2026 Red Sox/MLB Season Thread

[byennie]

To be fair, the Dodgers are a whole separate issue. They outspend every other team by over $100M. The Sox are closer to the A's in salary than the Dodgers.

That said, teams like PHI, NYY, NYM, SD, WAS, ATL all seem to be passing us.

The irony, I think, it that each time we decline to sign someone, we seem to end up paying just as much in reclamation projects and replacements. That's the real combined crime here. Just horrific long-term management.

Buehler: $20M
Sandoval: $13M
Giolito: $19M
Story + Yoshida: ~$40M

We could literally just have kept Mookie Betts for his entire career (and made him our SS like the Dodgers did), Nate Eovaldi and Kyle Schwarber on the roster for what we completely wasted on garbage pickups.

Instead, not one of those 5 guys belongs on our roster next year. All in the name of "savings".

I don't disagree and this actually supports my point.  The Red Sox have been trying to build the team lately with less of the brute force spending that teams like the Dodgers are able to do.  Maybe the Red Sox don't need to reduce their "brute force" spending, but they are.  I think what they want to do is do some of both, build as much of the team the MIL way or the TB way, and then do as little of the big spending as possible.

The problem with this is that they are not making the right calls.  MIL and TB seem to be doing this much better than BOS is.  The players they are developing are not developing all that well.  The players they are choosing to spend money on are getting hurt or otherwise not performing well.  They trade away Sale for less than nothing and he becomes a Cy Young candidate.

I hear a lot of fans saying they think the Sox are cheap or not spending enough for whatever reason.  But if you spend the money on the wrong players, it isn't going to help the team win.  Just ask Mets fans how that is working.  The Sox could have spent what they spent better.  They could have held on to Sale instead of trading him for nothing and paying Buehler (for example).  They also could have spent more.  But I feel they had plenty of opportunity to have a better team spending what they spent.

The Red Sox spent just under $200M.  4 AL teams spent more, NYY, TOR, HOU, and DET.  Only one of those teams had a better record.  In the NL, LAD, NYM, PHI, ATL, and CHI all spent a lot more.  SD and ARI spent a little more.  PHI, for example, spent $90M more and got one 1 more regular season win and also got bounced in the Wildcard.  If the Red Sox were to spend say $90M more (to be more on par with PHI) it is no guarantee unless they figure out how to spend it more wisely.  Now if they were to spend $150M or $200M more , maybe they could cover up more of the bad spending mistakes, but I don't see them being the NYM or LAD.

I mean it does and it doesn't. I think we agree that you can't just pinpoint one thing (spending or choices), but you also just listed 12 teams outspending us. That suggests we're a mid-market team, but we're not.

Boston has the 3rd or 4th highest revenue in the league, only the Yankees and Dodgers are well ahead. We are the most financially profitable team in the league by a wide margin... we KEEP $100M more than those teams in our owners' pockets. All we'd have to do is reduce profits to the level of the Yankees to sign 2-3 star players at $30M-$40M each.

As for Milwaukee, of course ownership wants to be Milwaukee. Then they get to spend like a mid-market team, still win, and keep the extra BILLIONS of dollars for themselves.

I see the Red Sox as having gone through a sort of reset.  They were purging what they viewed as bad deals (financially).  They wanted to get some level of a core team that is based on lower cost, controlled players (the MIL or TB way).  They have that now, for better or for worse.  Now hopefully they will be willing to spend like the other big market teams to address the remaining needs.  They have in the past.

If a $200M team got them 87 wins and a wildcard, now they need to go to say $250M.  Go out and buy a thumper DH.  Maybe another big name starter.  They should be more willing to spend on this current team than say the team as it was 3-4 years ago.  But they still need to pick the right players to spend on or they will still be an 87 win team.

That may be true and I hope it works out, but my fear is that you can't just turn on spending when you feel like it, without overpaying. You have to be committed over the long haul to do it efficiently. More like we'll be forced into more bad deals, which will undo all the benefits of the cheaper ones.

[Vermont Green]

To be fair, the Dodgers are a whole separate issue. They outspend every other team by over $100M. The Sox are closer to the A's in salary than the Dodgers.

That said, teams like PHI, NYY, NYM, SD, WAS, ATL all seem to be passing us.

