1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Alibiike. Show Alibiike's posts

    Re: Name one transaction......

    In response to Beantowne's comment:

    News Flash; It's begining to look at lot like Christmas...meaning that the roster is still a work in progress and likely will remain in flux until the begining of February...As we stand today we're a better team than the one that finished 2012 season. However we're a long ways from the promise that was the roster entering the 2011 season. A team that was supposed to win 100 games and deliver another championship banner, only to crumble under the weight of expectations. Which culmanated in an historic collaspe that cost Francona his job and it was due to the toxic nature of the clubhouse and the dysfuction that was the team entering the 2012 season. That Cherington was charged with dismantling the worst team money could buy...

    With that as the backdrop and the lessons learned by the organization. We fast forward to today and although the current team lacks "buzz" and in impact hitter or two...What Cherington has done is sign guys that embody the type of character that makes for a winning ball club with the hopes of the new guys coming in and helping to change the culture in the clubhouse. Synergy is a powerful tool when everyone on the team buys into the concept that together they are greater than the sum of the parts. Personally I'm looking forward to the coming year if for no other reason than I don't have to read or be reminded of the drama that was the clubhouse the last three years.

    I say we give Cherington some time and if we don't see marked improvement in the manner in which the team carries itself which should manifest itself with victories on the fiel, then we can hang him in effigy...til then, we may not be the best team on paper and we may struggle to win 80 games in 2013...If we lose becasue we lack talant vs effort while I too will be disapointed I'll give ben his due and look for him to continue to retool the club with 2014 being another year of adding to the mix...Make no mistake about it what this club lacks is a couple of impact middle of the order bats (Manny & Ortiz) and a top of the rotation starter (Clemens- Pedr-Schlling). I know it, Ben knows it and most of you know it...each of them are valuable commodities that once the nucleaus of the team is place can be added to the mix and be the cherry on top...trust me when I say that if players that fit that profile come to market Cherington and the Red Sox will be players in the game.

    First things first...we have clean up was is percieved by most of the top players as a place that is toxic and if given an option will pass...



    What would you say a reasonable amount of time would be? Given the contracts he has offered, looks like we must wait 3 years to see any marked improvement.

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

    Re: Name one transaction......

    In response to Alibiike's comment:

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars's comment:

    In response to Alibiike's comment:

    My question in all this is, what is the goal if not to win a chanpionship? You can't depend on prospects that may or may not pan out in the future. Trying to limit signings to 2 or 3 years nets you the kind of players we got, guys who are just not impact players.

    Like I said before, either play the kids now or trade them for some stars who can win a championship. And completely revamp the SP. If anyone thinks the 5 we have now will win 70-75 games, there better be a whole lot run support.



    But Ike, the only two presumed "impact players" were high risk, damaged goods that still cost nearly $300m over 5-7 years!  Very bad bets, IMO. 

    You've got it backwards:

    The Sox didn't get impact players because they only offered 1-3 years!  They were only willing to go 1-3 years because no impact players - other than the above referenced damaged goods - were available. 

     

     




    You are talking strictly FAs. Trades could be made to get the guys that would make a difference. The problem with thast though, is that Ben would have to part with prospects or draft picks, which he refuses to do. To me, that is just ignorant.



    What do you think he is doing?  By taking on short-term contracts and holding on to prospects, he is manuevering to be in a position to make a deal when a deal is to be made. Where you go awry is in the false assumption that the trade market exists on the same timeline as the free agent market.  Going forward and into the 2013 season, the Sox are now able to make significant trades.  Have you noticed how few trades have actually happened in this off-season?  There have been a couple big ones for sure.  But, while the Blue Jays definitely made a strong statement, I am sooo glad Ben didn't try to go one up for those Big Labor goons (thank you Softy).  The Royals trade was very interesting but the pieces didn't fit.  Your assumptions about what he 'refuses to do' are absolutely ridiculous.  Why?  because he hasn't pulled the trigger on a trade this offseason?  Wondering if you can tell me a few deals that you know were on the table, or even players being dangled for trades.

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

    Re: Name one transaction......

    In response to EdithBRTN's comment:

    In response to Alibiike's comment:

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars's comment:

    In response to Alibiike's comment:

    My question in all this is, what is the goal if not to win a chanpionship? You can't depend on prospects that may or may not pan out in the future. Trying to limit signings to 2 or 3 years nets you the kind of players we got, guys who are just not impact players.

