moon you're right of course that they didn't do anything to improve the rotation.  My only guess is that they feel that they have to evaluate exactly how good or bad the rotation they have now is.  Lester, Buchholz and Lackey all have a lot of x-factor going.  Lester in particular-what happened to this guy since Sept/11?  I think they're hoping desperately that all the changes will help Lester return to what he was.

Maybe part of the strategy is to start working toward assembling a package of players they can trade for a #1-2 starter.

Obviously I'm trying to put this in a framework where biding time makes sense as a strategy toward upgrading the rotation.

Funny Crit! At least you would do it with humor!

This is baseball. Do we really want to be negative? This is supposed to be fun! I refuse to grow up!

I kind of like Pollyanna. I doubt that there are many here who even have an idea of what I'm talking about in that regard. Even if my brain says we should be a little more pessimistic, I'm not willing to go there. This is baseball. I'm a fan. I really don't want to effectively root against my team doing well. 

Once in a while, as with my Salty rants last year, I just can't help it but overall I'm an optimist.

In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

moon you're right of course that they didn't do anything to improve the rotation.  My only guess is that they feel that they have to evaluate exactly how good or bad the rotation they have now is.  Lester, Buchholz and Lackey all have a lot of x-factor going.  Lester in particular-what happened to this guy since Sept/11?  I think they're hoping desperately that all the changes will help Lester return to what he was.

Maybe part of the strategy is to start working toward assembling a package of players they can trade for a #1-2 starter.

Obviously I'm trying to put this in a framework where biding time makes sense as a strategy toward upgrading the rotation.

I really like Lester and have not given up on him. He showed signs of turning it around the end of last season, so there is much hope, although less than last year at this time.

That being said, I wonder if KC would have given us Myers for Lester straight up. I know they got Wade Davis along with Shields, but they also gave up more good prospects to get both. Maybe even Lester + Morales. I know that would really be a sign of giving up on 2013, but we'd have looked real good going beyond 2013.

In response to moonslav59's comment:

In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

moon you're right of course that they didn't do anything to improve the rotation.  My only guess is that they feel that they have to evaluate exactly how good or bad the rotation they have now is.  Lester, Buchholz and Lackey all have a lot of x-factor going.  Lester in particular-what happened to this guy since Sept/11?  I think they're hoping desperately that all the changes will help Lester return to what he was.

Maybe part of the strategy is to start working toward assembling a package of players they can trade for a #1-2 starter.

Obviously I'm trying to put this in a framework where biding time makes sense as a strategy toward upgrading the rotation.

I really like Lester and have not given up on him. He showed signs of turning it around the end of last season, so there is much hope, although less than last year at this time.

That being said, I wonder if KC would have given us Myers for Lester straight up. I know they got Wade Davis along with Shields, but they also gave up more good prospects to get both. Maybe even Lester + Morales. I know that would really be a sign of giving up on 2013, but we'd have looked real good going beyond 2013.

http://monstersportsblog.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/TRADING-PITCHING-FOR-OFFENSE-WONT-HELP-THE-RED-SOX/

I heard the Sox didn't take very long to reject the Royals offer, but there is no "link" or "source" I can post, but this article seems to agree.  I think you answered your own question in the second part of your post.  There was no way the Sox were "taking 2013 off." 

Au Contraire!

The Redsox did improve the rotation. Dempster is not a worthless signing and improving the pen helps tremendously. We also have added De La Rosa, who is one of the top young pitching prospects in baseball with a great fastball and changeup combination. As toolsy as you get. Webster also has a promising future. 

We removed Matsuzaka and guys like Cook. Bard was also removed from the rotation. Is that not an improvement?

Finally, I think we have so much depth at reliever that we actually have some guys available to trade. Do you hear me Aceves! I'm talking about you!

Think about our depth, assuming Bard comes back strong. We have a lot of top reliever talent. Conceivably 5 or 6 guys capable of stepping in as closers or setup guys.

Is it a huge improvement in our situation for starters? No. Is it an improvement? Yes.

Essentially we replaced an odd year from Beckett with Dempster. Not an improvement.

The rest is the same.

The future is brighter with de la Rosa and Webster, but i gave huge props to Ben for that move. I was talking about winter moves to improve our staff. Dempster can help, but at his cost, I don't like it.

In response to moonslav59's comment:

Au Contraire!

The Redsox did improve the rotation. Dempster is not a worthless signing and improving the pen helps tremendously. We also have added De La Rosa, who is one of the top young pitching prospects in baseball with a great fastball and changeup combination. As toolsy as you get. Webster also has a promising future. 

We removed Matsuzaka and guys like Cook. Bard was also removed from the rotation. Is that not an improvement?

Finally, I think we have so much depth at reliever that we actually have some guys available to trade. Do you hear me Aceves! I'm talking about you!

Think about our depth, assuming Bard comes back strong. We have a lot of top reliever talent. Conceivably 5 or 6 guys capable of stepping in as closers or setup guys.

Is it a huge improvement in our situation for starters? No. Is it an improvement? Yes.

Essentially we replaced an odd year from Beckett with Dempster. Not an improvement.

The rest is the same.

The future is brighter with de la Rosa and Webster, but i gave huge props to Ben for that move. I was talking about winter moves to improve our staff. Dempster can help, but at his cost, I don't like it.