The irony, I think, it that each time we decline to sign someone, we seem to end up paying just as much in reclamation projects and replacements. That's the real combined crime here. Just horrific long-term management.

Buehler: $20M
Sandoval: $13M
Giolito: $19M
Story + Yoshida: ~$40M

We could literally just have kept Mookie Betts for his entire career (and made him our SS like the Dodgers did), Nate Eovaldi and Kyle Schwarber on the roster for what we completely wasted on garbage pickups.

Instead, not one of those 5 guys belongs on our roster next year. All in the name of "savings".

I don't disagree and this actually supports my point.  The Red Sox have been trying to build the team lately with less of the brute force spending that teams like the Dodgers are able to do.  Maybe the Red Sox don't need to reduce their "brute force" spending, but they are.  I think what they want to do is do some of both, build as much of the team the MIL way or the TB way, and then do as little of the big spending as possible.

The problem with this is that they are not making the right calls.  MIL and TB seem to be doing this much better than BOS is.  The players they are developing are not developing all that well.  The players they are choosing to spend money on are getting hurt or otherwise not performing well.  They trade away Sale for less than nothing and he becomes a Cy Young candidate.

I hear a lot of fans saying they think the Sox are cheap or not spending enough for whatever reason.  But if you spend the money on the wrong players, it isn't going to help the team win.  Just ask Mets fans how that is working.  The Sox could have spent what they spent better.  They could have held on to Sale instead of trading him for nothing and paying Buehler (for example).  They also could have spent more.  But I feel they had plenty of opportunity to have a better team spending what they spent.

The Red Sox spent just under $200M.  4 AL teams spent more, NYY, TOR, HOU, and DET.  Only one of those teams had a better record.  In the NL, LAD, NYM, PHI, ATL, and CHI all spent a lot more.  SD and ARI spent a little more.  PHI, for example, spent $90M more and got one 1 more regular season win and also got bounced in the Wildcard.  If the Red Sox were to spend say $90M more (to be more on par with PHI) it is no guarantee unless they figure out how to spend it more wisely.  Now if they were to spend $150M or $200M more , maybe they could cover up more of the bad spending mistakes, but I don't see them being the NYM or LAD.

I mean it does and it doesn't. I think we agree that you can't just pinpoint one thing (spending or choices), but you also just listed 12 teams outspending us. That suggests we're a mid-market team, but we're not.

Boston has the 3rd or 4th highest revenue in the league, only the Yankees and Dodgers are well ahead. We are the most financially profitable team in the league by a wide margin... we KEEP $100M more than those teams in our owners' pockets. All we'd have to do is reduce profits to the level of the Yankees to sign 2-3 star players at $30M-$40M each.

As for Milwaukee, of course ownership wants to be Milwaukee. Then they get to spend like a mid-market team, still win, and keep the extra BILLIONS of dollars for themselves.

I see the Red Sox as having gone through a sort of reset.  They were purging what they viewed as bad deals (financially).  They wanted to get some level of a core team that is based on lower cost, controlled players (the MIL or TB way).  They have that now, for better or for worse.  Now hopefully they will be willing to spend like the other big market teams to address the remaining needs.  They have in the past.

If a $200M team got them 87 wins and a wildcard, now they need to go to say $250M.  Go out and buy a thumper DH.  Maybe another big name starter.  They should be more willing to spend on this current team than say the team as it was 3-4 years ago.  But they still need to pick the right players to spend on or they will still be an 87 win team.

That may be true and I hope it works out, but my fear is that you can't just turn on spending when you feel like it, without overpaying. You have to be committed over the long haul to do it efficiently. More like we'll be forced into more bad deals, which will undo all the benefits of the cheaper ones.

I am not sure why they would feel more forced to make deals this off season as compared the the last few.  I guess in any given off season, there are different FAs available so if the need is a LH DH this off season, maybe there are not great options.  In that case, I do not feel BOS will spend just for the sake of spending.  I don't think you have to worry about that.  They will just spend more money on pitchers or whatever.

They had a really good offseason after 2024 bringing in Crochet, Bregman, and Chapman, while extending Rafaela, Anthony, Bello.  They had their fair share of misses also.  Then after 2025, they kind of pulled back, mostly going after pitchers but they did get Contreras and Gray in the off season and then Mead, Miller, and Rutschman at the deadline.

