Let's keep youth movement going!!!

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from bigdog1. Show bigdog1's posts

    Let's keep youth movement going!!!

    For years on this forum I have read from several of poster's " that we need to get younger!" or "we need to change the culture of the clubhouse!".  Our young GM and Ownership are in the process of doing just that!!  Young Ben has carried out the trash, via the Dodgers deal last year, and has brought in hardnosed ball player's in there place.  By bringing in the FA'S  that young Ben has it will allow the MLB club to be competive while the younger player's, that are still being developed, can learn off these MLB how to be proffessional ball player's.  It's a win win situatation for us as fans.   By signing the FA'S that we did, we have yet to forfeit any future draft pick's and we have been able to add pieces that not have costs us any of are young core player's. 

    More and more teams have seen the way that Tampa and Oakland has developed thier team's over the last 10 years and teams have now seen that this is the way build a long sustaining organization.  Sure other teams such as KC and the Pirates have been rebuilding for years, with very little success, but the difference between us and them is that we can surround our prospects with expiernced ball player's so they can learn how to become a MLB player's.  Next year The Yankees will have four draft picks out of the first 65 player's, you don't think they don't see what is going on?  The day's of big market clubs being able to domminate all the talent are over, with revenue sharing and TV deals, all MLB teams are going to be able to retain a certian number of their young player's.   

    The Blue Jay's have went all in this year and maybe they will have some short term succes?  But what will happen to them if they don't?  It will probbaly take them at least 5 to 10 years to rebuild.  I for one am a REd Sox fan and I want to be competive for a Championship for 8 out of every 10 years and I relize that if we do not stick to our youth movement program and continue to develope a core of young player's year end and year out we will be a medicore organization for a long time.

    Young Ben and the ownership group have a plan and it's a good plan!!  The land scape of MLB has changed forever and we must change with it or become an extinct Dinosauer.  I prefer to evolve and adapt.  So the next time you guy's bash young Ben for trading our top prospect's for the like's of R.A. Dickey or go after every top FA out there just remeber what the future holds if we stick to the youth movement plan instead settling for a couple more medicore years.  The organization will spend when we need to but I like the fact that they have done it a way that it does not effect the effort to add top young prospect to our organization.  I want to say this to Young Ben and the ownership group"STICK TO THE PLAN AND THANKS!"! 

     

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Soxdog67. Show Soxdog67's posts

    Re: Let's keep youth movement going!!!

    The one key factor to the youth movement plan is that the young players the Sox have drafted over the last few years, since winning the '07 WS, are capable of playing at a high level in the majors.

    The Sox have plenty of names that "could" be this type of player, but none of them is a certainty. As a result, sometimes it takes trading those prospects for proven MLB talent to effectively build a competitve major league roster.

    Let's remember that because of the Sox success over the last few seasons...not including 2012 obviously...that their draft picks are middle of the pack and the players they are getting are not likely to turn into the super star caliber player all teams need to build a playoff type core.

    Let's hope Theo and Ben have drafted players good enough to be solid major leaguers for the Red Sox. Ellsbury. Pedroia, Buccholz and now hopefully Middlebrooks are key pieces of the puzzle...but will Bradley, Bogarts, Barnes, Brentz, etc. etc be able to continue feeding the major league team or are the Sox better off moving them for players like Stanton or McCutchen etc...players who've proven their worth at the MLB level.

    I believe there needs to be a balance of both to build a MLB roster...remember this also...TB, KC, Oakland and others were bad teams for a number of years and they are finally seeing the fruits of their very high draft picks start reaching the majors...the better the draft position, the more likely you get a can't miss player.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from parhunter55. Show parhunter55's posts

    Re: Let's keep youth movement going!!!

    I do believe the Sox have two real keepers in Bogaerts and Bradley and are correct to build around the idea that they will both be playing full-time for the big league club come 2014 (maybe 2015 for Bogaerts, especially if he transitions to another position).

    It is in the pitching department that the Sox suffer most, IMO, by having to draft very late in the round.  However, I do like Webster, De LaRosa, Barnes and their potential.  And, because he is a local kid (to me...I live in NJ) I am pulling for Pat Light.  This is a better crop of young arms than the Sox have had in some time, IMO.  And it is not lost on me that two of the top three actually come from another system.

