A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to mef429's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    These last few days seem surreal.  Maybe I need to change the title of the next thread to "A Surrealistic Look At 2013: Part II".




    lets wait for the roster to be somewhat finalized before you do that lol

     

    also, are you more or less optimistic about your team than you were a week ago?



    Depends how I look at it.

    Are we going to be better in 2013 than if we made no signings? NO.

    Could we have done better by signing less but maybe better players? YES

     

    I tthink Napoli is a good fit, and Ross will be if we trade Salty or Lava, but the Gomes/Victorino signings are real head scratchers. They make us "better", but the cost could and should have been spent elsewhere.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from summerof67. Show summerof67's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    moon, I gotta believe that the Gomes/Victorino signings were influenced by the potential impact in the clubhouse - almost as an equal to the impact on the field.  After the shenanigans and the ill will of the past two years, I think the Sox just want peace in the valley.

    No fireworks, in other words, and certainly no drama.  Unfortunately, it may play out on the field in the same way -- no fireworks and no drama.

    In other words, I think they are slightly overpaid placeholders for later prospects and signings some years hence.

    Can't wait for 2014.

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from 111SoxFan111. Show 111SoxFan111's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    I'd rather us pool all that money and get someone really good.



    ^^^That's a lot of eggs in one basket and is fraught with risk.  Plus everyone "really good" who is available this year seems to come with issues AND we had a lot of spots to be filled.

    The moves made so far provide a lot of flexibility ... positionally and financially.  I'd have to guess they are planning on keeping a lot of trade options open as the best chance of getting someone really good (or at least above average and cost controlled) without signing the type of contract that has been a problem in the recent past.  I wouldn't despair about pitching just yet ... these moves all seem to indicate some good old horse trading is in the cards.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to summerof67's comment:

    moon, I gotta believe that the Gomes/Victorino signings were influenced by the potential impact in the clubhouse - almost as an equal to the impact on the field.  After the shenanigans and the ill will of the past two years, I think the Sox just want peace in the valley.

    No fireworks, in other words, and certainly no drama.  Unfortunately, it may play out on the field in the same way -- no fireworks and no drama.

    In other words, I think they are slightly overpaid placeholders for later prospects and signings some years hence.

    Can't wait for 2014.

     



    Coversely, and i am not saying that I am a firm believer in this, a good clubhouse could engender a more inspired quality of baseball on the field.  

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to summerof67's comment:

    moon, I gotta believe that the Gomes/Victorino signings were influenced by the potential impact in the clubhouse - almost as an equal to the impact on the field.  After the shenanigans and the ill will of the past two years, I think the Sox just want peace in the valley.

    No fireworks, in other words, and certainly no drama.  Unfortunately, it may play out on the field in the same way -- no fireworks and no drama.

    In other words, I think they are slightly overpaid placeholders for later prospects and signings some years hence.

    Can't wait for 2014.

    They were way overpaid.

    Clubhouse harmony is a mirage.

    At least they aren't 7 year deals.

     




     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from summerof67. Show summerof67's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    I believe that's the idea, Space. Though I don't think it works necessarily.

    You can have a clubhouse full of drama and win a World Series. problem with the Sox is that they had the drama without the winning.

    And winning cures whining every time.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from summerof67. Show summerof67's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to summerof67's comment:

    moon, I gotta believe that the Gomes/Victorino signings were influenced by the potential impact in the clubhouse - almost as an equal to the impact on the field.  After the shenanigans and the ill will of the past two years, I think the Sox just want peace in the valley.

    No fireworks, in other words, and certainly no drama.  Unfortunately, it may play out on the field in the same way -- no fireworks and no drama.

    In other words, I think they are slightly overpaid placeholders for later prospects and signings some years hence.

    Can't wait for 2014.

    They were way overpaid.

    Clubhouse harmony is a mirage.

    At least they aren't 7 year deals.

     




    You got that right, friend.




     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:

    In response to summerof67's comment:

    moon, I gotta believe that the Gomes/Victorino signings were influenced by the potential impact in the clubhouse - almost as an equal to the impact on the field.  After the shenanigans and the ill will of the past two years, I think the Sox just want peace in the valley.

    No fireworks, in other words, and certainly no drama.  Unfortunately, it may play out on the field in the same way -- no fireworks and no drama.

    In other words, I think they are slightly overpaid placeholders for later prospects and signings some years hence.

    Can't wait for 2014.

     



    Coversely, and i am not saying that I am a firm believer in this, a good clubhouse could engender a more inspired quality of baseball on the field.  




    agree 1000%. when the clubhouse is right, it shows with the play on the field. Guys got each others back, not like what weve seen the last couple years.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedsoxProspects. Show RedsoxProspects's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    They are just trying to put a good club on the field. Gotta sell some tickets and keep the franchise from going Marlin. Considering the options, probably not bad decisions overall. They are staying competitive. Think Don Baylor. Tough, positive minded players who will help change the clubhouse culture and keep us competitive until the cavalry comes in Barnes, Bradley, Bogaerts...etc.