I expect that they will spend this offseason but spend selectively, not recklessly.  If they can get a solid DH and maybe a starting pitcher, the team will be in good shape.  I would like to see them be aggressive for a big bat and a starter.  We will see if they are willing to do that.

[byennie]

To be fair, the Dodgers are a whole separate issue. They outspend every other team by over $100M. The Sox are closer to the A's in salary than the Dodgers.

That said, teams like PHI, NYY, NYM, SD, WAS, ATL all seem to be passing us.

The irony, I think, it that each time we decline to sign someone, we seem to end up paying just as much in reclamation projects and replacements. That's the real combined crime here. Just horrific long-term management.

Buehler: $20M
Sandoval: $13M
Giolito: $19M
Story + Yoshida: ~$40M

We could literally just have kept Mookie Betts for his entire career (and made him our SS like the Dodgers did), Nate Eovaldi and Kyle Schwarber on the roster for what we completely wasted on garbage pickups.

Instead, not one of those 5 guys belongs on our roster next year. All in the name of "savings".

I don't disagree and this actually supports my point.  The Red Sox have been trying to build the team lately with less of the brute force spending that teams like the Dodgers are able to do.  Maybe the Red Sox don't need to reduce their "brute force" spending, but they are.  I think what they want to do is do some of both, build as much of the team the MIL way or the TB way, and then do as little of the big spending as possible.

The problem with this is that they are not making the right calls.  MIL and TB seem to be doing this much better than BOS is.  The players they are developing are not developing all that well.  The players they are choosing to spend money on are getting hurt or otherwise not performing well.  They trade away Sale for less than nothing and he becomes a Cy Young candidate.

I hear a lot of fans saying they think the Sox are cheap or not spending enough for whatever reason.  But if you spend the money on the wrong players, it isn't going to help the team win.  Just ask Mets fans how that is working.  The Sox could have spent what they spent better.  They could have held on to Sale instead of trading him for nothing and paying Buehler (for example).  They also could have spent more.  But I feel they had plenty of opportunity to have a better team spending what they spent.

The Red Sox spent just under $200M.  4 AL teams spent more, NYY, TOR, HOU, and DET.  Only one of those teams had a better record.  In the NL, LAD, NYM, PHI, ATL, and CHI all spent a lot more.  SD and ARI spent a little more.  PHI, for example, spent $90M more and got one 1 more regular season win and also got bounced in the Wildcard.  If the Red Sox were to spend say $90M more (to be more on par with PHI) it is no guarantee unless they figure out how to spend it more wisely.  Now if they were to spend $150M or $200M more , maybe they could cover up more of the bad spending mistakes, but I don't see them being the NYM or LAD.

I mean it does and it doesn't. I think we agree that you can't just pinpoint one thing (spending or choices), but you also just listed 12 teams outspending us. That suggests we're a mid-market team, but we're not.

Boston has the 3rd or 4th highest revenue in the league, only the Yankees and Dodgers are well ahead. We are the most financially profitable team in the league by a wide margin... we KEEP $100M more than those teams in our owners' pockets. All we'd have to do is reduce profits to the level of the Yankees to sign 2-3 star players at $30M-$40M each.

As for Milwaukee, of course ownership wants to be Milwaukee. Then they get to spend like a mid-market team, still win, and keep the extra BILLIONS of dollars for themselves.

I see the Red Sox as having gone through a sort of reset.  They were purging what they viewed as bad deals (financially).  They wanted to get some level of a core team that is based on lower cost, controlled players (the MIL or TB way).  They have that now, for better or for worse.  Now hopefully they will be willing to spend like the other big market teams to address the remaining needs.  They have in the past.

If a $200M team got them 87 wins and a wildcard, now they need to go to say $250M.  Go out and buy a thumper DH.  Maybe another big name starter.  They should be more willing to spend on this current team than say the team as it was 3-4 years ago.  But they still need to pick the right players to spend on or they will still be an 87 win team.

That may be true and I hope it works out, but my fear is that you can't just turn on spending when you feel like it, without overpaying. You have to be committed over the long haul to do it efficiently. More like we'll be forced into more bad deals, which will undo all the benefits of the cheaper ones.