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

    Re: Let's keep youth movement going!!!

    Youth movement?

    30 Drew

    31 Hanrahan

    25 Holt

    36 Dempster

    38 Uehara

    32 Victorino

    32 Gomes

    36 D Ross

    37 Ortiz

    Napoli?

     

    Yes, I know we kept most of our youth from our farm intact- that was your point, however, I don't see the rest of "the plan" as being geared towards anything beyond 2013, except that many will be gone by 2014 and their lost contracts may clear the way for players that may help our future.

    The one trade we made was not really "future" orientated, unless you really love Brock Holt.

    We got:

    1 year of Hanrahan

    4-5 years of Holt

    We gave:

    4 years of Melancon

    4-5 years of Sands

    4-5 years of Pimental

    ? years of DeJesus

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from parhunter55. Show parhunter55's posts

    Re: Let's keep youth movement going!!!

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Youth movement?

    30 Drew

    31 Hanrahan

    25 Holt

    36 Dempster

    38 Uehara

    32 Victorino

    32 Gomes

    36 D Ross

    37 Ortiz

    Napoli?

     

    Yes, I know we kept most of our youth from our farm intact- that was your point, however, I don't see the rest of "the plan" as being geared towards anything beyond 2013, except that many will be gone by 2014 and their lost contracts may clear the way for players that may help our future.

    The one trade we made was not really "future" orientated, unless you really love Brock Holt.

    We got:

    1 year of Hanrahan

    4-5 years of Holt

    We gave:

    4 years of Melancon

    4-5 years of Sands

    4-5 years of Pimental

    ? years of DeJesus




    Yes, I agree.  Not sure what the Hanrahan deal is all about, unless it is a precursor deal to an outfielder or SP where Bailey and perhaps Aceves, Morales, or Doubront are moved.  If the Sox do not extend Hanrahan (or trade him high in July if clearly out of the hunt) then this deal makes no sense on either front (building for 2013 or building for 2014 and beyond).

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

    Re: Let's keep youth movement going!!!

    In response to parhunter55's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Youth movement?

    30 Drew

    31 Hanrahan

    25 Holt

    36 Dempster

    38 Uehara

    32 Victorino

    32 Gomes

    36 D Ross

    37 Ortiz

    Napoli?

     

    Yes, I know we kept most of our youth from our farm intact- that was your point, however, I don't see the rest of "the plan" as being geared towards anything beyond 2013, except that many will be gone by 2014 and their lost contracts may clear the way for players that may help our future.

    The one trade we made was not really "future" orientated, unless you really love Brock Holt.

    We got:

    1 year of Hanrahan

    4-5 years of Holt

    We gave:

    4 years of Melancon

    4-5 years of Sands

    4-5 years of Pimental

    ? years of DeJesus




    Yes, I agree.  Not sure what the Hanrahan deal is all about, unless it is a precursor deal to an outfielder or SP where Bailey and perhaps Aceves, Morales, or Doubront are moved.  If the Sox do not extend Hanrahan (or trade him high in July if clearly out of the hunt) then this deal makes no sense on either front (building for 2013 or building for 2014 and beyond).



    More of the "playing it halfway plan". Unless they really like Holt more than Sands, Melancon & Pimental, this can not be seen as "keeping the youth movement going".

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

    Re: Let's keep youth movement going!!!

    you cant have a youth movement if your team has most of its starters in their 30s...

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

    Re: Let's keep youth movement going!!!

    We gave:

    4 years of Melancon

    4-5 years of Sands

    4-5 years of Pimental

    ? years of DeJesus

    That doesn't have much bearing on a youth movement.  DeJesus was already DFAd with no one claiming him.  Sands and Pimental were going to fall victim to the 40-man roster squeeze.  Melancon is the only piece they traded.  And it is entirely possible that was done so because we didn't think he could handle Boston.

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

    Re: Let's keep youth movement going!!!

    More of the "playing it halfway plan". Unless they really like Holt more than Sands, Melancon & Pimental, this can not be seen as "keeping the youth movement going".

    While I agree that most of the off-season is not a true 'youth movement', we did keep all our real prospects.  Trading off a couple of low-level prospects doesn't impact our minor league system in any material way.  DeJesus was DFAd, when the LAD needed an OF, they traded for an ancient Abreu rather than give Sands a shot, and more than a few RS fans didn't even want Pimental on the 40-man roster.

