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

    Re: If 2013 proves to be a failure......

    In response to EdithBRTN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    It is all theater here on the Internet. 

    [/QUOTE]

    And no one has more soliloquies on this stage than you do.

     

     
  2. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: If 2013 proves to be a failure......

    In response to EdithBRTN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    But wake up, is Spaceman really in disagreement with Softlaw and Georom and vice versa?.  You must realize that it is all theater. That means that it is like WWF and is 100% phoney, staged, and deceiving. Why must you br a subscriber and partner to it?

    [/QUOTE]

    Do you never get tired of talking about other posters and not the Sox? Stop trying to make sense of inter-poster dynamics. Would you rather everyone agree all the time?

    (Don't answer. Just try and make your next 10 posts only about the Sox. I dare you. I double dare you.)

     
  4. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: If 2013 proves to be a failure......

     

    You are an troll and an idiot if you think anyone answered Alibi's 4 questions with FACTS (or even could).  We will not know the FACTS until the 2013 season is over.  Alibi asked for opinion, as I made quite clear.  Predictions are nothing more than opinions (Long Island Mediums aside) as none are FACT.  But some predictions/opinions are better than others because they are based on FACTS.

    FACT.  Turns out that bettors beat the Vegas odds this past football season.  Either there was just an inordinant amount of luck, or people made bets based on better data (FACTS).  For instance:  you should always bet on the west coast team to beat the spread on the east coast host if the game is a night game.  The FACT is that the West coast team beats the spread a statistically significant amount of the time.  But predicting that that will always be the case would be wrong.  It is NOT a FACT that they ALWAYS win.  It is just good judgement to predict that they will beat the point spread and to place your money on said prediction.

    I am willing to place my money on the prediction that the Sox win more than 69 games next season.  I am willing to do so because they will have a better manager, better (functioning) coaching staff, improved depth in the bullpen, starting rotation and catching corps, as much production out of Gomes as they did C. Ross, have better talent in Victorino than in Nava/Kalsih/Podsednik et al in RF, will have Middlebrooks and Ells healthy and back in the lineup, and one hopes Napoli will play at 1st becuase he is is far better than Loney (offensiviely at least).  I also believe Steven Drew is a better talent than Mike Aviles, though I thought Aviles was decent. 

    Manager/coaches, starting pitching, relief pitching (especially closer), 1B, catching, SS, 3B and all the outfield spots were all trouble spots last year that are improved this year.  Some of that is opinion, I grant you.  But Ells and Middlebrooks being recovered from injury is FACT.  D. Ross improving the depth at catcher is FACT.  Napoli being a better offensive player than Loney is FACT.  Hanrahan and Uehara providing depth and better closer options in the bullpen is opinion based on FACT (look up the statistics on all 3--Aceves was a terrible closer last season).  Dempster being depth at the back end of the rotation is opinion based on FACT.  Doubront was not bad, but he pitched 160 innings (FACT) and the increase in innings was much greater than 50% over what he pitched the year before (FACT--it was actually close to 1500% increase).  Counting on him pitching 190-200 innings would be foolish.  Counting on Dempster to do the same is not foolish (since the FACT is he has done it for 5 out of the last 6 years).

    Will all these guys do better than the guys last year, or even match their own career norms?  No.  But it is foolish to bet against each one doing that, knowing the FACTS.  Do I believe Ben is done?  No.  (Another reason that I predict that the Sox will win more games than they did in 2012.)  It is January 4th, and the Napoli situation isn't even settled.  This team's 40-man roster will look different come February 20th.  Is that a prediction?  Yes.  Is it based on FACT?  Yes.  The FACT is that almost every team's 40-man roster looks different in the third week of February than it does in the first week of January.  And more different still by opening day.  Unlike some here, I trust that Ben will make moves to improve the roster, not ruin it.  If that makes me a homer, so be it.

    [/QUOTE]

    No, fool.

