A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to 808soxfan's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    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

     




    Hi Moon. A minor point, but you have Gomes in both scenarios, so you would have to "up" your Hamilton/Sanchez scenario by $5M in 2013 and 2014 to get your line-up at the bottom. Still, I do not dispute that your line-up and rotation would have been better, and something that I would have wanted to see as well.

     



    Yes, the longterm risk was greater, but we kept all the kids, lost no top draft picks, and made oursleves better now and over the next 4 years.

    The chance that Hamilton or Sanchez break down or decline steaply would have been real, but I think both would still be helping us in 2017, but agree that Hamilton would likely not be playing near a $25M rate. Sanchez would still be near prime.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Moon, it seems to me we can start making out lineup cards. I volunteer you!

    If you can. I am busy as heck right now. A very quick listing is below:

    Against RH starters

    Ellsbury

    Pedroia

    Ortiz

    Napoli

    Middlebrooks

    Nava

    Drew

    Salty

    Victorino

     

    Against LH pitchers

    Victorino

    Pedroia

    Ellsbury

    Napoli

    Ortiz

    Middlebrooks

    Gomes

    Drew

    Ross

     

    I doubt if they move these guys around so overtly but these are not horrible lineups if we have a guy or 2 have a hot year. This should be a top 3 or 4 offense in the league.

     

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Have to stop with the coulda woulda stuff. Just because the Angels could sign Hamilton to that contract doesn't mean RS could have? How do we know he would want to play in Boston, not exactly a LH power hitters dream park. I would have loved to see RS make a big move or bring in a big name to Boston. But it wasn't in the cards. IMO RS did right thing by staying away from Hamilton / Greinke / Sanchez, they all had huge question marks and at that kind of $ not the proper moves. In off season 08 Yanks coming off missing playoffs were able to sign CC / Tex / Burnett and led to WS Championship in 09, they were lucky that those type of players were available that offseason. But for RS to dump a ton of $ into players with huge ?'s in not a smart baseball move. You watch the Greinke deal will become one of the worst signings in the history of baseball, just my opinion. While I like Sanchez with his history of elbow and shoulder injuries make a long term signing seem like playing Russian Roulette. Will Hamilton stay clean for 5 more years at the 30+ years of his career, when he's already had a few misses the past couple of yrs? Not a good sign in my opinion. Ben did right by the short term deals for good character players that will help in developing the young talent that is on the way, and will also allow RS to go after a top FA if available in 13 or 14 offseasons. But w/ Dodgers out there and Yanks will be spending big following 14, getting a top FA is going to be very difficult in the not to distant future or will have to pay incredible $'s to acquire.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to garyhow's comment:

    Have to stop with the coulda woulda stuff. Just because the Angels could sign Hamilton to that contract doesn't mean RS could have? How do we know he would want to play in Boston, not exactly a LH power hitters dream park. I would have loved to see RS make a big move or bring in a big name to Boston. But it wasn't in the cards. IMO RS did right thing by staying away from Hamilton / Greinke / Sanchez, they all had huge question marks and at that kind of $ not the proper moves. In off season 08 Yanks coming off missing playoffs were able to sign CC / Tex / Burnett and led to WS Championship in 09, they were lucky that those type of players were available that offseason. But for RS to dump a ton of $ into players with huge ?'s in not a smart baseball move. You watch the Greinke deal will become one of the worst signings in the history of baseball, just my opinion. While I like Sanchez with his history of elbow and shoulder injuries make a long term signing seem like playing Russian Roulette. Will Hamilton stay clean for 5 more years at the 30+ years of his career, when he's already had a few misses the past couple of yrs? Not a good sign in my opinion. Ben did right by the short term deals for good character players that will help in developing the young talent that is on the way, and will also allow RS to go after a top FA if available in 13 or 14 offseasons. But w/ Dodgers out there and Yanks will be spending big following 14, getting a top FA is going to be very difficult in the not to distant future or will have to pay incredible $'s to acquire.




    Im willing to bet that Sanchez wasnt even considering Boston. Just like Grienke probably wasnt either. The will compete with the team they have and be able to see their prospects develop another year.

    To guarentee they would be a better team with Hammy and Sanchez is unrealistic. Boston shouldve been better with Gonzo, CC and lackey, but werent. Its NOT just about the names and the stats. Its about the players' personally, if they are a good fit and the direction the team is headed also.

