In response to moonslav59's comment:

There was NO point in going into 2013 with what finished 2012 if the FO wanted to even half-fill the seats.  Something had to be done. 

I have never said do nothing. We could have made deals and signings that made us better in 2013, but more importantly set us up better for 2014 and beyond. None of the moves we made this winter will clearly help us in 2014 and on.

It was a poor FA class and yes, the Sox spent too much money on FA's for what they got, but the owners set the price and then have to pay it.

No. You don't have to pay. You can pass. 

You don't choose the worst FA class to sign a record amount of FAs.

And if you pass, then what?  The team wasn't good enough to compete in September and we certainly don't want them heading into April with the same players.  If we're not going to sign FA's then the changes have to come through trades or bringing people up from the minors.  IMHO the players in the minors aren't ready for the big time yet but they're going to be, very possibly in 2014.  There are teams out there who'd LOVE to have JBJ or Bogarts or several others but the Sox would be giving them up in trades and then, as I said, mortgaging the future.

The options weren't good for the Sox this year.   

I was fine with not dealing any top prospects, but if we are indeed trying to set ourselves up for these kids to contribute in 2014 and beyond, why not plan our signings and deals accordingly?

I think they have, as well as they could.  I'm sure they'd have preferred to sign their FA's to two year contracts but they were hamstrung by their own needs and who was available.   I don't blame the players.  They got the best deal they could get, exploiting the Sox and the fact that it was a weak FA market.

I look to see some of these FA's get traded after next season, probably bundled to get someone the Sox need for 2014.  And even after that, I now see the Sox eating a lot of contract $$ in 2014-2015.

And who of our signings will complement these kids?

I can see 2014 being an infield of WMB, Iggy, Pedey and PTBNL (or Napoli) and an OF of PTBNL/Kalish, JBJ and Victorino/Kalish

I'm still concerned about the pitching staff, but I'm always concerned about the pitching staff.  This team still needs an ace and I don't see any of this year's top five being called an "Ace".  The bad news about "Aces" when you don't have one is that everyone wants at least one so when they've got one they're reluctant to give him up. 

 

In response to moonslav59's comment:

Yearly cost may be the same, but total cost is 275 million vs. 114 million...that's an investment difference of 161 million.

This post has been removed.

In response to EdithBRTN's comment:

I'm not crazy about it either, but IMO it's the best looking one in an ugly litter of pups. 

You don't choose the worst FA class to sign a record amount of FAs.

And if you pass, then what?  The team wasn't good enough to compete in September and we certainly don't want them heading into April with the same players.  If we're not going to sign FA's then the changes have to come through trades or bringing people up from the minors.  IMHO the players in the minors aren't ready for the big time yet but they're going to be, very possibly in 2014.  There are teams out there who'd LOVE to have JBJ or Bogarts or several others but the Sox would be giving them up in trades and then, as I said, mortgaging the future.

The options weren't good for the Sox this year.   

There were younger FAs available: ones that rate to be better in 2014 not worse. 

We could have saved the money for next year's FA class or to take on someon'e salary dump instead.

This plan was just a farce to try and make fans want to watch in 2013. Nothing we did will help us be better in 2014.

In response to Softlaw1's comment:

Drew should be as good or better than Scuter was if hes healthy and I certainly have yet to see anything written that backs up your statement.

In response to moonslav59's comment:

I think it's what we *didn't do* that will help us be better in 2014 and beyond, i.e. not trading prospects or surrendering draft picks.

In response to S5's comment:

Who said we needed a pup?

In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

Hfx, I tend to agree with both of you to some extent.  I don't think we have done anything to really improve next season talent wise.  The key will still be staying healthy and good years out of guys like Ells, Pede and our staff to see if we can make a push for the PS.  On the other hand you are correct, its important to keep youngsters like Bradley, Barnes and Bogy unless we could land a proven young talent without giving up all of them.

A younster like Stanton, or pitcher like F. Hernandez could still make us much better than any of our young minor league prospects so we have to look at all options.

 

In response to craze4sox's comment:

Improve over what, though...we're certainly improved over the roster we had at the end of 2012.

I think we've definitely upgraded the bullpen.  D. Ross might be the best backup catcher we've had in a long time.

Nobody's very excited about Victorino, Drew, Gomes, or Dempster, but they're established players who have had good seasons.

We've almost completely replaced the coaching staff.  Word is that all the acquired players are good clubhouse guys.  Improvement can come in different ways.

 

In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

Like I said, I was fine with the plan to not trade our prospects or lose draft picks. I actually like this plan better than the "go all out" plan. Ben chose the "halfway plan".

I can understand the one year deals to bridge to the kids, but what makes me call Ben's plan "halfway" were the Victorino, Naps, and Dempster deals. I really don't see any of these 3 getting better in 2014 or 2015.  The $39M for 2013 is a waste in my opinion, since we will not be serious competitors. The $39M for 2014 and $26M for 2015 is even worse. These 3 will be easing out of prime or out all together. The money could have been spent better next winter, or it could have been spent on a FA like B McCarthy ($24M/3) or even signing A Sanchez to 5 years would have improved our short-term and longterm future more than Naps or Victorino & Dempster.

I wasn't for the other plan: spending big in a weak class, but I think that plan beats the "halfway plan" as well. That's why I called this the worst choice, but I guess literally we could have made worse signings like BJ Upton or Greinke.

I hope to God I am wrong here. It wouldn't be the first time.