    An opinion would be "I don't think the bosox will win fewer than 70 games" not "The bosox WILL NOT win fewer than 70 games"

     

    Big difference.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: If 2013 proves to be a failure......

    In response to EdithBRTN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Spaceman arguing with Georom - a complete waste of time and effort for you voyeurs..  Georom is like a cat that has caught a mouse ( Spaceman)  and is just playing with him. Georom is in charge  and is enjoying every minute of it. Spaceman however is a brilliant man and could not possibly fall for the Georom charade in my mind. It is all theater here on the Internet. All an act. Georom and Spaceman are both pretending to be in disagreement in order to have an audience. It is all BS and phoney. Don't take the "debate" seriously.

    [/QUOTE]


    i like space...he is one of my fav posters...but im not sure what he is being critical about.....i think it has been fairly clear that i hoped Ben would sign grienke, papi and cody ross and give 2013 a shot....ben has been very active signing free agents despite everyone agreeing that the field is weak....my point is that this is exactly why one or two excellent players should have been signed and thats it....then let the kids play

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

    Re: If 2013 proves to be a failure......

    No, fool.

    An opinion would be "I don't think the bosox will win fewer than 70 games" not "The bosox WILL NOT win fewer than 70 games"

     

    Big difference.

    ROTFLMAO!!!

    They are both opinions.  One is simply more definitive than the other.

    Unless you know for certainty that the RS will, or will not, win 70 games, it is an opinion.

    Assuming, of course, that you don't have a time machine, or one of those devices they used in Harry Potter.

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

    Re: If 2013 proves to be a failure......

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Helloitsmeagain's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I think it's funny how some project almost all the prospects to be MLB starters.

    They are prospects and most don't become full time MLB starters. You have to get really lucky for that to happen.

    [/QUOTE]

    Who said that?

    [/QUOTE]

    Did you find out who siad that, or are you going to stick to trolling the rest of your life?

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

    Re: If 2013 proves to be a failure......

    In response to EdithBRTN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    But wake up, is Spaceman really in disagreement with Softlaw and Georom and vice versa?.  You must realize that it is all theater. That means that it is like WWF and is 100% phoney, staged, and deceiving. Why must you br a subscriber and partner to it?

    [/QUOTE]

    Dude, you have to stop.  Every single thread is becoming a larger percenntage of your posts about other posters.  If there are 30 posts in a thread, I don't want to read that 20 of them are from you, complaining about the other posters.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: If 2013 proves to be a failure......

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    2/3 years from now we all may look back at this approach as being genius, that is if the prospects that we are expecting to help come through in the majors at that time.

    Let's assume the prospects do "come through" as you suggest. How would a different plan by Ben have effected our future?

    I contend that Ben played it "halfway" making us not true contenders in 2013 while at the same time not helping us at all in the future, unless we trade away some of our signed players by 2014 or 2015.

    Had ben played it one of the other two major ways (and there are countless variations in degrees on this spectrum), how would it have effected the now & the future?

    Extreme plan A: Plan for 2014, 2015 and beyond. Trade away all FAs-to be (Ellsbury, Salty & Breslow) and players that do not rate to be helpful in 2014, 2015 or beyond in some cases (maybe a couple from Bailey, Aceves, Miller, & Morales- if not extended). Stockpile prospects. Sign only younger FAs that will be entering or in their prime in 2014, 2015 or beyond. Trade only for players that are under team control for 3 or more years and are in or near prime up to at least 2015 (For example, one from: Upton, Myers, Stanton...) I contend that this plan would have made the fans more excited, helped us improve over 2012 (maybe not as much as Ben's plan), but more importantly, set us up much better for 2014 and beyond.

    Extreme plan B: Plan to be highly competitive in 2013, but also into the future. Have players signed to longer terms that although they may be at the end or out of their prime years by 2015, by the nature of their much higher skill level than guys like Naps and Victorino, they will likely be at a higher production level in 2014, 2015, and still be helpful in 2016 or 2017. Although this was not my choice of plans, I contend that it would have been better than Ben's "halfway plan", and none of the players ended up signing for 6 or 7 years like the CC deal. Had we signed Hamilton, Sanchez, D Ross, Uehara, and a couple cheap role players, we'd be contenders in 2013 (plus drawing higher viewership) and much better off in 2014 & 2015 when the prospects "come through".

