I know you are a Freidrich Nietzsche kind of guy Moon but we need to instill some Soren Keirkegaard into you in the meantime, with a well placed "leap of faith" approach!

There are no supermen available in this year's FA class. Sorry, couldn't resist! Par of me wishes I could though! Probably not funny huh.

I read somewhere today that with the Dodgers deal, our luxury tax issue was reset. We didn't hit the luxury tax limit in 2012 so it wouldn't impact us much if we happen to go over it this year. That is good news.

I also read a few days ago somewhere that our committed contracts for 2015 are less than $60 mil. We have tons of salary flexibility still even as early as 2015. I'm sure there are some arb deals and such which will inevitably increase that but we clearly still have tons of luxury tax flexibility available, including quite a bit even next winter.

We are $8 mil or so under the luxury tax limit right now. That is not bad.

The FO is just trying to put a decent product on the field in 2013 and have still saved a lot of powder for a free agent explosion in the next 2 winters. It is maybe just a short term business decision. I agree that probably you and I and some other faithful fans here would probably prefer it if they completely retooled this year by moving guys like Salty and Ellsbury and other one year contracts for prospects or for players with more years of controllability. Overall though, they appear to have made a business decision that the fans might not stay faithful if we went into the tank again in 2013. Guys like SV and the other free agents they signed are just an insurance policy to keep the fan base as secure as possible until the calvalry arrives.

I think they are probably right. The need to make decisions based not upon the wishes of avid fans. We are going to wath the games anyway. They need to generate new business and retain the fickle masses they have reached in the past few years of success.

In response to moonslav59's comment:

We chose the weakest FA market in memory, the most overpaid FA market in memory to make the most signings in memory. What part of that makes sense. No amount of rationalizing that they are "short term deals" takes away from the stark reality that we spent like never before at the worst time ever. That's the bare bones reality of this winter. 

moon, I do understand and respect your position on the offseason moves and non-moves.  You have given them considerable thought and articulated them well.  And it's very possible you will turn out to be 100% correct.

The above statement about the spending, though, strikes me as some unnecessary hyperbole.  We did not 'spend like never before' on free agents.  Even if the Napoli deal was completed at 39 million, which it won't be, the total investment in all these free agents would be less than the 142 million investment in Crawford.  And in the offseason before 2007 we signed Dice-K, Drew and Lugo for a total investment of more than 200 million including the posting fee.

No need to embellish good arguments with hyperbole.

IRT trading Ellsbury and/or Salty, I think it's very possible that Cherington had some talks with other GM's about this but didn't get what he thought were sufficient offers.  There are some serious drags on Ellsbury's value, with the amount of time he's missed, his wildly inconsistent production and his impending free agency.

Cherrington also fielded a lot of trade offers that involved Xander Bogaerts, but denied all of them. Like him or not, BC said what the basic offseason plan was and hes been true to his word. You may not agree with the plan, but it is what it is and hes stuck to it.

Its a plan that allows them to be competetive now while allowing what the organization believes to be the most promising prospects to further develop and be able to help the MLB team for the next generation.

In response to southpaw777's comment:

Cherrington also fielded a lot of trade offers that involved Xander Bogaerts, but denied all of them. Like him or not, BC said what the basic offseason plan was and hes been true to his word. You may not agree with the plan, but it is what it is and hes stuck to it.

Its a plan that allows them to be competetive now while allowing what the organization believes to be the most promising prospects to further develop and be able to help the MLB team for the next generation.

I have said many time, I'd try very hard not to trade Boggy, so I am glad that hasn't happened, but I would consider trading Bradley and/or maybe Barnes for the right player.

In response to moonslav59's comment:

In response to southpaw777's comment:

Cherrington also fielded a lot of trade offers that involved Xander Bogaerts, but denied all of them. Like him or not, BC said what the basic offseason plan was and hes been true to his word. You may not agree with the plan, but it is what it is and hes stuck to it.

Its a plan that allows them to be competetive now while allowing what the organization believes to be the most promising prospects to further develop and be able to help the MLB team for the next generation.

I have said many time, I'd try very hard not to trade Boggy, so I am glad that hasn't happened, but I would consider trading Bradley and/or maybe Barnes for the right player.

Unfortunately the right player isnt out there right now. Barnes and JBJ are more valuable to the Sox right now and Im sure would have to be overwhelmed in order to let them go. I dont see any player available right noiw that would overwhelm them, or me.