    Maybe it will realistically take us 3 years to complete this transition. Notice we are not losing picks during this process so far. Overall, even with a couple overpays, can't fault the program.   

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedsoxProspects. Show RedsoxProspects's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Personally, IMO, one of the very best things that ever happened to this team was the day Henry took over. The guy is clearly trying and overall he has been one of the great owners in recent baseball history. He's putting the best product he can out on the field.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from tom-uk. Show tom-uk's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    I'd rather us pool all that money and get someone really good.

    [/QUOTE]

     Plus everyone "really good" who is available this year seems to come with issues AND we had a lot of spots to be filled.

    The moves made so far provide a lot of flexibility ... positionally and financially.  I'd have to guess they are planning on keeping a lot of trade options open as the best chance of getting someone really good (or at least above average and cost controlled) without signing the type of contract that has been a problem in the recent past.  I wouldn't despair about pitching just yet ... these moves all seem to indicate some good old horse trading is in the cards.

    "That's a lot of eggs in one basket and is fraught with risk."    111

     

    Agreed, but the fans are often right on these things and if SV repeats 2012 Ben's job will be questioned.  My recollection is that the Sabathia deal caused envy while the AJBurnett deal was mocked.  Sox fans were not supportive of the Lackey or Crawford signings in large numbers.   The Sox should trade with distressed sellers (Pedro, AGon, and Beckett) or wait for the next Sabathia.

    Rightly or wrongly fans get upset when money is spent poorly.   IMO the majority of fans would be happy to see Ellsbury go for a pitcher and see Kalish in CF until Bradley is ready.  The "perception" that JDDrew was overpaid (and didn't play hard) turned off a lot of fans, SV will face the same.  On SOSH there was one poster happy about the SV deal and 50+ against.   

    Moon and the vast majority of fans think over-paying two platoon players in Gomes and SV is perplexing.   IMO the deals of this offseason will eventually lead to Ben losing his job.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from garyhow. Show garyhow's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Ben is in no win. Has $ to spend but FA class one of the worst in yrs. 2 best players Hamilton and Greinke come w/ huge ?'s and could damage a franchise for years if those worst case possibilities occur. To me he did next best thing, while he might get some slack for over paying on everyone of these deals they are all short term 3 yrs or less and combined don't add up to either the CC or Agon deals. If there is one thing to be learned is paying guys for over 4 yrs is risky, most players stop working so hard, get lazy. How is that most players have there best yrs in final yr of contract? think it might have something to do w/ off season work habits, if I'm signed for next 5 yrs think I might be working out hard in off season, but not as hard as I would going into walk year, its human nature.

    Look RS needed a serious infusion of talent and while none of the guys signed are superstars. All will help make the RS a better team next year, and did not cost the RS any of their top minor league prospects. But until the RS get some rotation help this team is going nowhere. Trying to find top of rotation help is next to impossible in terms of cost. If Mets are going to ask for Boegarts/Bradley for a 38 yr old w/ 1 yr left on contract, good luck. RS will have to make due w/ a Lohse/McCarthy/Marcum/ or Jackson which will cost us much [and will get critisized for amount spent] and don't think anyone would bet the ranch on anyone of these guys having a CY type of season? and hopefully a lesser depth of rotation type Lannan / Pelfrey/ Jurgens /etc.

    But what are the options, trade Ellsbury for .25 cents on a dollar? trade top prospects who team has many years of cost control over for a guy who might be a 1-2 yr player for you. If your talking David Price or similar thats when you give up the top prospects not RA Dickey.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Sox fans were not supportive of the Lackey or Crawford signings in large numbers.   

    At the time of the signings, I'd say about 95% of BDC posters loved the CC signing and 90% loved the Lackey signing. I was against the CC signing from day one, took a lot of grief, and then was joined by revisionist posters pretending to be against the signing all along. The Lackey signing caught me by surprise. I had said I was against signing him for $100M as the rumors were suggesting he'd get, but when we signed him, I thought the price was high, but it filled our biggest need. I supported that deal.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Moon and the vast majority of fans think over-paying two platoon players in Gomes and SV is perplexing.   IMO the deals of this offseason will eventually lead to Ben losing his job.

    I agree, and maybe being burned by CC and Lacket has wised some of us up.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    But what are the options, trade Ellsbury for .25 cents on a dollar? 

    The only reason we should keep Ellsbury is if we think we have a legitimate chance to win a ring in 2013. Let us be reasonable here. Unless we sign Hamilton & one of Sanchez or Greinke, it just is not realistic.

