i can count that when they lose, it's not because of arod or whoever; it's because their pitching staff is overrated and bad. i have tried to explain why i think chien-ming wang does not deserve the cy young - (e.g., because wins as a yankee pitcher, getting literally 7+ runs per start in support, don't mean that much). and why i think jeter is not the best shortstop in new york, let alone in baseball (e.g., because he's not). they respond with things like "he's a champion" and "he's a winner." what they really mean is "he plays at this stadium where i come watch baseball."

truthfully, when i moved to nyc, i had no problems with ny sports teams. i sort of "meh"-ed them, like i do with the padres and white sox and angels - i just didn't really care either way. but now? hatred.

Hello, playoff watching

by nycbirdo on Oct 24, 2007 3:27 PM EDT reply actions

excellent points

Jeter is a god to these people and AROD a goat. Yet AROD should have been the shortstop all along. Jeter has "Ryne Sandberg" range...he catches almost everything as long as it isn't more than 2 steps away. And they always talk about how he is a champion. (As if the other 24 guys on the roster have nothing to do with the wins, or the payroll twice that of all other teams in baseball that they had during those championship years.) I used to listen to the talk radio up there quite a bit and there is a certain mentality of being a Yankee fan. They are not bad people, but their thought is "just buy it". I remember when McGwire was traded to the Cardinals and there was disbelief in NYC about this. Fans called up constantly saying that the Yankees should have signed him. (As if he was a free agent in the middle of the season) Once he re-signed with the Cards it started all over again. They literally feel that they should have the highest paid player at every position and backups should also be all stars.

The Boston fans were much better when I was there. More knowledgable and genuinely cared about their team. That all changed in 2004. They went from inferiority complex to superiority complex. I think the run by the Pats and Sox has fueled a natural arrogance in that part of the country. Mark my words, the lovable Cubs' fans have a good chance of turning the way the Red Sox fans did...I hope that doesn't happen. I enjoy the Cards-Cubs rivalry for its good natured ribbing as opposed to the angry rivalry between Yanks and Sox.

How about handin' me another helpin' of those mashed taters...thank you very much!

by Elvis on Oct 24, 2007 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions

well...

NYC isn't the only town that dislikes Arod, and you know what, I agree with them. There is something hollow about him. Something mercenary and even petty.

In a town that stills holds Reggie close to its heart, if you don't produce in October then you don't matter. Period.

That is why Jeter is a God there and Arod is not. Jeter is the captain of a 4 time World Series Champion. Plus, he leaves his heart on the field every game whereas Arod will occasionally leave his wallet.

Lastly, doesn't it speak VOLUMES when a complete class act like Joe Torre pointedly refuses to come to Arod's defense?

by MrPlow on Oct 24, 2007 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions

re:

"There is something hollow about him. Something mercenary and even petty."

has nothing to do with baseball. does not change the fact he is the best baseball player in the world and will deservedly win the mvp.

"if you don't produce in October then you don't matter. Period."

i'm not saying you're wrong about this - i'm saying you're right. and my point is that this is not a good way to judge baseball players. also, jeter was awful in this year's playoffs, and was also awful as the sox were coming back in 2004. arod was fantastic in the playoffs several times before coming to the yankees. small sample size, etc.

(i assume your rebuttal will be, "but jeter was great before when they won world series, so he's forever beloved." well, fine - but is that really justifiable? that because jeter's "good" postseasons happened to occur at the same time that the rest of his team was also really good and therefore won the world series, and arod's "good" postseasons didn't, that means it's justifiable to love one and hate the other?)

obviously, your post basically went to the "knowledgeable" aspect of mine, not to the "classy" aspect.

Hello, playoff watching

by nycbirdo on Oct 24, 2007 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions

nobody

is saying Arod is not a great baseball player. But I don't think you can knock anybody for not rooting hard for him, even if he is on your favorite team.

by MrPlow on Oct 25, 2007 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions

not disagreeing with that

my point is, at least before this year (and maybe, after the playoffs, yet again), many yankees fans (and nyc media) WERE saying arod is not a great baseball player. which makes me question their knowledgeability.

Hello, playoff watching

by nycbirdo on Oct 25, 2007 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions

again,

That's right, you ALWAYS hear of pro athletes for saying "nah, I'm already getting paid too much".

