A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    I doubt Melancon was someone we needed to "clean out" to change the culture. He was barely here to begin with.

    As for starter depth, we probably have better 5-6-7 starters than most teams. What we lack is a number 1 and 2 that are clearly better than the rest. If we had gotten one, the rest of our rotation would have been knocked down a notch making us strong and deep at the middle and bottom of our rotation.



    right moon. i really like our starter depth options, at least 1 or 2 out of that bunch should be really good (not even including our homegrown prospects in the lower levels who may be ready to contribute this year.)

     
  2. 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:

    I doubt Melancon was someone we needed to "clean out" to change the culture. He was barely here to begin with.

    As for starter depth, we probably have better 5-6-7 starters than most teams. What we lack is a number 1 and 2 that are clearly better than the rest. If we had gotten one, the rest of our rotation would have been knocked down a notch making us strong and deep at the middle and bottom of our rotation.



    right moon. i really like our starter depth options, at least 1 or 2 out of that bunch should be really good (not even including our homegrown prospects in the lower levels who may be ready to contribute this year.)




    This team has been loaded at the 5 slot for too long. We need a 1/2 slotter.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to mef429's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    I doubt Melancon was someone we needed to "clean out" to change the culture. He was barely here to begin with.

    As for starter depth, we probably have better 5-6-7 starters than most teams. What we lack is a number 1 and 2 that are clearly better than the rest. If we had gotten one, the rest of our rotation would have been knocked down a notch making us strong and deep at the middle and bottom of our rotation.



    right moon. i really like our starter depth options, at least 1 or 2 out of that bunch should be really good (not even including our homegrown prospects in the lower levels who may be ready to contribute this year.)




    This team has been loaded at the 5 slot for too long. We need a 1/2 slotter.




    unless we develop one i don't see it happening anytime soon without selling the farm.

     
  4. 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:

    In response to mef429's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    I doubt Melancon was someone we needed to "clean out" to change the culture. He was barely here to begin with.

    As for starter depth, we probably have better 5-6-7 starters than most teams. What we lack is a number 1 and 2 that are clearly better than the rest. If we had gotten one, the rest of our rotation would have been knocked down a notch making us strong and deep at the middle and bottom of our rotation.



    right moon. i really like our starter depth options, at least 1 or 2 out of that bunch should be really good (not even including our homegrown prospects in the lower levels who may be ready to contribute this year.)




    This team has been loaded at the 5 slot for too long. We need a 1/2 slotter.




    unless we develop one i don't see it happening anytime soon without selling the farm.




    Then I guess we never win another ring, until we "sell the farm" or get lucky.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to mef429's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to mef429's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    I doubt Melancon was someone we needed to "clean out" to change the culture. He was barely here to begin with.

    As for starter depth, we probably have better 5-6-7 starters than most teams. What we lack is a number 1 and 2 that are clearly better than the rest. If we had gotten one, the rest of our rotation would have been knocked down a notch making us strong and deep at the middle and bottom of our rotation.



    right moon. i really like our starter depth options, at least 1 or 2 out of that bunch should be really good (not even including our homegrown prospects in the lower levels who may be ready to contribute this year.)




    This team has been loaded at the 5 slot for too long. We need a 1/2 slotter.




    unless we develop one i don't see it happening anytime soon without selling the farm.




    Then I guess we never win another ring, until we "sell the farm" or get lucky.




    No reason we cant be as "lucky" as a lot of other teams with legit aces. Lester and Buch are legit #2 with #1 potential.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to mef429's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to mef429's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    I doubt Melancon was someone we needed to "clean out" to change the culture. He was barely here to begin with.

    As for starter depth, we probably have better 5-6-7 starters than most teams. What we lack is a number 1 and 2 that are clearly better than the rest. If we had gotten one, the rest of our rotation would have been knocked down a notch making us strong and deep at the middle and bottom of our rotation.



    right moon. i really like our starter depth options, at least 1 or 2 out of that bunch should be really good (not even including our homegrown prospects in the lower levels who may be ready to contribute this year.)




    This team has been loaded at the 5 slot for too long. We need a 1/2 slotter.




    unless we develop one i don't see it happening anytime soon without selling the farm.




    Then I guess we never win another ring, until we "sell the farm" or get lucky.




