In response to craze4sox's comment:
In response to moonslav59's comment:
To all those that were his detractors due to his not delivering to expectations last year. There's no need to apologize, but perhaps one might chose to use less defaming terms when expressing thier disappointment. In baseball many of us are conditioned to use terms like "bum" to express our disappointment in a player, manager or umpirer's performance. We boo in full throat with one voice at the park to express our disapointment when the results are less than. Often though, we do so with out all of the facts. Cleary in the case of Ryan Dempster we the fans through no fault of our own were in the dark about his personal life struggles and as such, it does lessen the burden of our collective venom. It doesn't however excuse those that chose to attack his character. On the field he was a bum, off the field he was a leader.
I was against the signing from day one, even though I am a huge pitching advocate.
Dempster did meet my "expectations", but it appears mine were lower than many here.
I don't think I've ever called any Sox player a bum. Dempster was not a bum- on or off the field. My only beef was the salary paid for the performance received. Now, that issue is resolved.
I wish the very best for Ryan and his family. He's a classy guy that deserves some time off.
I was on board with the same thoughts moon. I couldn't believe the signing and never thought for a minute it would help us in the win/loss column. In the clubhouse and off the field Dempster was a class act but he simply didn't have much left in the tank. When you begin to age and lose a couple of MPH on your fastball you need to learn how to hit spots to have any chance of extending your career. Throwing balls down the center of the plate that batters are sitting on when your off speed stuff isn't working will get you in trouble almost every time.
There were two major reasons why the Sox signed Dempster. One reason being that they needed a guy who was going to give them innings at the back of the rotation with the durability of Doubront, Buchholz & Lackey (coming off surgery) all in question. Dempster gave them 29 starts & actually pitched well when they needed him most (After Clay's injury - mentioned on this thread).
Reason number two & maybe just as important, they wanted a veteran professional presence in the rotation who was the "anti-Beckett" off the field. Considering the other veteran options available & the fact that Dempster was part of a Championship team, it's tough to argue that the Sox didn't make the right decision. Maybe they could've received better on field production from the kids, as some have mentioned, but at best it would have been shortsighted to bank on the likes of Workman & Webster last winter.