     

    Playing it halfway brought us nothing. We will not seriously compete in 2013, and we are no better off by 2015, unless we trade away many players before then and do better than recent dealings have appeared to do for us.

    [/QUOTE]


    Playing it halfway brought us nothing. We will not seriously compete in 2013, and we are no better off by 2015, unless we trade away many players before then and do better than recent dealings have appeared to do for us.

    Bingo. This is a rebuilding year and we should be going all out to compete again as soon as that is possible. Likely it will not happen in 2013, probably not in 2014 either, especially if players like Victorino and Dumpster are viewed as part of our future. We should be trading away Ellsbury, who is as good as gone after this year anyway-and whose value is probably higher now than at the end of this year-as part of a package to get good young pitching talent who can help us in 2015. Not enough has been done to restock our farm system to make a run in 2015 so far. While Cherington cannot be blamed for the mess the team is in right now or for us likely watching other teams compete in the playoffs this fall, he IS responsible for doing an inadequate job in preparing for a run in 2014 or 2015 -to date.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: If 2013 proves to be a failure......

    Elsbury's stock is high?

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

     

    Here is what I actually wrote:  whose value is probably higher now than at the end of this year.

    No, his stock is not especially high, but by the end of the year it will IMO be even lower. He should be traded as part of a package to get some good young pitching prospects.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: If 2013 proves to be a failure......

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Playing it halfway brought us nothing. We will not seriously compete in 2013, and we are no better off by 2015, unless we trade away many players before then and do better than recent dealings have appeared to do for us.

    Bingo. This is a rebuilding year and we should be going all out to compete again as soon as that is possible. Likely it will not happen in 2013, probably not in 2014 either, especially if players like Victorino and Dumpster are viewed as part of our future. We should be trading away Ellsbury, who is as good as gone after this year anyway-and whose value is probably higher now than at the end of this year-as part of a package to get good young pitching talent who can help us in 2015. Not enough has been done to restock our farm system to make a run in 2015 so far. While Cherington cannot be blamed for the mess the team is in right now or for us likely watching other teams compete in the playoffs this fall, he IS responsible for doing an inadequate job in preparing for a run in 2014 or 2015 -to date.

    [/QUOTE]


    I don't agree with this.  I think there was little to spend our money on that was a good, long term risk but we had to spend it on something.  And I think we've now got a team that will be competetive.

    I also think the new guys will have little if any negative impact on our prospects/future but possibly some positive impact on them.  For example:

    • Drew - 1 year contract.  Bogaerts is not ready, Iggy never will be.  No impact.
    • Ross - 2 years to be a backup.  Is it unreasonable to think he might be able to help Salty, Lava, Swihart, Lester, Buchholz, Morales, etc?
    • Gomes - 2 years, needed someone at least this year
    • Dempster - 2 years.  Exactly how many SPs do you expect to be held back by him during 2013/2014?
    • Victorino - 3 years, hopefully will recover fully from injury, insurance for Ells....will we have 3 OF develop by 2014 and 4 by 2015?  Another Rice/Lynn/Evans trifecta?  Very unlikely, and he will likely be a good mentor for them all
    • Napoli - 3 years (assumption).  Who are the firstbasemen he'll hold back? 

     

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: If 2013 proves to be a failure......

    In response to Ben Cheringtom's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Elsbury's stock is high?

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

     

    Here is what I actually wrote:  whose value is probably higher now than at the end of this year.

    No, his stock is not especially high, but by the end of the year it will IMO be even lower. He should be traded as part of a package to get some good young pitching prospects.

    [/QUOTE]


     

     

     

    and on another thread you want the farm restocked

    hypocrite.

    Your drivel here is worse than it is on other boards.

