Is 2013 the True "Bridge Year"?

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

    Re: Is 2013 the True

    In response to J-BAY's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to seabeachfred's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Soxdog67's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    We still have an entire Hot Stove season in front of us...so the jury is out on a bridge year until Cherington can complete the roster for 2013.

    Lets just say the Sox retain Ortiz and Ross and acquire a Josh Johnson, Justin Morneau and Michael Morse and retained the current core of major league players would you still call it a bridge year then?

    I can't say this will happen, but it is possible.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Yes it could happen but a lot would depend on Cherington's ability to function like a competent general manager---and that's the rub.  He hasn't shown any such capacity up to now.  He was taken in two trades, the Theo compensation farce, and some of his dumpster-diving signings were out and out disasters.  Risk averse and slow on the draw, he will have to be aggressive and pro-active and dive in with both feet if we are to make a recovery.  It has been over three weeks now since the season ended and in player personnel he hasn't done a da@n thing.

     

    [/QUOTE]


     because no one has been signed? fired a manager, hired one and reportedly is working on resigning Ortiz and Ross, which he said at season end were his priorities. Seriously fred, did Ben steal your girlfriend??

    [/QUOTE]


    Not quite JBay.  Been happily married to the same girl for 42 years, two months and 26 days.  But you are right about one thing---I think Cherington is incompetent and in over his head.  OK, you will get my mea culpa in short order if he does his job well this winter in that he gets us some of the reinforcements we need.  I just have deep doubts that he will do that, and if you want to take a gentlemen's bet, I say he blows the signing of Cody Ross.

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from J-BAY. Show J-BAY's posts

    Re: Is 2013 the True

    In response to seabeachfred's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to J-BAY's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to seabeachfred's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Soxdog67's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    We still have an entire Hot Stove season in front of us...so the jury is out on a bridge year until Cherington can complete the roster for 2013.

    Lets just say the Sox retain Ortiz and Ross and acquire a Josh Johnson, Justin Morneau and Michael Morse and retained the current core of major league players would you still call it a bridge year then?

    I can't say this will happen, but it is possible.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Yes it could happen but a lot would depend on Cherington's ability to function like a competent general manager---and that's the rub.  He hasn't shown any such capacity up to now.  He was taken in two trades, the Theo compensation farce, and some of his dumpster-diving signings were out and out disasters.  Risk averse and slow on the draw, he will have to be aggressive and pro-active and dive in with both feet if we are to make a recovery.  It has been over three weeks now since the season ended and in player personnel he hasn't done a da@n thing.

     

    [/QUOTE]


     because no one has been signed? fired a manager, hired one and reportedly is working on resigning Ortiz and Ross, which he said at season end were his priorities. Seriously fred, did Ben steal your girlfriend??

    [/QUOTE]


    Not quite JBay.  Been happily married to the same girl for 42 years, two months and 26 days.  But you are right about one thing---I think Cherington is incompetent and in over his head.  OK, you will get my mea culpa in short order if he does his job well this winter in that he gets us some of the reinforcements we need.  I just have deep doubts that he will do that, and if you want to take a gentlemen's bet, I say he blows the signing of Cody Ross.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    If no one was ever given a chance because they didn't have experience or a proven track record fred, there would be no need to go to college. My point, everyone has to start somewhere. Why if Ross isn't resigned it's because Cherington blew it? May be the right call, if Ross is looking for too much money/years?? Isn't that what were all screaming to get away from? I want Ross back as much as everyone else, for the right price. Let's wait and see what happens, and why

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

    Re: Is 2013 the True

    The Sox should make every effort to contend next year and every year.  The idea of a " bridge year " is not acceptable.  Anyway , a bridge to what ? 2014 ?  Because we have a few prospects who may or may not be ready by 2014 ?  Will 2014 then be called a " rebuilding year " ?   MLB is big business. The goal always has to be to win.  Anything less than that is nonsense.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: Is 2013 the True

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    The Sox should make every effort to contend next year and every year.  The idea of a " bridge year " is not acceptable.  Anyway , a bridge to what ? 2014 ?  Because we have a few prospects who may or may not be ready by 2014 ?  Will 2014 then be called a " rebuilding year " ?   MLB is big business. The goal always has to be to win.  Anything less than that is nonsense.

     

    That's one factor that got the aging Red Sox into their current predicament by expecting immediate returns on expensive, long-term contracts.

