There clearly wasn't a "top of the rotation" starter available. Why is that hard not to understand?
I understand exactly what was available. I just said we didn't fill a need. I didn't say we had several chances to get an ace this winter.
Maybe they feel Buchholz or Lester will be the staff ace. They both have the talent, they are both healthy and they are reunited with a coach they had success with. Why not?
I never said they can't become ace-like. I never said we had zero chance, but we lost our best or second best pitcher (Beckett) and picked up Dempster (and Lackey). I do not see our rotation looking any better than it did last January. It's a hope and a prayer more than anything logical. Why is that "so hard to understand"? (to borrow your condescension)
Beckett was considered addition by subtraction by the entire organization. He wasn't coming back. "Last January?!?" Really? I like to compare "seasons" and I'll bet you any amount of money you care to wager that the starting rotation is significantly better this year than it was last year. Our "condescension" is always mutual.
There are also some pretty knowledgeable baseball people out there who think that a healthy John Lackey could have a better season than any free agent pitcher who was available not named "Greinke." It's certainly possible. They also acquired a guy who should give them a lot of quality innings in Dempster, so they don't have to rely on the Stewarts and Cooks of the world again.
I have said many times we have much btter 5-6-7 starters than in recent years. We could have done better than Dempster, or we could have gotten someone like a good 2/3 slot starter under team control for 3+ years while in his prime years. We could have done this without trading a single farmhand.
Who? Please don't say Brett Anderson, Anibal Sanchez and Brandon McCarthy. They weren't options.
David Ortiz should be a pretty good clean up hitter. This line-up has the potential to lead the league in runs and I'm pretty sure there wasn't an available clean-up hitter that they "missed out on." I'd certainly take this line-up over most of the ones that were playing in October last year.
I'd rather have Papi up 3rd, but if you want him 4th, that's fine. Then, I will reword it for you: we need a number 3 hitter now. We spent over $50M and made a trade for a closer, but left the 2 biggest needs unfilled. Why is that "so hard to understand"?
Again, who? By the way, did you ever think that these were YOUR two biggest needs and not considered the two biggest needs of the 50 or so people who actually have a say in the transactions they make?
I'd have been fine with not spending big on filling one of those two needs, had we instead made moves geared towards our future. In fact, that was my preference. I don't call making no trades "helping" our future. It's standing pat and "playing it half way": don't build for the future and don't make us strong contenders either. Why is that "so hard to understand"?
What were these moves they could have made that would have been great for now and "geared towards the future?" Did you actually read what I wrote about how they are well set up for the future?
You also keep saying that "they made no moves that will help them in 2014 and 2015." This makes no sense at all to me.
Name one move that hepls us in 2014 and 2015. Why is that "so hard to understand"?
I already adressed this. See below...
First of all, they kept their farm system together. I'm pretty sure that will help them in 2014 and 2015, whether it's because some of these players develop or they use them as trade pieces to get someone who may become available (Stanton?) that wasn't available this off season.
Not making a move to help may be helpful, but it is not making a move to help.
A move to help in the future would be something like extending or trading Lester for Myers, signing just 1 free agent that will be in his prime for 2014 and 2015, or trading Ellsbury, Salty and any other player not in our future plans for prospects that will either help us in the future or be traded for players under team control for 2-3+ years-- not 1 and out.
Why is that "so hard to understand"?
They flatly rejected the Royals trade and many agree it was the right decision. Did you ever think that maybe Lester or his agent didn't want to sign an extension when he is coming off his worst season?! Do you think that's possible? If I was his agent, there is no way I let him sign an extension right now. How do you know Salty is not in their future plans?!?!?! You keep posting this like it's illegal for a team to sign their own free agents. Did you ever think that maybe Salty and his agent have some confidence that Salty will continue to develop and cash in after this season?
And once again, they...weren't...rebuilding. They weren't trading their starting centerfielder and starting catcher for "prospects." That is a fact. Keep posting they "should have" though.
By the way, are Victorino, Dempster, Breslow, Ross and Gomes all retiring after this season?!?!
Are they getting better or will they still be in their prime? (I do like the Breslow extension, so I guess there was one move geared towards 2014 & 2015).
The next team that fields a roster with 25 guys in their "prime" will be the first. I'm pretty sure some of these veterans will still help them out after 2013.
They signed multi-year deals. I'm pretty sure some of these guys will help them beyond this season. Do Ulehara, Hanrahan, Drew and Napoli all already have no intention of resigning with Boston after the season?!
Who knows and who really cares. We could have signed them in 2014 anyways, if they proved worthy enough.
Again, the Sox need to field a team in 2013. It's not at all unrealistic to think that the 2013 team could actually have more success than any team in the next decade.
The Hanrahan deal was OK, since I did not see any of the prospects being stars someday, but the trade did nothing to help us in 2014 and beyond.
The Sox saw an opportuniy to get someone who could close games for them in 2013 at a good price. I know, 2013 doesn't matter, but in the "realistic" world, even the Astros will name a closer to start the season.
Is it possible that if the Sox are out of it that some of these guys could bring back talent that could help the future? Didn't the Sox maintain a ton of payroll flexibility moving forward? I'm pretty sure that's going to help the 2014 and 2015 clubs out.
I have said this is perhaps the only redeeming quality of this winter's moves, but it still sounds a bit absurd to call this a "plan for the future". Wouldn't it just have been easier to actually sign guys in their prime years to 2-3 years instead of past prime or nearing past prime?
We'll see what happens, but keeping all of their resources while putting together a roster that has the talent to be in the hunt doesn't seem like playing it "half way" to me. Just out of curiosity, what would you have considered playing it "all the way," because your plan of a complete rebuild was never a realistic option?
I listed that plan several times and was met with "he wouldn't have signed here", so what's the use. I was never for spending huge on a weak class, but as I have said many times, I'd rather have signed A Sanchez than SV, RD, and SD. Was it unrealistic to want to trade Ellsbury? They did shop him, you know. Trade Salty or Lava? Trade a pen arm that will be a FA after 2014? Not radical, but doing just one of these would be a move "for the future".
Sanchez wasn't realistic.
Look, I love our prospects. I'm glad we have them. I like our future, but don't see us having much of a chance this year. I just wanted something serious done to improve our outlook on 2014. I'm sorry if I don't drink the Kool-Aid and rave about how all the guys we signed are short term. Yippie! Hurray! Their just as bad as what we had last year, but are shorter term. And, I'm supposed to be happy about that? Sorry, if I am not.
Sorry, if you can't "understand" that.
You're a stat guy and don't get the chemistry concept. It's not 40 years ago and the Dick Williams era is over in Oakland. Guys HAD to play hard back then to earn a living. Totally different era. Talk to any current player or coach who isn't a "problem" and they will tell you clubhouse chemistry is crucial to winning these days. This team will be better for the simple reason that they won't have what one ESPN writer who covers the Sox said was "the worst clubhouse environment he's seen in ANY sport in 20 years." Other than that, I guess we'll continue to agree to disagree.