A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    Yes I agree a LOT has to go right this year and we've been accustomed to more going wrong.  We know some things will go right and some will go wrong, but if more goes right than wrong then we may be a trade or two away at the deadline to compete for a playoff spot (with 2 wild cards now). I hate to admit it but I see that scenario unlikely, however I don't see it very unlikely either.  Regardless I'm Preparing myself for one of those seasons when all we can here for is "personal accomplishments

     

    There's a lot I want to see this year. I will enjoy it.

    It might be curious to see what Ben does if we are 13 out at the trade deadline.

    Or, 2 out.

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    Thank goodness there are now five playoff spots in each league.  Up to 1993, only the first place teams from each division (only two divisions in each league) went to the playoffs.  So despite winning 102 games, the 1993 SF Giants did not make the playoffs. 

     

     

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to Ice-Cream's comment:

    Thank goodness there are now five playoff spots in each league.  Up to 1993, only the first place teams from each division (only two divisions in each league) went to the playoffs.  So despite winning 102 games, the 1993 SF Giants did not make the playoffs. 

     

     



    We may need 8 teams to make the playoffs from each league to make it this year.

    ;)

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    We are in a new reality and I just don't think that has sunk in yet maybe for any of us. More playoff spots available. A more competitive landscape top to bottom. Fewer overslot signings. Major changes in free agency. Limits on international signings. Draft changes. A lot of Ben's decisions are probably influenced by changes like these guys. As well they should be.

    Do we tank the team and try to build a younger team base over a couple years by trading all the short term contract guys for prospects and more controllable talent or do we try to win every year? Those extra playoff spots make the 2nd option more attractive to me. The calculus is just that, much more complicated math, with advanced metrics and mathmaticians on staff like never before and I think we should listen to them. I trust our nerds!

    We have the best nerds money can buy!

    Crit, I hope you stay here also. We can keep our toes on other forums as well though right and since I've been passing my time recently reading and watching 1930's musicals I think it past time for spring training to begin! 

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    We are in a new reality and I just don't think that has sunk in yet maybe for any of us. More playoff spots available. A more competitive landscape top to bottom. Fewer overslot signings. Major changes in free agency. Limits on international signings. Draft changes. A lot of Ben's decisions are probably influenced by changes like these guys. As well they should be.

    Do we tank the team and try to build a younger team base over a couple years by trading all the short term contract guys for prospects and more controllable talent or do we try to win every year? Those extra playoff spots make the 2nd option more attractive to me. The calculus is just that, much more complicated math, with advanced metrics and mathmaticians on staff like never before and I think we should listen to them. I trust our nerds!

    We have the best nerds money can buy!

     

    We didn't need to trade all our short term contracts, but I am pretty certain Ben knows who will likely be gone after their contracts are up, and who he will try and extend or offer arb to. I was a bit surprised he made no trades that helped us in 2014 or beyond- none. The one trade he did make was for a one year player that I suppose might be extended or traded this deadline (Hanrahan). All of the FA signings were for 1 year or the ones that were signed beyond 2013 will all be past prime in 2014 and 2015. To me, it seems like this whole winter was about keeping our prospects in tact, but only making moves that help us in 2013. The moves were not enough to bring us from a 69 win team to serious ring challengers, so I am sticking to my call: it was a halfway plan that did not improve our future outlook or make us serious 2013 contenders. We will probably have to make some major moves this deadline and next winter to have a shot at being a significant contender in 2014. The decisions were basically put off a year or two. I can see some reasons why we chose this path, and money talks in this sport- I get that, but it doesn't mean I have to agree with it, put on pink glasses and pretend all is good and our future is improving. All is not good, and our future is bright, but no brighter than it was before this winter started.

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    Last year, Boston's bullpen blew 22 saves (tied with the Angels for most in the majors) and lost eight games when leading after 8 innings.  

    I believe that will change this year.  