    [/QUOTE]

    You are having trouble reading English again. My opinion is consistent. You should try acting like an adult and leave the personal stuff out of your posts.

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

    Re: If 2013 proves to be a failure......

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    2/3 years from now we all may look back at this approach as being genius, that is if the prospects that we are expecting to help come through in the majors at that time.

    Let's assume the prospects do "come through" as you suggest. How would a different plan by Ben have effected our future?

    I contend that Ben played it "halfway" making us not true contenders in 2013 while at the same time not helping us at all in the future, unless we trade away some of our signed players by 2014 or 2015.

    Had ben played it one of the other two major ways (and there are countless variations in degrees on this spectrum), how would it have effected the now & the future?

    Extreme plan A: Plan for 2014, 2015 and beyond. Trade away all FAs-to be (Ellsbury, Salty & Breslow) and players that do not rate to be helpful in 2014, 2015 or beyond in some cases (maybe a couple from Bailey, Aceves, Miller, & Morales- if not extended). Stockpile prospects. Sign only younger FAs that will be entering or in their prime in 2014, 2015 or beyond. Trade only for players that are under team control for 3 or more years and are in or near prime up to at least 2015 (For example, one from: Upton, Myers, Stanton...) I contend that this plan would have made the fans more excited, helped us improve over 2012 (maybe not as much as Ben's plan), but more importantly, set us up much better for 2014 and beyond.

    Extreme plan B: Plan to be highly competitive in 2013, but also into the future. Have players signed to longer terms that although they may be at the end or out of their prime years by 2015, by the nature of their much higher skill level than guys like Naps and Victorino, they will likely be at a higher production level in 2014, 2015, and still be helpful in 2016 or 2017. Although this was not my choice of plans, I contend that it would have been better than Ben's "halfway plan", and none of the players ended up signing for 6 or 7 years like the CC deal. Had we signed Hamilton, Sanchez, D Ross, Uehara, and a couple cheap role players, we'd be contenders in 2013 (plus drawing higher viewership) and much better off in 2014 & 2015 when the prospects "come through".

     

    Playing it halfway brought us nothing. We will not seriously compete in 2013, and we are no better off by 2015, unless we trade away many players before then and do better than recent dealings have appeared to do for us.

    [/QUOTE]


    Playing it halfway brought us nothing. We will not seriously compete in 2013, and we are no better off by 2015, unless we trade away many players before then and do better than recent dealings have appeared to do for us.

    Bingo. This is a rebuilding year and we should be going all out to compete again as soon as that is possible. Likely it will not happen in 2013, probably not in 2014 either, especially if players like Victorino and Dumpster are viewed as part of our future. We should be trading away Ellsbury, who is as good as gone after this year anyway-and whose value is probably higher now than at the end of this year-as part of a package to get good young pitching talent who can help us in 2015. Not enough has been done to restock our farm system to make a run in 2015 so far. While Cherington cannot be blamed for the mess the team is in right now or for us likely watching other teams compete in the playoffs this fall, he IS responsible for doing an inadequate job in preparing for a run in 2014 or 2015 -to date.

    [/QUOTE]

    That's it. We should have done either or, but instead did neither by playing inbetween.

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

    Re: If 2013 proves to be a failure......

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Playing it halfway brought us nothing. We will not seriously compete in 2013, and we are no better off by 2015, unless we trade away many players before then and do better than recent dealings have appeared to do for us.

    Bingo. This is a rebuilding year and we should be going all out to compete again as soon as that is possible. Likely it will not happen in 2013, probably not in 2014 either, especially if players like Victorino and Dumpster are viewed as part of our future. We should be trading away Ellsbury, who is as good as gone after this year anyway-and whose value is probably higher now than at the end of this year-as part of a package to get good young pitching talent who can help us in 2015. Not enough has been done to restock our farm system to make a run in 2015 so far. While Cherington cannot be blamed for the mess the team is in right now or for us likely watching other teams compete in the playoffs this fall, he IS responsible for doing an inadequate job in preparing for a run in 2014 or 2015 -to date.