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

    Re: Is 2013 the True

    The Sox should make every effort to contend next year and every year.  The idea of a " bridge year " is not acceptable.  Anyway , a bridge to what ? 2014 ?  Because we have a few prospects who may or may not be ready by 2014 ?  Will 2014 then be called a " rebuilding year " ?   MLB is big business. The goal always has to be to win.  Anything less than that is nonsense.

     

    To think a team can go from worst to best in a single year without overpaying and repeating the same mistakes again is the real "nonsense" here.

    It's a weak FA market this year. It is not the year to try and make several splashes there.

    Make ourselves better this winter but with an eye on 2014 and beyond. It's a big a step. 

    Make more moves next winter (perhaps a better FA class), and allow some kids a legitimate chance to make an impact, and it is clear we can have a better chance to build a winner in 2014 than adesperate rush job chance in 2013.

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

    Re: Is 2013 the True

    I think we have a shot at one of those Wild Cards if everything comes together.  But our best shot is ceratinly in 2014.  I'd propose the following:

    1. Re-sign Ortiz (2yr 22m) and Ross (3yr 18m)

    2. Sign Jake Peavy (3yr 39m)

    3. Sign Torii Hunter (1yr 10m, $11m option)

    4. Sign a 1B (LaRoche, Napoli?) for no more tha 2yrs 11m/yr, Otherwise trade (Morneau?)

    5. Sign a deph IF (Drew, SCUTARO?)

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

    Re: Is 2013 the True

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The Sox should make every effort to contend next year and every year.  The idea of a " bridge year " is not acceptable.  Anyway , a bridge to what ? 2014 ?  Because we have a few prospects who may or may not be ready by 2014 ?  Will 2014 then be called a " rebuilding year " ?   MLB is big business. The goal always has to be to win.  Anything less than that is nonsense.

     

    To think a team can go from worst to best in a single year without overpaying and repeating the same mistakes again is the real "nonsense" here.

    It's a weak FA market this year. It is not the year to try and make several splashes there.

    Make ourselves better this winter but with an eye on 2014 and beyond. It's a big a step. 

    Make more moves next winter (perhaps a better FA class), and allow some kids a legitimate chance to make an impact, and it is clear we can have a better chance to build a winner in 2014 than adesperate rush job chance in 2013.

    [/QUOTE]

    The Sox don't have to sign expensive free agents to long term contracts to be competitive next year.  They need to stay relatively healthy and add a few pieces.  The "Sox" became the "Sox" in 1967 when they won 20 more games than the year before, because a couple of guys had career years.  This team has the core talent, some very talented players who are coming back from injuries and all the resources they need to put together a team that could be in the hunt next year.   To think otherwise is simply foolish.

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

    Re: Is 2013 the True

    In response to jasko2248's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The Sox should make every effort to contend next year and every year.  The idea of a " bridge year " is not acceptable.  Anyway , a bridge to what ? 2014 ?  Because we have a few prospects who may or may not be ready by 2014 ?  Will 2014 then be called a " rebuilding year " ?   MLB is big business. The goal always has to be to win.  Anything less than that is nonsense.

     

    To think a team can go from worst to best in a single year without overpaying and repeating the same mistakes again is the real "nonsense" here.

    It's a weak FA market this year. It is not the year to try and make several splashes there.

    Make ourselves better this winter but with an eye on 2014 and beyond. It's a big a step. 

    Make more moves next winter (perhaps a better FA class), and allow some kids a legitimate chance to make an impact, and it is clear we can have a better chance to build a winner in 2014 than adesperate rush job chance in 2013.

    [/QUOTE]

    The Sox don't have to sign expensive free agents to long term contracts to be competitive next year.  They need to stay relatively healthy and add a few pieces.  The "Sox" became the "Sox" in 1967 when they won 20 more games than the year before, because a couple of guys had career years.  This team has the core talent, some very talented players who are coming back from injuries and all the resources they need to put together a team that could be in the hunt next year.   To think otherwise is simply foolish.

    [/QUOTE]


    Yes, miracles can happen.  Yes, we can make the playoffs in 2013 with a spectacular confluence of events.

    Planning on a miracle is what is truly "foolish".

    Our "core talent" &  players "coming back from injuries" (some are both):

    Ellsbury

    Pedroia

    Buchholtz

    Lester

    Lackey

    Bailey

    Doubront

    Morales

     

    This is not the '67 Red Sox.

    We need serious upgrades pronto to become serious cointenders. 