     
  5. 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:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

    [QUOTE]

    That seems like it should work.  But recent history shows that it can backfire in a big way.  Our acquisitions of Lackey, AGon and Crawford put us in considerably worse shape than we were.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Have to stop with the coulda woulda stuff.

    Why? I enjoy this tuff.

    Just because the Angels could sign Hamilton to that contract doesn't mean RS could have?

    No, it doesn't, but that shouldn't end the discussion.

    How do we know he would want to play in Boston, not exactly a LH power hitters dream park.

    We don't, but that shouldn't end the discussion. (Ask lefty Papi if he'd rather have played in another park.)

    I would have loved to see RS make a big move or bring in a big name to Boston. But it wasn't in the cards.

    And, I'm arguing we played the wrong cards.

    IMO RS did right thing by staying away from Hamilton / Greinke / Sanchez, they all had huge question marks and at that kind of $ not the proper moves.

    I respect you opinion, but disagree.

    In off season 08 Yanks coming off missing playoffs were able to sign CC / Tex / Burnett and led to WS Championship in 09, they were lucky that those type of players were available that offseason. But for RS to dump a ton of $ into players with huge ?'s in not a smart baseball move.

    Well signing mediocre players to over $53M this year alone is not smart either.

    You watch the Greinke deal will become one of the worst signings in the history of baseball, just my opinion.

    I agree. I did not want Greinke. (I'd still take him over Dempster and Drew)

    While I like Sanchez with his history of elbow and shoulder injuries make a long term signing seem like playing Russian Roulette.

    5 years is not that long. He has had over 190 IP for 3 straight years. He is about as young as Buch and Lester. 

    Will Hamilton stay clean for 5 more years at the 30+ years of his career, when he's already had a few misses the past couple of yrs?

    All moves are gambles.

    Not a good sign in my opinion. Ben did right by the short term deals for good character players that will help in developing the young talent that is on the way, and will also allow RS to go after a top FA if available in 13 or 14 offseasons.

    Developing players are on the farm. These gusy are not going to "help" them in anyway, shape or form, except that they are not good enough to block them- hardly a ringing endorsement, is it?

    But w/ Dodgers out there and Yanks will be spending big following 14, getting a top FA is going to be very difficult in the not to distant future or will have to pay incredible $'s to acquire.

    One more reason why we should have gotten at least one of Sanchez (my choice) or Hamilton. We have had to gaping holes in our team for years now: an ace-type starter and a power bat. We spent over $53M for 2013 on FAs and got neither. That's the bottom line.

     
  7. 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:

     

    One more reason why we should have gotten at least one of Sanchez (my choice) or Hamilton. We have had to gaping holes in our team for years now: an ace-type starter and a power bat. We spent over $53M for 2013 on FAs and got neither. That's the bottom line.

     



    I agree about not having an ace-type starter for years.  But we've had the power bats.  And Napoli could be another power bat.

     

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Moon,

    You keep saying the Sox would have been better off signing Hamilton or Sanchez, which is your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but you make it sound like they absolutely "could have" signed one of these guys.  Let's look at both:

    Josh Hamilton - 5 yrs./125 million with the Angels

     Do you seriously think the Sox would have considered giving 100 plus million to a guy who has some serious off the field demons, a guy who admittedly has "lapses in concentration" on the field, a guy who's former team didn't have much interest in retaining him, despite his tremendous talent, and a guy who is going to be 32 years old in a few months?!?!.  This doesn't sound like a player who would thrive in Boston, it sounds like a player who would struggle to "survive" in Boston.  A team that is desperately trying to rebuild it's image should probably avoid these types of signings.  The Angels G.M. didn't want to give him this deal either, but Artie Moreno stepped in because he lost Greinke and he wanted a splash.  Yeah, that usually works out well.  By the way, there is absolutely no guarantee that they would be a better team with him than they will be with the players they signed, either.  There's also the very real possibility that he didn't want to play in Boston.  He certainly doesn't fit the profile. I don't think Hamilton was a "realistic" possibility at all....

    Anibal Sanchez - 5 yrs/80 million - Detroit Tigers (His current team)

    - How much were you willing to spend on Sanchez?  He re-signed with his current team, a team that is loaded, a team that made it to the World Series and looks to be better, at least on paper.  He also turned down more money from at least one other team to stay in Detroit.  There was no way the Sox were going to give Sanchez 100 plus million, and I'm pretty sure they have learned that it's never a good idea to overpay for a guy who would rather be somewhere else.  Also, are you sure that the Tigers wouldn't have gone higher?  The Ilitch family is loaded, so again, how much would you have been willing to spend on Sanchez?  You keep saying that the Sox "picked the worst free-agent year to make a lot of signings," yet you pan them for not signing one of the highest paid players in a "bad free agent crop."  How does this make sense? 

    You can either continue to debate that the Sox "should have signed" two guys that didn't seem to be "realistic" options at all, or you can move on.  I won't try to explain this to you again, either way...

     

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    As jasko says, when you figure how much the Sox would have had to pay for Hamilton or Sanchez, you have to figure they would have been in a bidding war and adjust the numbers accordingly.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Im not understanding why, if healthy and play to their abilities, this team cant compete and maybe even surprise a few...Its like some here believe this team resembles the Astros or something.

    Theres a lot of talent on this team.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    Im not understanding why, if healthy and play to their abilities, this team cant compete and maybe even surprise a few...Its like some here believe this team resembles the Astros or something.

    Theres a lot of talent on this team.



    Sure there is.  It's all going to rest on the starting pitching. 

     
  12. 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:

     

    One more reason why we should have gotten at least one of Sanchez (my choice) or Hamilton. We have had to gaping holes in our team for years now: an ace-type starter and a power bat. We spent over $53M for 2013 on FAs and got neither. That's the bottom line.

     



    I agree about not having an ace-type starter for years.  But we've had the power bats.  And Napoli could be another power bat.

     



    We have had some decent power around Papi, but not really a bonafide 3/4 slot profile. Jason Bay put up some great numbers, but batting 4th he was at .811.

    Naps can hit for power as can Middlebrooks and others, but I just don't see our middle order as that scary.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Moon,

    You keep saying the Sox would have been better off signing Hamilton or Sanchez, which is your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but you make it sound like they absolutely "could have" signed one of these guys.  Let's look at both:

    I realize either of them or both might not have wanted to play here, and I'm not sure what Ben offered these two, but I never heard anywhere that he outbid the teams that got these 2. Also, remember, I was not for signing either of these two, but have said that even this plan was better than Ben's halway plan.

    Josh Hamilton - 5 yrs./125 million with the Angels

     Do you seriously think the Sox would have considered giving 100 plus million to a guy who has some serious off the field demons, a guy who admittedly has "lapses in concentration" on the field, a guy who's former team didn't have much interest in retaining him, despite his tremendous talent, and a guy who is going to be 32 years old in a few months?!?!.  This doesn't sound like a player who would thrive in Boston, it sounds like a player who would struggle to "survive" in Boston.  A team that is desperately trying to rebuild it's image should probably avoid these types of signings.  The Angels G.M. didn't want to give him this deal either, but Artie Moreno stepped in because he lost Greinke and he wanted a splash.  Yeah, that usually works out well.  By the way, there is absolutely no guarantee that they would be a better team with him than they will be with the players they signed, either.  There's also the very real possibility that he didn't want to play in Boston.  He certainly doesn't fit the profile. I don't think Hamilton was a "realistic" possibility at all....

    Obviously, you are right: I can not see Ben giving this guy a deal better than what he got. I'm not arguing that. I understand why he didn't, and the reasons are included in your summary of the risks. Howver, that does not stop me from believing that we'd be better of now and for the next 5 years with Hamilton and Sanchez at $41M a year than some combinations of FAs we signed at that cost. I know the longer terms make it a much higher risk, but Ben is risking the guys he signed will do fine, and the next guys he signs to shorter term deals will as well, and so on...

    Anibal Sanchez - 5 yrs/80 million - Detroit Tigers (His current team)

    - How much were you willing to spend on Sanchez?  He re-signed with his current team, a team that is loaded, a team that made it to the World Series and looks to be better, at least on paper.  He also turned down more money from at least one other team to stay in Detroit.  There was no way the Sox were going to give Sanchez 100 plus million, and I'm pretty sure they have learned that it's never a good idea to overpay for a guy who would rather be somewhere else.  Also, are you sure that the Tigers wouldn't have gone higher?  The Ilitch family is loaded, so again, how much would you have been willing to spend on Sanchez?  You keep saying that the Sox "picked the worst free-agent year to make a lot of signings," yet you pan them for not signing one of the highest paid players in a "bad free agent crop."  How does this make sense? 

    No, I keep saying I wouldn't have signed any of these big names or most of the guys we signed, but rather, I'd have signed guys like B mcCarthy, A Pagan, and maybe Marcum, and then traded to get young talent under team contro9l for 3+ years (like at least one of Myers, B Anderson, Upton, Stanton...). I have never said I wanted to sign many FAs in the weakest FA class I can remember.

    I have repeated my position, but continue to be misunderstood. Again, I'll say it: I never wanted any of the big FAs in this weak class, but after watching Ben spend over $50M a year on mediocre players, I think I'd rather have signed Hamilton and/or Sanchez (if just 1, I'd have gone after Sanchez). Both plans are bad, but getting at least one guy who will help us going beyond 2013 and 2014 would have been ebtter than nobody. 

    Also, I am not arguing that I am sure we could have gotten Sanchez, but I get the feeling we never tried that hard. Player sometimes sign with the teams that jump out of the gates and show excitement and enthusiasm for wanting them. I don't know, maybe $83M/5 or $95M/6 might have gotten him here. I'd have felt a lot better had we at least tried, as opposed to what we ended up settling on.

     

    You can either continue to debate that the Sox "should have signed" two guys that didn't seem to be "realistic" options at all, or you can move on.  I won't try to explain this to you again, either way...

    You don't need to explain it again. I've heard it dozens of times and understand your points. They are valid, but this is a discussion board  that to me, is mostly about discussing just such alternative scenarios.

    I never totaslly believe what I see written, and you sometimes can't even believe what you hear a player or agent say, like "I only want to play on the west coast". Perhaps you are right: there is no way Hamilton or Sanchez would have ever signed with Boston. I guess I could qualify every statement I make with something like this, "I realize it might not be realistic to think these guys would sign with a bad team like the Sox who play in a rough media/fan fishbowl, but I like to think that we'd have been better if they had agreed to play here and that Ben wanted them enough to play here. Would that have made my point any clearer?

    As for "moving on", I'm not all hung up on what happened. I have my beliefs and baseball philosophies that I realize are sometimes vastly different from Ben's or Theo's or whoever is the power broker of the Sox. I do not mean to put Ben down or judge him when I state that I'd do something differently, but I can see how it can be taken that way. I never pretend to be smarter than our GM, and I have said Ben deserves a chance to see if this plan works. I'm going to watch every picth of every game again this year. That, to me, is "moving on".

     

     
  14. 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:

    As jasko says, when you figure how much the Sox would have had to pay for Hamilton or Sanchez, you have to figure they would have been in a bidding war and adjust the numbers accordingly.



    1) I'd have been upset with Ben had he signed Hamilton and Sanchez... just not as upset as what he ended up doing.

    2) If I knew Ben had made a serious push for these two before settling on what he settled on, I'd feel better about this winter.

    3) My number 1 plan was to only make moves that made us better in 2014, 2015 and/or beyond. I still do not see any of the signings as doing that to any significant extent. We did not fill our two biggest needs, even though we spent $53M on this year along. That is unjustifiable in my eyes. The fact that we kept all our kids and draft choices is all well and good, but those are non-moves. I'm talking about moves we could have made to improve our chances in 2014 and 2015 and beyond. We got close to zilch there too.

     
  15. 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 southpaw777's comment:

     

    Im not understanding why, if healthy and play to their abilities, this team cant compete and maybe even surprise a few...Its like some here believe this team resembles the Astros or something.

    Theres a lot of talent on this team.

     



    Sure there is.  It's all going to rest on the starting pitching. 

     



    ...And, do you honestly think Dempster and Uehara are going to replace the odd year of Beckett and make that much of a difference?

    There are just way too many "ifs" to realistically think we can win a ring. At best, we may squeek into a wildcard, if everthing goes right, and many things go wrong on other top teams.

     
  16. 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 Hfxsoxnut's comment:

     

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

     

    Im not understanding why, if healthy and play to their abilities, this team cant compete and maybe even surprise a few...Its like some here believe this team resembles the Astros or something.

    Theres a lot of talent on this team.

     



    Sure there is.  It's all going to rest on the starting pitching. 

     

     



    ...And, do you honestly think Dempster and Uehara are going to replace the odd year of Beckett and make that much of a difference?

     

    There are just way too many "ifs" to realistically think we can win a ring. At best, we may squeek into a wildcard, if everthing goes right, and many things go wrong on other top teams.




    I think not having Beckett around that clubhouse is going to help out a lot. Especially with Lester. Uehara is a solid reliever with good splits, but Im not sure why you compared a reliever with a starter.

    If Buch and lester regain their 2010 form (which is VERY possible), Add Doubie improving on last year (yeah, I know. Your not his biggest fan) and If we can get 20-25 wins from our 4-5, which again is very possible, I dont think Beckett will be missed at all. The bullpen looks to be one of the better ones in the league and shouldsave a few wins for our starters. More than last year IMO.

    There was NO front line starter available that wanted to come here Moon. Sanchez wanted to stay put. Fact. and grienke? just...no. Who else was there to get without overpaying with prospects?

    Bc fielded a competetive team like he said he would. He kept the prospects like he said he would. he didnt sign any long term deals like he said. Because Ben knew he would have to dive into FA more than usual this year to keep his plan in tact, he said we would still have a large payroll and we do.

    I think a lot will have to do with the SP. Personally, I believe Farrell will be good for Buch and Lester. As well as Bard. I guess we'll just have to wait to see how the SP actually does.I, for one, believe in them.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    To alter the focus on the discussion at hand, can we think back to the post LA trade for a minute.  My perception of the discussion at that time, the discussion that continued for weeks, was that this was a huge opportunity to rebuild our team for the future and get away from mistakes (already well documented like long term contracts for the wrong people...) and get a fresh start.  My impression was that it was almost universal, poster by poster, agreed that the number one task, the first priority, had to be rebuilding the pitching staff, especially the starters.  I can't remember one poster who said, "No, there's something else we need to do first..."  So is there anyone here who at this moment thinks our starters are better right now than they were last year because I don't.   I think they might do better in performance if we're in luck, but I don't think we're better.  Relievers, yes.  Now, does anyone think our starters are better than NY, Detroit, Tampa, Baltimore, Texas?  I don't.  So my point is I don't think we accomplished what people on this site and baseball people said was our number one objective so consequently I don't see how we make the playoffs.  Hoping we do.  Hoping the manager can make a huge difference.  Hoping all these guys have huge years at once.  But not really believing.  I don't say this because I want to be negative, but because I've been absolutely flabbergasted that what most people who seem to know baseball pretty well say the RS had to do--it didn't get done. 

     

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    I think not having Beckett around that clubhouse is going to help out a lot. Especially with Lester. Uehara is a solid reliever with good splits, but Im not sure why you compared a reliever with a starter.

     

    I never bought into all that clubhouse cancer talk, and besides beer in the clubhouse is abaseball tradition.

    If Buch and lester regain their 2010 form (which is VERY possible), Add Doubie improving on last year (yeah, I know. Your not his biggest fan) and If we can get 20-25 wins from our 4-5, which again is very possible, I dont think Beckett will be missed at all. The bullpen looks to be one of the better ones in the league and shouldsave a few wins for our starters. More than last year IMO.

    If, if, if. I was saying the same thing last year, and in 2011, and in 201o, and... It's time to wake up and smell the coffee. Our starters are not likely to go from an over 5.00 ERA to under 3.90 by replacing one of our best ERA guys with Dempster.

    There was NO front line starter available that wanted to come here Moon. Sanchez wanted to stay put. Fact. and grienke? just...no. Who else was there to get without overpaying with prospects?

    There is no evidence to say Sanchez would or would not have accepted $83M/5 from us. Also, trading prospects for solid starters got us Pedro, Schill, and Beckett and 2 rings. Never say never, but I do realize any trade would have been a gamble. (I still wish we had traded for Gio G last winter.)

    Bc fielded a competetive team like he said he would. He kept the prospects like he said he would. he didnt sign any long term deals like he said. Because Ben knew he would have to dive into FA more than usual this year to keep his plan in tact, he said we would still have a large payroll and we do.

    A plan of mediocrity (IMO) is not "a plan".

    I think a lot will have to do with the SP. Personally, I believe Farrell will be good for Buch and Lester. As well as Bard. I guess we'll just have to wait to see how the SP actually does.I, for one, believe in them.

    I think Farrell will help, D Ross and improved Salty will help, No Lava at catcher will help, and Lester and Buch should improve. I do not see Dempster as a plus over Beckett, and to me, Doubront is a 50-50 guess. I do like Taz as a starter, but am not sure he will be used that way. Morales or de la Rosa may be the sleeper. We should be better than 2012, but better than near worst is how good?

    I liked our staff on paper at this time last year more than now.

     
  19. 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:

    I think not having Beckett around that clubhouse is going to help out a lot. Especially with Lester. Uehara is a solid reliever with good splits, but Im not sure why you compared a reliever with a starter.

     

    I never bought into all that clubhouse cancer talk, and besides beer in the clubhouse is abaseball tradition.

    His attitude was horrible and some of his bad habits on the mound rubbed off on Lester and even Doubie.

    If Buch and lester regain their 2010 form (which is VERY possible), Add Doubie improving on last year (yeah, I know. Your not his biggest fan) and If we can get 20-25 wins from our 4-5, which again is very possible, I dont think Beckett will be missed at all. The bullpen looks to be one of the better ones in the league and shouldsave a few wins for our starters. More than last year IMO.

    If, if, if. I was saying the same thing last year, and in 2011, and in 201o, and... It's time to wake up and smell the coffee. Our starters are not likely to go from an over 5.00 ERA to under 3.90 by replacing one of our best ERA guys with Dempster.

    There was NO front line starter available that wanted to come here Moon. Sanchez wanted to stay put. Fact. and grienke? just...no. Who else was there to get without overpaying with prospects?

    There is no evidence to say Sanchez would or would not have accepted $83M/5 from us. Also, trading prospects for solid starters got us Pedro, Schill, and Beckett and 2 rings. Never say never, but I do realize any trade would have been a gamble. (I still wish we had traded for Gio G last winter.)


    Sanchez was offered more by another team and still chose Detroit. If the Sox offered closer to 100M then maybe hed consider. But have to remember, the Tigers owners also have deep pockets too and you have to ask yourself if Sanchez was worth 80M, never mind the close to 100M it probably wouldve taken to even get him to listen.

    Bc fielded a competetive team like he said he would. He kept the prospects like he said he would. he didnt sign any long term deals like he said. Because Ben knew he would have to dive into FA more than usual this year to keep his plan in tact, he said we would still have a large payroll and we do.

    A plan of mediocrity (IMO) is not "a plan".

    Its more than a 1 year plan Moon and Id hardly call this lineup mediocre. Once again, it wasnt a strong FA class and BC wasnt going to trade the farm for guys like Upton. Teams are locking up their own talent through their arb years and buying out some FA years as well more and more these days. The days of getting top FA in their prime are becoming far and few between. Developing our own talent is the way to go IMO.

    I think a lot will have to do with the SP. Personally, I believe Farrell will be good for Buch and Lester. As well as Bard. I guess we'll just have to wait to see how the SP actually does.I, for one, believe in them.

    I think Farrell will help, D Ross and improved Salty will help, No Lava at catcher will help, and Lester and Buch should improve. I do not see Dempster as a plus over Beckett, and to me, Doubront is a 50-50 guess. I do like Taz as a starter, but am not sure he will be used that way. Morales or de la Rosa may be the sleeper. We should be better than 2012, but better than near worst is how good?

    I liked our staff on paper at this time last year more than now.

    I agree with most of this except your Doubie assessment. I think he will take a step forward. Without as many injuries and all the chaos like last year, Farrell bringing a sense of familiarity and stability to the players, especially the SP, This team has a good chance to be in the post season.




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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    To alter the focus on the discussion at hand, can we think back to the post LA trade for a minute.  My perception of the discussion at that time, the discussion that continued for weeks, was that this was a huge opportunity to rebuild our team for the future and get away from mistakes (already well documented like long term contracts for the wrong people...) and get a fresh start.  My impression was that it was almost universal, poster by poster, agreed that the number one task, the first priority, had to be rebuilding the pitching staff, especially the starters.  I can't remember one poster who said, "No, there's something else we need to do first..."  So is there anyone here who at this moment thinks our starters are better right now than they were last year because I don't.   I think they might do better in performance if we're in luck, but I don't think we're better.  Relievers, yes.  Now, does anyone think our starters are better than NY, Detroit, Tampa, Baltimore, Texas?  I don't.  So my point is I don't think we accomplished what people on this site and baseball people said was our number one objective so consequently I don't see how we make the playoffs.  Hoping we do.  Hoping the manager can make a huge difference.  Hoping all these guys have huge years at once.  But not really believing.  I don't say this because I want to be negative, but because I've been absolutely flabbergasted that what most people who seem to know baseball pretty well say the RS had to do--it didn't get done. 