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

    Re: Let's keep youth movement going!!!

     

    Overall, I like the direction of the Red Sox.

    It seems like the clubhouse is full of positive men who want to play hard and win.  Once the team starts to win, the clubhouse will be even more exciting and fun to watch. 

    The starting pitchers need to pick it up in 2013.  The bullpen is solid and the line-up is decent. 

    Anything can happen.  How many of us thought that the Oakland A's would win the AL West or the Baltimore O's win a wild card spot? 

     

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

    Re: Let's keep youth movement going!!!

    The Red Sox gave MLB contracts to eight free agents* who will be at least 30 years old on Opening Day 2013 and traded for 31-year-old Joel Hanrahan.

    The Boston farm system remains virtually intact, but the aging MLB roster got older.

    * counting Mike Napoli

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

    Re: Let's keep youth movement going!!!

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    We gave:

    4 years of Melancon

    4-5 years of Sands

    4-5 years of Pimental

    ? years of DeJesus

    That doesn't have much bearing on a youth movement.  DeJesus was already DFAd with no one claiming him.  Sands and Pimental were going to fall victim to the 40-man roster squeeze.  Melancon is the only piece they traded.  And it is entirely possible that was done so because we didn't think he could handle Boston.



    I seriously doubt Sands was going to be cut. I did not have much faith in Pimental, but the fact remains: this trade was not a "youth movement" deal, and that was my point.

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

    Re: Let's keep youth movement going!!!

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    More of the "playing it halfway plan". Unless they really like Holt more than Sands, Melancon & Pimental, this can not be seen as "keeping the youth movement going".

    While I agree that most of the off-season is not a true 'youth movement', we did keep all our real prospects.  Trading off a couple of low-level prospects doesn't impact our minor league system in any material way.  DeJesus was DFAd, when the LAD needed an OF, they traded for an ancient Abreu rather than give Sands a shot, and more than a few RS fans didn't even want Pimental on the 40-man roster.



    Basically, 3 years of Melancon (and Sands) for 1 year of Hanrahan and hopes that Holt will thrive. 

    Again, not a "youth movement" by any stretch of the imagination.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from bigdog1. Show bigdog1's posts

    Re: Let's keep youth movement going!!!

    Rember if Hanaran has a good season as well Drew this could net us two more addtioal picks next year along with Ells.  This may have been a very good move.

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

    Re: Let's keep youth movement going!!!

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    More of the "playing it halfway plan". Unless they really like Holt more than Sands, Melancon & Pimental, this can not be seen as "keeping the youth movement going".

    While I agree that most of the off-season is not a true 'youth movement', we did keep all our real prospects.  Trading off a couple of low-level prospects doesn't impact our minor league system in any material way.  DeJesus was DFAd, when the LAD needed an OF, they traded for an ancient Abreu rather than give Sands a shot, and more than a few RS fans didn't even want Pimental on the 40-man roster.



    Basically, 3 years of Melancon (and Sands) for 1 year of Hanrahan and hopes that Holt will thrive. 

    Again, not a "youth movement" by any stretch of the imagination.



    I'm saying, in terms of 'youth movement' it was a non-event.  Trading two ranked prospects for Gonzo is an event.  Trading away Gonzo++ for two ranked prospects is an event.  Trading guys that are unlikely to be major league starters, is a non-event.

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

    Re: Let's keep youth movement going!!!

    In response to bigdog1's comment:

    Rember if Hanaran has a good season as well Drew this could net us two more addtioal picks next year along with Ells.  This may have been a very good move.



    That's what I am hoping for with both him and Drew.  Hanrahan is a bit of a stretch, but if he has a really good season, it is possible that he could be looking at a 3-year contract, and might turn down a qualifying offer.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Soxdog67. Show Soxdog67's posts

    Re: Let's keep youth movement going!!!

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    More of the "playing it halfway plan". Unless they really like Holt more than Sands, Melancon & Pimental, this can not be seen as "keeping the youth movement going".

    While I agree that most of the off-season is not a true 'youth movement', we did keep all our real prospects.  Trading off a couple of low-level prospects doesn't impact our minor league system in any material way.  DeJesus was DFAd, when the LAD needed an OF, they traded for an ancient Abreu rather than give Sands a shot, and more than a few RS fans didn't even want Pimental on the 40-man roster.