I am not sure why they would feel more forced to make deals this off season as compared the the last few.  I guess in any given off season, there are different FAs available so if the need is a LH DH this off season, maybe there are not great options.  In that case, I do not feel BOS will spend just for the sake of spending.  I don't think you have to worry about that.  They will just spend more money on pitchers or whatever.

They had a really good offseason after 2024 bringing in Crochet, Bregman, and Chapman, while extending Rafaela, Anthony, Bello.  They had their fair share of misses also.  Then after 2025, they kind of pulled back, mostly going after pitchers but they did get Contreras and Gray in the off season and then Mead, Miller, and Rutschman at the deadline.

I expect that they will spend this offseason but spend selectively, not recklessly.  If they can get a solid DH and maybe a starting pitcher, the team will be in good shape.  I would like to see them be aggressive for a big bat and a starter.  We will see if they are willing to do that.

I think we agree on much of this, even if we're beating different drums in this thread. I guess all I'd add is that working in deliberate cycles (rebuild, spend, rebuild) is just inherently less efficient at signing players vs holding the option open at all times. But in practice, yes, you can be disciplined and make it work. It's still a handicap, though.

[Vermont Green]

To be fair, the Dodgers are a whole separate issue. They outspend every other team by over $100M. The Sox are closer to the A's in salary than the Dodgers.

That said, teams like PHI, NYY, NYM, SD, WAS, ATL all seem to be passing us.

The irony, I think, it that each time we decline to sign someone, we seem to end up paying just as much in reclamation projects and replacements. That's the real combined crime here. Just horrific long-term management.

Buehler: $20M
Sandoval: $13M
Giolito: $19M
Story + Yoshida: ~$40M

We could literally just have kept Mookie Betts for his entire career (and made him our SS like the Dodgers did), Nate Eovaldi and Kyle Schwarber on the roster for what we completely wasted on garbage pickups.

Instead, not one of those 5 guys belongs on our roster next year. All in the name of "savings".

I don't disagree and this actually supports my point.  The Red Sox have been trying to build the team lately with less of the brute force spending that teams like the Dodgers are able to do.  Maybe the Red Sox don't need to reduce their "brute force" spending, but they are.  I think what they want to do is do some of both, build as much of the team the MIL way or the TB way, and then do as little of the big spending as possible.

The problem with this is that they are not making the right calls.  MIL and TB seem to be doing this much better than BOS is.  The players they are developing are not developing all that well.  The players they are choosing to spend money on are getting hurt or otherwise not performing well.  They trade away Sale for less than nothing and he becomes a Cy Young candidate.

I hear a lot of fans saying they think the Sox are cheap or not spending enough for whatever reason.  But if you spend the money on the wrong players, it isn't going to help the team win.  Just ask Mets fans how that is working.  The Sox could have spent what they spent better.  They could have held on to Sale instead of trading him for nothing and paying Buehler (for example).  They also could have spent more.  But I feel they had plenty of opportunity to have a better team spending what they spent.

The Red Sox spent just under $200M.  4 AL teams spent more, NYY, TOR, HOU, and DET.  Only one of those teams had a better record.  In the NL, LAD, NYM, PHI, ATL, and CHI all spent a lot more.  SD and ARI spent a little more.  PHI, for example, spent $90M more and got one 1 more regular season win and also got bounced in the Wildcard.  If the Red Sox were to spend say $90M more (to be more on par with PHI) it is no guarantee unless they figure out how to spend it more wisely.  Now if they were to spend $150M or $200M more , maybe they could cover up more of the bad spending mistakes, but I don't see them being the NYM or LAD.

I mean it does and it doesn't. I think we agree that you can't just pinpoint one thing (spending or choices), but you also just listed 12 teams outspending us. That suggests we're a mid-market team, but we're not.

Boston has the 3rd or 4th highest revenue in the league, only the Yankees and Dodgers are well ahead. We are the most financially profitable team in the league by a wide margin... we KEEP $100M more than those teams in our owners' pockets. All we'd have to do is reduce profits to the level of the Yankees to sign 2-3 star players at $30M-$40M each.