    No reason we cant be as "lucky" as a lot of other teams with legit aces. Lester and Buch are legit #2 with #1 potential.




    this^^

     
  7. 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 southpaw777's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to mef429's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to mef429's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    I doubt Melancon was someone we needed to "clean out" to change the culture. He was barely here to begin with.

    As for starter depth, we probably have better 5-6-7 starters than most teams. What we lack is a number 1 and 2 that are clearly better than the rest. If we had gotten one, the rest of our rotation would have been knocked down a notch making us strong and deep at the middle and bottom of our rotation.



    right moon. i really like our starter depth options, at least 1 or 2 out of that bunch should be really good (not even including our homegrown prospects in the lower levels who may be ready to contribute this year.)




    This team has been loaded at the 5 slot for too long. We need a 1/2 slotter.




    unless we develop one i don't see it happening anytime soon without selling the farm.




    Then I guess we never win another ring, until we "sell the farm" or get lucky.




    No reason we cant be as "lucky" as a lot of other teams with legit aces. Lester and Buch are legit #2 with #1 potential.




    this^^



    Yes, we can get "lucky" as other teams have, but I'd rather us be proactive and attempt to make rotation moves that clearly make us better in 2014, 2015 and perhaps beyond.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Congrats Moon on having the only readable thread on the board. The childishness and namecalling is so rampant that I have become an infrequent visitor and even more infrequent poster. At least this thread remains mostly about baseball.

    I just booked flights to Fort Myers and will be going to every Spring training game again this year. Last year was my first year at ST so I didn't know exactly what to expect, but what I saw was a pretty disfunctional team whose best player was Pedro Ciriaco. Unfortunately, things didn't get much better once the starting gun sounded. I do believe, and I am also hoping, that this year will be much different. Bobby V NEVER had any control over this team; it was apparent in the spring and even more so as the season dragged on. While a few players have been jettisoned for the alledged good of the clubhouse, I really believe Bobby set the tone for clubhouse disfunction and threw gas at every spark. But enough about last year; this thread is a forward looking thread.

    Ben obviously approached this offseason looking for veterans on shortish (is that a word?) contracts who would not only improve clubhouse chemistry but also deliver solid, professional, if not spectacular, performance. Heading into 2013, I think we are better, or at least potentially better, at every position on the field than the team that finished last season. I know that isn't saying much, but even the more established players, Pedey, Ortiz, Ellsbury, Lester and Buch should all deliver more than they did last season. A full season of WMB, versus his injury shortened one should also be an upgrade. Victorino might not equal Ross's offensive productivity, but he is a big defensive upgrade. Drew should be an upgrade over Aviles. The addition of Ross should upgrade the productivity both offensively and defensively behind the plate. Nava had the second best OPB on the team last year, but I still think a tandem of Kalish and Gomes will be more productive. Obviously firstbase is still a question, but a typical Napoli season would outperform, at least offensively, the combined productivity that position delivered last year. 

    But the real keys to significant improvement this year are Lackey, Dempster and Doubront. Now putting all your eggs in that three-man basket may not sound like World Series potential, but the potential is still there for solid productivity leading into what should be an outstanding bullpen.It would have been nice to pick up a number 1 or 2 starter, but they are very hard to come by and other teams are just not as interested as we would like them to be in improving the Boston rotation. I would not be shocked to find any one of Tazawa, Ruby or Morales, or all three, to throw significant innings as starters this year.

    If the kids are as good as their hype, then Ben approched this offseason smartly, by holding onto them and "bridging" with veterans who are capable of competing for a playoff spot. And if we're going nowhere in July, we have some veterans who will be easier to move than we've had and we can start playing the kids. I am always looking through my red glasses. 

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from fl+adam,. Show fl+adam,'s posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    I think there are still a few ways to go regarfding the pitching staff:

    1) roll the dice and have a go with the current staff.  We have talent, but not consistent winners.  Lester, Buch, Lackey, Dempster, Doubront is nothing to sneeze at.

    2) Sign a Lohse type, best available SP from FA.  This would be Doubront/Lackey/Dempster insurance.  Early injuries or ineffectiveness could be quickly replace with comparable talent, but Lester and Buch would still have to take the top two spots convincingly.