    Basically, 3 years of Melancon (and Sands) for 1 year of Hanrahan and hopes that Holt will thrive. 

    Again, not a "youth movement" by any stretch of the imagination.




    Just because not every move is slanted toward youth, the fact is the Sox are building a roster for 2013 with players in the prime years...in baseball terms...except Dempster and Uehara who are in their mid-30s.

    The players that make up the 2013 everyday line-up will make the team competitive for the next couple of years with hopefully the infusion of some youngsters from the minors or future trades/free agents keeping them that way.

    • 30 Drew - Still in prime years...could be a good fit now that ankle issues behind him.
    • 31 Hanrahan - Still in prime years - not sure what their long term goals are with him...we should have a clearer picture in July.
    • 25 Holt - not a factor on Major League roster in '13 or if he is a real prospect.
    • 36 Dempster - post prime - but might eat innings and be a good influence to younger players.
    • 38 Uehara - post prime in age, but has been effective in relief the last few years...provides bullpen depth.
    • 32 Victorino - still in prime years - I'm not sure what we'll get offensively from him but he could be a spark at the top of the line-up.
    • 32 Gomes - still in prime years - but nothing more than a platoon OF who could be fun to watch in Fenway
    • 36 D Ross - post prime - and nothing more than a backup catcher.
    • 37 Ortiz - post prime - still the face of the franchise and hopefully can remain healthy i n'13.
    • Napoli? - still in prime at 31 - bring an everyday power RH bat to go with Ortiz in the middle of the order...

    Time will tell if a superstar player without a lot of baggage becomesavailable that the Sox could use their depth in the minors to acquire. But those type of deals become harder to make unless players reach free agency at a young age.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from AL34. Show AL34's posts

    Re: Let's keep youth movement going!!!

    I agree with youth movement but we did not pick up young guys this off season. I hope that there is not an underling to lower payroll on the overall team, charge top dollar on tickets and then sell the team in the near future. I have absolutely no trust in Larry Luchinno:

    1) When he lied about picking up a pitcher prior to Spring Training.

    2 Ben was empowered to do something big at the trade deadline last year, which all it was was a salary dump.

    3) He said we would have a high payroll this year. Question, what is the figure that he thinks is a "High Payroll" ?

    4) We were talking to Josh Hamilton, and did nothing.

    5) We were also talking to Cody Ross, and let him go elsewhere.

    I have no trust in this guy and he is really running the show, not Ben Cherrington. You would have to be naive to believe Ben Cherrington is "calling the shots" on this team.

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

    Re: Let's keep youth movement going!!!

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    More of the "playing it halfway plan". Unless they really like Holt more than Sands, Melancon & Pimental, this can not be seen as "keeping the youth movement going".

    While I agree that most of the off-season is not a true 'youth movement', we did keep all our real prospects.  Trading off a couple of low-level prospects doesn't impact our minor league system in any material way.  DeJesus was DFAd, when the LAD needed an OF, they traded for an ancient Abreu rather than give Sands a shot, and more than a few RS fans didn't even want Pimental on the 40-man roster.



    Basically, 3 years of Melancon (and Sands) for 1 year of Hanrahan and hopes that Holt will thrive. 

    Again, not a "youth movement" by any stretch of the imagination.



    I'm saying, in terms of 'youth movement' it was a non-event.  Trading two ranked prospects for Gonzo is an event.  Trading away Gonzo++ for two ranked prospects is an event.  Trading guys that are unlikely to be major league starters, is a non-event.



    I'm not the one who called this a youth movement. I am meerly pointing out that it is not a youth movement and providing supporting evidence to make my point clear.

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

    Re: Let's keep youth movement going!!!

    In response to Soxdog67's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    More of the "playing it halfway plan". Unless they really like Holt more than Sands, Melancon & Pimental, this can not be seen as "keeping the youth movement going".

    While I agree that most of the off-season is not a true 'youth movement', we did keep all our real prospects.  Trading off a couple of low-level prospects doesn't impact our minor league system in any material way.  DeJesus was DFAd, when the LAD needed an OF, they traded for an ancient Abreu rather than give Sands a shot, and more than a few RS fans didn't even want Pimental on the 40-man roster.