Out of the millions of pro athletes that ever existed, people sacrificing themselves for a kids game is quite common.

This also translates to the real world. Just today I turned down a better job because I feel I get paid too much as it is and I fear that I'd be labeled a mercenary.

"How depressing is it being you? Would you equate it to being a lifelong Cubs fan?"

by rocKStark5 on Oct 25, 2007 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions

of course the fact that A-Rod's

post-season OPS is only a couple of points lower than Reggies (.885 vs .844) escapes them completely. If the rest of his team didn't keep letting A-Rod down, he might have a chance to put up some reggie-like numbers in a World Series...

Reggie in his 45 ALCS games (181 PA): .227 / .298 / .380

by SleepyCA on Oct 24, 2007 6:58 PM EDT up reply actions

sorry...

but this post misses the point. although reggie was not good in the ALCS, he is a 2 time World Series MVP.

In 98 World Series abs -- he hit 10 homers. And posted an eye opening .357/.457/.755 line. I.e., his World Series slugging percentage by itself is only a "couple points" below Arod's entire post-season OPS.

Oh, and he also had arguably the most memorable Yankee moment of the past 50 years.

by MrPlow on Oct 25, 2007 10:32 AM EDT up reply actions

well, another point would be

that arod shouldn't have to be reggie jackson or derek jeter to be accepted/admired/rooted for by yankee fans. yankee fans root for an awful lot of people whose anecdotal, memorable, etched-in-our-memories world series resumes don't match up to those two.

Hello, playoff watching

by nycbirdo on Oct 25, 2007 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions

and another would be

that reggie jackson's postseason numbers are actually supportive of the idea that "clutch" hitting ability is a mirage.

over jackson's career, his numbers in the regular season are .262/.356/.490, ops+ of 139. in other words: great. in the LCS, his career numbers are: .227/.298/.380; in other words: freaking terrible. and in the world series, obviously, he was a monster.

so the question is, if he's really a "clutch" hitter, why would he be UN-clutch in the lcs and only clutch in the world series? were those LCS games just not pressure-packed enough for him, compared to the series (or the regular season)? was he saving it up? was he so confident that he knew his team would make the world series no matter how awful he was in the LCS, so he saved up all his clutchiness for the series?

i mean, obviously, things like this can't just be RANDOM.

Hello, playoff watching

by nycbirdo on Oct 25, 2007 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions

i sense the sarcasm

and of course it can be random. but a couple things, first, jackson did it. whether it was random or not he did earn the title mr october with his unforgettable performance; for whatever reason --random or not -- Arod has underperformed despite being the best player in the game.

second, i actually think there is such a thing as "clutch" particularly in the playoffs.

let me head off any ad hominem criticism by letting you know i started reading bill james almost exactly 20 years ago (stumbled upon him by accident and had no idea what i was getting into). i didn't join the sabermetric parade in the wake of "moneyball". i only share that because i'm going to criticize the general sabermetric community at least on this narrow point.

but i'm going to bed very soon and i'm quite tired and i'm definitely rambling....perhaps this topic is left for another day...suffice it to say that the performance by Josh Beckett in the playoffs this season....ask yourself are you surprised?

i don't want to sound like joe morgan .... but people simply react differently when placed outside their comfort zone, or in abnormal situations, in pressure spots. it doesn't matter whether you are an attorney, a doctor, a firefighter, a baseball player. some people handle intensity better than others.

i don't think josh beckett locking down like he has is random or a surprise. it is in my opinion a true ability that we simply do not yet know how to properly weigh and measure. do not let the absence of a metric lead one to believe there is an absence of ability.

its ok to trust your eyes sometimes. beckett's clutch and so are others. one day perhaps we will have a better understanding of this ability to rise above, and a proper measure of it.

by MrPlow on Oct 26, 2007 12:51 AM EDT up reply actions

20 years ago i was in 1st grade

my initial response, i guess, would be josh beckett = not a hitter. and yes, josh beckett has been absolutely disgusting the entire postseason.

it's a lot easier for me to accept the concept of "clutch" in someone other than a hitter - for example, a pitcher, or, say, a quarterback - because there's a lot more decision-making involved in other things, and yes, i agree, without understanding the biochemical aspects of it, that it makes logical sense that pressure/not being in a comfort zone can affect decision-making.

but assuming someone is a good hitter - e.g., basically always trying to hit line drives - the decision-making involved in hitting is basically "swing" or "don't swing." not nearly as much there that pressure can affect one way or the other.

and i think we do have pretty good metrics for determining "clutch" performance in hitting - the same stats that measure hitting outside clutch situations. and i'm sure you're aware, having read bill james for 20 years, of what they say.