    Like I said before, either play the kids now or trade them for some stars who can win a championship. And completely revamp the SP. If anyone thinks the 5 we have now will win 70-75 games, there better be a whole lot run support.



    But Ike, the only two presumed "impact players" were high risk, damaged goods that still cost nearly $300m over 5-7 years!  Very bad bets, IMO. 

    You've got it backwards:

    The Sox didn't get impact players because they only offered 1-3 years!  They were only willing to go 1-3 years because no impact players - other than the above referenced damaged goods - were available. 

     

     




    You are talking strictly FAs. Trades could be made to get the guys that would make a difference. The problem with thast though, is that Ben would have to part with prospects or draft picks, which he refuses to do. To me, that is just ignorant.




    Your OP was talking about spending the available $$$ for free agents. Here it is:

    After jettising Becket, Crawford and Agon, everyone assumed he had the payroll to acquire some good young talent to rebuild this team. Instead he goes out and gets a bunch of old guys, only one of which has had a decent career, but age is catching up to him. Not only that, but he way overpaid for these guys.



    I was reponding to the two position players mentioned in the previous post. The FAs I was talking about were pitchers, which was the problem area that needed to be addressed and was not. There were some goode FA pitchers available who are still relatively young.  Besides no where in that post you cited does it mention the words "Free Agent".

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from 56redsox. Show 56redsox's posts

    Re: Name one transaction......

    The Red Sox announced that they will formally introduce Ryan Dempster at Fenway Park today. The Red Sox agreed to sign the free agent right-hander to a two-year, $26.5MM contract last week, Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports reported (Twitter links). LSW Baseball represents Dempster.
    Read more at http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/boston_red_sox/index.html#1UlVwEqeG8V27hbj.99

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

    Re: Name one transaction......

    In response to 56redsox's comment:

    The Red Sox announced that they will formally introduce Ryan Dempster at Fenway Park today. The Red Sox agreed to sign the free agent right-hander to a two-year, $26.5MM contract last week, Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports reported (Twitter links). LSW Baseball represents Dempster.
    Read more at http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/boston_red_sox/index.html#1UlVwEqeG8V27hbj.99



    I was hoping he flunked the physical and we could wiggle out of the deal.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from 56redsox. Show 56redsox's posts

    Re: Name one transaction......

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to 56redsox's comment:

    The Red Sox announced that they will formally introduce Ryan Dempster at Fenway Park today. The Red Sox agreed to sign the free agent right-hander to a two-year, $26.5MM contract last week, Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports reported (Twitter links). LSW Baseball represents Dempster.
    Read more at http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/boston_red_sox/index.html#1UlVwEqeG8V27hbj.99



    I was hoping he flunked the physical and we could wiggle out of the deal.



    To Me Its A Plus From Cook And Dice...

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

    Re: Name one transaction......

    In response to Alibiike's comment:

    In response to Beantowne's comment:

    News Flash; It's begining to look at lot like Christmas...meaning that the roster is still a work in progress and likely will remain in flux until the begining of February...As we stand today we're a better team than the one that finished 2012 season. However we're a long ways from the promise that was the roster entering the 2011 season. A team that was supposed to win 100 games and deliver another championship banner, only to crumble under the weight of expectations. Which culmanated in an historic collaspe that cost Francona his job and it was due to the toxic nature of the clubhouse and the dysfuction that was the team entering the 2012 season. That Cherington was charged with dismantling the worst team money could buy...

    With that as the backdrop and the lessons learned by the organization. We fast forward to today and although the current team lacks "buzz" and in impact hitter or two...What Cherington has done is sign guys that embody the type of character that makes for a winning ball club with the hopes of the new guys coming in and helping to change the culture in the clubhouse. Synergy is a powerful tool when everyone on the team buys into the concept that together they are greater than the sum of the parts. Personally I'm looking forward to the coming year if for no other reason than I don't have to read or be reminded of the drama that was the clubhouse the last three years.