    [/QUOTE]


    I don't agree with this.  I think there was little to spend our money on that was a good, long term risk but we had to spend it on something.  And I think we've now got a team that will be competetive.

    I also think the new guys will have little if any negative impact on our prospects/future but possibly some positive impact on them.  For example:

    • Drew - 1 year contract.  Bogaerts is not ready, Iggy never will be.  No impact.
    • Ross - 2 years to be a backup.  Is it unreasonable to think he might be able to help Salty, Lava, Swihart, Lester, Buchholz, Morales, etc?
    • Gomes - 2 years, needed someone at least this year
    • Dempster - 2 years.  Exactly how many SPs do you expect to be held back by him during 2013/2014?
    • Victorino - 3 years, hopefully will recover fully from injury, insurance for Ells....will we have 3 OF develop by 2014 and 4 by 2015?  Another Rice/Lynn/Evans trifecta?  Very unlikely, and he will likely be a good mentor for them all
    • Napoli - 3 years (assumption).  Who are the firstbasemen he'll hold back? 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    So, Ben is successful because all the players he signed are not good enough or not signed to a long enough term to keep back any prospects.

    Think about what you are saying.

    The guys we signed did not make us serious contenders in 2013 and have "no impact" on us being any better in 2014 and beyond. What is good about this plan?

    (Other than anything we may get by trading them.)

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

    Re: If 2013 proves to be a failure......

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]

    So, Ben is successful because all the players he signed are not good enough or not signed to a long enough term to keep back any prospects.

    Think about what you are saying.

    The guys we signed did not make us serious contenders in 2013 and have "no impact" on us being any better in 2014 and beyond. What is good about this plan?

    (Other than anything we may get by trading them.)

    [/QUOTE]

    The players signed all have the potential to be above average players next year.  They aren't all-stars but they are solid players who will supplement the guys who are capable of being all-stars like Lester, Buchholz, Ortiz, Pedroia.  It's been said many times, you don't need a team full of all-stars to contend for a title. 

     
  19. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: If 2013 proves to be a failure......

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't agree with this.  I think there was little to spend our money on that was a good, long term risk but we had to spend it on something.  And I think we've now got a team that will be competetive.

    I also think the new guys will have little if any negative impact on our prospects/future but possibly some positive impact on them.  For example:

    • Drew - 1 year contract.  Bogaerts is not ready, Iggy never will be.  No impact.
    • Ross - 2 years to be a backup.  Is it unreasonable to think he might be able to help Salty, Lava, Swihart, Lester, Buchholz, Morales, etc?
    • Gomes - 2 years, needed someone at least this year
    • Dempster - 2 years.  Exactly how many SPs do you expect to be held back by him during 2013/2014?
    • Victorino - 3 years, hopefully will recover fully from injury, insurance for Ells....will we have 3 OF develop by 2014 and 4 by 2015?  Another Rice/Lynn/Evans trifecta?  Very unlikely, and he will likely be a good mentor for them all
    • Napoli - 3 years (assumption).  Who are the firstbasemen he'll hold back? 

      

    [/QUOTE]

    So, Ben is successful because all the players he signed are not good enough or not signed to a long enough term to keep back any prospects.

    Think about what you are saying.

    The guys we signed did not make us serious contenders in 2013 and have "no impact" on us being any better in 2014 and beyond. What is good about this plan?

    (Other than anything we may get by trading them.)

    [/QUOTE]

    "Think about what you are saying"?  I expect better from you than that, Moon.  You should think about what you're reading.

    I wrote "I think we've now got a team that will be competetive."  I wrote " there was little to spend our money on that was a good, long term risk".  I wrote "little if any negative impact on our prospects/future" and I wrote "possibly some positive impact on them".

    What is wrong with a cheap plan, that carries little risk, cost no prospects, makes us competetive in 2013, had no negative impact on the young players we hope are coming through and talent we might be able to cash in at some point....and all at a time when there was little in the way of FAs to spend on.  Because that is what I wrote and think.  