    Maybe we think of the word "serious" differently. Maybe dreaming a Jim Lonborg will drop out of the sky is a serious plan in your book, but until I see some major overhauls, I'm looking to 2014 and beyond, but will enjoy 2013 along the way. 

    I'm not hoping we sign Hamilton or Greinke and probably not Peavy either.

    I've suggested we try and get J Upton and some young starting pitchers under team control for 2 or more years. This would improve our outlook for 2013 for sure, but more importantly to me, for 2014 and beyond.

    I have said I am OK with some 1 year deals to fill some gaps to make us more competitive in 2013, as long as we don't mortgage the future to do so.

    I want us to win in 2013. I'd love a repeat of 1967 (and 1975 for that matter- another surprise season). It can happen. However, the odds are so great against it happening, that I am trying to be objective. I don't think objectivity is "foolish" or not being a true fan.

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

    Re: Is 2013 the True

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The Sox should make every effort to contend next year and every year.  The idea of a " bridge year " is not acceptable.  Anyway , a bridge to what ? 2014 ?  Because we have a few prospects who may or may not be ready by 2014 ?  Will 2014 then be called a " rebuilding year " ?   MLB is big business. The goal always has to be to win.  Anything less than that is nonsense.

     

    To think a team can go from worst to best in a single year without overpaying and repeating the same mistakes again is the real "nonsense" here.

    It's a weak FA market this year. It is not the year to try and make several splashes there.

    Make ourselves better this winter but with an eye on 2014 and beyond. It's a big a step. 

    Make more moves next winter (perhaps a better FA class), and allow some kids a legitimate chance to make an impact, and it is clear we can have a better chance to build a winner in 2014 than adesperate rush job chance in 2013.

    [/QUOTE]

    You are dead wrong. We went from best to worst very quickly. We can reverse that very quickly. Of course we don't want to repeat the mistakes. The "weak" market includes one of the best players in the game, and one of the best pitchers in the game.  Would next year really offer a better free agent class?  Allowing our "kids " a chance to make an impact is an optimistic pipe dream. As if other teams don't have prospects of their own.  At best , only a couple of our prospects will become MLB stars. When did we become a small market team ?  We have won but two championships in our lifetimes. They did not result from being cheap and patient. We have plenty of money to spend. Spend it wisely.  Go for the gold every year.  Cannot expect people to continue to support mediocrity.  You seem like you love to play with stats , and put your own philosophy ahead of what is needed for an exciting and successful season. It is hard enough to win it all when you have a good team , but if you have a legitimate contender every year , you will win some. " Bridge years" are for losers and , like five year plans , are a con job on the fans , and not acceptable for a large market franchise. 

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: Is 2013 the True

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    You are dead wrong. We went from best to worst very quickly. We can reverse that very quickly. Of course we don't want to repeat the mistakes. The "weak" market includes one of the best players in the game, and one of the best pitchers in the game.  Would next year really offer a better free agent class?  Allowing our "kids " a chance to make an impact is an optimistic pipe dream. As if other teams don't have prospects of their own.  At best , only a couple of our prospects will become MLB stars. When did we become a small market team ?  We have won but two championships in our lifetimes. They did not result from being cheap and patient. We have plenty of money to spend. Spend it wisely.  Go for the gold every year.  Cannot expect people to continue to support mediocrity.  You seem like you love to play with stats , and put your own philosophy ahead of what is needed for an exciting and successful season. It is hard enough to win it all when you have a good team , but if you have a legitimate contender every year , you will win some. " Bridge years" are for losers and , like five year plans , are a con job on the fans , and not acceptable for a large market franchise.


    Best what? The Red Sox have not been to postseason since 2009 and have not won a postseason game since 2008.

    Would you give Josh Hamilton and Zack Greinke six-year contracts? Or will Hamilton and Greinke be this offseason's version of Carl Crawford and John Lackey?

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

    Re: Is 2013 the True

    You are dead wrong. We went from best to worst very quickly.

    5 years is not that "quick".

    We can reverse that very quickly. Of course we don't want to repeat the mistakes. The "weak" market includes one of the best players in the game, and one of the best pitchers in the game.  

    Getting either or both of these two will take CC  type money to make it happen. It would be repeating the same mistake with a prayer that the results work out this time. It might work, but at their ages, any long term deal is a mistake.

    My point has been that to get instantly serious as contenders, we'd have to make deals like these. 

    I think this is "dead wrong".