    I say we give Cherington some time and if we don't see marked improvement in the manner in which the team carries itself which should manifest itself with victories on the fiel, then we can hang him in effigy...til then, we may not be the best team on paper and we may struggle to win 80 games in 2013...If we lose becasue we lack talant vs effort while I too will be disapointed I'll give ben his due and look for him to continue to retool the club with 2014 being another year of adding to the mix...Make no mistake about it what this club lacks is a couple of impact middle of the order bats (Manny & Ortiz) and a top of the rotation starter (Clemens- Pedr-Schlling). I know it, Ben knows it and most of you know it...each of them are valuable commodities that once the nucleaus of the team is place can be added to the mix and be the cherry on top...trust me when I say that if players that fit that profile come to market Cherington and the Red Sox will be players in the game.

    First things first...we have clean up was is percieved by most of the top players as a place that is toxic and if given an option will pass...



    What would you say a reasonable amount of time would be? Given the contracts he has offered, looks like we must wait 3 years to see any marked improvement.



    I think three years to become relevent is fair, I would hope they're at least competitive in 2013. In that time he'll have the opportunity to change the prevailing perception of the dysfuction that was The Boston Red Sox Baseball Club. More importantly is he'll have the chance to fully evaluate our top prospects vs the needs moving forward.

    An example is young Middlebrooks, is he the real deal and can he be counted on to man the hot corner at or above the major league minimum for the next 5 or 6 years through his arbitration years? Is he a kid with the upside of Evan Longoria or say a Mike Lowell or just another in a long line of players that are good enough to play at the big league level, but not someone you plan to use as a long term building block. The answer to that question pertains to everyone of our top prospects.... if he is yes, then we can put a check mark next to his name and move on to the next to-do.

     

     
  9. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Name one transaction......

    In response to EdithBRTN's comment:

    In response to Alibiike's comment:

    In response to EdithBRTN's comment:

    In response to Alibiike's comment:

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars's comment:

    In response to Alibiike's comment:

    My question in all this is, what is the goal if not to win a chanpionship? You can't depend on prospects that may or may not pan out in the future. Trying to limit signings to 2 or 3 years nets you the kind of players we got, guys who are just not impact players.

    Like I said before, either play the kids now or trade them for some stars who can win a championship. And completely revamp the SP. If anyone thinks the 5 we have now will win 70-75 games, there better be a whole lot run support.



    But Ike, the only two presumed "impact players" were high risk, damaged goods that still cost nearly $300m over 5-7 years!  Very bad bets, IMO. 

    You've got it backwards:

    The Sox didn't get impact players because they only offered 1-3 years!  They were only willing to go 1-3 years because no impact players - other than the above referenced damaged goods - were available. 

     

     




    You are talking strictly FAs. Trades could be made to get the guys that would make a difference. The problem with thast though, is that Ben would have to part with prospects or draft picks, which he refuses to do. To me, that is just ignorant.




    Your OP was talking about spending the available $$$ for free agents. Here it is:

    After jettising Becket, Crawford and Agon, everyone assumed he had the payroll to acquire some good young talent to rebuild this team. Instead he goes out and gets a bunch of old guys, only one of which has had a decent career, but age is catching up to him. Not only that, but he way overpaid for these guys.



    I was reponding to the two position players mentioned in the previous post. The FAs I was talking about were pitchers, which was the problem area that needed to be addressed and was not. There were some goode FA pitchers available who are still relatively young.  Besides no where in that post you cited does it mention the words "Free Agent".




    You said that he overpaid. Doesn't that narrow it down to FAs?




    The point is that he should have focused on FA pitching, not aging position players who are past their prime. You know that is true, don't you?

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: Name one transaction......

    In response to Alibiike's comment:

    In response to EdithBRTN's comment:

    In response to Alibiike's comment:

    In response to EdithBRTN's comment:

    In response to Alibiike's comment:

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars's comment:

    In response to Alibiike's comment:

    My question in all this is, what is the goal if not to win a chanpionship? You can't depend on prospects that may or may not pan out in the future. Trying to limit signings to 2 or 3 years nets you the kind of players we got, guys who are just not impact players.

    Like I said before, either play the kids now or trade them for some stars who can win a championship. And completely revamp the SP. If anyone thinks the 5 we have now will win 70-75 games, there better be a whole lot run support.



    But Ike, the only two presumed "impact players" were high risk, damaged goods that still cost nearly $300m over 5-7 years!  Very bad bets, IMO. 