Hello, playoff watching

by nycbirdo on Oct 26, 2007 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions

my reply...

would be that you completely minimize the art and thinking of hitting. much more to it than a decision to swing or not to swing. and as to that very decision, does that not often dictate the outcome of an at bat?

an amateur's personal experience doesn't count for much at all, but i assume you probably played organized ball and may have a similar experience. so indulge me. I currently play in a men's wooden bat baseball league. its a great time and i highly recommend it...its a thousand times better than wasting time on a softball field. anyway, late in the season, with RISP, we are trailing by 2 runs. i'm at the plate. it was a pressure spot not only for the team, but also for me personally (i was mired in the mgr's doghouse at the time). and i ended up choking -- i'm not going to sugarcoat it. i worked the count in my favor like a good sabermetric disciple. i knew he had to give me a pitch to hit. and he did. and i froze -- ended up taking it right down the middle for strike 2. i was holding the bat too tight as they say and I failed to pull the trigger. i basically reacted poorly to the pressure of the situation. the next pitch was a pitcher's pitch, breaking ball at the knees, i hit a tapper -- fielder's choice. rally over.

i swung at the wrong pitch basically.

and the difference b/w swinging at the right pitch as opposed to the wrong pitch is not going to be evident in a sample size as small as postseason at bats. but that does not mean the effect is not present. had i swung at the right pitch, reacted great to the pressure of the situation, i still would have only had a 1 in 3 shot of getting a hit.

i don't think i'm being as coherent as i could be in these posts. perhaps i should sit down one of these days, organize my thoughts, assemble the correct stats & floating theories and create a diary. but on the fly, i hope you get my point.

by MrPlow on Oct 26, 2007 1:30 PM EDT up reply actions

perhaps this is more succinct...

It is more difficult to measure clutch hitting in the playoffs because, a) hitting a baseball into an open spot is almost an inherently random act -- and so the skills of a great hitter are only evident over a larger sample size, and obviously b) a hitter is not going to have a big enough sample size of postseason at bats so that their "clutchness" can be recognizable/quantified.

also, from a logical standpoint, i don't understand your position that there is probably not "clutch" hitters when a) you recognize that there probably is such a thing as a "clutch" pitcher and b) when you recognize the biological and pyschological affects of trying to perform under great stress. It stands to reason that you can't have a human being who is a clutch pitcher without having a human being who is a particularly clutch hitter or a particularly clutch fielder, or a particularly clutch free throw shooter etc.... Pitchers are not a separate species, although lefties may have branched away from the tree a little later than everyone else.

BTW, 20 years ago my father inadvertently brought home a b.james abstract; i think he thought it was a more conventional analysis. I was 13 at the time, the point I think in many of our lives that baseball and sports perhaps mean a little too much.

by MrPlow on Oct 26, 2007 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions

the reason

i think you could have a clutch whatever, but probably not a clutch hitter, is because i do think hitting involves fewer decisions. therefore, whatever effect stress etc. has on decision-making (which would create the "clutch effect") would be minimal re: hitting as opposed to other skills. so being clutch as a hitter might happen, but because the decision-making is less extensive, whatever effect that has will also be less extensive.

this dovetails with the point you correctly make above re: sample sizes, the inherent randomness of BABIP, etc.

so maybe my answer is: yes, there are clutch hitters, but due to the reasons we've identified here, the actual effect of this over a hitter's career, when compared to the hitter's performance in non-clutch situations, is unlikely to be significant.

what's this thread about again?

Hello, playoff watching

by nycbirdo on Oct 26, 2007 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions

i don't know...

but i enjoyed it.

by MrPlow on Oct 26, 2007 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions

Is this new?

It's not the like the Sox ever sucked for long periods of time.

Time to bring up the prospects.

by CraveCase on Oct 24, 2007 5:35 PM EDT reply actions

Actually,

after they won the WS in 1918, they embarked on a 15-year skein where they finished last in the AL 9 times, and never finished higher than 5th the other 6 years. From 1918 to 1986, they made the postseason only 3 times, twice falling to the Cardinals in the World Series (with the other loss being to the Reds in 1975.) During that time frame that had a nice period from 1960 to 1966 when they had a nice string of finishes that looked like this: 7th, 6th, 8th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 9th.