As for Milwaukee, of course ownership wants to be Milwaukee. Then they get to spend like a mid-market team, still win, and keep the extra BILLIONS of dollars for themselves.

I see the Red Sox as having gone through a sort of reset.  They were purging what they viewed as bad deals (financially).  They wanted to get some level of a core team that is based on lower cost, controlled players (the MIL or TB way).  They have that now, for better or for worse.  Now hopefully they will be willing to spend like the other big market teams to address the remaining needs.  They have in the past.

If a $200M team got them 87 wins and a wildcard, now they need to go to say $250M.  Go out and buy a thumper DH.  Maybe another big name starter.  They should be more willing to spend on this current team than say the team as it was 3-4 years ago.  But they still need to pick the right players to spend on or they will still be an 87 win team.

That may be true and I hope it works out, but my fear is that you can't just turn on spending when you feel like it, without overpaying. You have to be committed over the long haul to do it efficiently. More like we'll be forced into more bad deals, which will undo all the benefits of the cheaper ones.

I am not sure why they would feel more forced to make deals this off season as compared the the last few.  I guess in any given off season, there are different FAs available so if the need is a LH DH this off season, maybe there are not great options.  In that case, I do not feel BOS will spend just for the sake of spending.  I don't think you have to worry about that.  They will just spend more money on pitchers or whatever.

They had a really good offseason after 2024 bringing in Crochet, Bregman, and Chapman, while extending Rafaela, Anthony, Bello.  They had their fair share of misses also.  Then after 2025, they kind of pulled back, mostly going after pitchers but they did get Contreras and Gray in the off season and then Mead, Miller, and Rutschman at the deadline.

I expect that they will spend this offseason but spend selectively, not recklessly.  If they can get a solid DH and maybe a starting pitcher, the team will be in good shape.  I would like to see them be aggressive for a big bat and a starter.  We will see if they are willing to do that.

I think we agree on much of this, even if we're beating different drums in this thread. I guess all I'd add is that working in deliberate cycles (rebuild, spend, rebuild) is just inherently less efficient at signing players vs holding the option open at all times. But in practice, yes, you can be disciplined and make it work. It's still a handicap, though.

Yeah, the cycle thing is something I have wondered about.  It was the Marlins playbook back in the 2000's, around the time the Henry owned them.  They would win a WS, then totally blow it up (sell off the big money players like Stanton), be bad for a few seasons, and then good again.  The Red Sox never did that, until recently.  So I guess this stretch is a little bit MIL, a little bit FLA, and now maybe they will try a little big spending to round it out. 

I do think it was a deliberate cycle.  They purged some perceived bad contracts (although some of the new contracts were not any better), stocked up the prospects, and figured they would spend again when they had a better core.  If that was the plan, they are at the point in the cycle that they need to spend more.  But they better spend on the right players.  It isn't like they need to go out and buy a whole new team, just fill in around what is already a solid core.

[Donoghus]

To be fair, the Dodgers are a whole separate issue. They outspend every other team by over $100M. The Sox are closer to the A's in salary than the Dodgers.

That said, teams like PHI, NYY, NYM, SD, WAS, ATL all seem to be passing us.

The irony, I think, it that each time we decline to sign someone, we seem to end up paying just as much in reclamation projects and replacements. That's the real combined crime here. Just horrific long-term management.

Buehler: $20M
Sandoval: $13M
Giolito: $19M
Story + Yoshida: ~$40M

We could literally just have kept Mookie Betts for his entire career (and made him our SS like the Dodgers did), Nate Eovaldi and Kyle Schwarber on the roster for what we completely wasted on garbage pickups.

Instead, not one of those 5 guys belongs on our roster next year. All in the name of "savings".

I don't disagree and this actually supports my point.  The Red Sox have been trying to build the team lately with less of the brute force spending that teams like the Dodgers are able to do.  Maybe the Red Sox don't need to reduce their "brute force" spending, but they are.  I think what they want to do is do some of both, build as much of the team the MIL way or the TB way, and then do as little of the big spending as possible.

The problem with this is that they are not making the right calls.  MIL and TB seem to be doing this much better than BOS is.  The players they are developing are not developing all that well.  The players they are choosing to spend money on are getting hurt or otherwise not performing well.  They trade away Sale for less than nothing and he becomes a Cy Young candidate.