    You've got it backwards:

    The Sox didn't get impact players because they only offered 1-3 years!  They were only willing to go 1-3 years because no impact players - other than the above referenced damaged goods - were available. 

     

     




    You are talking strictly FAs. Trades could be made to get the guys that would make a difference. The problem with thast though, is that Ben would have to part with prospects or draft picks, which he refuses to do. To me, that is just ignorant.




    Your OP was talking about spending the available $$$ for free agents. Here it is:

    After jettising Becket, Crawford and Agon, everyone assumed he had the payroll to acquire some good young talent to rebuild this team. Instead he goes out and gets a bunch of old guys, only one of which has had a decent career, but age is catching up to him. Not only that, but he way overpaid for these guys.



    I was reponding to the two position players mentioned in the previous post. The FAs I was talking about were pitchers, which was the problem area that needed to be addressed and was not. There were some goode FA pitchers available who are still relatively young.  Besides no where in that post you cited does it mention the words "Free Agent".




    You said that he overpaid. Doesn't that narrow it down to FAs?




    The point is that he should have focused on FA pitching, not aging position players who are past their prime. You know that is true, don't you?




    can have to sign guys as their market plays out. the position player market appeared first. the pitching front was stalled behind Grienke,once he signed most every FA pitcher started coming off the boards. who cares what order we signed guys? are you out of things to cry about that you whine about something as trivial as the order in which FAs were signed? (especially without considering how the market works)

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

    Re: Name one transaction......

    Were all these deal really all bad?

     

    1) The Dodger trade was one of the best trades this club has ever made. The fact that he ruined the blank slate later does not take away from the tremendous value that traded added to this team.

    2) The Scutaro for Mortensen trade gave us several years of team control of Mort and gave up 1 year of control for Scoot. Aviles was a better SS than Scoot, and the money saved in the trade allowed us to sign Ross, Shoppach and Padilla.

    3) Cody Ross signing made us better.

    4) Shoppach signing made us better and brought Beato in return.

    5) The Ciriaco signing made us better in 2013 and beyond.

    6) The Pods purchase from the Phillies made us better.

    7) The trade of Pods and Albers for Breslow was a very good trade.

    8) The re-acquiring of Pods later was good.

    9) The signing of Mauro Gomez was good.

    10) The signing of Uehara was good for the team.

    11) Padilla helped us in 2012.

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

    Re: Name one transaction......

    In response to carnie's comment:

    ...that Cherington has made since he has been GM, that has actually helped this team get better. The only one that most of you will cite is Cody Ross. If that is the case, why wasn't he re-signed?

    Vicente Padilla, Clayton Mortenson. Oops sorry. That was two. And my take on why C Ross hasn't been resigned yet is that he's been looking for 3 years and we were able to get Gomes who gives us pretty much the same things as C Ross for 2. I also wouldn't give up on Bailey just yet either. He was only an all star closer in Oakland.



    Johnny Gomes gives the same thing as C. Ross?

    1. Cody Ross has had 6 seasons of 460 or more at bats. Johnny Gomes has had 2.

    2. Cody Ross has a lifetime average of .262, Johnny Gomes is .244

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

    Re: Name one transaction......

    In response to Alibiike's comment:

    My question in all this is, what is the goal if not to win a chanpionship? You can't depend on prospects that may or may not pan out in the future. Trying to limit signings to 2 or 3 years nets you the kind of players we got, guys who are just not impact players.

    Like I said before, either play the kids now or trade them for some stars who can win a championship. And completely revamp the SP. If anyone thinks the 5 we have now will win 70-75 games, there better be a whole lot run support.



    That's incredibly shallow thinking, imo.

    The first thing you need to do is to lay out the game plan.  Who are the kids you want to play? The idea is not to play kids just for the sake of playing kids.  The idea is to bring them up effectively and efficiently.

    Take JBJ as an example.  Ellsbury will leave after this year, we'll grab a pick, and JBJ takes over in CF in 2014.  That's excellent planning, or at least fortuitous timing.

    Which guys do you want to bring up this year that are ready?

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

    Re: Name one transaction......

    In response to georom4's comment:

    In response to mef429's comment:

    In response to georom4's comment:

    bootlickers are in hysterics....these signings are a joke - when the best thing you can say about the whole lot is that they are only three year deals at most and because of it they had to overpay, you are in sorry territory...

    we needed an ace, and a first basemen with pop...we got a thirtysomething neverwas and a guy who hasnt played a lot of either catcher or firstbase....the other outfielders? they will make JD Drew look like a bargain...Wily Mo Gomes & Victorino for 26 mil combines? why didnt we just sign hamilton or grienke for 25 million and skip on DrewII and the wrong Ross and we have just about the entire difference......

     

    i kniw why, because ben is a ball less wonder who fears what could go wrong more than he can committ to what the team truly needs...leadership...

     

    good news is that he's done after 2013




    yes, because a guy with drug addiction who btw has never been known to be a leader AND a pitcher with social anxiety issues would come to boston and provide leadership.. the only thing they would provide is a toilet to flush 150Mil down (more if either one gets injured or underperforms).

    glad your not running the show geo.



    yes youre right MEF, thats why both guys went to the largest media center in the planet and were paid a combined 300 million dollars by their teams to play for them....but a team like Boston that won 69 games last year DOESNT NEED THEM....

    i guess being the first and second ranked free agents in all of baseball isnt important to ben or you. is that your logic?



    You're trying to emulate the game plan of two of the worst GMs in BB?

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

    Re: Name one transaction......

    In response to ADG's comment:

    In response to carnie's comment:

    ...that Cherington has made since he has been GM, that has actually helped this team get better. The only one that most of you will cite is Cody Ross. If that is the case, why wasn't he re-signed?

    Vicente Padilla, Clayton Mortenson. Oops sorry. That was two. And my take on why C Ross hasn't been resigned yet is that he's been looking for 3 years and we were able to get Gomes who gives us pretty much the same things as C Ross for 2. I also wouldn't give up on Bailey just yet either. He was only an all star closer in Oakland.



    Johnny Gomes gives the same thing as C. Ross?

    1. Cody Ross has had 6 seasons of 460 or more at bats. Johnny Gomes has had 2.

    2. Cody Ross has a lifetime average of .262, Johnny Gomes is .244



    Player A .334 OBP, .455 SLG, .790 OPS,  OPS+ 109

    Player B .324 OBP, .460 SLG, .783 OPS, OPS+ 107

    Without looking, which set of numbers is better and why?

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

    Re: Name one transaction......

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Were all these deal really all bad?

     

    1) The Dodger trade was one of the best trades this club has ever made. The fact that he ruined the blank slate later does not take away from the tremendous value that traded added to this team.

    2) The Scutaro for Mortensen trade gave us several years of team control of Mort and gave up 1 year of control for Scoot. Aviles was a better SS than Scoot, and the money saved in the trade allowed us to sign Ross, Shoppach and Padilla.

    3) Cody Ross signing made us better.

    4) Shoppach signing made us better and brought Beato in return.

    5) The Ciriaco signing made us better in 2013 and beyond.

    6) The Pods purchase from the Phillies made us better.

    7) The trade of Pods and Albers for Breslow was a very good trade.

    8) The re-acquiring of Pods later was good.

    9) The signing of Mauro Gomez was good.

    10) The signing of Uehara was good for the team.

    11) Padilla helped us in 2012.



    You fell into his trap.  He asked you to name one, and you named 11.

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

    Re: Name one transaction......

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Were all these deal really all bad?

     

    1) The Dodger trade was one of the best trades this club has ever made. The fact that he ruined the blank slate later does not take away from the tremendous value that traded added to this team.

    2) The Scutaro for Mortensen trade gave us several years of team control of Mort and gave up 1 year of control for Scoot. Aviles was a better SS than Scoot, and the money saved in the trade allowed us to sign Ross, Shoppach and Padilla.

    3) Cody Ross signing made us better.

    4) Shoppach signing made us better and brought Beato in return.

    5) The Ciriaco signing made us better in 2013 and beyond.

    6) The Pods purchase from the Phillies made us better.

    7) The trade of Pods and Albers for Breslow was a very good trade.

    8) The re-acquiring of Pods later was good.

    9) The signing of Mauro Gomez was good.

    10) The signing of Uehara was good for the team.

    11) Padilla helped us in 2012.



    You fell into his trap.  He asked you to name one, and you named 11.



    Or, I named one-- eleven times.

    ;)

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: Name one transaction......