    Most of the plans I've read here over the past few months are:

    • high risk, $300m spent on 2-3 damaged goods FA contracts
    • back-up-the-truck disposals of our surplus middling players for high-impact players
    • trading some of our top prospects for reasonably good-but-not-great players

    I think the first is far too much risk to take on, the second simply absurd, and the third undesirable.

     

     

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

    Re: If 2013 proves to be a failure......

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]

    So, Ben is successful because all the players he signed are not good enough or not signed to a long enough term to keep back any prospects.

    Think about what you are saying.

    The guys we signed did not make us serious contenders in 2013 and have "no impact" on us being any better in 2014 and beyond. What is good about this plan?

    (Other than anything we may get by trading them.)

    [/QUOTE]

    The players signed all have the potential to be above average players next year.  They aren't all-stars but they are solid players who will supplement the guys who are capable of being all-stars like Lester, Buchholz, Ortiz, Pedroia.  It's been said many times, you don't need a team full of all-stars to contend for a title. 

    [/QUOTE]

    OK, so when we win 81-84 games this year, we can all point to Luccino's brilliance. When all the players he signed to more than 1 year decline in production in 2014 and 2015 due to their age, we can again, point to Larry as the man who saved us from Theo.

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

    Re: If 2013 proves to be a failure......

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't agree with this.  I think there was little to spend our money on that was a good, long term risk but we had to spend it on something.  And I think we've now got a team that will be competetive.

    I also think the new guys will have little if any negative impact on our prospects/future but possibly some positive impact on them.  For example:

    • Drew - 1 year contract.  Bogaerts is not ready, Iggy never will be.  No impact.
    • Ross - 2 years to be a backup.  Is it unreasonable to think he might be able to help Salty, Lava, Swihart, Lester, Buchholz, Morales, etc?
    • Gomes - 2 years, needed someone at least this year
    • Dempster - 2 years.  Exactly how many SPs do you expect to be held back by him during 2013/2014?
    • Victorino - 3 years, hopefully will recover fully from injury, insurance for Ells....will we have 3 OF develop by 2014 and 4 by 2015?  Another Rice/Lynn/Evans trifecta?  Very unlikely, and he will likely be a good mentor for them all
    • Napoli - 3 years (assumption).  Who are the firstbasemen he'll hold back? 

      

    [/QUOTE]

    So, Ben is successful because all the players he signed are not good enough or not signed to a long enough term to keep back any prospects.

    Think about what you are saying.

    The guys we signed did not make us serious contenders in 2013 and have "no impact" on us being any better in 2014 and beyond. What is good about this plan?

    (Other than anything we may get by trading them.)

    [/QUOTE]

    "Think about what you are saying"?  I expect better from you than that, Moon.  You should think about what you're reading.

    I wrote "I think we've now got a team that will be competetive."  I wrote " there was little to spend our money on that was a good, long term risk".  I wrote "little if any negative impact on our prospects/future" and I wrote "possibly some positive impact on them".

    I disagree that we are "competitive" beyond maybe coming close to a wild card berth. I read what you wrote correctly, but disgaree.

    Your main point was that the players we signed might impact our prospects in a positive way or have no impact at all on them, basically because they are not good enough to keep the kids down, or that they will be gone by the time the kids are ready. That is the gist of Ben's plan, and to me, it is clearly a horrible plan.

    What is wrong with a cheap plan, that carries little risk, cost no prospects, makes us competetive in 2013, had no negative impact on the young players we hope are coming through and talent we might be able to cash in at some point....and all at a time when there was little in the way of FAs to spend on.  Because that is what I wrote and think.  

    The moves do not make us a serious competitive team. Almost any plan would have made us "more competitive" than 2012, so giving Ben (and Larry) points for improvement over 2012 is not saying much at all.

    None of these guys are really going to contribute in 2014 or 2015, except to maybe get out of the way of our kids or by bringing other prospects via trades.