    That is not to say I am not for any bold moves. My suggested plans have been very bold and comprehensive, as well as containing a longer view than some other plans listed on this site.

    Would next year really offer a better free agent class?  Allowing our "kids " a chance to make an impact is an optimistic pipe dream. As if other teams don't have prospects of their own.  

    We will be one of the top rated farm systems at the next rating cycle. Even before the deal that brought us Webster, de la Rosa and Sands, we had some solid prospects at nearly every level in the minors and at almost every position as well. 

    I never said other teams do not have prospects that will make an impact, but I do not think I am being overly optimistic at all to think that we will see an impact by 2014 or 2015 from more than 1 of our top prospects.

    At best , only a couple of our prospects will become MLB stars. When did we become a small market team ?  

    When have I advocated a small market approach? Look at my plans. I am for trading for players with some large salaries and signing several players for pretty large salaries. I'm just not for adding $100M in one winter.

    We have won but two championships in our lifetimes. They did not result from being cheap and patient.

    We also did not start with this roster back in 2003. We did not do it all in one winter.

    We have plenty of money to spend. Spend it wisely.  Go for the gold every year.  Cannot expect people to continue to support mediocrity.  

    I think my plans will make us better than mediocre by 2013, and highly competitive by 2014.

    You seem like you love to play with stats , and put your own philosophy ahead of what is needed for an exciting and successful season.

    I happen to think adding J Upton, Brett Anderson, B McCarthy, K Morales, and others would be very exciting. I have also mentioned Shields, E Jackson, Bourn (if jacoby is dealt) and other exciting players. My basic philosphy is exciting baseball: top starting pitchers, an excellent fielding SS, and a solid & balanced line-up. 

    It is hard enough to win it all when you have a good team , but if you have a legitimate contender every year , you will win some. " Bridge years" are for losers and , like five year plans , are a con job on the fans , and not acceptable for a large market franchise. 

    Mine is a 2 year plan that improves us greatly in 2013. Maybe we disagree at what our starting point is going into 2013. Right now, we are one of the worst MLB ready teams on paper. Yes, we have a lot of budget to play with and will certainly spend big somewhere this year, but I really think trying to go all out in a spending and trading frenzy this winter is almost certainly bound to result in some CC/Lackey type failures.

    A while ago, I submitted a plan that could make us instant contenders and stay under the luxury tax limit in 2013 (barely). It was not a plan I advocated, but it can be done. I happen to think going all out in this manner greatly improves the risk of returning to the state we were in before the big LA trade, except this time we might not find a sucker to take several albatrosses off our hands.

    Have you already forgotten the angst of looking forward to 5 more years of Crawford at $20M+/yr? Was that winning baseball? Exciting baseball? I think not.

    My philosophy is sound, as are several other various philosophies presented on this site. I happen to think trying to win it all in 2013 would take too much out of the long-run outlook to be worth it.

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

    Re: Is 2013 the True

    In response to hill55's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    You are dead wrong. We went from best to worst very quickly. We can reverse that very quickly. Of course we don't want to repeat the mistakes. The "weak" market includes one of the best players in the game, and one of the best pitchers in the game.  Would next year really offer a better free agent class?  Allowing our "kids " a chance to make an impact is an optimistic pipe dream. As if other teams don't have prospects of their own.  At best , only a couple of our prospects will become MLB stars. When did we become a small market team ?  We have won but two championships in our lifetimes. They did not result from being cheap and patient. We have plenty of money to spend. Spend it wisely.  Go for the gold every year.  Cannot expect people to continue to support mediocrity.  You seem like you love to play with stats , and put your own philosophy ahead of what is needed for an exciting and successful season. It is hard enough to win it all when you have a good team , but if you have a legitimate contender every year , you will win some. " Bridge years" are for losers and , like five year plans , are a con job on the fans , and not acceptable for a large market franchise.



    Best what? The Red Sox have not been to postseason since 2009 and have not won a postseason game since 2008.

     

    Would you give Josh Hamilton and Zack Greinke six-year contracts? Or will Hamilton and Greinke be this offseason's version of Carl Crawford and John Lackey?

    [/QUOTE]

    Hill, what do you think of Ellsbury, Cecchini and Pimental for Tommy Hanson?

