How about.......

 

Papi!

 

Heh, if it gets bad, we can always roll out the big enchilada!

In response to Ice-Cream's comment:

+1

 

It took my until the Crawford signing before I finally started complaining about ownership.... but BC is not doing a good job.

In response to EnchiladaT's comment:

I gave Ben a pass last year due to circumstances beyond his control. The Dodger trade gave me great hope that some of the tired old paradigms were shattered.

Alas, we are almost back where we started. but with less longterm gloom. The Drew signing put me over the edge. I hope Ben proves me wrong, but I think he has taken this team down a road of playing it halfway. This reminds me of the teams of the 70's and 80's and 90's: be good enough to draw fans and compete, but never good enough to be true favorites or even co-favorites to win it all.

I don't think the RS make the playoffs unless the pitching is HUGE...I think our model should have been the Orioles of the last couple of years, and though I may be schooled on this, I don't think they picked up average players to fill the gaps but rather went with young players and let them play.  Alas, the RS have the iron fist of a major player and yet we wave fronds like the KC Royals or Pittsburg Pirates...Mazz says maybe they will put some pieces together for a big trade.  Please, please..."Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus!"

I don't see a big trade for a frontline pitcher as possible. 

I'm looking to 2014 and wondering who we might get when we trade all these guys at the deadline.

:)

They had a few choices this year.

A) Trade some good prospects for a win now plan, ala Toronto.

B) Keep the kids and fill in with FA from a very mediocre list this year.

C) Go with youth that is clearly not ready to play in the MLB just yet.

They went with plan B which will make them better and competitive this year all while keeping the future in tact...You can only get whats available in FA and at the going price. Or, like the Sox did, overpay to get a lower year commitment. To expect a WS contender from last place isnt realistic. This revamping of the organizations philosiphy to what brought us 2 WSC will take more than one offseason.

 

In response to southpaw777's comment:

Plan D: make moves that help us now and in 2014 and 2015. Keep the youth that is not ready on the farm.

The Law of Unintended Consequences:

Didn't Varitek lose some leverage b/c of the old CBA rules?

I suspect the next CBA will change the rules on compensation of FA again.

Today on MLBTR there were a few comments in a row:

1. One Gm pointed out teams aren't wild about giving giving up a pick to sign a releiver like R. Soriano even though  he is a good pitcher.
2. The Sox targeted players without pick comp.
3. Adam Larouche is being "hurt" by his pick comp.. 

In response to tom-uk's comment:

I think the rules are better now than before, but they do seem to hurt players like Soriano, LaRoche and Swisher. Maybe they need to adjust the comp picks for marginal "A type" players to a sandwich pick between round 2 and 3.

In response to moonslav59's comment:

isn't that what it is now? a sammitch 2-3 pick?? i am so confused by the new FA comp rules lol.

In response to mef429's comment:

It's a sandwich 1st to 2nd round pick that is received by the team who loses a type A player that was offered a qualifying offer. I mispoke.

The loss of a pick by the team signing a type-A FA can be a 1st round pick if it is not a top 10 selection, at least that is my understanding. So, I think if we sign a qualified FA, we will not lose a number 1, but I think we lose our high 2nd round pick.

(Contrary to what softy was spewing, the pick lost by the signing team does not go to the team who loses the pick.)

Moon, I posted this on your optimist thread and thought it would also apply here...

Moon and others, this may have already been stated, but here is my two cents. The core of our lineup, Ellsbury, Pedroia, Ortiz and Middlebrooks combined and healthy are well capable of 100-120 HR's, 400-500 RBI's, and 400-500 runs scored. The rest of the lineup as is now constituted will consist of veteran guys who can all deliver quality at bats and will grind up pitchers. We will score runs. It all comes down to starting pitching. If John Farrell and Juan Nieves can coax even career average years from the starting five, then we will contend. Overly optimistic you may say, but the last year's world champs could not field a batting order close to this one, they won with pitching and timely offense. I'm not comparing our starting five to San Fran's, but Lester and Lackey's average years do compare favorably. And if Buch and Doubie continue to develop and Dempster pitches to his career averages, then this offense will win lots of games. It may indeed be a bridge, and my glasses may be too rose-colored, but this team looks at least twenty games better than last year's team. And that's enough to contend.