    Most of the plans I've read here over the past few months are:

    • high risk, $300m spent on 2-3 damaged goods FA contracts
    • back-up-the-truck disposals of our surplus middling players for high-impact players
    • trading some of our top prospects for reasonably good-but-not-great players

    I think the first is far too much risk to take on, the second simply absurd, and the third undesirable.

    You missed the best plan: get rid of all players that will not be here or be productive in 2014 and beyond by trading themn for prospects or players near their prime and under team control for 3+ years. Sign younger FAs who will be in their prime by 2014 and 2015. And, if we are going to spend millions and millions on a weak FA class, at least get one that will still be productive in 2014, 2015 and beyond, even if in decline.

    We played it halfway and now we will not be competitive in 2013 or 2014 due to anything we did this winter, so far.

     




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

    Re: If 2013 proves to be a failure......

     

    [/QUOTE]


    "Think about what you are saying"?  I expect better from you than that, Moon.  You should think about what you're reading.

    I wrote "I think we've now got a team that will be competetive."  I wrote " there was little to spend our money on that was a good, long term risk".  I wrote "little if any negative impact on our prospects/future" and I wrote "possibly some positive impact on them".

    I disagree that we are "competitive" beyond maybe coming close to a wild card berth. I read what you wrote correctly, but disgaree.

    Your main point was that the players we signed might impact our prospects in a positive way or have no impact at all on them, basically because they are not good enough to keep the kids down, or that they will be gone by the time the kids are ready. That is the gist of Ben's plan, and to me, it is clearly a horrible plan.

    What is wrong with a cheap plan, that carries little risk, cost no prospects, makes us competetive in 2013, had no negative impact on the young players we hope are coming through and talent we might be able to cash in at some point....and all at a time when there was little in the way of FAs to spend on.  Because that is what I wrote and think.  

    The moves do not make us a serious competitive team. Almost any plan would have made us "more competitive" than 2012, so giving Ben (and Larry) points for improvement over 2012 is not saying much at all.

    None of these guys are really going to contribute in 2014 or 2015, except to maybe get out of the way of our kids or by bringing other prospects via trades.

    Most of the plans I've read here over the past few months are:

    • high risk, $300m spent on 2-3 damaged goods FA contracts
    • back-up-the-truck disposals of our surplus middling players for high-impact players
    • trading some of our top prospects for reasonably good-but-not-great players

    I think the first is far too much risk to take on, the second simply absurd, and the third undesirable.

    You missed the best plan: get rid of all players that will not be here or be productive in 2014 and beyond by trading themn for prospects or players near their prime and under team control for 3+ years. Sign younger FAs who will be in their prime by 2014 and 2015. And, if we are going to spend millions and millions on a weak FA class, at least get one that will still be productive in 2014, 2015 and beyond, even if in decline.

    We played it halfway and now we will not be competitive in 2013 or 2014 due to anything we did this winter, so far.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't agree with your "best plan" for several reasons:

    • I don't think it's realistic to expect a billion dollar corporation to throw in the towel on a season;
    • I don't think it's necessary, either;  we disagree on the upside of this team.  I think my upside (86-90 wins) could make the playoffs, and if Buch and Lester return to form this team could win it all.  Not will, not a high probability, but could.  And I think to achieve that without sacrificing picks/prospects would be a great achievement;
    • Younger FAs?  How many <30 FAs are there?  Ever?  The oldest positional player signed (3 years), Victorino, will probably be one of the fittest and fastest guys on the team.  Napoli - assuming he's signed - would be a 33-year old first baseman when his contract runs out.  The rest are 1-2 year contracts.  That's not a lot of age-related risk, IMO;
    • Finally, trade whom, exactly, for "players near their prime and under team control for 3+ years".  Players like that command top, healthy talent with some control themselves.  All we have that would bring in "players near their prime and under team control for 3+ years" are Pedroia, Lester and Buchholz.  I would not trade them now...they can contribute for us for a few more years.  Ells?  I agree with your judgement about trading now cum-pick (assuming another team assumes they will make a qualifying offer, of course) but the Sox think they have a chance bettered with him.  And I agree.

