A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Boom, RS Prospects, Polly--I am starting to get confused now with your monikers.  Anyway, I'm not talking about this issue any more cause maybe I am getting too pessimistic.  I will try to be positive once ST begins, but I'm still hoping for another trade to be honest.  I'll jump on the bandwagon quickly if these guys are scrappers.  But I won't forget to call you Polly if these pacific pitchers patch together something patently pathetic.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    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.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to RedsoxProspects' comment:

    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.



    I've rooted for the Sox all out through some pretty pathetic seasons. How I feel about our chances does not effect that at all. Maybe I'm not like some of you guys, but I just enjoy watching Sox baseball no matter what.

    I may sound pessimistic this winter, but that hasn't changed the fact that I'm the biggest Sox fan ever.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    I don't think Ben makes another move this winter. I still think we should look for a 2 or 3 for 1 deal to improve quality over quantity, but only if the player we get is under team control for 2-3+ years.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    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." 

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to jasko2248's comment:

    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." 



    I can understand the reasoning for not giving up on 2013 in theory, but I really don't see us as serious contenders this year, so my viewpoint may be different from yours and Ben's.

    Everybody who knows me well knows that I have been saying we need pitching for years and years, so it may sound a bit contradictory for me to say trading Lester for Myers made some sense. Here's why...

    1) Lester will be a FA after 2013 or 2014 if we take his option. Since I don't see us as serious contenders in 2013, we're talking about giving up 1 year that counts of Lester and saving $11.7M/1 or $24.5M/2) (13:$11.625M, 14:$13M club option ($0.25M buyout)) for several years of team control of Myers.

    2) With the money saved from Lester and the players coming off the books next winter, we could have spent large to replace Lester. We could have alos spent big on A Sanchez this winter to replace him now.

    3) Getting Myers might have changed our view on signing Victorino or Gomes or keeping Ellsbury. The ripple effect could have saved us more money (to later spend on pitching) or brought us more prospects (by trading Ellsbury).

    It is not a given that Lester will walk after 2013 or 2014, but assuming he does, we may look back and wish we had Myers instead.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    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.

     

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    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.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    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.  

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    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).

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to jasko2248's comment:

    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.  

     



    True, but it's not a stretch that Dice-K and Cook might pitch better than Lackey in 2013 either. (Or any replacement level pitcher either)

    We "trotted out" Morales too.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to hill55's comment:

    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).



    Tons of potential, yes!

    However, honestly tell me how much "potential" you thought last year's staff had last mid-January?

    Beckett (Coming off a 2.89 ERA/1.026 WHIP)

    Lester (Coming off better numbers than now)

    Buchholtz (All about health then and now)

    Dice-K (Slight hope he'd come on at the end)

    Bard (Wow! All the fans here last year talking this guy up as a starter.)

    Doubront (I might be in a minority, but my hopes are even with 2012 here.)

    Aceves, Padilla, Cook (Many here wanted Aceves to start.)

     

    Now, we have this...

    Dempster (Older and not AL dominant? liked beckett more in '12)

    Lester (4.82 and 1.383- felt better last winter here)

    Buch  (4.56  and  1.326- felt better last winter here)

    Doubront (4.86 and 1.468- I don't get all the hype over 2012)

    Lackey (Was the worst pitcher in 2011, but he pitched hurt. He has good upside, but so did Dice-k, Bard, and others last winter.)

    Morales, Tazawa, Mortensen, Aceves, de la Rosa... (I like our depth better this winter.)

     

    Lots of bad things happened last year, and I know that doesn't mean it will this year, but this board has been talking up our rotation's great potential for too long.

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    One word: regression.

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

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    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).

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    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!

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to RedsoxProspects' comment:

    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!



    I have little doubt this rotation will be better than last year's rotation. It's nearly impossible to be worse.

    Improving on a 5.00+ rotation ERA has to be extreme to make us a contender, and my point here is that this starting staff looks no better than ones of the past 5 years on paper in January. I was optimistic that those 5 starting staffs would be "good enough" to overcome having a missing link and still help us win 95+ games. It was too much wishful thinking then, and I'm just not going to drink the Kool-Aid this year. Someone will get hurt. Someone will be dissapointing. We are likely to have more than 2 hurt or having an off year. We do have some promise in our 6, 7 and 8 starters, but I'm not counting on everything going right after being burned 5 years straight.

    I'm keeping an open mind. I realize things could go right. 2 guys could do very poorly, but if everyone else does great, we could contend, but every team has what ifs like this, and I don't see us as having better chances than a lot of teams.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    I'll take that from a #4 starter.

    $26.5M is a lot for a number 4.

     
  18. 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 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?

     

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    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.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59'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 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?

     



    Thanks, southpaw.

    I think Lester and Sanchez are close. Assuming they both would cost the same for 5 years, I'd probably go with Lester, but it's very very close.

    The real comparison is Lester vs Sanchez & Myers, and the latter is no-brainer.

    Ther's a chance I may change my outlook on 2013. We certainly look better than last September's team, but there was such a long way to go that nothing short of a miracle or an all out spending spree would have made us serious contenders in 2013. Maybe we look at the word "serious" differently. We do have a chance. I'm not as upset about what we did for 2013: it's more about what we didn't do for 2014 and beyond.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    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.



    BINGO!

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    ...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.

     
  23. 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:

    ...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.



    I'm not sure it's about Sox fans being smart or not.  If the team falls out of the race early people tend to lose interest and tune out, that's just the nature of fans.  The smart ones might say 'it's OK, 2014 will be better' but that doesn't do anything for 2013 attendance and NESN ratings.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ice-Cream. Show Ice-Cream's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    The NY Mets signed Marcum to a one-year deal.

    A steal for the Mets.  

    http://espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/story/_/id/8875948/new-york-mets-shaun-marcum-agree-deal

     
  25. 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:

     

    ...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.

     



    I'm not sure it's about Sox fans being smart or not.  If the team falls out of the race early people tend to lose interest and tune out, that's just the nature of fans.  The smart ones might say 'it's OK, 2014 will be better' but that doesn't do anything for 2013 attendance and NESN ratings.

     



    I think pretty close to the same amount would watch, but I get that it's a business. It is also an admition that it is not about winning it all every few years, but just appearing to be able to every year. That reminds me of the Sox of old.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share