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

    Re: Is 2013 the True

    In response to hill55's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    You are dead wrong. We went from best to worst very quickly. We can reverse that very quickly. Of course we don't want to repeat the mistakes. The "weak" market includes one of the best players in the game, and one of the best pitchers in the game.  Would next year really offer a better free agent class?  Allowing our "kids " a chance to make an impact is an optimistic pipe dream. As if other teams don't have prospects of their own.  At best , only a couple of our prospects will become MLB stars. When did we become a small market team ?  We have won but two championships in our lifetimes. They did not result from being cheap and patient. We have plenty of money to spend. Spend it wisely.  Go for the gold every year.  Cannot expect people to continue to support mediocrity.  You seem like you love to play with stats , and put your own philosophy ahead of what is needed for an exciting and successful season. It is hard enough to win it all when you have a good team , but if you have a legitimate contender every year , you will win some. " Bridge years" are for losers and , like five year plans , are a con job on the fans , and not acceptable for a large market franchise.



    Best what? The Red Sox have not been to postseason since 2009 and have not won a postseason game since 2008.

     

    Would you give Josh Hamilton and Zack Greinke six-year contracts? Or will Hamilton and Greinke be this offseason's version of Carl Crawford and John Lackey?

    [/QUOTE]

    Hill , up until September of 2011 , the Sox were regarded as the one of the best , if not the best in the game. Then came the fall. I think that is common knowledge.  Because mistakes were made, should not be an excuse to become afraid to take a chance. Some free agents work out,and some don't. That is how it goes. Anyway ,it seems to me that you don't have the Sox best interests at heart. So ,your opinion matters little to me. Good luck with the chronic losers in Seattle. 

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

    Re: Is 2013 the True

    Hill , up until September of 2011 , the Sox were regarded as the one of the best , if not the best in the game. Then came the fall. I think that is common knowledge.  Because mistakes were made, should not be an excuse to become afraid to take a chance. Some free agents work out,and some don't. That is how it goes. Anyway ,it seems to me that you don't have the Sox best interests at heart. So ,your opinion matters little to me. Good luck with the chronic losers in Seattle. 

    Hill is one of the most consistent and objective voices on this site. Shooting down unreasonable trade proposals by zealous Sox fans may frustrate many posters here, but he has been informative and reasonable much more often than not.

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

    Re: Is 2013 the True

    In response to hill55's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    You are dead wrong. We went from best to worst very quickly. We can reverse that very quickly. Of course we don't want to repeat the mistakes. The "weak" market includes one of the best players in the game, and one of the best pitchers in the game.  Would next year really offer a better free agent class?  Allowing our "kids " a chance to make an impact is an optimistic pipe dream. As if other teams don't have prospects of their own.  At best , only a couple of our prospects will become MLB stars. When did we become a small market team ?  We have won but two championships in our lifetimes. They did not result from being cheap and patient. We have plenty of money to spend. Spend it wisely.  Go for the gold every year.  Cannot expect people to continue to support mediocrity.  You seem like you love to play with stats , and put your own philosophy ahead of what is needed for an exciting and successful season. It is hard enough to win it all when you have a good team , but if you have a legitimate contender every year , you will win some. " Bridge years" are for losers and , like five year plans , are a con job on the fans , and not acceptable for a large market franchise.



    Best what? The Red Sox have not been to postseason since 2009 and have not won a postseason game since 2008.

     

    Would you give Josh Hamilton and Zack Greinke six-year contracts? Or will Hamilton and Greinke be this offseason's version of Carl Crawford and John Lackey?

    [/QUOTE]


     

    Please stop with the dim view.  You knew what he meant.

     

    On August 31, 2011, the Red Sox were 83-52, which was the best record in MLB.  Just because no awards are given out for best record at the 135 game mark does not make it meaningless.

     

    Want more reality?   After one bad month, the Red Sox planned to have a linuep including Ellsbury, Pedroia, Crawford, Gonzalez, Ortiz, and Youkilis.   How many games did these 6 players all play in together?  Hint: Zero.  Might injuries have been a factor as well?  This was very reminiscint of the 2001 Red Sox, who were supposed to have Nomar, Manny, Everett, etc., but instead watched inury after injury deplete that team.  And we all remember the horrific tailspin the team went into after that,  winning only 753 games over the next 8 years and taking 2 World Series titles.

     

    And even with the injuries and the subpar seasons from their two 2 starters in 2012, the Sox managed to stay within striking distance of first place through July, long after the Mariners hoisted yet nother White Flag as their fanbase started drooling over the next wave of prospects that the team will watch blossom into mediocrity over the next few seasons...