    Uehara is a great pick up.  During the past three years, he has 183K and only 17 walks.  Dice-K usually gives up 17 walks per start.  LOL

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    Thats pretty much how I feel as well, the way Moon stated it.  I'm wondering if Ben C. is also kinda playing the "wait and see" game.  I think they want to have a fuller few of what they have in their prosepcts before they start building around them.  If a guy like Bogaerts was 2 years older, I could have seen the Sox more likely to have gone out and spent big bucks on a Josh Hamilton to really create a powerful middle of the order.   I think people tend to expect too much from young kids to quickly,  odds are even if Bogaerts is a future MVP caliber guy he very well could be a call up next year, a up/down guy in 2014, and not all-star worthy until 2015.  What would a guy like Hamilton of given us by then?  IDK but considering many called this years free agency class weak I can respect the approach that Charrington has taken.

    I would not be surprised to see a block buster move in the next year.  Now that may be a huge deadline trade, or a huge contract in 2014, but I think as the future becomes less cloudy more definitive moves will come. 

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    Thats pretty much how I feel as well, the way Moon stated it.  I'm wondering if Ben C. is also kinda playing the "wait and see" game.  I think they want to have a fuller few of what they have in their prosepcts before they start building around them.  If a guy like Bogaerts was 2 years older, I could have seen the Sox more likely to have gone out and spent big bucks on a Josh Hamilton to really create a powerful middle of the order.   I think people tend to expect too much from young kids to quickly,  odds are even if Bogaerts is a future MVP caliber guy he very well could be a call up next year, a up/down guy in 2014, and not all-star worthy until 2015.  What would a guy like Hamilton of given us by then?  IDK but considering many called this years free agency class weak I can respect the approach that Charrington has taken.

    I would not be surprised to see a block buster move in the next year.  Now that may be a huge deadline trade, or a huge contract in 2014, but I think as the future becomes less cloudy more definitive moves will come. 



    With the 2013 FA class as bad as it is, I'm OK with not signing anyone to 4+ years this winter, but I had hoped maybe we'd have gotten one guy who will be in his prime for the nest 3 years, or maybe traded some short-term players for a long team-controlled player with good upside potential.

    That's all. I do not think it was too much to ask nor impossible to achieve.

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    Thats pretty much how I feel as well, the way Moon stated it.  I'm wondering if Ben C. is also kinda playing the "wait and see" game.  I think they want to have a fuller few of what they have in their prosepcts before they start building around them.  If a guy like Bogaerts was 2 years older, I could have seen the Sox more likely to have gone out and spent big bucks on a Josh Hamilton to really create a powerful middle of the order.   I think people tend to expect too much from young kids to quickly,  odds are even if Bogaerts is a future MVP caliber guy he very well could be a call up next year, a up/down guy in 2014, and not all-star worthy until 2015.  What would a guy like Hamilton of given us by then?  IDK but considering many called this years free agency class weak I can respect the approach that Charrington has taken.

    I would not be surprised to see a block buster move in the next year.  Now that may be a huge deadline trade, or a huge contract in 2014, but I think as the future becomes less cloudy more definitive moves will come. 




    Good Post hugh...

    I understand other fans points of view, but also understand that BC knows the Sox system much much better than any of us. There are many new rules to promote a more competetive balance in MLB, so the way they did things before wont be as effective or even allowed in todays game.

    The one thing you said which caught my eye was the fact that BC still needs time to really see what he has for prospects. Weve all taked about this as well. In Boston, as a whole, it wouldnt be smart business to just pack it in for a year or 2 while rebuilding. They HAVE to remain competetive in this market. SV is the only player with a 3 year deal, which was very smart. BC bought himself some time and kept the future this way. Im sure he explored trades for guys like Ellsbury and salty, but wasnt offered anything that was worth it. Why trade away guys like that for a couple second rate prospects? It doesnt make any sense.

    I agree that by the deadline there should be a move or 2 depending on where this team is in the standings. If not than we should have a very clear picture next offseason regarding prospects and current players. If they can stay somewhat healthy, this team can and should be competetive. Id rather see that than this FO packing it in for the season to rebuild...