    3) trade for a gavin floyd/brett anderson type.  Similar to #2 above, except they are more of a 2/3 then a 3-5 type pitcher.  Still need Lester/buch to step up big.  Have to give up big talent in this scenario, maybe multiple top prospects or Doubront plus lesser prospects.

    4) Go get an ace option 1.  Trade the farm for him, possibly including morales/tarazwa/doubront/aceves types.  This would make for the best short term team with ace, lester, bucj, lackey,dempster as the staff.

    5) Go get an ace option 2.  Trade buch or lester in a deal for a more solid ace.  Wouldn't have to give up the farm with one of these two included, but would not make the huge short term gain that option 4 would, but would not sacrifice the future either.

     

    I think they need to go options 2 or 3 myself.  I just do not feel comfortable with #1.  They are deep, but deep at the bottom, not the top as in previous years.  I would be happy with a lohse or floyd to round out the team.  I think they need to move lavarnway/salty, iglesis, aceves/morales, kalish plus prospects to get a floyd, or trade them for more complete/unblocked prospects.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Jid, I understand your feelings...totally.

    It's great to read your thoughful and informative input.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to jidgef's comment:

    Congrats Moon on having the only readable thread on the board. The childishness and namecalling is so rampant that I have become an infrequent visitor and even more infrequent poster. At least this thread remains mostly about baseball.

    I just booked flights to Fort Myers and will be going to every Spring training game again this year. Last year was my first year at ST so I didn't know exactly what to expect, but what I saw was a pretty disfunctional team whose best player was Pedro Ciriaco. Unfortunately, things didn't get much better once the starting gun sounded. I do believe, and I am also hoping, that this year will be much different. Bobby V NEVER had any control over this team; it was apparent in the spring and even more so as the season dragged on. While a few players have been jettisoned for the alledged good of the clubhouse, I really believe Bobby set the tone for clubhouse disfunction and threw gas at every spark. But enough about last year; this thread is a forward looking thread.

    Ben obviously approached this offseason looking for veterans on shortish (is that a word?) contracts who would not only improve clubhouse chemistry but also deliver solid, professional, if not spectacular, performance. Heading into 2013, I think we are better, or at least potentially better, at every position on the field than the team that finished last season. I know that isn't saying much, but even the more established players, Pedey, Ortiz, Ellsbury, Lester and Buch should all deliver more than they did last season. A full season of WMB, versus his injury shortened one should also be an upgrade. Victorino might not equal Ross's offensive productivity, but he is a big defensive upgrade. Drew should be an upgrade over Aviles. The addition of Ross should upgrade the productivity both offensively and defensively behind the plate. Nava had the second best OPB on the team last year, but I still think a tandem of Kalish and Gomes will be more productive. Obviously firstbase is still a question, but a typical Napoli season would outperform, at least offensively, the combined productivity that position delivered last year. 

    But the real keys to significant improvement this year are Lackey, Dempster and Doubront. Now putting all your eggs in that three-man basket may not sound like World Series potential, but the potential is still there for solid productivity leading into what should be an outstanding bullpen.It would have been nice to pick up a number 1 or 2 starter, but they are very hard to come by and other teams are just not as interested as we would like them to be in improving the Boston rotation. I would not be shocked to find any one of Tazawa, Ruby or Morales, or all three, to throw significant innings as starters this year.

    If the kids are as good as their hype, then Ben approched this offseason smartly, by holding onto them and "bridging" with veterans who are capable of competing for a playoff spot. And if we're going nowhere in July, we have some veterans who will be easier to move than we've had and we can start playing the kids. I am always looking through my red glasses. 

     



    Nice summary of our situation Jid.

    I do think we are better, but I was hoping for more of a longer viewpoint with our signings. None of the guys we signed rates to be better in 2014 and/or 2015 than next year, so that makes it look like 2013 is "the year", but then when I look at the overall quality of this team, I just don't see us as serious contenders for a ring. That makes me wonder at the wisdom of the team philosophy this winter. Playing it half way would have been my last choice of strategy.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    I think there are still a few ways to go regarfding the pitching staff:

    1) roll the dice and have a go with the current staff.  We have talent, but not consistent winners.  Lester, Buch, Lackey, Dempster, Doubront is nothing to sneeze at.

    I just sneezed. Hand me a tissue.