So, yeah, they have had plenty of suckitude in their history.

by flynn on Oct 26, 2007 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions

Elvis' post

regarding the Cubs is exactly how I feel. We as Cardinal fans will never hear the end of it from Cub fans IF they ever win it all.

I'd go as far to say that, if the Cards won FIVE STRAIGHT world titles after the Cubs winning it all, the Cub fans that are obnoxious would say, "Yeah, but you guys sucked six years ago!"

Umm, yeah, right...

I don't know if it's because I'm getting older, less tolerant, or what, but I REALLY don't like the Cubs nowadays, even worse than when I was a kid.

Even with their "losing" ways, they themselves are close to becoming Evil Empire Midwest.

by philbobilbo on Oct 24, 2007 5:48 PM EDT reply actions

+1

"How depressing is it being you? Would you equate it to being a lifelong Cubs fan?"

by rocKStark5 on Oct 25, 2007 9:28 AM EDT up reply actions

So dramatic...

Sawx fans, well NE fans in general (Bill Simmons anyone???) are the MOST over dramatic and lets-jump-on-the-bandwagon of any fans anywhere. They love JD Drew now, even after a horrible signing and a horrible season where they rode him all year, just bc he had 5 RBIs in one playoff game. Also at the beginning of the season when they had that huge game lead of the Yanks, all you heard about was how good they were, but when the Sawx tried to lose the division down the stretch, they got eerily quiet. And even now they talk about Paplebon as the greatest closer of all time, but I GUARANTEE if he blows a game or the series, he'll be hung for all to see at Fenway. Anyone wanna take that bet?

by joecardsfan on Oct 24, 2007 6:22 PM EDT reply actions

Yeah but come on

Were you looking at Weaver's and Suppan's performances in last year's WS in light of their season totals? It's the postseason -- big nights mean more. Fans love big nights that mean more.

by jfs on Oct 25, 2007 11:13 AM EDT up reply actions

Lacking substance....

To address the initial claim that the Red Sox are the "Second Evil Empire" I find that claim intellectually lazy. The Red Sox owners could have rested on the World Series Championship and the good will that it generated, and fielded mediocre teams and counted their money. Instead, they pour money into the team.
Unlike the Yankees, the Red Sox have not simply gone out and bought the best available free agent talent, no matter the price. Looking at their starting nine, it is an amalgamation of players acquired through various forms. Simply, the Red Sox have had the best drafts for the past few years. No matter their draft position, they seem to choose players that deliver. Their current playoff roster features a slew of home grown talent in key roles: Youk at 1B, Pedroia at 2B, Ellisbury splitting time in CF, Lester and Delcarmen in the pen, and Papelbon closing. I find it pretty impressive that six of their twenty-five man roster was drafted.
Great drafts also provided the talent that allowed the Red Sox to trade for key players. Hanley Rameriez was the cornerstone that allowed the Red Sox to acquire Josh Beckett. The throw in that trade, to allow the Marlins to dump pay roll, was their starting third baseman Mike Lowell.
Sure, the Red Sox have spent money, but they have coupled that spending with great drafts, and tremendous player analysis. Ortiz was straight up released by the Twins, and the Red Sox say something on him and jumped on him. In other deals, their player analysis has allowed them to swing some one sided trades. The most extreme, dealing Heathcliff Sloclumb for both Jason Varitek and Derek Lowe.
This diary has really developed into sour grapes, complaining about a successful franchise. To that, I have to say that I LIVE and WORK in Red Sox City State. (I call it that because it is geographically too compact to be a nation, or at least I tell my Boston raised wife that.) I find their fans as a whole, not some discrete case, to be very nice to fans of any team but the Yankees. I have gone to quite a few games and have no problem wearing Cardinal gear, even at three game stand back in 03 at Fenway.
Honestly, I think any fan base has its bad swings. Sometimes, I find myself thinking that the Cardinals fans have taken a swing for the worse lately. Honestly, in a self serving moment, I would like us to struggle for many reasons, including I think it would tone down our rhetoric, name calling, and general complaining.
Sox or Rox, let's hope for a great series.

by Brock20 on Oct 24, 2007 8:35 PM EDT reply actions

Re:

The Red Sox owners could have rested on the World Series Championship and the good will that it generated, and fielded mediocre teams and counted their money.

