This board is now officially the Rockies Forum...

[wigglestrue]

dude, two rings in 4 years with a missed playoff appearance in 2006 is far from a dynasty. what you guys did now is just put yourself even with teams like the marlins who have as many rings as you have in the last 10 years.... 2

Sorry...

7 total championships, 4th most in baseball history. Only 19 more to go!

But seriously, save the D word for after the Sox win next year, at least.

[TKF]

-= original quote snipped =-



7 total championships, 4th most in baseball history. Only 19 more to go!

But seriously, save the D word for after the Sox win next year, at least.

dude, it is going to be hard to duplicate what the yankees did. when they won those rings, their stars were in their early to mid 20's. bostons two stars, manny and ortiz are on the downside of their careers, schilling is just about done, and your younger players are not star players with the exception of beckett and possibly papelbon... I expect the tigers to be back strong next year for some reason....... repeating I just don't see happenning. The mariners, Indians will also be a lot stronger, and don't sleep on the yankees young arms...

[wigglestrue]

dude, it is going to be hard to duplicate what the yankees did. when they won those rings, their stars were in their early to mid 20's. bostons two stars, manny and ortiz are on the downside of their careers, schilling is just about done, and your younger players are not star players with the exception of beckett and possibly papelbon... I expect the tigers to be back strong next year for some reason....... repeating I just don't see happenning. The mariners, Indians will also be a lot stronger, and don't sleep on the yankees young arms...

Jeter, Pettitte, Rivera, Posada, and Bernie Williams were your only stars in their early-mid 20's in 1996. But let's say that 2004 was our 1996, and that 2007 is our 1998. By the time 1998 was over: Jeter was 24, Posada was 27, Pettitte was 26, Rivera was almost 29, and Bernie Williams was 30. So that's really only three stars in their early-mid 20's for the first of the three consecutive titles. Beckett is 27 and obviously a star, and errrr....possibly Papelbon? Papelbon is clearly a star and 26. Pedroia is going to be the ROY, and he's 24...ROY doesn't make a star anymore huh -- or is it just because he's 5'7" and 5'7" players can't possibly be stars? And if Pettitte from 1998 counts as a star, then I'll be damned if 27 year old Dice K from 2007 doesn't count as a star. Youkilis (28) isn't a star, but he's a better and younger Brosius. Ellsbury isn't even a rookie yet let alone a star, but if you don't think the early evidence points to him being a star you're very alone. Did the '98 Yankees have a Lester or a Buchholz in the pipeline for '99? Did the '98 Yankees even have two guys like Ortiz and Ramirez, beginning of the downside notwithstanding? I mean, come on. We're not talking about 2010 and beyond. We're talking about 2008 and 2009. Do the Red Sox have enough to do it again in the next year or two? The answer, obviously, is yes. Will they? Who the **** knows, I'm not psychic.

[TKF]

-= original quote snipped =-



Jeter, Pettitte, Rivera, Posada, and Bernie Williams were your only stars in their early-mid 20's in 1996. But let's say that 2004 was our 1996, and that 2007 is our 1998. By the time 1998 was over: Jeter was 24, Posada was 27, Pettitte was 26, Rivera was almost 29, and Bernie Williams was 30. So that's really only three stars in their early-mid 20's for the first of the three consecutive titles. Beckett is 27 and obviously a star, and errrr....possibly Papelbon? Papelbon is clearly a star and 26. Pedroia is going to be the ROY, and he's 24...ROY doesn't make a star anymore huh -- or is it just because he's 5'7" and 5'7" players can't possibly be stars? And if Pettitte from 1998 counts as a star, then I'll be damned if 27 year old Dice K from 2007 doesn't count as a star. Youkilis (28) isn't a star, but he's a better and younger Brosius. Ellsbury isn't even a rookie yet let alone a star, but if you don't think the early evidence points to him being a star you're very alone. Did the '98 Yankees have a Lester or a Buchholz in the pipeline for '99? Did the '98 Yankees even have two guys like Ortiz and Ramirez, beginning of the downside notwithstanding? I mean, come on. We're not talking about 2010 and beyond. We're talking about 2008 and 2009. Do the Red Sox have enough to do it again in the next year or two? The answer, obviously, is yes. Will they? Who the **** knows, I'm not psychic.

ah, you are forgetting Tino martinez who had Allstar years and was in his mid to late 20's, chuck knoublauch, paul Oneil who was still very much in his prime, and an allstar, and the bull pen had all of their guys in their prime, nelson, stanton, mendoza, come on dukes...

Did the '98 Yankees have a Lester or a Buchholz in the pipeline for '99?

does that even matter considering that teams success, guys like that couln't sniff playing time on that 98 team, come on man...

Did the '98 Yankees even have two guys like Ortiz and Ramirez, beginning of the downside notwithstanding?

again does that matter, jeter and williams post season records and rings speak for themselves... honestly jeter and williams were all around better players, manny and ortiz are just hitters, they don't run the bases and are less than average on defense..really do you want to compare the sucess between these guys.. come on man!!!

Ellsbury isn't even a rookie yet let alone a star, but if you don't think the early evidence points to him being a star you're very alone

again, none of us know the future, so I don't see your point on ellsbury, rookie of the year guys come and go, I can name you quite a few that have had less than stellar careers...

you can speak about injuries, but that just goes to show you the nature of your team, ortiz is overweight and never in great shape and manny is just a fat ass who seems to slack when it comes to keeping in shape, that is why he rarely every plays in september, just look at the amount of games he plays in sept.. What remains is that boston has shown that they can have letdowns, it happened in 2006, and for a team with that payroll and players like manny and ortiz, is that acceptable.. meanwhile with everything you said, injuries withstanding, the yanks never missed a beat...

that say a lot bro...

[Chach]

-= original quote snipped =-




that is bullcrap. Post WS hangover. Please, then explain the 3 straight WS the yankees won from 98-2000 and making it again in 2001. what you are telling me is that those teams were just inferior and that the yankees were just that great. that is a bad excuse. Just admit it, the yankees have been a model of consistency for the last 13 years, mixed in with a stretch of greatness... GEEZ... post WS hangover?

bflaff (Philadelphia): Will, I don't know if you've covered this before, but is there a penalty paid in the following season by a pitching staff when it adds in all those extra innings from going deep into the postseason? Or is it more dependent on the individual pitchers?

Will Carroll: Yep, the World Series hangover. It does add up, but there's no definitive research that I'm aware of.

If THE definitive journalist on sports injuries, in particular baseball, admits that there is a post season hangover then I am all aboard. That Yankees dynasty was great, simple as that. Perhaps the veteran pitching helped weather that storm. Schilling was injured in 05 because of the Bloody Sock incident and the Sox also ran into the buzzsaw known as the White Sox and finished with the same record as the Yankees. Had Schilling been healthier earlier in the year, the Sox would have won the division and the Yankees would have been destroyed by the White Sox pitching staff. mahalo
~Chach~

[TKF]

-= original quote snipped =-



If THE definitive journalist on sports injuries, in particular baseball, admits that there is a post season hangover then I am all aboard. That Yankees dynasty was great, simple as that. Perhaps the veteran pitching helped weather that storm. Schilling was injured in 05 because of the Bloody Sock incident and the Sox also ran into the buzzsaw known as the White Sox and finished with the same record as the Yankees. Had Schilling been healthier earlier in the year, the Sox would have won the division and the Yankees would have been destroyed by the White Sox pitching staff. mahalo
~Chach~

The Braves of the 90's, the Yankees of the 90's and 2000, the oakland A's of the 80's and the Blue jays of the early 90's crush that crazy theory... Post season hangover is just another way to say, we were not as great as we like to believe. The teams I just mention are what we call great, what they accomplished is great, that is why we have that word, that is why it exist, everything else is either good, or very good, simple as that... post season hangover ? i don't buy that...

[dsorc]

I'm a red sox fan but I have to agree to some extent with the yankee fans on this one. The yankee din of the late disnaty was just great teams while so far the sox have just had good teams though they have a chance to be considered great IF they can win a couple more tittles in the following years. Until then you can't call them a dynasty or great.

I also disagree about comparing the 2004 redsox with the 96 yankess if only because there is a disconnect between the two recent red sox championships in terms of team makeup. If anything the 2007 red sox could be the equivalent of 96 yankees but again only if they are able to keep winning and the kids step up which is possible but not guaranteed.