    2) Sign a Lohse type, best available SP from FA.  This would be Doubront/Lackey/Dempster insurance.  Early injuries or ineffectiveness could be quickly replace with comparable talent, but Lester and Buch would still have to take the top two spots convincingly.

    I don't see Lohse as an answer, unless we use him to fill the role of a pitcher we end up trading to upgrade somewhere.

    3) trade for a gavin floyd/brett anderson type.  Similar to #2 above, except they are more of a 2/3 then a 3-5 type pitcher.  Still need Lester/buch to step up big.  Have to give up big talent in this scenario, maybe multiple top prospects or Doubront plus lesser prospects.

    I totally agree with this choice. I know it is hard to get a number 1, but Anderson has the potential to be there soon, and certainly could be a solid #2 in 2013. Floyd has had the numbers to justify him being labelled a solid #2 over the last 3-4 years. His numbers place him in the top 25-35 starters in MLB.

    4) Go get an ace option 1.  Trade the farm for him, possibly including morales/tarazwa/doubront/aceves types.  This would make for the best short term team with ace, lester, bucj, lackey,dempster as the staff.

    Not many teams are willing to part with an ace. Even if you found one, it would cost the world to get him.

    5) Go get an ace option 2.  Trade buch or lester in a deal for a more solid ace.  Wouldn't have to give up the farm with one of these two included, but would not make the huge short term gain that option 4 would, but would not sacrifice the future either.

    This is more possible than #4, and we could also trade 2 of our #4, 5, and 6 starters to get a #3 type. 

    I think they need to go options 2 or 3 myself.  I just do not feel comfortable with #1.  They are deep, but deep at the bottom, not the top as in previous years.  I would be happy with a lohse or floyd to round out the team.  I think they need to move lavarnway/salty, iglesis, aceves/morales, kalish plus prospects to get a floyd, or trade them for more complete/unblocked prospects.

    I still think we should trade all players who will be FAs after 2013 that we are not extending. Get the best prospects possible. Then trade some prospects along with a starter and go for a serious upgrade in the rotation.


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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to jidgef's comment:

    Congrats Moon on having the only readable thread on the board. The childishness and namecalling is so rampant that I have become an infrequent visitor and even more infrequent poster. At least this thread remains mostly about baseball.

    I just booked flights to Fort Myers and will be going to every Spring training game again this year. Last year was my first year at ST so I didn't know exactly what to expect, but what I saw was a pretty disfunctional team whose best player was Pedro Ciriaco. Unfortunately, things didn't get much better once the starting gun sounded. I do believe, and I am also hoping, that this year will be much different. Bobby V NEVER had any control over this team; it was apparent in the spring and even more so as the season dragged on. While a few players have been jettisoned for the alledged good of the clubhouse, I really believe Bobby set the tone for clubhouse disfunction and threw gas at every spark. But enough about last year; this thread is a forward looking thread.

    Ben obviously approached this offseason looking for veterans on shortish (is that a word?) contracts who would not only improve clubhouse chemistry but also deliver solid, professional, if not spectacular, performance. Heading into 2013, I think we are better, or at least potentially better, at every position on the field than the team that finished last season. I know that isn't saying much, but even the more established players, Pedey, Ortiz, Ellsbury, Lester and Buch should all deliver more than they did last season. A full season of WMB, versus his injury shortened one should also be an upgrade. Victorino might not equal Ross's offensive productivity, but he is a big defensive upgrade. Drew should be an upgrade over Aviles. The addition of Ross should upgrade the productivity both offensively and defensively behind the plate. Nava had the second best OPB on the team last year, but I still think a tandem of Kalish and Gomes will be more productive. Obviously firstbase is still a question, but a typical Napoli season would outperform, at least offensively, the combined productivity that position delivered last year. 

    But the real keys to significant improvement this year are Lackey, Dempster and Doubront. Now putting all your eggs in that three-man basket may not sound like World Series potential, but the potential is still there for solid productivity leading into what should be an outstanding bullpen.It would have been nice to pick up a number 1 or 2 starter, but they are very hard to come by and other teams are just not as interested as we would like them to be in improving the Boston rotation. I would not be shocked to find any one of Tazawa, Ruby or Morales, or all three, to throw significant innings as starters this year.