At the expense of appearing to be a sychophant, I agree almost completely with Moon and especially with a comment he made a few pages back that what the RS needed this year was one great SP and one great regular player added to juice the lineup--something I've said since the season ended.  I also agree that what we've done is shot for safe mediocrity and saving draft choices.  I too will root like crazy for these guys and hope this strategey works but I would have preferred the strategy above or "tearing it down completely."  We're all fans, we can all hope for a '67 type year, but I don't see it happening.  Honestly, I'm still hoping to trade Ells, one catcher, and one of talented 3rd base prospects for some kind of an exciting package...what Tito called something "sexy."  Boom, you know I love you, but I don't care a whit for business reasons, the fan base, who women want to watch, etc. I want to win and I don't mind losing for a while if I can win more later, but I hate the thoughts of FO making decisions for ANY reasons other than winning.  Maybe this middle way is best.  If it works, I'll jump on the bandwagon like you won't believe, but I see about 80-85 wins now IF the starters are ok... 

Boom, you know I love you, but I don't care a whit for business reasons, the fan base, who women want to watch, etc. I want to win and I don't mind losing for a while if I can win more later, but I hate the thoughts of FO making decisions for ANY reasons other than winning. 

At the expense of appearing to be a sychophant, I agree almost completely with Moon and especially with a comment he made a few pages back that what the RS needed this year was one great SP and one great regular player added to juice the lineup--something I've said since the season ended.  I also agree that what we've done is shot for safe mediocrity and saving draft choices.  I too will root like crazy for these guys and hope this strategey works but I would have preferred the strategy above or "tearing it down completely."  We're all fans, we can all hope for a '67 type year, but I don't see it happening.  Honestly, I'm still hoping to trade Ells, one catcher, and one of talented 3rd base prospects for some kind of an exciting package...what Tito called something "sexy."  Boom, you know I love you, but I don't care a whit for business reasons, the fan base, who women want to watch, etc. I want to win and I don't mind losing for a while if I can win more later, but I hate the thoughts of FO making decisions for ANY reasons other than winning.  Maybe this middle way is best.  If it works, I'll jump on the bandwagon like you won't believe, but I see about 80-85 wins now IF the starters are ok... 

In response to Critter23's comment:

At the expense of appearing to be a sychophant, I agree almost completely with Moon and especially with a comment he made a few pages back that what the RS needed this year was one great SP and one great regular player added to juice the lineup--something I've said since the season ended.  I also agree that what we've done is shot for safe mediocrity and saving draft choices.  I too will root like crazy for these guys and hope this strategey works but I would have preferred the strategy above or "tearing it down completely."  We're all fans, we can all hope for a '67 type year, but I don't see it happening.  Honestly, I'm still hoping to trade Ells, one catcher, and one of talented 3rd base prospects for some kind of an exciting package...what Tito called something "sexy."  Boom, you know I love you, but I don't care a whit for business reasons, the fan base, who women want to watch, etc. I want to win and I don't mind losing for a while if I can win more later, but I hate the thoughts of FO making decisions for ANY reasons other than winning.  Maybe this middle way is best.  If it works, I'll jump on the bandwagon like you won't believe, but I see about 80-85 wins now IF the starters are ok... 

The Sox obviously could have used a top of the rotation starter and I'm sure they tried to get one.  They offered Ellsbury in a deal for Cliff Lee, but Philly said they were keepping the big three together because they think they can win.  Who else was available?  James Shields?  Absolutely no chance Andrew Friedman would trade him within the division.  R.A. Dickey?  Do you think they should have traded two top prospects for a 38 year old knuckleballer?  They didn't, especially when they think Steven Wright is similar "talent wise."  Josh Johnson?  They were in on it, but it sounds like they didn't want to rebuild the clubhouse with Jose Reyes types and Johnson is only signed for one year.  The Blue Jays gave up quite a bit.  It was the right move for them, but probably not for the Sox.  Who else was available? 

In response to jasko2248's comment:

In response to Critter23's comment:

At the expense of appearing to be a sychophant, I agree almost completely with Moon and especially with a comment he made a few pages back that what the RS needed this year was one great SP and one great regular player added to juice the lineup--something I've said since the season ended.  I also agree that what we've done is shot for safe mediocrity and saving draft choices.  I too will root like crazy for these guys and hope this strategey works but I would have preferred the strategy above or "tearing it down completely."  We're all fans, we can all hope for a '67 type year, but I don't see it happening.  Honestly, I'm still hoping to trade Ells, one catcher, and one of talented 3rd base prospects for some kind of an exciting package...what Tito called something "sexy."  Boom, you know I love you, but I don't care a whit for business reasons, the fan base, who women want to watch, etc. I want to win and I don't mind losing for a while if I can win more later, but I hate the thoughts of FO making decisions for ANY reasons other than winning.  Maybe this middle way is best.  If it works, I'll jump on the bandwagon like you won't believe, but I see about 80-85 wins now IF the starters are ok... 