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

    Re: Is 2013 the True

    In response to hill55's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    You are dead wrong. We went from best to worst very quickly. We can reverse that very quickly. Of course we don't want to repeat the mistakes. The "weak" market includes one of the best players in the game, and one of the best pitchers in the game.  Would next year really offer a better free agent class?  Allowing our "kids " a chance to make an impact is an optimistic pipe dream. As if other teams don't have prospects of their own.  At best , only a couple of our prospects will become MLB stars. When did we become a small market team ?  We have won but two championships in our lifetimes. They did not result from being cheap and patient. We have plenty of money to spend. Spend it wisely.  Go for the gold every year.  Cannot expect people to continue to support mediocrity.  You seem like you love to play with stats , and put your own philosophy ahead of what is needed for an exciting and successful season. It is hard enough to win it all when you have a good team , but if you have a legitimate contender every year , you will win some. " Bridge years" are for losers and , like five year plans , are a con job on the fans , and not acceptable for a large market franchise.



    Best what? The Red Sox have not been to postseason since 2009 and have not won a postseason game since 2008.

     

    Would you give Josh Hamilton and Zack Greinke six-year contracts? Or will Hamilton and Greinke be this offseason's version of Carl Crawford and John Lackey?

    [/QUOTE]

    I was about to say the same thing as Notin, but he did it much better than I ever could...Nice job...

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sheriff-Rojas. Show Sheriff-Rojas's posts

    Re: Is 2013 the True

    2013 is going to be a viaduct year. 

    Why a duck?  What not a chicken?  Nah, that was 2011.

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

    Re: Is 2013 the True

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Hill , up until September of 2011 , the Sox were regarded as the one of the best , if not the best in the game. Then came the fall. I think that is common knowledge.  Because mistakes were made, should not be an excuse to become afraid to take a chance. Some free agents work out,and some don't. That is how it goes. Anyway ,it seems to me that you don't have the Sox best interests at heart. So ,your opinion matters little to me. Good luck with the chronic losers in Seattle. 

    Hill is one of the most consistent and objective voices on this site. Shooting down unreasonable trade proposals by zealous Sox fans may frustrate many posters here, but he has been informative and reasonable much more often than not.

    [/QUOTE]


    Your correct he has been and I respect that. But lately it seems hes taking little jabs at the sox prospects and team as if hes bitter about something...Im not the only one noticing this Moon...

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

    Re: Is 2013 the True

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jasko2248's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The Sox should make every effort to contend next year and every year.  The idea of a " bridge year " is not acceptable.  Anyway , a bridge to what ? 2014 ?  Because we have a few prospects who may or may not be ready by 2014 ?  Will 2014 then be called a " rebuilding year " ?   MLB is big business. The goal always has to be to win.  Anything less than that is nonsense.

     

    To think a team can go from worst to best in a single year without overpaying and repeating the same mistakes again is the real "nonsense" here.

    It's a weak FA market this year. It is not the year to try and make several splashes there.

    Make ourselves better this winter but with an eye on 2014 and beyond. It's a big a step. 

    Make more moves next winter (perhaps a better FA class), and allow some kids a legitimate chance to make an impact, and it is clear we can have a better chance to build a winner in 2014 than adesperate rush job chance in 2013.

    [/QUOTE]

    The Sox don't have to sign expensive free agents to long term contracts to be competitive next year.  They need to stay relatively healthy and add a few pieces.  The "Sox" became the "Sox" in 1967 when they won 20 more games than the year before, because a couple of guys had career years.  This team has the core talent, some very talented players who are coming back from injuries and all the resources they need to put together a team that could be in the hunt next year.   To think otherwise is simply foolish.

    [/QUOTE]


    Yes, miracles can happen.  Yes, we can make the playoffs in 2013 with a spectacular confluence of events.

    Planning on a miracle is what is truly "foolish".

    Our "core talent" &  players "coming back from injuries" (some are both):

    Ellsbury

    Pedroia

    Buchholtz

    Lester

    Lackey

    Bailey

    Doubront

    Morales

     

    This is not the '67 Red Sox.

    We need serious upgrades pronto to become serious cointenders. 

    Maybe we think of the word "serious" differently. Maybe dreaming a Jim Lonborg will drop out of the sky is a serious plan in your book, but until I see some major overhauls, I'm looking to 2014 and beyond, but will enjoy 2013 along the way. 

    I'm not hoping we sign Hamilton or Greinke and probably not Peavy either.