    If the kids are as good as their hype, then Ben approched this offseason smartly, by holding onto them and "bridging" with veterans who are capable of competing for a playoff spot. And if we're going nowhere in July, we have some veterans who will be easier to move than we've had and we can start playing the kids. I am always looking through my red glasses. 

     



    Nice summary of our situation Jid.

    I do think we are better, but I was hoping for more of a longer viewpoint with our signings. None of the guys we signed rates to be better in 2014 and/or 2015 than next year, so that makes it look like 2013 is "the year", but then when I look at the overall quality of this team, I just don't see us as serious contenders for a ring. That makes me wonder at the wisdom of the team philosophy this winter. Playing it half way would have been my last choice of strategy.



    I never thought we were looking at a one year retooling. If all the stars of tomorrow are still a year or two away from Fenway, then their primes are four and five years away. Ben has just bought a couple years of a fairly competitive team that at the very least will be more likable and entertaining than last years ugliness. Moon, you nailed it a long time ago when you said these huge contracts would cripple us for years; they are and they will, even after the big dump. Ben is making the best out of a very bad situation I think.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to jidgef's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to jidgef's comment:

    Congrats Moon on having the only readable thread on the board. The childishness and namecalling is so rampant that I have become an infrequent visitor and even more infrequent poster. At least this thread remains mostly about baseball.

    I just booked flights to Fort Myers and will be going to every Spring training game again this year. Last year was my first year at ST so I didn't know exactly what to expect, but what I saw was a pretty disfunctional team whose best player was Pedro Ciriaco. Unfortunately, things didn't get much better once the starting gun sounded. I do believe, and I am also hoping, that this year will be much different. Bobby V NEVER had any control over this team; it was apparent in the spring and even more so as the season dragged on. While a few players have been jettisoned for the alledged good of the clubhouse, I really believe Bobby set the tone for clubhouse disfunction and threw gas at every spark. But enough about last year; this thread is a forward looking thread.

    Ben obviously approached this offseason looking for veterans on shortish (is that a word?) contracts who would not only improve clubhouse chemistry but also deliver solid, professional, if not spectacular, performance. Heading into 2013, I think we are better, or at least potentially better, at every position on the field than the team that finished last season. I know that isn't saying much, but even the more established players, Pedey, Ortiz, Ellsbury, Lester and Buch should all deliver more than they did last season. A full season of WMB, versus his injury shortened one should also be an upgrade. Victorino might not equal Ross's offensive productivity, but he is a big defensive upgrade. Drew should be an upgrade over Aviles. The addition of Ross should upgrade the productivity both offensively and defensively behind the plate. Nava had the second best OPB on the team last year, but I still think a tandem of Kalish and Gomes will be more productive. Obviously firstbase is still a question, but a typical Napoli season would outperform, at least offensively, the combined productivity that position delivered last year. 

    But the real keys to significant improvement this year are Lackey, Dempster and Doubront. Now putting all your eggs in that three-man basket may not sound like World Series potential, but the potential is still there for solid productivity leading into what should be an outstanding bullpen.It would have been nice to pick up a number 1 or 2 starter, but they are very hard to come by and other teams are just not as interested as we would like them to be in improving the Boston rotation. I would not be shocked to find any one of Tazawa, Ruby or Morales, or all three, to throw significant innings as starters this year.

    If the kids are as good as their hype, then Ben approched this offseason smartly, by holding onto them and "bridging" with veterans who are capable of competing for a playoff spot. And if we're going nowhere in July, we have some veterans who will be easier to move than we've had and we can start playing the kids. I am always looking through my red glasses. 

     



    Nice summary of our situation Jid.

    I do think we are better, but I was hoping for more of a longer viewpoint with our signings. None of the guys we signed rates to be better in 2014 and/or 2015 than next year, so that makes it look like 2013 is "the year", but then when I look at the overall quality of this team, I just don't see us as serious contenders for a ring. That makes me wonder at the wisdom of the team philosophy this winter. Playing it half way would have been my last choice of strategy.



    I never thought we were looking at a one year retooling. If all the stars of tomorrow are still a year or two away from Fenway, then their primes are four and five years away. Ben has just bought a couple years of a fairly competitive team that at the very least will be more likable and entertaining than last years ugliness. Moon, you nailed it a long time ago when you said these huge contracts would cripple us for years; they are and they will, even after the big dump. Ben is making the best out of a very bad situation I think.