In response to moonslav59's comment:

I was hoping for Sanchez too.  But he's a good example of how incredibly expensive a free agent with even modest credentials is now.

This post has been removed.

In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

Good points Hfx, but "long term" deals of any kid for guys like Dempster, Gomes, Victorino " who I like" and Napoli?  

... AGon was ten times the player Nap is, expensive yes but not even close in talent

... Gomes? Ross was as good or better

... The bullpen?  I totally agree it could be the best in the bigs

... SP? still the biggest problem on this team "I hope to be wrong" thats my gut 

... Clubhouse?  I agree

... Farrell? I agree

The problem is, our PS won't be decided in the clubhouse or with a more player friendly manager.  It sure helps but we still need solid pitching, a better team OBP and to stay healthy with players like Ells and Pede having big years. 

I don't see where we have done anything in those areas other than possibly the bullpen and good health being our unknown?

 

In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

The guy has been under 3.87 since 2009. He's had over 195 IP since 2010. His WHIP has improved every year since 2007. His K/BB ratio was his best ever in 2012 (3.80) and has risen every year since 2008. He is 28, so a 5 year deal would fall mainly in his prime. H3LL YES he was way overpayed, but he's likely to help his team for at least 3-4 years, unlike the guys we signed. He got basically $80M/5 or $91M/6 (team option). 

I'd rather have Sanchez for 5 years than...

$78M for 3 years each of Naps and Victorino

or

$76M for 3 years of Naps, 2 years of Dempster, and 2 years of Gomes

or 

$76M for 3 years of Victorino, 2 years of Dempster, and 1 year of Drew.

.

I'd have rather had B McCarthy at $25M/3 than Dempster at $26.5M/2.

There were other younger FAs out there. 

We played it halfway. We got older not younger. We are pretending to be contending at the expense of our future. I can't agree that this was the best we could do under these circumstances.

Putting a competitive team on the field and filling up Fenway to capacity brings in $4 mil. per home game or $324 per season.  Then there are extra revenues from TV and radio if the ratings are good. Of course, they could have written off this year and saved the $40 mil. but they would also be sacrificing revenues by being non-competitive.

You are missing the point. Had we got Sanchez and McCarthy instead of Victorino, Naps, Dempster, Gomes and Drew, we'd still fill as many seats and be just as competitive in 2013, but the key difference would have been that we'd have 2 guys entering their peak prime in 2014 and 2015, and we'd have been able to trade away a starting pitcher or two to fill 2 or more of the gaps left open by not having signed SV, Naps, Drew & Gomes.

My plan was not "writing off" 2013 any more than Ben's actual plan, in fact, I'd like our 2013 odds better with Sanchez & McCarthy than the over-the-hill gang Ben signed.

This post has been removed.

In response to moonslav59's comment:

This criticism may turn out to have a lot of merit.  They may have been a bit too cautious by not signing at least one of the two pitchers you mentioned. 

In response to EdithBRTN's comment:

No doubt it did.  The counterpoint is that, relatively speaking, the amount it would have cost to sign him wasn't that high.

This post has been removed.

In response to EdithBRTN's comment:

I read some speculation that Dempster is over-the hill, that Gomes can't field, that Victorino is washed up, that D Ross is no better than Salty, and that Drew has "permanent ankle damage" and is no "James Worthy".

My guess is if Ben had signed McCarthy andd I was here saying he should have signed Dempster, you'd have some speculations to relate to concerning Ryan's short-comings.

This post has been removed.

In response to EdithBRTN's comment:

I've also read somewhere that you can't "make" players sign with your team.  Sanchez took less money to stay in Detroit where "he actually wanted to play." 

I also heard somewhere that Brandon McCarthy "wanted to be on the West Coast (actually that's common knowledge)."  I also heard somewhere that the Sox wanted a pitcher who might be relied upon to give them significant innings considering the question marks in their rotation.  Signing a guy like McCarthy, who has never come close to pitching 200 innings, a guy who has well documented shoulder issues and hasn't thrown a pitch since he was hit in the face with a line drive, would have made no sense whatsoever, and fortunately for Sox fans, the Front Office felt the same way. 

Signing a guy like McCarthy, who has never come close to pitching 200 innings, a guy who has well documented shoulder issues and hasn't thrown a pitch since he was hit in the face with a line drive, would have made no sense whatsoever, and fortunately for Sox fans, the Front Office felt the same way.  

We'll see how "fortunate" we were to sign Demptser for 2 years at the same cost we could have gotten McCarthy for 3 years.  Maybe Dempster gives us 400 IP over 2 years and BM might have given us 400 over 3 years.

I realize BM was a risk, but the 3rd year would be when we needed someone as our prospects should be more helpful by then.

I've also read somewhere that you can't "make" players sign with your team.  Sanchez took less money to stay in Detroit where "he actually wanted to play." 

I realize Sanchez may not have wanted to play here for even more money, but that is a rare event.

 

Putting a competitive team on the field and filling up Fenway to capacity brings in $4 mil. per home game or $324 mil. per season.  Then there are extra revenues from TV and radio if the ratings are good. Of course, they could have written off this year and saved the $40 mil. but they would also be sacrificing revenues by being non-competitive.

[/QUOTE]

Drivel. Stick to moderating.

'10 '11  '12               

Cubs  Wins  75  71  61  Attend:  3.1M  3.0M  2.9M

BoSox Wins  89  90  69  Attend: 3.1M  3.1M  3.0M

Pike are you saying the Sox fans will abandoned ship?  Why haven't the Cubs fans!