93 or more
87 - 92
81 - 86
76 - 80
67 - 75
66 or less
A century?Originally Posted by 5GoldGloves:OF,75
I realize this was probably hyperbole, and 80-90 years would be closer to accurate, as the teams of the early 20's to 30's really sucked. We never won more than 67 games from 1922-1933.
We were pretty bad right before the WS trip in 1946.
We were pretty bad for 6 or 7 years before the 1967 miracle season.
We were 54-61 in the shortened 1994 season.
We won 69 games in 2012 but very few expected less than 79 or 89 wins that season in March.
When you say it's gonna happen now
When exactly do you mean?
Ha, I didn't mean this could be the worst Sox team in a hundred years, just this century -- as in, the 2000s, opposed to the 1900s. A better label, as someone pointed out, would be the Henry-Warner ownership era.
The first time a Red Sox team came in last in my lifetime was 1992, when they won 73 games. I honestly think this version could challenge that mark of ineptitude. Luckily(?), Baltimore should have a hard time winning that many, as well.
Sale, Price and Porcello may have combined for mediocrity in '19, but they still provided over 400 professional innings pitched at the big league level. Who is going to replace them in those 400 frames this year???
75+/- 3 games
I am surprised (pleasantly) that there are 3 people who picked the range higher than the one I picked.
To those 3 people, way to go.
Mid to high eighties. (Like Satan, I "wish, but not with hope.")
i am forever hopeful.
other names i have posted under: none
It's the only way to be.
Since there's a good chance the season is going to be 25% shorter, I'd like to revise my answer to 66 or less
This poll is of course a great idea. I'm pessimist (in the majority) because of the pitching and not because of Mookie's departure.
Almost everyone--especially the media commentators--besides me thinks that paying a ton of money for someone like Mookie is the right move, but I continue to point to the example of Bryce Harper, who left the Nationals to join the Phillies. Lo and behold, without Bryce the Nationals won it all and the Phillies didn't improve at all (well, a little: they went from 80-82 to 81-81). I will hasten to add that last season the Phillies fans were just happy to have Bryce for his entertainment value because ticket sales did in fact go up.
I get the example of the Nationals that people bring up. But there are also a lot of factors that are different from the Sox' situation, besides the fact that Betts is a better all-around player and helps impact wins in more ways than Harper; among them are that the Nats had a future star replacement already in their outfield in Soto (plus, other young talent like Robles) -- Boston's call-up last summer was Gorkys Hernandez.
Then Washington used the Harper savings to sign probably the top free agent pitcher in Corbin (he's not Cole, but the Yanks still went hard after him, and he was the victor in the game that won the World Series). Meanwhile, the Sox used their new financial flexibility to land Colin McHugh. I know... all the good guys were gone by then, but the class of '21 doesn't look promising, either, for prime-time pitchers... Trevor Bow-wow?
Anyway, Mookie is gone, and I doubt the Sox even make him a legit offer next winter, so we may have to wait a few years for the acquired prospects to make it and then use the monetary resources to fill in around them. Maybe by then Noah Song will be ready for the Show -- he's not losing much developmental time this year after all.
At this point, we should change it to winning percentage, since we don't know how many games will be played. Before we got shut down, I was thinking somewhere between 80 and 90, so I probably would have voted for 81-86
No.
Well that sure makes it hard to debate you
Yup
We have accountants on staff who will do all the conversions at the end of the season.
Championships since purchase by John Henry group: Red Sox 4 Yankees 1
The Red Sox are 8-1 in their last 9 postseason games against the Yankees.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote