“I actually like being the underdog,” said Lucchino, who then compared his club with the rebuilt, back-in-business Toronto Blue Jays, who spent a ton of money this offseason

Cot's has the Jays payroll at <115M with no huge arbitration cases coming as far as I can see. So the scrappy "underdog" Sox will be spending ~45M more tha then the go for it team that merely won the off-season trophy.

It continues to be true that Larry Lucchino needs to shut up.

I don't think there is any argument that the Sox aren't an underdog this year. Most predictions and projections are putting them 3rd/4th and out of the playoffs. I don't really give a damn about the "scrappy underdog" thing or anything like that but the Sox sure as hell ain't favorites (nor should they be). You're either a favorite or an underdog and the Sox certainly have no reason to be considered the former.

More importantly to me I hope the Sox do have a chip on their shoulder. After going 69-93 I'd like to think they're kind of embarrassed and pissed off.

The Red Sox have less talent than the Yankees, Blue Jays, or Rays. The Red Sox are projected to win fewer games than the Yankees, Blue Jays, or Rays. By one perfectly normal accounting, the Red Sox are clearly underdogs.

Of course, the Red Sox are underdogs because they have, since 2010 or so, systematically squandered a variety of significant structural advantages which they still hold over most other clubs in baseball. So there's that, too.

“scrappy underdogs”

At least Lucchino gets the last 15 letters right.

After going 69-93

I was surprised to see this---I didn't realize that they were that bad last year!!

That's a record I would normally associate with the Cubs or Royals. Has any megapayroll (top 3, say) team in baseball, in any era, been so awful?

Has any megapayroll (top 3, say) team in baseball, in any era, been so awful?

1992 Mets went 72-90. I'm not sure if the 1993 Mets were top 3, but they went 59-103.

"You may have acquired 3 good-to-great starting pitchers, a batting title-winning shortstop, and a batting title-winning outfielder - but we got your manager, Beeston!"

The Marlins had the exact same record last year, but they were only 7th in payroll.

I was surprised to see this---I didn't realize that they were that bad last year!!

Yeah it was ####### awesome. I honestly don't think I've ever rooted for a team in any sport for a season that was so miserable, particularly once Middlebrooks got hurt. There was just nothing to be excited about. At least when other teams have had bad years you had some draft pick excitement, the Bruins nabbed Joe Thornton and Sergei Samsonov in the same draft, the Celtics had hopes of Tim Duncan and (tee-hee) Greg Oden in a couple of seasons, even the Dolphins (yes, really) always have the hope of an exciting pick. The baseball draft doesn't offer the same immediacy and the Sox didn't really have young players at the big level inspiring much hope (the farm was great at least).

The one thing I learned from last year is that the idea that there is no difference between 69-93 and 81-81 is flat out wrong, at least as a fan. 81-81 you've got some decent players and you aren't that far away. Being absolutely atrocious is just misery.

Has any megapayroll (top 3, say) team in baseball, in any era, been so awful?

The 2003 Mets led the National League in payroll and were second in losses (66-95). Overall, they were second in payroll and only three times (Rays, Padres and Tigers) lost more games. I think that's the standard for terrible high payroll teams.

I honestly don't think I've ever rooted for a team in any sport for a season that was so miserable, particularly once Middlebrooks got hurt. There was just nothing to be excited about.

I had tickets to a game late in the season and I didn't want to go - and I literally couldn't give them away.

I'm not sure if the 1993 Mets were top 3, but they went 59-103.

#2 in NL. #5 in MLB.


http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/baseball/mlb/salaries/team/1993

As the scrap-meter goes, the Sox are probably up there, right? At least compared to year past version of the Sox... Ciriaco, Victorino and Gomes are all fairly scrappy. Dempster, as an old dude with a beard, is about as scrappy as pitchers get. Daniel Nava's career is probably pictured next 'scrappy' in the dictionary and, of course, Pedroia is the Ace of Scraps in my hustle themed deck of cards.

Lucchino's comments also included an acknowledgement that the sellout streak is probably soon-to-end. The last game not sold out at Fenway was in 2003 against the Rangers and featured an appearance from a future Cy Young award winner and Bill Mueller playing 2B and Mark Teixeira playing outfield.

systematically squandered a variety of significant structural advantages

And one advantage they do (did) have -the ability to overspend- they seem determined to curtail. For better or worse.

And one advantage they do (did) have -the ability to overspend- they seem determined to curtail.

They're spending right up to the luxury tax threshold. In previous seasons they've been willing to go over it by $5M or so. This is a very minor change.

They're spending right up to the luxury tax threshold. In previous seasons they've been willing to go over it by $5M or so. This is a very minor change.

No, because of Liverpool and hedge funds and the Punto trade they are now a small-payroll team despite having a high payroll.

an appearance from a future Cy Young award winner

Dickey?

Dickey?

yep

I was going to say that the Rangers' offense was impressive, featuring Teixeira, Mike Young, A-Rod, Palmeiro, Carl Everett, Juan Gonzalez, an effective Blalock, but the team as a whole had only a 96 OPS+. That shows how high the scoring environment was. Colby Lewis had a winning record despite a 7.30 (!) ERA.

It was in Niagara Falls. Niagara Falls!

I'm sure I'm outing myself as woefully uncool but I don't know who that woman in the picture is but she is creeping me the hell out.

I'm sure I'm outing myself as woefully uncool but I don't know who that woman in the picture is but she is creeping me the hell out.

I sure dint know either, until I google-imaged it

Re: The Toradol 'scandal'..(sorry that thread is long buried) So the guy fired after season is that little short guy who would come out to the mound with the skipper? That sucks.

No, because of Liverpool and hedge funds and the Punto trade they are now a small-payroll team despite having a high payroll.

karlmagnus' secret identity: finally revealed.

Re: #22, #23--
Underdog Lady is one of the eternal shining stars in Howard Stern's rotating universe of damaged loons. You can keep Mount Rushmore, I'll take Underdog Lady, Hank the Angry Drunken Dwarf, Eric the Actor and Sour Shoes.

Lucchino reminds me of this kid I used to play one on one basketball with. Every time we played he'd go on and on about, I have no chance; it's a mismatch; I just hope I score once, etc. The idea was that it would put more pressure on me to win.. and then if he won, it would be the 1969 Mets all over again.

What it really did was make me want to kick his as$ even more.

The Red Sox are underdogs like the Lakers are underdogs. You can't spend millions and millions of dollars stupidly and then turn around and claim that you are "scrappy". Like Andy says, take off the first letter of that and you have it right.

"You may have acquired 3 good-to-great starting pitchers, a batting title-winning shortstop, and a batting title-winning outfielder - but we got your manager, Beeston!"

I think most Blue Jays fans would consider the part after the "but" as qualitatively similar to the part before.

The Red Sox are underdogs like the Lakers are underdogs.

Wrong. Before the season the Lakers were one of the teams given the best chance to win the championship by predictors and gambling linesmakers. They were a favorite. The Sox are not even close to that, thus they are underdogs. That's what underdog means, it does not necessarily mean some lovable underrated team or person.

ou can't spend millions and millions of dollars stupidly and then turn around and claim that you are "scrappy". Like Andy says, take off the first letter of that and you have it right.

I agree.

Underdog to me has nothing to do with Payroll.

Talent level of team vs. other teams in division or baseball.

They are underdogs !

I really dislike it when a middle manager like Larry Lucchino feels like he can speak to the media as the 'voice' of the organization. Makes him seem more important than he really is.

I really dislike it when a middle manager like Larry Lucchino feels like he can speak to the media as the 'voice' of the organization.

Unfortunately, in this case, it is not him feeling like he can do it, it is an explicit part of his job.

middle manager

In what bizarro world is a President/CEO a middle manager?

Actually, Larry is playing to the hard core fan base. The hard core fans as opposed to the pink hats have long been far more comfortable as underdawgs, his million dollar marketing report may have spelled that out for him. I remember Papelbon spoiling the 2007 World Series by referring to the Red Sox as upperdawgs at some point during the playoffs. Didn't even watch the end of game 4 of the World Series, so disgusted I was that my team was an upperdawg, just like the Yankees and the Evil Umpire. I fell asleep, a fitful one at that.

Now that we are officially underdawgs I will run out and buy many tickets to keep the sell out streak alive.

I am beginning to believe that ptodd is a sock puppet for a regular user to tweak Red Sox fans.

2014 is gonna be awesome when the Yankees cast aside all their tattered rags to rise from the earth like the Jesus. I can't say for sure, but I think Jesus would support the little guy, like Brett Gardner!