[TKF]

I'm a red sox fan but I have to agree to some extent with the yankee fans on this one. The yankee din of the late disnaty was just great teams while so far the sox have just had good teams though they have a chance to be considered great [b]IF they can win a couple more tittles in the following years. Until then you can't call them a dynasty or great.[/b]
I also disagree about comparing the 2004 redsox with the 96 yankess if only because there is a disconnect between the two recent red sox championships in terms of team makeup. If anything the 2007 red sox could be the equivalent of 96 yankees but again only if they are able to keep winning and the kids step up which is possible but not guaranteed.

that is my point. Until then, are they really better than the angels who won and have dominated their division the past 6 years. are they better than the marlins who won WS titles in 97 and 2003? are they? or are the sox just good teams that won the ws twice in 4 years.... I hate to say this and I mean no offend, but red sox fans, most, not all, (because obviously dsorc you are not this way) are funny at times. It seems when they have some success, regardless of what or who it is, they are all of a sudden Great! The best! unstoppable.. I mean come on, lets put things in perspective here.... The sox won, they were the best team this year, but lets slow with the dynasty stuff, to call them great means what about the yankee teams that won 4 out of 5 WS and appeared in 6? or the braves who won a ring and 12 straight division titles, or even the marlins who have 2 titles in the past 10 years, or how about the angels? writing the yankees off and even cleveland is a little foolish...

[wigglestrue]

that is my point. Until then, are they really better than the angels who won and have dominated their division the past 6 years. are they better than the marlins who won WS titles in 97 and 2003? are they?

Um, yes. Duh. Obviously they are.

or are the sox just good teams that won the ws twice in 4 years.... I hate to say this and I mean no offend, but red sox fans, most, not all, (because obviously dsorc you are not this way) are funny at times. It seems when they have some success, regardless of what or who it is, they are all of a sudden Great! The best! unstoppable.. I mean come on, lets put things in perspective here.... The sox won, they were the best team this year, but lets slow with the dynasty stuff, to call them great means what about the yankee teams that won 4 out of 5 WS and appeared in 6? or the braves who won a ring and 12 straight division titles, or even the marlins who have 2 titles in the past 10 years, or how about the angels? writing the yankees off and even cleveland is a little foolish...

I'm definitely NOT calling them a dynasty. Like I said, we'd have to wait for at least another title in 2008 before even thinking about that word. Great? That's another story. The 2004 was individually great because, well, how can a team that pulled off the greatest comeback in sports history not be great? This year's team was individually great because they were the best team in baseball from basically start to finish, one of like 5 teams in 20 years you can say that about, and if there had never been the 2004 ALCS comeback the Indians series would be considered one of the better comebacks in postseason history, hell maybe it should be anyway. Is this title run great? Is it even a "run" yet? No, not yet. Gotta wait for at least one more. That said, it's been a good run of general success. 4 out of 5 years in the playoffs, 3 ALCS appearances (all 7 games), 2 Series sweeps. That's ****ing good. But not great, yet.

[TKF]

that is my point. Until then, are they really better than the angels who won and have dominated their division the past 6 years. are they better than the marlins who won WS titles in 97 and 2003? are they?

Um, yes. Duh. Obviously they are.

or are the sox just good teams that won the ws twice in 4 years.... I hate to say this and I mean no offend, but red sox fans, most, not all, (because obviously dsorc you are not this way) are funny at times. It seems when they have some success, regardless of what or who it is, they are all of a sudden Great! The best! unstoppable.. I mean come on, lets put things in perspective here.... The sox won, they were the best team this year, but lets slow with the dynasty stuff, to call them great means what about the yankee teams that won 4 out of 5 WS and appeared in 6? or the braves who won a ring and 12 straight division titles, or even the marlins who have 2 titles in the past 10 years, or how about the angels? writing the yankees off and even cleveland is a little foolish...