    Basically, 3 years of Melancon (and Sands) for 1 year of Hanrahan and hopes that Holt will thrive. 

    Again, not a "youth movement" by any stretch of the imagination.




    Just because not every move is slanted toward youth, the fact is the Sox are building a roster for 2013 with players in the prime years...in baseball terms...except Dempster and Uehara who are in their mid-30s.

    The players that make up the 2013 everyday line-up will make the team competitive for the next couple of years with hopefully the infusion of some youngsters from the minors or future trades/free agents keeping them that way.

    • 30 Drew - Still in prime years...could be a good fit now that ankle issues behind him.
    • 31 Hanrahan - Still in prime years - not sure what their long term goals are with him...we should have a clearer picture in July.
    • 25 Holt - not a factor on Major League roster in '13 or if he is a real prospect.
    • 36 Dempster - post prime - but might eat innings and be a good influence to younger players.
    • 38 Uehara - post prime in age, but has been effective in relief the last few years...provides bullpen depth.
    • 32 Victorino - still in prime years - I'm not sure what we'll get offensively from him but he could be a spark at the top of the line-up.
    • 32 Gomes - still in prime years - but nothing more than a platoon OF who could be fun to watch in Fenway
    • 36 D Ross - post prime - and nothing more than a backup catcher.
    • 37 Ortiz - post prime - still the face of the franchise and hopefully can remain healthy i n'13.
    • Napoli? - still in prime at 31 - bring an everyday power RH bat to go with Ortiz in the middle of the order...

    Time will tell if a superstar player without a lot of baggage becomesavailable that the Sox could use their depth in the minors to acquire. But those type of deals become harder to make unless players reach free agency at a young age.



    Most regard 32 as the end of prime, as in the last year of prime or beyond peak prime.

    I understand that these guys in their prime oR BACK-END of prime will help us get better in 2013, but better than last place has a lot of ground top make up. My point is, we did not make up enough ground to be serious ring contenders, thus my phrase, "playing it halfway". 

    My first choice was to build totally for 2014 and beyond, but with some signings and moves that would have helped us improve in 2013  as in "along the way" to a better future. That means signing and trading for players that would be entering or about to enter their prime in 2014 or 2015 not 2013. Even the guys like Victorino & Napoli will be "post prime" (barely) by 2014 & 2015. So, the guys we signed beyond 2013 are not likely to be getting any better and could be in decline by the time I was hoping we'd become serious contenders.

    My second choice was to go all out to win in 2013, with the idea that the big named players we signed may stay good enough beyond 2013 to keep us competitive for 2-3 years. Great players who decline as they reach 32-34 should do better than average or slightly better than average players entering post prime years. I was not for signing Hamilton or Greinke, but I'd have preffered signing Hamilton and A Sanchez and maybe McCarthy over what we did playing it halfway.

    My point is that not trading away our toip youth is not what I'd call a "youth movement". The AGon deal was a "youth movement deal" in many senses, but my hope was that the money saved in the deal would have been spent on younger FAs like A Sanchez and McCarthy. Trading away our free agents-to-be for more prospects would have lessened the blow on the farm when we traded a few to get someone like Upton, B Anderson, Myers or Stanton.

    I know I am oversimplifying things, and creating alternate scenarios are full of what ifs and near blind conjecture, but can anybody doubt that we'd not be better in 2013 and more importantly had we done something like this instead:

    No: Victorino, Dempster, Napoli, Gomes(?), Drew, Ellsbury, Salty, Breslow, Aceves, Doubront, Morales,  Bradley, Brentz, Cecchini and other lower prospects.

    Yes: Uehara, DRoss, A Sanchez, B Anderson, McCarthy, and Upton (or Myers/Stanton).

    Even if we didn't get Anderson, but got Bourn or Victorino instead,  I like the "yes team" better.

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

    Re: Let's keep youth movement going!!!

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    I know I am oversimplifying things, and creating alternate scenarios are full of what ifs and near blind conjecture, but can anybody doubt that we'd not be better in 2013 and more importantly had we done something like this instead:

    No: Victorino, Dempster, Napoli, Gomes(?), Drew, Ellsbury, Salty, Breslow, Aceves, Doubront, Morales,  Bradley, Brentz, Cecchini and other lower prospects.