The Sox obviously could have used a top of the rotation starter and I'm sure they tried to get one.  They offered Ellsbury in a deal for Cliff Lee, but Philly said they were keepping the big three together because they think they can win.  Who else was available?  James Shields?  Absolutely no chance Andrew Friedman would trade him within the division.  R.A. Dickey?  Do you think they should have traded two top prospects for a 38 year old knuckleballer?  They didn't, especially when they think Steven Wright is similar "talent wise."  Josh Johnson?  They were in on it, but it sounds like they didn't want to rebuild the clubhouse with Jose Reyes types and Johnson is only signed for one year.  The Blue Jays gave up quite a bit.  It was the right move for them, but probably not for the Sox.  Who else was available? 

Nobody was trading their top pitchers and unless Stanton was made available, I dont see another "game changing" position player either. Its just not a great year for FA and available trading partners.

Id rather they field a comepetive team (which, IMO, they did), trade away the future to win now (like the Jays), go with a complete youth movement (although many prospects just arent ready yet).

IMO, this way they can stay competetive while keeping their prospects...

In response to southpaw777's comment:

In response to jasko2248's comment:

In response to Critter23's comment:

At the expense of appearing to be a sychophant, I agree almost completely with Moon and especially with a comment he made a few pages back that what the RS needed this year was one great SP and one great regular player added to juice the lineup--something I've said since the season ended.  I also agree that what we've done is shot for safe mediocrity and saving draft choices.  I too will root like crazy for these guys and hope this strategey works but I would have preferred the strategy above or "tearing it down completely."  We're all fans, we can all hope for a '67 type year, but I don't see it happening.  Honestly, I'm still hoping to trade Ells, one catcher, and one of talented 3rd base prospects for some kind of an exciting package...what Tito called something "sexy."  Boom, you know I love you, but I don't care a whit for business reasons, the fan base, who women want to watch, etc. I want to win and I don't mind losing for a while if I can win more later, but I hate the thoughts of FO making decisions for ANY reasons other than winning.  Maybe this middle way is best.  If it works, I'll jump on the bandwagon like you won't believe, but I see about 80-85 wins now IF the starters are ok... 

The Sox obviously could have used a top of the rotation starter and I'm sure they tried to get one.  They offered Ellsbury in a deal for Cliff Lee, but Philly said they were keepping the big three together because they think they can win.  Who else was available?  James Shields?  Absolutely no chance Andrew Friedman would trade him within the division.  R.A. Dickey?  Do you think they should have traded two top prospects for a 38 year old knuckleballer?  They didn't, especially when they think Steven Wright is similar "talent wise."  Josh Johnson?  They were in on it, but it sounds like they didn't want to rebuild the clubhouse with Jose Reyes types and Johnson is only signed for one year.  The Blue Jays gave up quite a bit.  It was the right move for them, but probably not for the Sox.  Who else was available? 

Nobody was trading their top pitchers and unless Stanton was made available, I dont see another "game changing" position player either. Its just not a great year for FA and available trading partners.

Id rather they field a comepetive team (which, IMO, they did), trade away the future to win now (like the Jays), go with a complete youth movement (although many prospects just arent ready yet).

IMO, this way they can stay competetive while keeping their prospects...

Agreed, Southpaw.  It's a very different landscape than it was a few years ago.  The Sox seem to be adjusting well.  This team definitely has enough talent to be competitive and the future is still intact.  You just can't "take a year off."  From a business stand point point it's illogical and I would love to see the reaction of the veteran players if they sold off a bunch of guys for prospects and signed a bunch of retreads to one year deals.  It's just not "realistic" at all to do something like that.

In response to jasko2248's comment:

In response to southpaw777's comment:

In response to jasko2248's comment:

In response to Critter23's comment:

At the expense of appearing to be a sychophant, I agree almost completely with Moon and especially with a comment he made a few pages back that what the RS needed this year was one great SP and one great regular player added to juice the lineup--something I've said since the season ended.  I also agree that what we've done is shot for safe mediocrity and saving draft choices.  I too will root like crazy for these guys and hope this strategey works but I would have preferred the strategy above or "tearing it down completely."  We're all fans, we can all hope for a '67 type year, but I don't see it happening.  Honestly, I'm still hoping to trade Ells, one catcher, and one of talented 3rd base prospects for some kind of an exciting package...what Tito called something "sexy."  Boom, you know I love you, but I don't care a whit for business reasons, the fan base, who women want to watch, etc. I want to win and I don't mind losing for a while if I can win more later, but I hate the thoughts of FO making decisions for ANY reasons other than winning.  Maybe this middle way is best.  If it works, I'll jump on the bandwagon like you won't believe, but I see about 80-85 wins now IF the starters are ok... 