    Well, the AGon trade relieved us of much of the "crippling effect", although we still pay the Dodgers $3.9M the next 3 years. However, we basically just replaced the money saved with shorter term contracts, but no better productivity and no real hope for any improvement from those signed to 2-3 year deals.

    The "very best" could have been to sign one big name to keep the fans happy (Hamilton or A Sanchez) and then sought younger options to fill the gaps, but with hopes that they'd get better or stay the same up to 2015 since they wouldn't be 32-33 or older by then.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Well, the AGon trade relieved us of much of the "crippling effect", although we still pay the Dodgers $3.9M the next 3 years. However, we basically just replaced the money saved with shorter term contracts.



    That's not true.  AGon's contract had 6 years left at 22 million, Crawford's had 5 years at 20 million.  The biggest new contract we took on was 3 years at 13 million.  In total we saved 260 million and have spent about half that, but the half we spent is also on a greater number of players.   

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Well, the AGon trade relieved us of much of the "crippling effect", although we still pay the Dodgers $3.9M the next 3 years. However, we basically just replaced the money saved with shorter term contracts.



    That's not true.  AGon's contract had 6 years left at 22 million, Crawford's had 5 years at 20 million.  The biggest new contract we took on was 3 years at 13 million.  In total we saved 260 million and have spent about half that, but the half we spent is also on a greater number of players.   



    Yes, you are right. I should have said per year cost.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to ampoule's comment:

    Jid, I understand your feelings...totally.

    It's great to read your thoughful and informative input.



    Good to hear from you! Keep the faith; happy new year!

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Well, the AGon trade relieved us of much of the "crippling effect", although we still pay the Dodgers $3.9M the next 3 years. However, we basically just replaced the money saved with shorter term contracts.



    That's not true.  AGon's contract had 6 years left at 22 million, Crawford's had 5 years at 20 million.  The biggest new contract we took on was 3 years at 13 million.  In total we saved 260 million and have spent about half that, but the half we spent is also on a greater number of players.   



    Yes, you are right. I should have said per year cost.



    We basically replaced about $60M a year of salary (at a longer term) with...

    $13M Napoli (?)

    $13M Victorino

    $13M Dempster

    $9.5M Drew

    $5M Gomes

    ~$4.5M Hanrahan

    $4.25M Uehara

    $3.1M D Ross

    + $3.9M a year to the Dodgers

    Total: ~$70M per year

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from fl+adam,. Show fl+adam,'s posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Don't forget DiceK, ross and others going away too.  We have a lesser salary to start this year then started last year so far.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Looks like Red Sox winter spending is just about complete [Napoli pending] But looks like RS took a page out of Patriots book this past winter. Instead of going for the big name FA's of recent past [CC, Lackey] they focused more on fabric type players, that help to build a team. Back when the Patriots were winning SB's the one thing they did very well was sign players who filled a specific need, never going after the big name / big money guys.I know a lot of fans will say 13 mil per yr is a lot of $, but if you look at what Hamilton and Greinke signed for this is not big signings by todays standards. RS payroll right now stands at about 176 mil for next yr, but I still believe they have another trade in the works [they have a ton of quality bp arms] and Detroit still needs a closer and if they find a Soriano to be too expensive could a Porcello for Bailey+ trade be that far fetched? Here's to hoping Soriano gets signed elsewhere.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to garyhow's comment:

    Looks like Red Sox winter spending is just about complete [Napoli pending] But looks like RS took a page out of Patriots book this past winter. Instead of going for the big name FA's of recent past [CC, Lackey] they focused more on fabric type players, that help to build a team. Back when the Patriots were winning SB's the one thing they did very well was sign players who filled a specific need, never going after the big name / big money guys.I know a lot of fans will say 13 mil per yr is a lot of $, but if you look at what Hamilton and Greinke signed for this is not big signings by todays standards. RS payroll right now stands at about 176 mil for next yr, but I still believe they have another trade in the works [they have a ton of quality bp arms] and Detroit still needs a closer and if they find a Soriano to be too expensive could a Porcello for Bailey+ trade be that far fetched? Here's to hoping Soriano gets signed elsewhere.