     

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

    Re: If 2013 proves to be a failure......

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You missed the best plan: get rid of all players that will not be here or be productive in 2014 and beyond by trading themn for prospects or players near their prime and under team control for 3+ years. Sign younger FAs who will be in their prime by 2014 and 2015. And, if we are going to spend millions and millions on a weak FA class, at least get one that will still be productive in 2014, 2015 and beyond, even if in decline.

    [/QUOTE]

    The list of younger FAs who will be in their prime by 2014 and 2015 was a pretty short list, wasn't it?

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

    Re: If 2013 proves to be a failure......

    I don't agree with your "best plan" for several reasons:

    • I don't think it's realistic to expect a billion dollar corporation to throw in the towel on a season; 

       Newsflash: they already have, but did enough to convince many of you otherwise. We are pretenders and nothing more. Also, my plan did make us better in 2013, in fact, I think even better than what we have now.

    • I don't think it's necessary, either;  we disagree on the upside of this team.  I think my upside (86-90 wins) could make the playoffs, and if Buch and Lester return to form this team could win it all.  Not will, not a high probability, but could.  And I think to achieve that without sacrificing picks/prospects would be a great achievement; 

      My top plan did not invole signing any FAs that cost us a pick. It did involve a trade of some prospects to get J Upton or B Anderson, but by trading away Ellsbury, Breslow and Salty, some of those prospects would have been replaced. 

    • Younger FAs?  How many <30 FAs are there?  Ever?  The oldest positional player signed (3 years), Victorino, will probably be one of the fittest and fastest guys on the team.  Napoli - assuming he's signed - would be a 33-year old first baseman when his contract runs out.  The rest are 1-2 year contracts.  That's just not a lot of risk, IMO;

       Yes, there were younger FAs than the ones we signed. Victorino may already be in the midst of a decline, and while he is very fit, his type of profile do not normally age well.

      It's not about risk. I understand the advantage of short contracts. My point was that Dempster and Napoli do nothing to help us in 2014 or 2015, except to get out of the way for our prospects. To me, that is a lame argument.

    • Finally, trade whom, exactly, for "players near their prime and under team control for 3+ years".  Players like that command top, healthy talent with some control themselves.  All we have that would bring in "players near their prime and under team control for 3+ years" are Pedroia, Lester and Buchholz.  I would not trade them now...they can contribute for us for a few more years.  Ells?  I agree with your judgement about trading now cum-pick (assuming another team assumes they will make a qualifying offer, of course) but the Sox think they have a chance bettered with him.  And I agree.

     I gave several very specific examples of who to trade for B Anderson, Upton, and even Myers or Stanton when I heard they were trade bait. I realize it cost us prospects, but the guys we would have gotten would have helped us much more in 2013 than anyone we got, but more importantly, they'd be in the peak of their prime by 2015 (except maybe Myers might still be pre-prime).

    Simply put, the plan should have been to...

    1) Build up the farm by trading players who will not be here in 2014 and maybe some by 2015 (Elssbury, Breslow, Salty, Bailey, Miller...)

    2) Keep all draft picks by not signing big-named FAs, but if we were going to spend this many millions on a weak FA class, at least sign a guy like Hamilton or A Sanchez who, although hamilton will be past prime for his last years, will still be highly prodiuctive in 2015 and beyond. (perhaps worth losing a pick over).

    3) Sign younger FAs that may be gambles, but who will be in their primes by 2014 and 2015. (I suggested McCarthy at $25M/3 and A Pagan at $41M/4, but also think $82M/5 for A Sanchez would have been a move that was better than what we did.)

    4) Sign some 1 year players like Uehara, and maybe a couple 2 year deals like D Ross & Gomez.

     

    Fans would be just as happy.

    We'd be better than we are for 2013.

    We'd be much better going into 2014 and beyond.

     

Share