    Well said, Critt.

    I was tickled pink when we made the Dodger trade. I called it "perhaps, the best deal the Sox have ever made". Maybe I got my hopes up too much then, but I am sticking to my position that I have held for years and years now: we need to address our rotation from the top. We have for a long time. We had $50+M to spend this winter and spent it. We have one of the top farm systems in MLB. We used neither to upgrade the rotation. Our second priority was to find someone to be a solid #3/4 type hitter in our line-up. Not only would that partially fill the hole that was left when Manny lewft, but moving everyone else down one notch in the line-up would have greatly improved our offense.

    As you so simply put it, "it did not get done."

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    I never bought into all that clubhouse cancer talk, and besides beer in the clubhouse is abaseball tradition.

    His attitude was horrible and some of his bad habits on the mound rubbed off on Lester and even Doubie.

     


    I seriously doubt that Lester and Doubie were adversly effected by Josh and others having some beers in the clubhouse.

     

     

    There is no evidence to say Sanchez would or would not have accepted $83M/5 from us. Also, trading prospects for solid starters got us Pedro, Schill, and Beckett and 2 rings. Never say never, but I do realize any trade would have been a gamble. (I still wish we had traded for Gio G last winter.)


    Sanchez was offered more by another team and still chose Detroit. If the Sox offered closer to 100M then maybe hed consider. But have to remember, the Tigers owners also have deep pockets too and you have to ask yourself if Sanchez was worth 80M, never mind the close to 100M it probably wouldve taken to even get him to listen.

     


    1) This is all heresay.

    2) I have said that I know we might not have gotten Sanchez, but that what bothers me most is that we seem to have not even tried very hard. If we had offered him $95M/6, and then Detroit countered with $100M/6, I wouldn't be here right now being so critical.

    3) I saw no evidence to show that Ben really tried hard to get an ace-type starter. He may have tried, and we never heard of it, so I am not blasting Ben like many here are. I am just giving my opinion on what plans I think were better than what plan we ended up with.

     

     

    A plan of mediocrity (IMO) is not "a plan".

    Its more than a 1 year plan Moon and Id hardly call this lineup mediocre. Once again, it wasnt a strong FA class and BC wasnt going to trade the farm for guys like Upton. Teams are locking up their own talent through their arb years and buying out some FA years as well more and more these days. The days of getting top FA in their prime are becoming far and few between. Developing our own talent is the way to go IMO.'

     


    I guess you can call Shane Victorino a 3 year plan, but I really don't see him as being much better than mediocre in 2014 & 2015. I realize that keeping the kids is part of the plan, and I don't necessarily disagree with that part of the plan.

    There were some younger Free Agents available, and yes, a guy like B McCarthy was a serious risk having not pitched 200+ innings, but he was young and relatively cheap. I know the talk was that he wanted to stay out west, but I have to believe $23-25M/3 would have brought him to Boston. He might have been a bust, but at least it would have been an attempt to have players that are on the upswing going into 2014/2015 than clinging to the last years of their prime at best (and not that great to begin with).

    As I said, my top plan was to build for the future not to go all out this year. I'd have been fine with not trading any prospects to work towards that goal, unless we could get a great young player with many years of control in return (I'm not talking Upton here), but this plan only makes sense if the rest of the plan matches up with it, namely the signing of over $50M worth of contracts for 2013 alone. I'm sorry, but I just don't see any of our signings as helping us that much in 2014, let alone 2015. The only argument I have heard is that they will all be gone when the kids are ready. That's not a "plan for the future". I've also heard hints that these guys aren't good enough to block any of our kids. I know you have not said this, but I have heard hints at this idea.

    $53+M could have got us something of value going forward.