Kinda like a certain Midwest team owner we all know?

As far as the Sawx fanbase itself having changed, for the lack of a better term, they no longer have that "woe is us" attitude to hang their hats on. If you really think about it, 2004 was both the best and worst thing to happen to them.

by cardsrul on Oct 25, 2007 12:47 AM EDT up reply actions

Brock20, gotta disagree...

Schilling, Lowell, Timlin, Wakefield, Timlin, Ramiriz, Mirabelli, Varitek, and Okajima are all 33 or (much) older.

Donnelly and Clement are already where most of these guys COULD be at the age they are without some pure luck involved.(2 more over 33 and 3 more if you count Taverez)

Drew, Ortiz, Lugo and Cora will all turn 32 by the end of November. Big Poppy is walking wounded w/o the DH slot.

Lopez, Snyder, Hinske, Kielty and Gagne are or will all hit 30 within months with Youklis a year behind. Hes far from being a "prospect".

Thats 19 (20 throwing in Taverez) players OVER age 30 and more than half those over 32/33.

10 guys on the 25 man roster will be free agents in 08.

So, I would agree that they did indeed throw a LOT of money into the team, but giving them so much credit for the 'brilliance' of the Red Sox organization is a big stretch IMHO. BIG stretch.

If, you had added how incredibly lucky they were to survive 07 without more key injuries to older players, I would be agreeing with you on that along with the moneyball payroll.

Luck played a huge role in Bostons success this year during the 162 game season.

I do agree that Beckett is their greatest single non-homegrown asset.

Just one hurdle left Clint!! Gooo Clint! Rox vs. Sox?

by cardschinmusic on Oct 25, 2007 3:23 AM EDT up reply actions

..ohhh..

and all those other Timlins I forgot in the first paragraph...

Just one hurdle left Clint!! Gooo Clint! Rox vs. Sox?

by cardschinmusic on Oct 25, 2007 5:03 AM EDT up reply actions

I think I wasn't clear...

I'm not saying that they are young, by any stretch of the imagination. I'm saying that the Yankees took a different route, one that earned the disdain of fans of other teams. The Yankees, of old mind you because they have changed their modus operendi as of late, bought and bought free agents askewing growing talent.

The Red Sox have combined both approaches: free agent signings and minor league talent.

Yep, their team is old, but they have enough young, highly regarded talent that I wouldn't be too worried if I was a Red Sox fan. They will be able to fill key positions on the cheap, and that let's them sign big paycheck talent at other positions.

Yes, they also bomb: see JD Drew and Julio Lugo.

by Brock20 on Oct 25, 2007 7:51 AM EDT up reply actions

I'm actually

rooting for the sox...I still hate their fans....not as bad as I hate cubs or phillie fans though.

"How depressing is it being you? Would you equate it to being a lifelong Cubs fan?"

by rocKStark5 on Oct 25, 2007 9:33 AM EDT up reply actions

Couldn't agree more.

I cannot stand the Sawx myself. Their fans are huge pains in the ass, although, to be fair, Philly fans are nastier, louder, and even more vulgar, in my experience. They booed Santa Claus, for god's sake. NY fans have severe entitlement issues, but at least seem to mostly understand the game. Boston fans probably come in at #3 most obnoxious for me; behind Philadelphia and Cub fans. (the Cub fans aren't nearly as loud and irritating me, but I've never been in any other stadium where so many of the fans don't seem to be able to remember their starting player's names; I just don't think the people who go to the games pay much attention to the sport itself.)

What upsets me the most about the Boston franchise, though, is the image they try to project, versus the truth of the situation. They spend more money than anyone else in baseball, then try to appear to be a team of scrappy underdogs. Just because one team outspends you doesn't mean that you're the Bad News Bears all of a sudden. The whole paradigm of outspending 28 other franchises, then trying to appear to be blue collar bugs me to no end. I can at least respect the Yankees and their spending practices; they don't make any bones about who they are. But the Sawx just ring hollow to me.

The 2007 offseason: Butter? Or Steel?

by the red baron on Oct 25, 2007 11:25 AM EDT reply actions