    Yes: Uehara, DRoss, A Sanchez, B Anderson, McCarthy, and Upton (or Myers/Stanton).

    Even if we didn't get Anderson, but got Bourn or Victorino instead,  I like the "yes team" better.




     

    Yes, I doubt we would be better. Who plays CF, LF, or 1st base?

    What are you giving up for Upton and Anderson? Don't see enough good prospects being dumped for them.  Not even close.

    Personally, I think Ellsbury plays better then Upton this year. So the only difference is your three non ace starters for......Dempster, Doubront, Morales, Drew, Gomes, Napoli, Victorino, and other pieces. Not sure there is a huge amount of difference between Dempster and Sanchez and Doubront and Mccarthy. Maybe a game each. So it ends up being for me at least a LF platoon guy, a OF, a 1st basemen and an upgrade at SS for Brett Anderson vs. John Lackey or Morales. I think we lose more games. And if you gave up Anderson for Victorino, not sure where there is any argument even.

    And if you want to go younger, not sure why you are giving up on Doubront anyway. Or why you want Uehara or Ross.

     

    Don't get me wrong, I see your general point. I probably would have signed McCarthy instead of Dempster too. And if  Sanchez had cost 15 million instead of 17 million, I would have signed him too. But he didn't.

     

    One element you are forgetting is that we have many prospects that might be ready by the midway point in the season. And adding a Rubby or Bradley or Bogaerts can add a lot to the team. And trades at the deadline can aswell. At the deadline we can either go all in as you might say or go  younger and make a bunch of dumping trades. Still time to move off the 50 yard line. Having the option might be the smarter way to go. Instead of commiting one way or the other now.

     

    The difference I see is that I think we are much better then you think and that going for it is still a very real option.

     

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

    Re: Let's keep youth movement going!!!

    In response to BMav's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    I know I am oversimplifying things, and creating alternate scenarios are full of what ifs and near blind conjecture, but can anybody doubt that we'd not be better in 2013 and more importantly had we done something like this instead:

    No: Victorino, Dempster, Napoli, Gomes(?), Drew, Ellsbury, Salty, Breslow, Aceves, Doubront, Morales,  Bradley, Brentz, Cecchini and other lower prospects.

    Yes: Uehara, DRoss, A Sanchez, B Anderson, McCarthy, and Upton (or Myers/Stanton).

    Even if we didn't get Anderson, but got Bourn or Victorino instead,  I like the "yes team" better.




     

    Yes, I doubt we would be better. Who plays CF, LF, or 1st base?

    What are you giving up for Upton and Anderson? Don't see enough good prospects being dumped for them.  Not even close.

    Personally, I think Ellsbury plays better then Upton this year. So the only difference is your three non ace starters for......Dempster, Doubront, Morales, Drew, Gomes, Napoli, Victorino, and other pieces. Not sure there is a huge amount of difference between Dempster and Sanchez and Doubront and Mccarthy. Maybe a game each. So it ends up being for me at least a LF platoon guy, a OF, a 1st basemen and an upgrade at SS for Brett Anderson vs. John Lackey or Morales. I think we lose more games. And if you gave up Anderson for Victorino, not sure where there is any argument even.

    And if you want to go younger, not sure why you are giving up on Doubront anyway. Or why you want Uehara or Ross.

     

    Don't get me wrong, I see your general point. I probably would have signed McCarthy instead of Dempster too. And if  Sanchez had cost 15 million instead of 17 million, I would have signed him too. But he didn't.

     

    One element you are forgetting is that we have many prospects that might be ready by the midway point in the season. And adding a Rubby or Bradley or Bogaerts can add a lot to the team. And trades at the deadline can aswell. At the deadline we can either go all in as you might say or go  younger and make a bunch of dumping trades. Still time to move off the 50 yard line. Having the option might be the smarter way to go. Instead of commiting one way or the other now.

     

    The difference I see is that I think we are much better then you think and that going for it is still a very real option.

     



    I had mentioned maybe it wasn't enough for B Anderson and Upton, but we'd be better with just 1. I mentioned maybe Bourn or Victorino for CF, but I still feel we'd be better with scrubs at the other slots. More importantly, we'd be better in 2014 and beyond.

    Points well taken though.

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share