The 2021-2022 Offseason Thread

[5GoldGloves:OF,75]

After the past year of fortifying the farm, making the playoffs and upsetting the Yanks and Rays, few can say Bloom is on the wrong track. However, what -- to you -- will confirm Bloom has achieved his goal of building "sustained contenders"? As we saw again this year, qualifying for the Wild Card game definitely makes contending for a title possible, if not always probable.

But what defines sustainment? A). Will a minimum of five straight Wild Card years do it? B). How about just five straight 90ish-win seasons, maybe with a missed postseason or two, staving off elimination until the last week? C). Or is even the Houston model acceptable: five ALCS in a row with one ring mixed in? D). Sorry, but last-last-World Series champs-and last isn't an option.

I'm not spoiled, since I've experienced B. most of my life rooting for the Red Sox. Dick O'Connell turned things around from '67-77, with a few pennants and second places; his Sox weren't always contenders, but had winning records for a decade. Lou Gorman traded Bagwell but built a sustained contender for a spell, with three division champs in five years, from '86-90 (Haywood Sullivan's back office lost homegrown stars in the early disastrous days of free agency, but at least drafted Clemens). Dan Duquette teams made the playoffs three times in five years and helped build the eventual curse-breakers, signing Ramirez and Damon, trading for Martinez, etc. The most recent GMs are already well-documented...

[moonslav59]

After the past year of fortifying the farm, making the playoffs and upsetting the Yanks and Rays, few can say Bloom is on the wrong track. However, what -- to you -- will confirm Bloom has achieved his goal of building "sustained contenders"? As we saw again this year, qualifying for the Wild Card game definitely makes contending for a title possible, if not always probable.

But what defines sustainment? A). Will a minimum of five straight Wild Card years do it? B). How about just five straight 90ish-win seasons, maybe with a missed postseason or two, staving off elimination until the last week? C). Or is even the Houston model acceptable: five ALCS in a row with one ring mixed in? D). Sorry, but last-last-World Series champs-and last isn't an option.

I'm not spoiled, since I've experienced B. most of my life rooting for the Red Sox. Dick O'Connell turned things around from '67-77, with a few pennants and second places; his Sox weren't always contenders, but had winning records for a decade. Lou Gorman traded Bagwell but built a sustained contender for a spell, with three division champs in five years, from '86-90 (Haywood Sullivan's back office lost homegrown stars in the early disastrous days of free agency, but at least drafted Clemens). Dan Duquette teams made the playoffs three times in five years and helped build the eventual curse-breakers, signing Ramirez and Damon, trading for Martinez, etc. The most recent GMs are already well-documented...

I think the answer is very individual and subjective.

One can argue just having a team you feel is good enough to be a contender in April is good enough- win or lose.

I admit, I’ve been spoiled by the rings from 3 GMs, and I want more, but I also like just being constant contenders, too.

[Bellhorn04]

I think the answer is very individual and subjective.

One can argue just having a team you feel is good enough to be a contender in April is good enough- win or lose.

I admit, I’ve been spoiled by the rings from 3 GMs, and I want more, but I also like just being constant contenders, too.

All you can really do is compare to other teams.

In the twenty-first century, which team do you think has done the best?

Red Sox
Yankees
Dodgers
Giants

I'll take the Red Sox record over the others. 4 rings, 7 ALCS appearances, other playoff appearances. And yes, 4 last-place finishes.

The Yankees and Dodgers have been much more consistent, but I'll take the rings.

[moonslav59]

All you can really do is compare to other teams.

In the twenty-first century, which team do you think has done the best?

Red Sox
Yankees
Dodgers
Giants

I'll take the Red Sox record over the others. 4 rings, 7 ALCS appearances, other playoff appearances. And yes, 4 last-place finishes.

The Yankees and Dodgers have been much more consistent, but I'll take the rings.

Me, too.

I was fine with Ben's 3 last place finishes due to ring. Yes, it sucked, but going into each year, I liked our team on paper- some more than I liked the 2013 team in March!

I will say, now that we have some rings, being a consistent contender carries more weight than it did pre-ring, but I very much like winning it all every 4 to 6 or 7 years.

[oldtimer]

Me, too.

I was fine with Ben's 3 last place finishes due to ring. Yes, it sucked, but going into each year, I liked our team on paper- some more than I liked the 2013 team in March!