The Sox obviously could have used a top of the rotation starter and I'm sure they tried to get one.  They offered Ellsbury in a deal for Cliff Lee, but Philly said they were keepping the big three together because they think they can win.  Who else was available?  James Shields?  Absolutely no chance Andrew Friedman would trade him within the division.  R.A. Dickey?  Do you think they should have traded two top prospects for a 38 year old knuckleballer?  They didn't, especially when they think Steven Wright is similar "talent wise."  Josh Johnson?  They were in on it, but it sounds like they didn't want to rebuild the clubhouse with Jose Reyes types and Johnson is only signed for one year.  The Blue Jays gave up quite a bit.  It was the right move for them, but probably not for the Sox.  Who else was available? 

Nobody was trading their top pitchers and unless Stanton was made available, I dont see another "game changing" position player either. Its just not a great year for FA and available trading partners.

Id rather they field a comepetive team (which, IMO, they did), trade away the future to win now (like the Jays), go with a complete youth movement (although many prospects just arent ready yet).

IMO, this way they can stay competetive while keeping their prospects...

Agreed, Southpaw.  It's a very different landscape than it was a few years ago.  The Sox seem to be adjusting well.  This team definitely has enough talent to be competitive and the future is still intact.  You just can't "take a year off."  From a business stand point point it's illogical and I would love to see the reaction of the veteran players if they sold off a bunch of guys for prospects and signed a bunch of retreads to one year deals.  It's just not "realistic" at all to do something like that.

**COUGH*COUGH**Stanton in Miami**COUGH*COUGH

i was referring to this part of your post:

"I would love to see the reaction of the veteran players if they sold off a bunch of guys for prospects and signed a bunch of retreads to one year deals."

Seems a lot like Stantons position in Miami

I can certainly understand why you feel that way.  But I think we need to understand that it's not realistic to expect FO's to make all their decisions based on it helping or not helping the team win.  These baseball franchises are not just businesses, they're businesses with revenues and market values in the hundreds of millions of dollars.  The Red Sox are a baseball team but they're also an entertainment product.  This is just reality, and what's the point of trying to deny it?

I totally get the need to appear competitive to keep the fans and NESN viewership, but I still maintain we could have put together teams that were just as exciting to the fans as the one we have now, but also been better set up for 2014 abd beyond.

Although my idea was not to sign big named FAs from a weak FA market, after watching us spend so much cash this winter, I can't help but think we'd have drawn more fans had we signed Hamilton and A Sanchez, been better in 2013, and 2014-2017 as well. We would not lose a first round draft pick due to our position in the draft this year...

Looking at a per year cost.

Hamilton $25M x 5

A Sanchez $16M x 5

Naps         $5M x 1

Uehara     $4.25M x 1

D Ross      $3.1M x 2

Total: $53M in 2013 ($41M in 2014, 2015, 2016 & 2017)  $220M total

Broken down to avg per year...

Dempster $13.25M x 2

Victorinio $13M x 3

S Drew    $9.5M x 1

Naps        $5M x 1 (+ incentive bonus)

Gomes    $5M x 2

Uehara    $4.25M x 1

D Ross     $3.1M x 2

$53.1M in 2013 (not counting Naps bonus)

$34.35M in 2014

$13M in 2015

Total:  $100+ M

I realize the longer term risk is something we are trying to avoid, but 5 years is not like the 7 of CC and AGon, and both Hamilton and Sanchez rate to still be contributing significantly by years 4 & 5.

Again, this is not something I would have wanted Ben to do, but if we were going to add $53+M a year to the team, I'd have prefered this plan.

1) Ellsbury  CF

2) Pedroia  2B

3) Ortiz       DH

4) Hamilton RF

5) Napoli     1B

6) Middlebr 3B

7) Salty/Ross C

8) Gomes/Nava LF (Kalish)

9) Iggy/Holt/Ciriaco SS

SP1 A Sanchez

SP2 Lester

SP3 Buchholtz

SP4 Lackey

SP5 Doubront

SP6 Tazawa

CLR Hanrahan

RP Bailey

RP Uehara

RP Aceves

RP Breslow

RP Morales/de la Rosa/Webster/Wright

RP Miller/Mortensen/Bard/Carpenter/Beato/Wilson