I hear a lot of fans saying they think the Sox are cheap or not spending enough for whatever reason.  But if you spend the money on the wrong players, it isn't going to help the team win.  Just ask Mets fans how that is working.  The Sox could have spent what they spent better.  They could have held on to Sale instead of trading him for nothing and paying Buehler (for example).  They also could have spent more.  But I feel they had plenty of opportunity to have a better team spending what they spent.

The Red Sox spent just under $200M.  4 AL teams spent more, NYY, TOR, HOU, and DET.  Only one of those teams had a better record.  In the NL, LAD, NYM, PHI, ATL, and CHI all spent a lot more.  SD and ARI spent a little more.  PHI, for example, spent $90M more and got one 1 more regular season win and also got bounced in the Wildcard.  If the Red Sox were to spend say $90M more (to be more on par with PHI) it is no guarantee unless they figure out how to spend it more wisely.  Now if they were to spend $150M or $200M more , maybe they could cover up more of the bad spending mistakes, but I don't see them being the NYM or LAD.

I mean it does and it doesn't. I think we agree that you can't just pinpoint one thing (spending or choices), but you also just listed 12 teams outspending us. That suggests we're a mid-market team, but we're not.

Boston has the 3rd or 4th highest revenue in the league, only the Yankees and Dodgers are well ahead. We are the most financially profitable team in the league by a wide margin... we KEEP $100M more than those teams in our owners' pockets. All we'd have to do is reduce profits to the level of the Yankees to sign 2-3 star players at $30M-$40M each.

As for Milwaukee, of course ownership wants to be Milwaukee. Then they get to spend like a mid-market team, still win, and keep the extra BILLIONS of dollars for themselves.

I see the Red Sox as having gone through a sort of reset.  They were purging what they viewed as bad deals (financially).  They wanted to get some level of a core team that is based on lower cost, controlled players (the MIL or TB way).  They have that now, for better or for worse.  Now hopefully they will be willing to spend like the other big market teams to address the remaining needs.  They have in the past.

If a $200M team got them 87 wins and a wildcard, now they need to go to say $250M.  Go out and buy a thumper DH.  Maybe another big name starter.  They should be more willing to spend on this current team than say the team as it was 3-4 years ago.  But they still need to pick the right players to spend on or they will still be an 87 win team.

That may be true and I hope it works out, but my fear is that you can't just turn on spending when you feel like it, without overpaying. You have to be committed over the long haul to do it efficiently. More like we'll be forced into more bad deals, which will undo all the benefits of the cheaper ones.

I am not sure why they would feel more forced to make deals this off season as compared the the last few.  I guess in any given off season, there are different FAs available so if the need is a LH DH this off season, maybe there are not great options.  In that case, I do not feel BOS will spend just for the sake of spending.  I don't think you have to worry about that.  They will just spend more money on pitchers or whatever.

They had a really good offseason after 2024 bringing in Crochet, Bregman, and Chapman, while extending Rafaela, Anthony, Bello.  They had their fair share of misses also.  Then after 2025, they kind of pulled back, mostly going after pitchers but they did get Contreras and Gray in the off season and then Mead, Miller, and Rutschman at the deadline.

I expect that they will spend this offseason but spend selectively, not recklessly.  If they can get a solid DH and maybe a starting pitcher, the team will be in good shape.  I would like to see them be aggressive for a big bat and a starter.  We will see if they are willing to do that.

I think we agree on much of this, even if we're beating different drums in this thread. I guess all I'd add is that working in deliberate cycles (rebuild, spend, rebuild) is just inherently less efficient at signing players vs holding the option open at all times. But in practice, yes, you can be disciplined and make it work. It's still a handicap, though.

Yeah, the cycle thing is something I have wondered about.  It was the Marlins playbook back in the 2000's, around the time the Henry owned them.  They would win a WS, then totally blow it up (sell off the big money players like Stanton), be bad for a few seasons, and then good again.  The Red Sox never did that, until recently.  So I guess this stretch is a little bit MIL, a little bit FLA, and now maybe they will try a little big spending to round it out. 