    We do have a nice offensive team this year. I have never said otherwise. I never hinted that our offense was mediocre, but I will say that I liked our offense on paper last January more than this one, so I'm not all gah gah today. I still think we are a solid 3/4 profile away from being an elite offense, but the real fact remains is that we will need an elite offense to even have a chance at advancing to a ring due to our starting rotation issues. 

    We did not fill our two biggest needs, but we spent over $50M this year. I can't say it any simpler than that. We kept the kids, and I'm happy for that at least. But, to me, that's the only thing this winter that resembles a "plan for the future". Short term contracts will have to be replaced with more short term contracts. I wouldn't call that "plan for the future".

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    I think we all wanted a top starter right! The problem was that we would have to trade half the team to get Verlander, Kershaw or Felix. It's just extremely difficult to obtain any kind of #1 option. Look at recent FA signings and trades for #1 type pitchers. It's extremely difficult and unrealistic. 

    McCarthy has been a nobody for 6 or 7 years now, until last year in Oakland. I'm sorry. I'm not buying that deal. I haven't looked up his recent numbers but he was less than average for many years. His stuff is not outstanding. I think obtaining guys like De La Rosa gives us at least a shot at developing a #1. Guys like Webster and Barnes and Owens give us a shot at #2 types. I think we are doing exactly what we should be doing. If one of those guys becomes a top starter we are looking at 5-6 years of control, and a potential game change situation for this team.

    We have like 4 guys who are potential # 2 guys and I think Buchholz still has #1 level stuff potentially. It's unlikely that we have that sort of result but Lackey, Lester, Buchholz, Dempster, Morales, De La Rosa is a decent 1-6. And we still have all of our major prospects on the farm and all of our draft picks. 

    Call me Pollyanna. I'm happy. Regarding the lineup. There are few studs but 1-9 might end up pretty decent. We have decent right and left side options. Overall, I think we had a great winter. I really do. We are still under the luxury tax limit by around $9 mil. We are on target for a decent season. If the pitching comes through we have a real shot.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Remember who was Pollyanna this winter OK. It's not as bad as you guys think.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    I think we all wanted a top starter right! The problem was that we would have to trade half the team to get Verlander, Kershaw or Felix. It's just extremely difficult to obtain any kind of #1 option. Look at recent FA signings and trades for #1 type pitchers. It's extremely difficult and unrealistic. 

    Boom, getting a good solid #2 would have been much better than Dempster.

    McCarthy has been a nobody for 6 or 7 years now, until last year in Oakland. I'm sorry. I'm not buying that deal. I haven't looked up his recent numbers but he was less than average for many years. His stuff is not outstanding. I think obtaining guys like De La Rosa gives us at least a shot at developing a #1. Guys like Webster and Barnes and Owens give us a shot at #2 types. I think we are doing exactly what we should be doing. If one of those guys becomes a top starter we are looking at 5-6 years of control, and a potential game change situation for this team.

    You may be right about McCarthy, but who do you think has a better chance of helping the Sox in 2014 and 2015: Dempster at $25.5M/2 or Mccarthy at $26.5M/3. Seeing that Dempster won't even be here in 2015, I think the answer is obvious.

    We have like 4 guys who are potential # 2 guys and I think Buchholz still has #1 level stuff potentially. It's unlikely that we have that sort of result but Lackey, Lester, Buchholz, Dempster, Morales, De La Rosa is a decent 1-6. And we still have all of our major prospects on the farm and all of our draft picks. 

    Call me Pollyanna. I'm happy. Regarding the lineup. There are few studs but 1-9 might end up pretty decent. We have decent right and left side options. Overall, I think we had a great winter. I really do. We are still under the luxury tax limit by around $9 mil. We are on target for a decent season. If the pitching comes through we have a real shot.

    Who bats vs RHPs in LF and RF? Look up their recent numbers. 

    I like our offense, and I hope we get more timely hitting this year.

    Our rotation is no better. 

    Teams have won with worse rotations on paper at this time of year, so I am not giving up, but I've just about run out of hope after the last few years plus what I see as a near total waste of money this winter.

     
  25. 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:

    Remember who was Pollyanna this winter OK. It's not as bad as you guys think.



    Although I have said we need a starting pitcher for years, I have consistently over-projected our win total for 3 straight years. On paper, I just don't see us being any better than we looked last winter or the ones before that either.

     

Share