    I do not want to trade Ellsbury and the attached probable draft pick for peanuts, but getting a 25 cent player that is under control for 3+ years, to me, is better than a 50 cent player for 1 year and a sandwich pick to boot.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from tom-uk. Show tom-uk's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Sox fans were not supportive of the Lackey or Crawford signings in large numbers.   

    At the time of the signings, I'd say about 95% of BDC posters loved the CC signing and 90% loved the Lackey signing. I was against the CC signing from day one, took a lot of grief, and then was joined by revisionist posters pretending to be against the signing all along. The Lackey signing caught me by surprise. I had said I was against signing him for $100M as the rumors were suggesting he'd get, but when we signed him, I thought the price was high, but it filled our biggest need. I supported that deal.



    I don't remember it that way at all.  There was wide concern about how much Werth and CC were asking for.  When CC signed the only debate was whether he was overpaid somewhere between $50m and $20m.   Mr Moon you were vocal that it was a $50m overpay,but my recolection is that almost all thought he was overpaid the question was only by how much.  Only after he signed I saw that Clemente was his closest comp on BR, and hoped he would pull off a Clementesque late career power surge. 

    On Lackey, there were some that were excited by his bulldog playoff reputation, but there was also wide discussion of his elbow problems, falling K rate and that his best years were 2005 - 2007 not 2008 and 2009.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to tom-uk's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Sox fans were not supportive of the Lackey or Crawford signings in large numbers.   

    At the time of the signings, I'd say about 95% of BDC posters loved the CC signing and 90% loved the Lackey signing. I was against the CC signing from day one, took a lot of grief, and then was joined by revisionist posters pretending to be against the signing all along. The Lackey signing caught me by surprise. I had said I was against signing him for $100M as the rumors were suggesting he'd get, but when we signed him, I thought the price was high, but it filled our biggest need. I supported that deal.



    I don't remember it that way at all.  There was wide concern about how much Werth and CC were asking for.  When CC signed the only debate was whether he was overpaid somewhere between $50m and $20m.   Mr Moon you were vocal that it was a $50m overpay,but my recolection is that almost all thought he was overpaid the question was only by how much.  Only after he signed I saw that Clemente was his closest comp on BR, and hoped he would pull off a Clementesque late career power surge. 

    Yes, I said many felt CC was overpayed, but still loved the fact that we had CC enough to not worry about the deal.

    Virtually everyone thinks Gomes and Vic were overpaid, but most do not like the deal.

    On Lackey, there were some that were excited by his bulldog playoff reputation, but there was also wide discussion of his elbow problems, falling K rate and that his best years were 2005 - 2007 not 2008 and 2009.




    Posters were almost all giddy with delight after both signings. 

    I guess we have to agree to disagree here... or go back and find the threads.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from tom-uk. Show tom-uk's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Let's hope for the bounce back Sox.

    Players who were much better in 2011 than 2012:

    Pedroia,  Ellsbury,  Lester,  Victorino,  Napoli,  Lavarnway, Bard and Bailey.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from emp9. Show emp9's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    I think the only trend you'll see w/ Ben, is signing multiple position players, regardless of their age. This team soared to new DL heights last year. Last 3yrs have been brutal on the injury front. Not to mention the 400 different line-up cards. It's no secret. Somehow 'Luck' went from getting a timely hit, to " I hope it's not season ending ". 

     

    If I could be a bit optimistic about last year ( if that's tolerated ), Middlebrooks was a great success. Prospects got some MLB experience. & the draft position I can't ever remember getting. 

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to emp9's comment:

    I think the only trend you'll see w/ Ben, is signing multiple position players, regardless of their age. This team soared to new DL heights last year. Last 3yrs have been brutal on the injury front. Not to mention the 400 different line-up cards. It's no secret. Somehow 'Luck' went from getting a timely hit, to " I hope it's not season ending ". 

     

    If I could be a bit optimistic about last year ( if that's tolerated ), Middlebrooks was a great success. Prospects got some MLB experience. & the draft position I can't ever remember getting. 




    the biggest jump we'll make in the standing will come with improved health.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Critter23. Show Critter23's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Haven't been posting--waiting for something to comment about.  It appears the signings to this point have been to add some solid characters, veteran leadership to the clubhouse as models for young guys coming up.  Obviously we had some character problems here the last couple of years. Furthermore, we didn't give up our own young talent.

    On the other side of that and even considering the lack of talent in this market, it seems like we are overpaying.  Most of these guys were getting 1 to 3 million last year, and we're giving them all 13 million a year?  I think we could have got them cheaper if we'd waited and I'm not sure we even needed three years--why not two?  Personally I think I would have been just as comfortable bringing up three or four position players and letting them learn at the major league level.