I do think it was a deliberate cycle.  They purged some perceived bad contracts (although some of the new contracts were not any better), stocked up the prospects, and figured they would spend again when they had a better core.  If that was the plan, they are at the point in the cycle that they need to spend more.  But they better spend on the right players.  It isn't like they need to go out and buy a whole new team, just fill in around what is already a solid core.

John Henry wasn't responsible for either of the Marlins' blowups.  Huizenga was the owner for the first blowup after the '97 title and Henry was already the owner of the Red Sox when the Marlins decided to slowly dismantle the '03 team.

[Silas]

I'm still upset that the Sox were swept by the skankees, however I'm feeling a little better now that NY was swept by the Rays.  Time to root for the Rays to win it all and knock out the Dodgers if they are going for a three-peat.

[Donoghus]

I'm still upset that the Sox were swept by the skankees, however I'm feeling a little better now that NY was swept by the Rays.  Time to root for the Rays to win it all and knock out the Dodgers if they are going for a three-peat.

What's crazy was seeing the Jeffrey Maier play all over again nearly 30 years to the day and actually have replay this time to correctly overturn it.

I'm at point now where "anyone but Dodgers".

[johnnygreen]

I'm still upset that the Sox were swept by the skankees, however I'm feeling a little better now that NY was swept by the Rays.  Time to root for the Rays to win it all and knock out the Dodgers if they are going for a three-peat.

At this point, I'm rooting for Milwaukee and Cleveland.

I can't get myself to root for the Rays because it justifies the Red Sox lack of spending. Afterall, if the Rays can win it with a low payroll, then why can't the Red Sox.

[Roy H.]

I'm still upset that the Sox were swept by the skankees, however I'm feeling a little better now that NY was swept by the Rays.  Time to root for the Rays to win it all and knock out the Dodgers if they are going for a three-peat.

At this point, I'm rooting for Milwaukee and Cleveland.

I can't get myself to root for the Rays because it justifies the Red Sox lack of spending. Afterall, if the Rays can win it with a low payroll, then why can't the Red Sox.

I'm pulling for the White Sox over Cleveland.  I don't have any particular love for the city of Cleveland, and we had that mini-rivalry with them in the 90s.

[slamtheking]

I'm still upset that the Sox were swept by the skankees, however I'm feeling a little better now that NY was swept by the Rays.  Time to root for the Rays to win it all and knock out the Dodgers if they are going for a three-peat.

At this point, I'm rooting for Milwaukee and Cleveland.

I can't get myself to root for the Rays because it justifies the Red Sox lack of spending. Afterall, if the Rays can win it with a low payroll, then why can't the Red Sox.

I'm pulling for the White Sox over Cleveland.  I don't have any particular love for the city of Cleveland, and we had that mini-rivalry with them in the 90s.

diehard Brewer fan here still rooting for the Brewers.  with only 1 WS appearance (so far) as a franchise, the lack of any kind of spending any bigger market has (Mil is the smallest market in the league) and the one team that could actually unseat the Dodger dynasty this year, everyone should be rooting for the Brewers.

[Donoghus]

Although it'd break Cubs fans, White Sox-Brewers would be fun.

[Ilikesports17]

I'm still upset that the Sox were swept by the skankees, however I'm feeling a little better now that NY was swept by the Rays.  Time to root for the Rays to win it all and knock out the Dodgers if they are going for a three-peat.

At this point, I'm rooting for Milwaukee and Cleveland.

I can't get myself to root for the Rays because it justifies the Red Sox lack of spending. Afterall, if the Rays can win it with a low payroll, then why can't the Red Sox.

I'm pulling for the White Sox over Cleveland.  I don't have any particular love for the city of Cleveland, and we had that mini-rivalry with them in the 90s.

diehard Brewer fan here still rooting for the Brewers.  with only 1 WS appearance (so far) as a franchise, the lack of any kind of spending any bigger market has (Mil is the smallest market in the league) and the one team that could actually unseat the Dodger dynasty this year, everyone should be rooting for the Brewers.

Im with you on the Brewers I leach mlb tv off of a Brewers fan friend so I feel I owe them some loyalty 

[slamtheking]

Although it'd break Cubs fans, White Sox-Brewers would be fun.

Cubs fans should be broken.  that's what they're there for.