    We are very near the luxury tax limit right now (with Naps) after counting the $3.9M we pay the Dodgers and the player retirement contribution. 

    That puts us very close to where we were last season at this time.

    Would I rather have all the guys we signed this winter plus the prospects we got from the Dodgers rather than Josh, CC, AGon and Punto? Yes, but that doesn't mean I think we couldn't have done  better at setting ourselves up for 2014 and beyond.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to garyhow's comment:

    Looks like Red Sox winter spending is just about complete [Napoli pending] But looks like RS took a page out of Patriots book this past winter. Instead of going for the big name FA's of recent past [CC, Lackey] they focused more on fabric type players, that help to build a team. Back when the Patriots were winning SB's the one thing they did very well was sign players who filled a specific need, never going after the big name / big money guys.I know a lot of fans will say 13 mil per yr is a lot of $, but if you look at what Hamilton and Greinke signed for this is not big signings by todays standards. RS payroll right now stands at about 176 mil for next yr, but I still believe they have another trade in the works [they have a ton of quality bp arms] and Detroit still needs a closer and if they find a Soriano to be too expensive could a Porcello for Bailey+ trade be that far fetched? Here's to hoping Soriano gets signed elsewhere.


    We are very near the luxury tax limit right now (with Naps) after counting the $3.9M we pay the Dodgers and the player retirement contribution. 

    That puts us very close to where we were last season at this time.

    Would I rather have all the guys we signed this winter plus the prospects we got from the Dodgers rather than Josh, CC, AGon and Punto? Yes, but that doesn't mean I think we couldn't have done  better at setting ourselves up for 2014 and beyond.



    Moon, we may be very close to where we were last year at this time, but we are not obligated to more than a quarter billion dollars going forward on guys who were not good fits here. Ben quickly spent the money saved from the Dodger deal, but he did so in such a way that it will be much easier to get out from under any and all of those deals as they are all for shorter terms and less money, AND they are all veteran players any one of whom could be a target for a trading partner at the deadline. He didn't land that bright young star under team control for many years (YET) but maybe he believes that those bright young stars are already in our organization. I could easinly be eating my words in May, but I think Ben did the best he could with the free agent crop available and the talent he had on his own roster. Since last season's final game we have lost Ross, Aviles and a couple bullpen arms while adding experienced, quality (if unspectacular) players. I give Ben a B+ so far with a chance to earn an A with a creative trade to help the top of the rotation, although there a few top of the rotation pitchers to be had.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to jidgef's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to garyhow's comment:

    Looks like Red Sox winter spending is just about complete [Napoli pending] But looks like RS took a page out of Patriots book this past winter. Instead of going for the big name FA's of recent past [CC, Lackey] they focused more on fabric type players, that help to build a team. Back when the Patriots were winning SB's the one thing they did very well was sign players who filled a specific need, never going after the big name / big money guys.I know a lot of fans will say 13 mil per yr is a lot of $, but if you look at what Hamilton and Greinke signed for this is not big signings by todays standards. RS payroll right now stands at about 176 mil for next yr, but I still believe they have another trade in the works [they have a ton of quality bp arms] and Detroit still needs a closer and if they find a Soriano to be too expensive could a Porcello for Bailey+ trade be that far fetched? Here's to hoping Soriano gets signed elsewhere.


    We are very near the luxury tax limit right now (with Naps) after counting the $3.9M we pay the Dodgers and the player retirement contribution. 

    That puts us very close to where we were last season at this time.

    Would I rather have all the guys we signed this winter plus the prospects we got from the Dodgers rather than Josh, CC, AGon and Punto? Yes, but that doesn't mean I think we couldn't have done  better at setting ourselves up for 2014 and beyond.



    Moon, we may be very close to where we were last year at this time, but we are not obligated to more than a quarter billion dollars going forward on guys who were not good fits here. Ben quickly spent the money saved from the Dodger deal, but he did so in such a way that it will be much easier to get out from under any and all of those deals as they are all for shorter terms and less money, AND they are all veteran players any one of whom could be a target for a trading partner at the deadline. He didn't land that bright young star under team control for many years (YET) but maybe he believes that those bright young stars are already in our organization. I could easinly be eating my words in May, but I think Ben did the best he could with the free agent crop available and the talent he had on his own roster. Since last season's final game we have lost Ross, Aviles and a couple bullpen arms while adding experienced, quality (if unspectacular) players. I give Ben a B+ so far with a chance to earn an A with a creative trade to help the top of the rotation, although there a few top of the rotation pitchers to be had.