    Moon the magician

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

    Re: Name one transaction......

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    In response to ADG's comment:

    In response to carnie's comment:

    ...that Cherington has made since he has been GM, that has actually helped this team get better. The only one that most of you will cite is Cody Ross. If that is the case, why wasn't he re-signed?

    Vicente Padilla, Clayton Mortenson. Oops sorry. That was two. And my take on why C Ross hasn't been resigned yet is that he's been looking for 3 years and we were able to get Gomes who gives us pretty much the same things as C Ross for 2. I also wouldn't give up on Bailey just yet either. He was only an all star closer in Oakland.



    Johnny Gomes gives the same thing as C. Ross?

    1. Cody Ross has had 6 seasons of 460 or more at bats. Johnny Gomes has had 2.

    2. Cody Ross has a lifetime average of .262, Johnny Gomes is .244



    Player A .334 OBP, .455 SLG, .790 OPS,  OPS+ 109

    Player B .324 OBP, .460 SLG, .783 OPS, OPS+ 107

    Without looking, which set of numbers is better and why?




    I don't think ADG can understand anything beyond BA, and he barely understands that.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: Name one transaction......

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    In response to Alibiike's comment:

    My question in all this is, what is the goal if not to win a chanpionship? You can't depend on prospects that may or may not pan out in the future. Trying to limit signings to 2 or 3 years nets you the kind of players we got, guys who are just not impact players.

    Like I said before, either play the kids now or trade them for some stars who can win a championship. And completely revamp the SP. If anyone thinks the 5 we have now will win 70-75 games, there better be a whole lot run support.



    That's incredibly shallow thinking, imo.

    The first thing you need to do is to lay out the game plan.  Who are the kids you want to play? The idea is not to play kids just for the sake of playing kids.  The idea is to bring them up effectively and efficiently.

    Take JBJ as an example.  Ellsbury will leave after this year, we'll grab a pick, and JBJ takes over in CF in 2014.  That's excellent planning, or at least fortuitous timing.

    Which guys do you want to bring up this year that are ready?




    i still would like ali to answer this question

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

    Re: Name one transaction......

    In response to mef429's comment:

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    In response to Alibiike's comment:

    My question in all this is, what is the goal if not to win a chanpionship? You can't depend on prospects that may or may not pan out in the future. Trying to limit signings to 2 or 3 years nets you the kind of players we got, guys who are just not impact players.

    Like I said before, either play the kids now or trade them for some stars who can win a championship. And completely revamp the SP. If anyone thinks the 5 we have now will win 70-75 games, there better be a whole lot run support.



    That's incredibly shallow thinking, imo.

    The first thing you need to do is to lay out the game plan.  Who are the kids you want to play? The idea is not to play kids just for the sake of playing kids.  The idea is to bring them up effectively and efficiently.

    Take JBJ as an example.  Ellsbury will leave after this year, we'll grab a pick, and JBJ takes over in CF in 2014.  That's excellent planning, or at least fortuitous timing.

    Which guys do you want to bring up this year that are ready?




    i still would like ali to answer this question




    mef, don't hold your breath...like Softy, the OP has no idea about this , they both just like to spew negativity to get attention.

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

    Re: Name one transaction......lamb

    In response to Alibiike's comment:

    ....that Cherington has made since he has been GM, that has actually helped this team get better. The only one that most of you will cite is Cody Ross. If that is the case, why wasn't he re-signed?

    After jettising Becket, Crawford and Agon, everyone assumed he had the payroll to acquire some good young talent to rebuild this team. Instead he goes out and gets a bunch of old guys, only one of which has had a decent career, but age is catching up to him. Not only that, but he way overpaid for these guys.

    He never addressed the real problem which is the SP. There were several FA starters that were far better than Dempster but that is who he wanted all along. This GM is using his crystal ball to assemble a team to put on the field in 2017. He covets prospects like there will never be any more of them, hoping to be able to use them in two or three years. Unfortunately, two or three years never comes.



    You understate the Dodger trade immensely, undoutedly on purpose.  The Sox did acquirr 2very highly regardedyoung ppitchers in that deal. Or do you only cite Keith Laws opinion when he pans Sox moves?

     

    Crazy thouht! Maybe Cherington knows about de la Rosa and Webster and considers thpitchers.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share