In response to jidgef's comment:

SF proved you can win without hitting, yes.

It's not our hitting I am worried about, although I still think our line-uyp looks worse on paper right now than last December 20th.

The pitching has been what has always been my number one concern, and forgive me for not believing that Dempster and Lackey are going to come to the rescue.

In response to moonslav59's comment:

The lineup might look worse than on last Dec 20th, but that lineup didn't look nearly as good in August as it did in December, so you never can tell. Who would have believed last December that Lester, Bard, Aceves, Buch and Bailey would have had the seasons they had? You just never know from year to year. I'm not necessarily looking to Dempster and Lackey for salvation, just "hoping" that they return to their career norms. Neither guy has ever pitched in front of a lineup like this one except for Lackey's first year here and I believe he won 15 games without pitching well.

I still believe that while no one on Yawkey way would ever utter the words, this is still a bridge until the kids are ready. I also don't believe that the roster we see now is the one that breaks camp, nor is it the one that finishes the year. If we are floundering in July the shorter-termed veteran contracts will look much more appealing to teams looking to upgrade for the homestretch so we can stockpile even more talent for when we cross that bridge.

In response to southpaw777's comment:

I think Southpaw is on target on this one. Our options were limited and they did preserve the future, and even enhance it if we count last year's Adrian Gonzalez trade. Who knows, maybe with Farrel's involvement again Lester comes back strong and guys like Lackey step up. If the pitching is stong this team can make the playoffs and if we get in, anything can happen in some short series.

I wish we could have done better but given the circumstances, and excepting some overpayments, I think Cherington did his job. He couldn't let the team go into full tank mode and keep the fanbase.

In response to RedsoxProspects' comment:

I greatly supported the Dodger trade, but the debate here was what was the best plan with the blank slate we had.

Although my top choice plan involved trading some of our prospects for players under control for 3+ years, I was totally fine with keeping all the prospects as we planned for 2014 and 2015 and beyond. Since that seemed like the choice Ben wanted, I don't understand the signings he made. 

I understand the Ross, Uehara, and Gomes signings, and if Naps was healthy, I can see that he fills a need we don't look to be able cover with prospects, unless we would have moved Bogaerts, Middlebrooks or Cecchini to 1B real soon.

I just see the Victorino, Dempster, and even the one year gross overpay of Drew as counter-productive to the goal of improving our team in 2014 and 2015. The only positive thing I can see coming out of their signings is a possible bonanza of prospects we may get by trading them this July (or possibly July 2014 with SV and RD). Yes, SV and RD may still be OK as they age, but for the money, we certainly could have done better looking at 2014 and beyond only.

This was all about looking competitive this year while keeping our kids. The argument over our level of competitiveness will probably continue for as long as MLB is around, and I think it has been beaten to death here enough already, but I still think Ben created a mess. Had I known he was going to spend this much, I'd have suggested we get some players that will be big helps in 2014 and 2015 or beyond. He played it half way, and now we won't seriously compete this year, and we are no better off going forward. The purpose of the Dodger trade has been nearly thrown out the window.

Everything gets reset in 3 years. They may think it will take them that long to turn things around. It is probably the best the could do overall. Lots of "projects" which may or may not turn out well. Epstein was a bargain shopper quite often but when he shopped for bargains they were the $3 mil variety. For Cherington they are the $13 mil variety!

Overall though I don't think we can complain. It's not our freaking money. They are at least trying to give us a winning team in 2013. And I think some of these projects may well turn out to be winners.

Overall though I don't think we can complain. It's not our freaking money. They are at least trying to give us a winning team in 2013. And I think some of these projects may well turn out to be winners

Yeah, we can complain. It's our national pastime.

In response to moonslav59's comment:

seems that way here in New England...

It's like that here in Texas too, but more about football.

In response to moonslav59's comment:

Yeah, Texas is all about FB. They even go crazy with HS FB down there.

In response to southpaw777's comment:

I think some high schools here could beat some New England college teams.

From a rival team's forum:

In response to hill55's comment:

Exactly, and the answer would have been to just come back to the store later, when the shelves are stocked and perhaps a few bargains can be found.

(Or, trade your card for some food stamps from the guy down the street.)