    While not having longer term commitments than we had with what we traded away to the Dodgers is an advantage, I do not agree that Ben deserves a B+. No signing or trade has brought us a player that will be in his peak prime in 2014 or 2015.

    While I am happy we were able to dump CC and Punto and to some extent Beckett, losing AGon hurt. His contract looks like a real bargain in today's FA market.

    Here is what we gave up:

    AGon  $127M/6

    CC       $102.5M/5

    Beckett $31.5M/2

    Punto     $1.5M/1

    $3.9M paid to the Dodgers over the next 3 years ($11.7M total).

    Approx Totals: 

    2013: $58M

    2014: $57M (no Punto)

    2015: $41M (no Beckett)

    2016: $41M

    2017: $42M

    2018: $21M (No CC)

    ($262M/14 combined years and the $11.7M paid to Dodgers)

    Only the CC deal was a contract over 3 years and not worth keeping. To me, the Beckett contract is about equal to the Dempster deal. 

     

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Whatever grade either you or I give Ben is pretty insignificant really, but I like what he's done so far. And "so far" may be the key words because he may not be done yet. Players who could help us beyond 2014 are usually not available in free agency because of the years experince required to be elligible for free agency. That is why I don't think it is a very effecient way to build a team and our track record lately has proven this. At the top end of the free agency pool you can occasionally grab a Manny, Sabathia or Texiera type, but the dollars are always huge and the returns rarely meet the expenditures. Building from within is always most effective, shrewd trading to bring in young potential stars under long-term control is the next best option; and Ben may still have irons in that fire. Free agency is most effective when trying to round out an otherwise good team with a few strategic signings, or in a case like this year's Red Sox team when a short-term bridge needed to be built. As currently constructed we can be competitive, although maybe not World Series level competitive, and we have not lost a single farm chip or draft pick.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Whatever grade either you or I give Ben is pretty insignificant really, but I like what he's done so far. And "so far" may be the key words because he may not be done yet. Players who could help us beyond 2014 are usually not available in free agency because of the years experince required to be elligible for free agency.

    But we signed 2 guys for 3 year deals that are at  or near the end of their prime years.

    We probably could have gotten B McCarthy for $24M/3, and although he is a risk, his upside potential is higher than anyone else we signed.

    That is why I don't think it is a very effecient way to build a team and our track record lately has proven this. At the top end of the free agency pool you can occasionally grab a Manny, Sabathia or Texiera type, but the dollars are always huge and the returns rarely meet the expenditures.

    I was not for signing Hamilton or Greinke, but I'd rather have signed on of them instead of Victorino, Naps and Dempster combined. The only high contract this year perhaps worth the risk, in my opinion,  was A Sanchez. Yes, his deal was 2 years longer than ideal, but he rates to be more helpful in 2014, 2015 and beyond than who we got.

    Building from within is always most effective, shrewd trading to bring in young potential stars under long-term control is the next best option; and Ben may still have irons in that fire.

    I am hoping he does something like this, but as of right now, there is no hurry. I don't see us as being one trade away from being a serious contender in 2013 anyways, so I do not feel any sense of urgency. In fact, I still feel we ought to make moves for 2014 and beyond before the season starts and/or at the dealine. I want us to deal Ellsbury, Breslow and Salty as well as anyone else that does not figure into our 2014 plans. 2013 is lost, a pipedream, or a bridge year- whatever one wants to call it, but 2014 need not be the same.

    Free agency is most effective when trying to round out an otherwise good team with a few strategic signings, or in a case like this year's Red Sox team when a short-term bridge needed to be built. As currently constructed we can be competitive, although maybe not World Series level competitive, and we have not lost a single farm chip or draft pick.

    I agree here, but that is not what this winter's signings accomplished. We did not have "an otherwise good team" to begin with, so why make "strategic signings" that do little to make us serious contenders in 2013, and do next to nothing to help us in 2014?

    The only advantage these deals may bring us moving forwards is possible gains via trades this deadline or next winter. That is a sketchy plan to say the least.

     
Sections
Shortcuts