    I've suggested we try and get J Upton and some young starting pitchers under team control for 2 or more years. This would improve our outlook for 2013 for sure, but more importantly to me, for 2014 and beyond.

    I have said I am OK with some 1 year deals to fill some gaps to make us more competitive in 2013, as long as we don't mortgage the future to do so.

    I want us to win in 2013. I'd love a repeat of 1967 (and 1975 for that matter- another surprise season). It can happen. However, the odds are so great against it happening, that I am trying to be objective. I don't think objectivity is "foolish" or not being a true fan.

    [/QUOTE]

    This team doesn't need a "miracle" to compete for a title next year, but you're entitled to your opinion.  I wouldn't trade rosters with the A's or Orioles right now, two teams that made the playoffs this year, and if history has shown us anything, it's that literally "anything" can happen once a team does get into the playoffs.  I'm not sure what the difference between a "contender" and a "serious contender" is in your world, because very rarely does the team with the most talent on paper win it all.  The Giants lost their best hitter with a couple of months left in the season and now look like they are on their way to their 2nd title in 3 years, because they got hot at the right time, not because they are the most "talented" team by any stretch. 

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

    Re: Is 2013 the True

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Hill , up until September of 2011 , the Sox were regarded as the one of the best , if not the best in the game. Then came the fall. I think that is common knowledge.  Because mistakes were made, should not be an excuse to become afraid to take a chance. Some free agents work out,and some don't. That is how it goes. Anyway ,it seems to me that you don't have the Sox best interests at heart. So ,your opinion matters little to me. Good luck with the chronic losers in Seattle. 

    Hill is one of the most consistent and objective voices on this site. Shooting down unreasonable trade proposals by zealous Sox fans may frustrate many posters here, but he has been informative and reasonable much more often than not.

    [/QUOTE]


    In my view , Hill likes to shoot down every positive post regarding the Sox , while building up the perennially hapless Mariners.  But if you enjoy being the arbiter of who is a sincere poster , go right ahead. 

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

    Re: Is 2013 the True

    Hill is one of the most consistent and objective voices on this site. Shooting down unreasonable trade proposals by zealous Sox fans may frustrate many posters here, but he has been informative and reasonable much more often than not.

    [/QUOTE]


    Your correct he has been and I respect that. But lately it seems hes taking little jabs at the sox prospects and team as if hes bitter about something...Im not the only one noticing this Moon...

     

    Hill has consistently showed that most Sox fans on this site "over-value" our players and prospects. I think he relies too heavily on WAR and prospect rankings by services, but that is another matter. 

    Many of the offers he puts down are worthy of his scorn, but at times, I do think he is a bit hypercritical of our prospects. Hisrecent perceived  "bitterness" might be a result of personal attacks on him and his beloved Seattle team.

    I'm glad he is here.

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

    Re: Is 2013 the True

    This team doesn't need a "miracle" to compete for a title next year, but you're entitled to your opinion.  I wouldn't trade rosters with the A's or Orioles right now, two teams that made the playoffs this year, and if history has shown us anything, it's that literally "anything" can happen once a team does get into the playoffs. 

     

    I wouldn't trade full rosters either, but the O's and A's currently have better ML ready players on their rosters than us, so in terms of 2013 only, they are currently ahead of us in odds on winning a 2013 WS ring.

    I'm not sure what the difference between a "contender" and a "serious contender" is in your world, because very rarely does the team with the most talent on paper win it all.  The Giants lost their best hitter with a couple of months left in the season and now look like they are on their way to their 2nd title in 3 years, because they got hot at the right time, not because they are the most "talented" team by any stretch. 

    I never said "most talented" usually wins it all, in fact, I said being a top 4-6 team is what I call a "serious contender". 

    If you notice the teams that might have appeared to be ranked 4-8 over the season, but who won a ring, they all had solid starting pitchers. We are not even close to that right now, and adding Grienk or Peavy alone will not change that fact. It would take a big addition and many other things to all go right for us to be a team like SF or StL. I call it a miracle for 2013. We can agree to disagree on what a "miracle" is, but if we added Peavy, Hamilton, and Napoli, I'd rank us at about 7th to 10th best in MLB...on paper.

    While the Giants staff has had their struggles this year, they have several starters with fine histories of pitching very well, and a fanbtastic young starter in Bumgarner. They had 3 starters with a 3.37 or lower ERA and under a 1.23 WHIP along with a "miracle" revival of Zito (16 playoff innings and just 3 ERs).