    Finally, if our biggest need is pitching and really reworking that for the future, we seem to have left it for last.  Maybe it takes longer for the pitching market to develop but I wish we were hearing about pitching now and positions later.

    Maybe this is the slow sure way to revamp, but I think I would be happier now with one stud young position player and one ditto starter,

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from iamme17. Show iamme17's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to Critter23's comment:

    Haven't been posting--waiting for something to comment about.  It appears the signings to this point have been to add some solid characters, veteran leadership to the clubhouse as models for young guys coming up.  Obviously we had some character problems here the last couple of years. Furthermore, we didn't give up our own young talent.

    On the other side of that and even considering the lack of talent in this market, it seems like we are overpaying.  Most of these guys were getting 1 to 3 million last year, and we're giving them all 13 million a year?  I think we could have got them cheaper if we'd waited and I'm not sure we even needed three years--why not two?  Personally I think I would have been just as comfortable bringing up three or four position players and letting them learn at the major league level.

    Finally, if our biggest need is pitching and really reworking that for the future, we seem to have left it for last.  Maybe it takes longer for the pitching market to develop but I wish we were hearing about pitching now and positions later.

    Maybe this is the slow sure way to revamp, but I think I would be happier now with one stud young position player and one ditto starter,


    they tried the 1 stud young position player in lava last year and it turned into a disaster.Sox don't need 2 or 3 more disasters this year.......let them progress and learn where they don't hurt the big team

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to iamme17's comment:

    In response to Critter23's comment:

    Haven't been posting--waiting for something to comment about.  It appears the signings to this point have been to add some solid characters, veteran leadership to the clubhouse as models for young guys coming up.  Obviously we had some character problems here the last couple of years. Furthermore, we didn't give up our own young talent.

    On the other side of that and even considering the lack of talent in this market, it seems like we are overpaying.  Most of these guys were getting 1 to 3 million last year, and we're giving them all 13 million a year?  I think we could have got them cheaper if we'd waited and I'm not sure we even needed three years--why not two?  Personally I think I would have been just as comfortable bringing up three or four position players and letting them learn at the major league level.

    Finally, if our biggest need is pitching and really reworking that for the future, we seem to have left it for last.  Maybe it takes longer for the pitching market to develop but I wish we were hearing about pitching now and positions later.

    Maybe this is the slow sure way to revamp, but I think I would be happier now with one stud young position player and one ditto starter,


    they tried the 1 stud young position player in lava last year and it turned into a disaster.Sox don't need 2 or 3 more disasters this year.......let them progress and learn where they don't hurt the big team



    True, but it's hard for one prospect to hurt a last place team.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from jidgef. Show jidgef's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

      I also haven't been posting much, but I have been following along. I agree with the notion that our biggest improvement in 2013 will come from a return to health of under-performers like Petey, Ells, Lackey, and Ortiz. I don't think Petey and Ortiz under-performed as much as their injuries prevented them from delivering the numbers we expect from them. We should also not discount the production we were getting, then stopped getting from Middlebrooks. I also think we will get a lift from John Farrell managing Lester and Buch, not to mention Bard and Aceves. I believe we should keep Ellsbury and see if we can get that monster "contract" year from him, and if we do get that production, we try to resign or cash in the draft pick. I think trading him now will be selling too low. I don't understand what the aquisitions mean to Kalish, whether the team is giving up on him or that Ellsbury is really earmarked for trade, but I like his (Kalish) game and think that he can be at least as good as Victorino at a fraction of the cost. That being said, I always liked Victorino's game, good speed, good glove, and I think his average and OBP will improve in Fenway, especially hitting later in the lineup. I never liked Cody Ross in right field at Fenway, although his overall game would be a big improvement over Gomes in left. I do believe that Ben is bringing these guys in to not just change the clubhouse dynamic, but also to bridge the gap before our future stars are ready.

      I am sure there are several more shoes to drop. The guy who I have always liked is McCarthy and I would love to see Ben take a flyer on him. I am not excited about any of the other free agent pitchers, but I think a rotation of Lester, Buch, McCarthy, Lackey and Doubie, with the input of the new coaching staff, can be solid. And there are a few young arms in the wings, the two from the L.A. trade, Tazawa, and Morales. Ben Signed a very solid RHRP today in Uhera (sp?) and if the Bard and Aceves mysteries can be even partially solved then our bullpen will be very solid. I haven't seen or heard anyone speaking about the impact on our pitching of having great defense up the middle. All healthy, Ross catching, Iglesias, Petey and Ells will make our entire staff more effective than they were last year.

      Of course, since I've posted all of this watch Ben go out and sign Hamilton and Greinke, trade Ellsbury and continue the makeover that way. I like my plan better, and if it fails then you can move Ells, Lester and even some of the new aquisitions at the deadline and start rebuilding it all again next year. The kids will all be that much closer as well.

     

     

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share