I'm definitely NOT calling them a dynasty. Like I said, we'd have to wait for at least another title in 2008 before even thinking about that word. Great? That's another story. The 2004 was individually great because, well, how can a team that pulled off the greatest comeback in sports history not be great? This year's team was individually great because they were the best team in baseball from basically start to finish, one of like 5 teams in 20 years you can say that about, and if there had never been the 2004 ALCS comeback the Indians series would be considered one of the better comebacks in postseason history, hell maybe it should be anyway. Is this title run great? Is it even a "run" yet? No, not yet. Gotta wait for at least one more. That said, it's been a good run of general success. 4 out of 5 years in the playoffs, 3 ALCS appearances (all 7 games), 2 Series sweeps. That's ****ing good. But not great, yet.

I feel ya, but honestly, do you think you have been better than the angels the past 6 years? I would say, you are pretty much equal... but that is just my humble opinion..

[wigglestrue]

I feel ya, but honestly, do you think you have been better than the angels the past 6 years? I would say, you are pretty much equal... but that is just my humble opinion..

Dude, seriously?

Year League Record Finish/Rank Manager High OPS Low ERA Year
2007 AL West 94-68 (.580) DIV 1 Mike Scioscia Guerrero Lackey 2007
2006 AL West 89-73 (.549) 2 Mike Scioscia Guerrero Lackey 2006
2005 AL West 95-67 (.586) DIV 1 Mike Scioscia Guerrero Washburn 2005
2004 AL West 92-70 (.568) DIV 1 Mike Scioscia Guerrero Escobar 2004
2003 AL West 77-85 (.475) 3 Mike Scioscia Anderson Washburn 2003
2002 AL West 99-63 (.611) WS 2 Mike Scioscia Salmon Washburn 2002

Year League Record Finish/Rank Manager High OPS Low ERA Year
2007 AL East 96-66 (.593) WS 1 Terry Francona Ortiz Beckett 2007
2006 AL East 86-76 (.531) 3 Terry Francona Ramirez Schilling 2006
2005 AL East 95-67 (.586) WC 2 Terry Francona Ortiz Wakefield 2005
2004 AL East 98-64 (.605) WS 2 Terry Francona Ramirez Schilling 2004
2003 AL East 95-67 (.586) WC 2 Grady Little Ramirez Martinez 2003
2002 AL East 93-69 (.574) 2 Grady Little Ramirez Martinez 2002

Despite playing in the toughest division in MLB, the Sox have had a significantly better regular season record over the past six years. The Angels have more division titles, that's it, big whoop. Put the Sox in the AL West and they might have won their 6th consecutive division title this year instead of their 1st AL East division title. The Angels have had a losing season in the last 6 years, something the Sox haven't even approached. The Sox have won 2 World Series in the last 4 seasons....the Angels won one...6 seasons ago. The Sox have been in 3 ALCS series, reaching a 7th game in all of them. The Angels have been in 2 ALCS series, losing in 5 games once -- the same year that the Sox got swept by the same world champion ChiSox in the ALDS. Speaking of sweeps, the Sox have directly beat the living **** out of the Angels in two separate ALDS series. The Sox swept both of their World Series opponents...the Angels squeaked by the Giants in 7. It's not even close. The Sox have been clearly superior to the Angels over the last 6 years.

[wigglestrue]

I'm sensing that it's important to you to somehow prop up the clearly inferior Angels to the level of the Sox the last 6 years...is it because the Angels are the only other team that could remotely compete for the theoretical title of "Best Team in Baseball from 2002-to-2007", and therefore essentially "Team of the Decade/Century So Far"?

[TKF]

I'm sensing that it's important to you to somehow prop up the clearly inferior Angels to the level of the Sox the last 6 years...is it because the Angels are the only other team that could remotely compete for the theoretical title of "Best Team in Baseball from 2002-to-2007", and therefore essentially "Team of the Decade/Century So Far"?

No, the angels just stand out, they win their division, and won a WS, I would say the sox have been better, but clearly superior? hmmmm, maybe... I guess with the angels,yankees, diamondbacks, white sox, marlins and the sox(twice) winning rings since 2000, it is hard to pick out any dominant team since 2000. It was much clearer that we were the dominant team of the 90's, but 2000's is tough. I do know the yankees have not missed a playoff since 1994(*strike season) and we were in 1st place when the strike happened. I look at the angels because they have been consistent it seems, I guess boston being in the yankees division does give them the edge over a team like the angels for sure. I wonder if the angels would even make the playoffs if they were in the AL east... who knows...

[TKF]

Oh, and I forgot the cardinals..... LOL....