It's not a stretch to think that a healthy John Lackey will be a solid upgrade over the likes of Cook, Dice K and the rest of the "starters" they trotted out there last year.  

In my humble opinion, the Red Sox have great potential with a starting rotation of Jon Lester, Clay Buchholz, Ryan Dempster, John Lackey and Felix Doubront (the latter raising the most serious concerns).

One word: regression.

More words: Solid seasons from John Lackey and Ryan Dempster are not out of the question.

Moonie!

I liked you better as an optimist! I didn't hold it against you at all!

Realistically though, it's pretty likely this year's staff puts up better than last years. I think that is very likely. We should improve at least some. One thing about Dempster. He should eat some innings and give us quite a few quality starts. Not a lot of shutouts but lots of 2-4 run starts. I'll take that from a #4 starter.

When the grass gets green and the sun comes out we'll be praying for you to come around. Think about it. When I was a negative Nancy on Salty last year was that fun? No it wasn't for any of us, whether I was right or not. So, I'm not going there again!

Go Sox!

In response to hill55's comment:

One word: regression.

More words: Solid seasons from John Lackey and Ryan Dempster are not out of the question.

Of course they are not out of the question. I know we got potential, but I've been hearing "what ifs" for too long now.

"What if Beckett, Lester and Buchholtz stay healthy and pitch well this year..."

"What if Bard becomes as great a starter as he was a set-up man?"

"What if Dice-K is allowed to do his own thing?"

"What if this is a typical odd year for Beckett?"

I'm sorry, but I do not see anything to get more excited about this year than the last few years. 

Sure, Lackey and Dempster should do better than Cook, Dice-K and Bard, but we need them to be better than Beckett in 2011 as well.

We need lester to be better.

We need Buch to be better.

Doubront to be better.

Or at least 4-5 of these prayers to all come true at the same time.

If Beckett, Lester and Buch could never put it all together for a full season, I don't see why we should suddenly feel all warm and fuzzy about Lester, Buch, Dempster and Lackey.

I'd like nothing better for it all to happen. I'll be tickled pink to come on this site and apologize to everyone. I guess I'd rather do that than come back like I have the past few years and explain why my projected 95+ win seasons didn't materialize. I've been labelled an optimist for years, although I thought I was being objective and realistic.

I thought we needed pitching every winter since 2007 (and even before), but I still projected 95+ win seasons for several seasons now. The one year, I wake up and smell the coffee, I'm getting called a "pessimist" (not by you).

In response to moonslav59's comment:

In response to hill55's comment:

One word: regression.

More words: Solid seasons from John Lackey and Ryan Dempster are not out of the question.

Of course they are not out of the question. I know we got potential, but I've been hearing "what ifs" for too long now.

"What if Beckett, Lester and Buchholtz stay healthy and pitch well this year..."

"What if Bard becomes as great a starter as he was a set-up man?"

"What if Dice-K is allowed to do his own thing?"

"What if this is a typical odd year for Beckett?"

I'm sorry, but I do not see anything to get more excited about this year than the last few years. 

Sure, Lackey and Dempster should do better than Cook, Dice-K and Bard, but we need them to be better than Beckett in 2011 as well.

We need lester to be better.

We need Buch to be better.

Doubront to be better.

Or at least 4-5 of these prayers to all come true at the same time.

If Beckett, Lester and Buch could never put it all together for a full season, I don't see why we should suddenly feel all warm and fuzzy about Lester, Buch, Dempster and Lackey.

I'd like nothing better for it all to happen. I'll be tickled pink to come on this site and apologize to everyone. I guess I'd rather do that than come back like I have the past few years and explain why my projected 95+ win seasons didn't materialize. I've been labelled an optimist for years, although I thought I was being objective and realistic.

I thought we needed pitching every winter since 2007 (and even before), but I still projected 95+ win seasons for several seasons now. The one year, I wake up and smell the coffee, I'm getting called a "pessimist" (not by you).

I dont think your a pessimist Moon. Like all the years before, your just stating what you think and feel about our chances. Just because your outlook isnt as optimistic as it usually is doesnt mean your a pessimist.

I think some posters here are so used to the glass half full side of you and now that its not very positive, albeit still realistic, theyre thrown off a bit. I may not agree with a lot of your viewpoints lately, but still have the same amount of respect for your posts, research and thoughts on anything baseball.

Personally, I look at the comment of trading Lester for Myers and paying Sanchez an ungodly amount of money to fill his spot and can only think of one question. Do you believe that Sanchez is better than Lester now and going forward?  Why not extend Lester with some of that money?

Now that Francona has confirmed to a degree some of the suspicions about Red Sox ownership being more concerned about ratings than standings, maybe some of this offseason's strategy has to be looked at from that perspective.  For example, maybe the reason they don't want to trade Ellsbury for prospects is the effect it would have on fan interest.

To take it a step further, maybe Cherington was given a twofold mandate: preserve the prospects and draft picks, but put together a team that has some semblance of contending for a playoff berth, for the sake of attendance and ratings.

...put together a team that has some semblance of contending for a playoff berth...

I guess the sucess of this part of the plan is up for debate, but I really think Sox fans are smart enough to see through the pretend game, and would have preferred to have seen us go all out to build for 2014 and beyond with a few bridge signings to keep us half-way repsectable in 2013.