I found it, I found it!

Red Sox fans out there, have you ever wondered what the single, most important reason was that the Red Sox finally won the World Series in 2004 for the first time since 1918, 86 long years ago? For some, my grandfather (Bumper) included, they lived their entire lives never getting to experience that euphoria we all felt one October evening in 2004 under a blood red moon in St. Louis. Human nature is funny; I cried that night, just like I did back in 1986.

I think it is part of human nature, to understand the root cause of certain major occurrences like the beginning of Christianity, the shooting of JFK, the Space Shuttles Challenger & Columbia disasters, and the end of the Red Sox 86-year World Series drought. In some instances, the need to understand the reasons (and in many, many cases the single, MOST IMPORTANT reason) are a necessity for improvement, as in the Space Shuttle disasters (solid rocket booster O-Rings and external fuel tank insulating foam, respectively). But, in most instances, I would say that human nature is taking over. WE NEED TO KNOW WHY!

What was different in 2004 from 1946, or 1967, or 1975, or 1978, or 1986, or 1988, or 1990, or 1995, or 1998, or 1999, or 2003? In each of these instances, I would say that lots of different reasons can be given for why the Red Sox didn't bring home the World Series Trophy in each of these years. In the most heart-wrenching cases, we have certainly created our scapegoats, deserved or not.

I will start at 1986 because I am not old enough to have first-hand experience from any of the previous gutwrenchers. In the 1986 World Series, I prefer to blame John McNamara for leaving Bill Buckner in the game. I also feel that if you want to lay the blame on Buckner rather than McNamara, why does Bob Stanley not get as much of the blame as Buckner?

In the 2003 ALCS, I think the general consensus within Red Sox Nation lays the blame on Grady Little's shoulders. However, it is interesting to note the differences between the popularly labeled scapegoat in 1986 (Buckner) and in 2003 (Little). Why, for instance, did Red Sox Nation ostracize the player on the field on 1986 rather than the manager that decided to leave him there, only to reverse directions in 2003 and blame the decision-maker? (Can anyone say DAN SHAUGHNESSY?) Pedro Martinez and Tim Wakefield met with very little criticism for their part in letting the ALCS slip away in 2003.

So, considering all the chances that the Red Sox had to bring home the trophy since 1918, what is the one, overarching reason that Red Sox Nation had to wait 86 years? The reason I have determined today, after reading this article, Henry, Sox feeling the pinch of revenue sharing, luxury tax by Michael Silverman in the Boston Herald, is an ownership philosophy. I would like to point your attention to the last paragraph of the article:

"All of the owners I have met -— I cannot think of one outlier - place winning above profit,"” said Henry. "Baseball is trying to become a profitable enterprise despite that fact. You don't buy a baseball team to make money. I argued with David Ginsberg, who chairs the Red Sox finance committee, when we bought the team. He tried to tell me we were going to make money. I told him he was crazy."”

More specifically, Henry's last two sentences hit me like a ton of bricks. "He tried to tell me we were going to make money. I told him he was crazy." I am reminded now of what I always used to hear when I was 16, 17, 18 and frustrated that I could not keep a girlfriend. "Stop looking so hard, and you will find someone." The new ownership of the Boston Red Sox found the key to bringing the World Series Trophy home to New England, run the team as if you want to win the World Series rather than to make money. I think they have also found that making money is the "girlfriend" in the analogy above.