I will say, now that we have some rings, being a consistent contender carries more weight than it did pre-ring, but I very much like winning it all every 4 to 6 or 7 years.

I am not a fan of boom and bust cycles which result from overspending on large questionable contracts and trading away most of the good young assets. It may result it a high but also will likely be followed by a cliff. I like what Bloom is saying and hope he smartly approaches team development which includes sustainability as a priority.

[5GoldGloves:OF,75]

now that we have some rings, being a consistent contender carries more weight than it did pre-ring,

It's true, the pressure is off -- so much so that rival fans and media have regressed from elitist to hapless, still clinging to tired Big Lies like whose HR was the difference in '78, and that an error lost the '86 World Series, and who the attacker was in the '03 takedown...etc, etc.

[notin]

I think the answer is very individual and subjective.

One can argue just having a team you feel is good enough to be a contender in April is good enough- win or lose.

I admit, I’ve been spoiled by the rings from 3 GMs, and I want more, but I also like just being constant contenders, too.

Agreed on the subjectivity. And I think we can all agree that a big part of it is not sucking…

[notin]

I am not a fan of boom and bust cycles which result from overspending on large questionable contracts and trading away most of the good young assets. It may result it a high but also will likely be followed by a cliff. I like what Bloom is saying and hope he smartly approaches team development which includes sustainability as a priority.

I do like the terminology “Boom or Bust Cycles” to describe that exact strategy I hate.

I also do find a significant enough amount of people who prefer the team go all in NOW and remind us they will take the bad times as long as they get a winner suddenly change their mindset when the bad times arrive. Naturally it’s their prerogative to do so, but it doesn’t make out less hypocritical…

[moonslav59]

I am not a fan of boom and bust cycles which result from overspending on large questionable contracts and trading away most of the good young assets. It may result it a high but also will likely be followed by a cliff. I like what Bloom is saying and hope he smartly approaches team development which includes sustainability as a priority.

I think the idea is to have a sustainable winning strategy, but when you feel real close- you make a big push that won't kill the future budgets. That's the tricky part.

After Theo left, he spoke of "getting away" from the sustainable plan too much.

I feel Ben was trying to build to that model, but DD up-ended that approach.

Bloom looks to be trying to do what Ben was doing, but he has yet to be given a fat checkbook like Theo, Ben and DD got at various times in their tenure with the Sox.

[moonslav59]

I do like the terminology “Boom or Bust Cycles” to describe that exact strategy I hate.

I also do find a significant enough amount of people who prefer the team go all in NOW and remind us they will take the bad times as long as they get a winner suddenly change their mindset when the bad times arrive. Naturally it’s their prerogative to do so, but it doesn’t make out less hypocritical…

What happened with several posters was that they wanted us to go all in, but denied it would have a lasting effect on future chances.

"Henry can just spend more."

"We just need to rebuild the farm."

"There is no reason a top spending team can't contend every year."

[Bellhorn04]

What happened with several posters was that they wanted us to go all in, but denied it would have a lasting effect on future chances.

"Henry can just spend more."

"We just need to rebuild the farm."

"There is no reason a top spending team can't contend every year."

And they were right?

[5GoldGloves:OF,75]

What happened with several posters was that they wanted us to go all in, but denied it would have a lasting effect on future chances.

"Henry can just spend more."

"We just need to rebuild the farm."

"There is no reason a top spending team can't contend every year."

I don't live in California, but can only assume fans there were glad when the Dodgers signed the NL Cy Young last winter, and then made the blockbuster of all deadline deals in July. Most pundits predicted LA to repeat as world champs even before these moves, but imagine the outlook when they were still celebrating a year ago if someone said, "And next year, you're going to add Trevor Bauer, Max Scherzer and Trea Turner!"

And the Dodgers didn't even make it back to the World Series.

[notin]

”There is no reason a top spending team can't contend every year."

Unless, you know, you understand how aging works…

[notin]

And they were right?

That depends on whether or not you acknowledge 2020 ever happening.

Obviously it’s pure speculation, but do you think this team would be better off right now with Dombrowski still in charge or worse off?

[Bellhorn04]

That depends on whether or not you acknowledge 2020 ever happening.

Obviously it’s pure speculation, but do you think this team would be better off right now with Dombrowski still in charge or worse off?

a) 2020 was a 60 game season in a pandemic, and the perfect time to tank.
b) I've said a number of times I think Henry nailed it replacing DD with Bloom when he did.