Originally Posted by kittle42
Yet a large contingent of huge Sox fans and frequent WSI posters don't seem to think there's much wrong with this model because (1) they won a WS in 2005 with a patchwork team; (2) the WS is "all luck"; (3) they make the playoffs 3 times a decade; (4) the best on paper teams don't automatically do best.
More depressing than the organizational philosophy is that we let them sway us into thinking it's OK. I mean, we're not going to not be fans, so I guess this is maybe just some people's coping mechanism? I mean, every fanbase likes to think, "This could be the year," otherwise, what's the point? But please, step back and realize what the Sox have been doing every year in the past lord-knows-how-long (except 2006, which just didn't work out, but was the best they have done to position themselves for success in my lifetime) just sucks.
But how are they going to rebuild from the bottom? If you have a big problem with how they evaluate players, how they call up guys too fast...how do you expect them to build an entire team ?
Perpetual rebuilding doesn't work. I know the Rays are a model a lot of people here want to be like, but they lost 90 games 10 years straight and have not won a WS, so using the same criteria people are using for the Sox, although they have a nice team, the Rays fail, and since nobody goes to their games, they don't understand the fans. Their attendance problems are easily solvable as long as they make they playoffs 3 or 4 years in a row.
There is no doubt the Sox should have been better since 2005, but I don't think it was the philosophy that failed. It was the execution of that philosophy. They paid enough to have a good roster. They paid the wrong guys. There were plenty of good players available even when they were drafting late. They missed Trout. They missed Pedroia. This way can be very successful,but just like rebuilding entirely, it has to be done right.