    The Tigers are no surprise. They easily had the best pitching WAR this year in MLB. They had 3 starters under 3.74 and a Papi-Mannyesque 1-2 punch of Fielder and Cabrera to lead them to a non miracle WS opportunity.

    When we pick up a Cain & Bumgarner or Fielder & Cabrera , I'll call us serious contenders.

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

    Re: Is 2013 the True

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    This team doesn't need a "miracle" to compete for a title next year, but you're entitled to your opinion.  I wouldn't trade rosters with the A's or Orioles right now, two teams that made the playoffs this year, and if history has shown us anything, it's that literally "anything" can happen once a team does get into the playoffs. 

     

    I wouldn't trade full rosters either, but the O's and A's currently have better ML ready players on their rosters than us, so in terms of 2013 only, they are currently ahead of us in odds on winning a 2013 WS ring.

    I'm not sure what the difference between a "contender" and a "serious contender" is in your world, because very rarely does the team with the most talent on paper win it all.  The Giants lost their best hitter with a couple of months left in the season and now look like they are on their way to their 2nd title in 3 years, because they got hot at the right time, not because they are the most "talented" team by any stretch. 

    I never said "most talented" usually wins it all, in fact, I said being a top 4-6 team is what I call a "serious contender". 

    If you notice the teams that might have appeared to be ranked 4-8 over the season, but who won a ring, they all had solid starting pitchers. We are not even close to that right now, and adding Grienk or Peavy alone will not change that fact. It would take a big addition and many other things to all go right for us to be a team like SF or StL. I call it a miracle for 2013. We can agree to disagree on what a "miracle" is, but if we added Peavy, Hamilton, and Napoli, I'd rank us at about 7th to 10th best in MLB...on paper.

    While the Giants staff has had their struggles this year, they have several starters with fine histories of pitching very well, and a fanbtastic young starter in Bumgarner. They had 3 starters with a 3.37 or lower ERA and under a 1.23 WHIP along with a "miracle" revival of Zito (16 playoff innings and just 3 ERs).

    The Tigers are no surprise. They easily had the best pitching WAR this year in MLB. They had 3 starters under 3.74 and a Papi-Mannyesque 1-2 punch of Fielder and Cabrera to lead them to a non miracle WS opportunity.

    When we pick up a Cain & Bumgarner or Fielder & Cabrera , I'll call us serious contenders.

    [/QUOTE]

    I never said the Tigers were a "surprise."  The Sox need to add a starter and they will, but to say their rotation "isn't even close" is glass half half empty at it's best.  Buchholz can be as good as anyone not named Verlander, and he was for a good portion of last season.  If healthy, there is no reason why he can't be a top of the rotation guy.  Farrell has already said he saw what was wrong with Lester in the beginning of the season, and Lester pitched to a sub 4.00 e.r.a. in the second half.  Lackey will finally be pitching fully healthy and he could certainly surprise.  Doubront has terrific stuff, and even Morales looked better than most 5's out there.  If they add one more guy who can give them what Kuroda gave the Yankees this year, then they will certainly have a staff strong enough to be "serious" contenders. Even if they suffer a serious injury, they have all the resources to go get someone. 

    I would be shocked if the O's or A's finished ahead of the Sox next year.  I also don't think either team will be close to Boston talent wise, once this off-season is over.  My whole point with you is that you continually post that 2013 is a "bridge year" as if it's a certainty, when the offseason hasn't even unfolded yet.  Why not see what the Front Office does before you pass judgement on this team's chances?

    By the way, how would Dan Uggla "DH?"  Are you putting Ortiz in right field?

     

     

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: Is 2013 the True

    In response to notin's comment:

    Please stop with the dim view.  You knew what he meant. On August 31, 2011, the Red Sox were 83-52, which was the best record in MLB.  Just because no awards are given out for best record at the 135 game mark does not make it meaningless.



    To be precise, on August 31, 2011, the Philadelphia Phillies had baseball's best record at 86-46 while the Red Sox had the second-best record at 83-52:

     

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/games/standings.cgi?date=2011-08-31

    Gone from that 83-52 Red Sox club are Adrian Gonzalez, Jonathan Papelbon, Carl Crawford, Josh Beckett, Kevin Youkilis, J.D. Drew, Marco Scutaro, Jason Varitek, Daisuke Matsuzaka, Tim Wakefield, Mike Aviles, Josh Reddick and Jed Lowrie.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share