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

     

    Boston could have signed McCarthy or Marcum for a bargain.  Even though McCarthy and Marcum have been injured, they can each give 20 starts which would still be a bargain considering how much Arizona and New York paid them.  

    Can anyone guess which pitcher had the best road ERA (2.67) in the majors' during the past two seasons?  

    That would be Marcum and the Mets signed him to a one-year, $4 million deal (plus another $2 million in incentives).  

     

     

     

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

     Im sure he explored trades for guys like Ellsbury and salty, but wasnt offered anything that was worth it. Why trade away guys like that for a couple second rate prospects? It doesnt make any sense.

    I doubt we were only offered "second rate prospects" for these two, but the way to look at it is what will we have to show for these two after they bolt? 

    I can see if we had a legitimate shot at a ring this year, but seriously, we don't. These two may only help keep viewership levels high enough to make money. That's all it's about. It is not helping our longterm outlook at all (except for maybe the comp draft pick).

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to Ice-Cream's comment:

     

    Boston could have signed McCarthy or Marcum for a bargain.  Even though McCarthy and Marcum have been injured, they can each give 20 starts which would still be a bargain considering how much Arizona and New York paid them.  

    Can anyone guess which pitcher had the best road ERA (2.67) in the majors' during the past two seasons?  

    That would be Marcum and the Mets signed him to a one-year, $4 million deal (plus another $2 million in incentives).  

    Exactly. Yes, there was risk involved, but the upside is worth it. We could have gottem both of theses guys for less than what we paid for Dempster.

     

     

     




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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to Ice-Cream's comment:

     

    Boston could have signed McCarthy or Marcum for a bargain.  Even though McCarthy and Marcum have been injured, they can each give 20 starts which would still be a bargain considering how much Arizona and New York paid them.  

    Can anyone guess which pitcher had the best road ERA (2.67) in the majors' during the past two seasons?  

    That would be Marcum and the Mets signed him to a one-year, $4 million deal (plus another $2 million in incentives).  

     

     

     



    McCarthy told his agent he wanted to stay on the west coast, there are concerns about his shoulder, he's never come close to pitching 200 innings and he hasn't pitched in a game since he was hit in the face with a line drive.  It should be pretty obvious why the lack of interest was mutual.  As far as Marcum goes, there is a reason why he didn't get a decent deal and it has nothing to do with his stats.  His former team, the Brewers, had no interest in bringing him back, and they have questions in their rotation.  As fans, we look at a contract and a players stats and automatically assume that our favorite team could have or should have signed a player, but it's just not that simple.

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to jasko2248's comment:

    In response to Ice-Cream's comment:

     

     

    Boston could have signed McCarthy or Marcum for a bargain.  Even though McCarthy and Marcum have been injured, they can each give 20 starts which would still be a bargain considering how much Arizona and New York paid them.  

    Can anyone guess which pitcher had the best road ERA (2.67) in the majors' during the past two seasons?  

    That would be Marcum and the Mets signed him to a one-year, $4 million deal (plus another $2 million in incentives).  

     

     

     

     



    McCarthy told his agent he wanted to stay on the west coast, there are concerns about his shoulder, he's never come close to pitching 200 innings and he hasn't pitched in a game since he was hit in the face with a line drive.  It should be pretty obvious why the lack of interest was mutual.  As far as Marcum goes, there is a reason why he didn't get a decent deal and it has nothing to do with his stats.  His former team, the Brewers, had no interest in bringing him back, and they have questions in their rotation.  As fans, we look at a contract and a players stats and automatically assume that our favorite team could have or should have signed a player, but it's just not that simple.

     




    Hello jasko2248   :)

    I understand that each signing comes with a risk.  I just think that the positive outweigh the negative for both McCarthy and Marcum.  

    As for McCarthy preferring to play in the west coast, I'm sure offering Patriots season tickets would have convinced him to come to Boston.   LOL

     

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    I'm wondering with the new system if getting one good prospect back is more valuable than the draft pick (or at least more valuable than it was).  With the new system of limiting bonus money it's a lot harder to just throw money around, so yes having another draft pick is valuable but if you blow all your money on 2 or 3 guys in the first round (+ the comp round) then you realistically have very little to work with for the rest of the draft.

     

    The Yankees will fall into this problem this year.  I mean I guess it's not a horrible problem to have, but it does change the dynamics of the game.  We have all seen how the new system has hurt Lohse this year, it's definitely having an impact on the game.  So taking that in mind, having payroll flexibility and a strong farm system is definitely a position a lot of teams would love to be in right now.

    Even if the Sox do not contend next year I think they will be in a very good position for 2014 and beyond.  Maybe that is just the homer in me speaking, but I stand by that position regardless. 

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to jasko2248's comment:

    In response to Ice-Cream's comment:

     

     

    Boston could have signed McCarthy or Marcum for a bargain.  Even though McCarthy and Marcum have been injured, they can each give 20 starts which would still be a bargain considering how much Arizona and New York paid them.  

    Can anyone guess which pitcher had the best road ERA (2.67) in the majors' during the past two seasons?  

    That would be Marcum and the Mets signed him to a one-year, $4 million deal (plus another $2 million in incentives).  

     

     

     

     



    McCarthy told his agent he wanted to stay on the west coast, there are concerns about his shoulder, he's never come close to pitching 200 innings and he hasn't pitched in a game since he was hit in the face with a line drive.  It should be pretty obvious why the lack of interest was mutual.  As far as Marcum goes, there is a reason why he didn't get a decent deal and it has nothing to do with his stats.  His former team, the Brewers, had no interest in bringing him back, and they have questions in their rotation.  As fans, we look at a contract and a players stats and automatically assume that our favorite team could have or should have signed a player, but it's just not that simple.

     



    It's not as simple as you make it sound either. 

    Money talks, and 99% of players will take the highest dollar amount, especially if it is significantly more. There have been many instances where a player says he wants to play in a certain area, but then signs elsewhere for more money.

    We are not "automatically assuming" anything. We are voicing our opinion on who we would have liked to have happened. Nobody here is saying we had a 100% chance of signing both of these guys. We know they weren't signed for at  least one of these two reasons:

    1) The Sox did not want them more than other teams did or were more concerned over injury, cost or contract length.

    2) The player did not want to come here, even if offered more money or years.

    None of us know if an offer was even made, so it is specualtion by all of us. That is what most of this board is all about.

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    Even if the Sox do not contend next year I think they will be in a very good position for 2014 and beyond.  Maybe that is just the homer in me speaking, but I stand by that position regardless. 

    I agree, but only hoped we'd have made at least one deal to improve our future (2014 and beyond).

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to jasko2248's comment:

     

    In response to Ice-Cream's comment:

     

     

    Boston could have signed McCarthy or Marcum for a bargain.  Even though McCarthy and Marcum have been injured, they can each give 20 starts which would still be a bargain considering how much Arizona and New York paid them.  

    Can anyone guess which pitcher had the best road ERA (2.67) in the majors' during the past two seasons?  

    That would be Marcum and the Mets signed him to a one-year, $4 million deal (plus another $2 million in incentives).  

     

     

     

     



    McCarthy told his agent he wanted to stay on the west coast, there are concerns about his shoulder, he's never come close to pitching 200 innings and he hasn't pitched in a game since he was hit in the face with a line drive.  It should be pretty obvious why the lack of interest was mutual.  As far as Marcum goes, there is a reason why he didn't get a decent deal and it has nothing to do with his stats.  His former team, the Brewers, had no interest in bringing him back, and they have questions in their rotation.  As fans, we look at a contract and a players stats and automatically assume that our favorite team could have or should have signed a player, but it's just not that simple.

     

     



    It's not as simple as you make it sound either. 

     

    Money talks, and 99% of players will take the highest dollar amount, especially if it is significantly more. There have been many instances where a player says he wants to play in a certain area, but then signs elsewhere for more money.

    We are not "automatically assuming" anything. We are voicing our opinion on who we would have liked to have happened. Nobody here is saying we had a 100% chance of signing both of these guys. We know they weren't signed for at  least one of these two reasons:

    1) The Sox did not want them more than other teams did or were more concerned over injury, cost or contract length.

    2) The player did not want to come here, even if offered more money or years.

    None of us know if an offer was even made, so it is specualtion by all of us. That is what most of this board is all about.



    If 99% of players will go for money, then you think the Sox should have drastically outbid the Diamondbacks for a guy like McCarthy, even though his preference was not to pitch here? I can tell you that this Front Office will no longer do that.  Consider the "lesson learned" with Gonzalez and Crawford.  Again, the Sox weren't interested in McCarthy for some of the reasons I mentioned, which make a lot of sense to me.  Marcum is another story, but let's just say that when Ben said he puts a lot of emphasis on a player's "makeup," Marcum wasn't going to be an option.  Whether or not you believe that or not doesn't really matter, the fact is that neither player were considered "options" by the guys who get paid to make those decisions.  It's time to move on...

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Even if the Sox do not contend next year I think they will be in a very good position for 2014 and beyond.  Maybe that is just the homer in me speaking, but I stand by that position regardless. 

    I agree, but only hoped we'd have made at least one deal to improve our future (2014 and beyond).



    I completely agree, I was kinda hoping for more at the deadline last year and this offseason.  It's not so much that I whole heartedly agree with Ben C's strategy....I guess you could call it more of an understanding to how the F.O. is going about their operations. 

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    If 99% of players will go for money, then you think the Sox should have drastically outbid the Diamondbacks for a guy like McCarthy, even though his preference was not to pitch here? I can tell you that this Front Office will no longer do that.  Consider the "lesson learned" with Gonzalez and Crawford.  Again, the Sox weren't interested in McCarthy for some of the reasons I mentioned, which make a lot of sense to me.  

    I realize the Sox weren't interested in McCarthy. That is the topic of debate to some extent. Why weren't they?

    Maybe it was because they knew he wanted the west coast and would cost too much to "outbid" AZ (who incidently, is not on the  west coast). Maybe it was his health issues. Maybe they made teh right choice. Maybe not.

    Persoanally, I'd have offered him $25M/3. If we had, and he turned it down, I would be here voicing this opinion.

     

    Marcum is another story, but let's just say that when Ben said he puts a lot of emphasis on a player's "makeup," Marcum wasn't going to be an option.  Whether or not you believe that or not doesn't really matter, the fact is that neither player were considered "options" by the guys who get paid to make those decisions.  It's time to move on...

    With all due respect, you keep acting like we are claiming to know better than Ben, or that we don't understand why these gusy weren't signed here. That doesn't or shouldn't stop any speculation about players not signed or traded for.

     

    Besides, it is not just about the FAs. The Indians got the #14 player on BA top 100 list for 1 year of Choo. I'm sorry, but I think we could have gotten that or more for Ellsbury. Will Myers is the 4th rated prospect...higher than Bogaerts. Would you have traded Lester and his 2 years of team control and high cost for 6+ years of Bogaerts?

    I know, i know. It was impossible for us to get these two, because Ben didn't want them at some cost, so let's not discuss it.

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

     

    Hey moonslav59   :)

    Do you think the Braves made themselves a better team during the offseason?

     

    Additions

    • Upton brothers

    Subtractions

    • Prado
    • Bourn
    • Chipper retired

    The team got younger and added more power (although they strike out often).  

    The Braves have a deep bullpen with one of the best closers in all of baseball.

    I think the team will win around 90 games and easily earn a wild card berth.

     

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    We replaced these guys...with these guys:

    AGon with Napoli

    CC, Pods & Cody with Gomes and Victorino

    Aviles with Drew

    Shoppach with Ross

    Youk & Punto with Holt

    Beckett with Dempster

    Dice-K/Cook/Others with Lackey

    Atch, Albers,Padilla & Melancon with Uehara

     

    We should see more play from:

    Ellsbury, Middlebrooks, Bailey, Tazawa, Morales, Doubront, Breslow, and maybe Miller or Mortensen.

    New roles for: Aceves, Bailey & Bard

     

    There's a lot of changeover here, and there is a long way to go from a 69 win team to a serious ring contender.

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    If 99% of players will go for money, then you think the Sox should have drastically outbid the Diamondbacks for a guy like McCarthy, even though his preference was not to pitch here? I can tell you that this Front Office will no longer do that.  Consider the "lesson learned" with Gonzalez and Crawford.  Again, the Sox weren't interested in McCarthy for some of the reasons I mentioned, which make a lot of sense to me.  

    I realize the Sox weren't interested in McCarthy. That is the topic of debate to some extent. Why weren't they?

     

    I thought I covered this.  Again:

    1. They wanted a guy who could be relied upon to give them innings.  McCarthy has never come close to pitching 200 innings.

    2. They were concerned about his shoulder and frequent trips to the D.L.

    3.  He was hit in the face with a line drive and hasn't pitched since.   Remember Matt Clement?  Bryce Florie?  It sounded like Ben does, since he was with the Sox when both incidents happened.

    4. They really want to get away from overpaying guys who prefer to be somewhere else.  Crawford, Gonzalez, Renteria, etc...

    These seem like pretty legit reasons to me.  You don't? 

     

     

    Maybe it was because they knew he wanted the west coast and would cost too much to "outbid" AZ (who incidently, is not on the  west coast). Maybe it was his health issues. Maybe they made teh right choice. Maybe not.

    Persoanally, I'd have offered him $25M/3. If we had, and he turned it down, I would be here voicing this opinion.

     

     

     

    The Sox clearly disagree, based on the reasons above, but fair enough. 

     

     

    Marcum is another story, but let's just say that when Ben said he puts a lot of emphasis on a player's "makeup," Marcum wasn't going to be an option.  Whether or not you believe that or not doesn't really matter, the fact is that neither player were considered "options" by the guys who get paid to make those decisions.  It's time to move on...

    With all due respect, you keep acting like we are claiming to know better than Ben, or that we don't understand why these gusy weren't signed here. That doesn't or shouldn't stop any speculation about players not signed or traded for.

     

     

     I'm not claiming you "know better than Ben," I'm just helping you understand why there was no way the Sox were bringing in Marcum and why there was little to no interest in the guy despite his "stats."  It's what I was told when I asked a reliable source.  Nothing more, nothing less...

    Besides, it is not just about the FAs. The Indians got the #14 player on BA top 100 list for 1 year of Choo. I'm sorry, but I think we could have gotten that or more for Ellsbury. Will Myers is the 4th rated prospect...higher than Bogaerts. Would you have traded Lester and his 2 years of team control and high cost for 6+ years of Bogaerts?

    I put about as much stock into "prospect lists" as I do into the National Inquirer (fun to read sometimes, but the accuracy is usually way off), but no I would not have considered trading Lester for Myers.  Boegarts is a shortstop, which is a little different than an outfielder, and I don't know enough about Myers' makeup.  I doubt I would trade Lester for any single "highly rated" prospect, but I know I wouldn't trade Boegarts for Myers, despite their "rankings."

     

     

     

    I know, i know. It was impossible for us to get these two, because Ben didn't want them at some cost, so let's not discuss it.

     

     

    Discuss away, I'm just explaining why it was never an option.  Maybe it's because you've brought up McCarthy in over 100 posts, while at times making it sound like the Sox made a grave error not signing the guy, that I come across like he was never even a thought internally.  We can agree to disagree, we are good at it!

     




     

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    They were options for any GM that could afford them. Ben chose not to pursue them, or we never heard that he tried. We have a right to disagree with Ben and anyone who feels the same as he did.

     

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    They were options for any GM that could afford them. Ben chose not to pursue them, or we never heard that he tried. We have a right to disagree with Ben and anyone who feels the same as he did.

     



    Ok, fair enough, but I get the feeling that if 10 different Doctors told you that McCarthy will never be able to pitch again and McCarthy retired, you'd still post that Ben should've signed him.  Once you get on a guy, it doesn't seem to matter that there is overwhelming evidence as to why they shouldn't sign him.  

     

Share