In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

 

In response to georom4's comment:

 

but these guys were not just like everyone on somebodys roster...these are guys we sought and overpaid to sign as free agents after a 69 win season..and as you know napoli was a 3 yr signing until his hip did him in...gomes, ross, napoli, drew, shane, dempster, papi...add up the figures for these guys who are mostly 30something....

i just dont know how this makes us better or points us to the future

 

A) It can't be proved till we play the games, but I think these guys do make us a lot better than we would have been if we did nothing.

 

 

B) They don't point us to the future.  The future is our prospects and our payroll room.

 

are you really expecting more than an 81-85 win season?

 

 

 

I wish Boston had signed both McCarthy and Marcum.  I know that both have dealt with injuries but even if both pitchers gave around 20 starts, it would still be a bargain (considering how much Arizona paid for McCarthy and the Mets paid for Marcum). 

I understand that McCarthy wanted to pitch in the west coast.  But money talks.  Just ask Johnny Damon or Greinke.   LOL

 

In response to georom4's comment:

A few weeks ago I took a guess at our record and came up with 84-78.

But there's so much variability in baseball.  I'm seeing a lot of encouraging signs so far, especially with the pitching.  I'm looking forward to the season. 

You seriously think Sox management made a big play to turn a 69 win team into a solid playoff contender in one winter? Plus, the team was actually worse than a 69 win team after the Dodger trade- a trade that will likely do nothing to add value to the 2013 team, unless Webster does something mid season.

Yes, I do seriously think that this team is a contender.  IMO, the 69 wins was not inidicative of the ability of last year's team.  Pretty much everything that could go wrong last year, went wrong.  Our Pythagorean W-L record was 74-88.  At the very least, I would start with 74 wins as the jumping point.  The team was actually worse than its 69 wins after the Dodger trade, which means it was actually better than the 69 winsbefore the Dodger trade, when we weren't playing with a AAA line up.

We were not a 74 win base team at the end of 2012. The Pythagorean W-L Record included many games with AGon, C Ross and others on it. The record should be adjusted downwards to reflect those loses and to give us the starting point at which we were to work from this winter.

 

Seriously? There was not one player availablre via free agency or trade that would help us in 2015 and beyond? You really believe that?

 

Of course there were players available.  There are always players available if you're willing to pay enough.  I said that there were no "must have" free agents worthy of a long term contract.  A. Sanchez might help us in 2015, but IMO, he was not worth the cost, especially in terms of length of contract.

A Sanchez was not the only useful FA that could have been signed beyond 2014, in fact, I'd rather have not spent on him either.

 

As far as obtaining players through trade, again there were players available.  But, you're either going to give up the farm or you're going to trade a player who can help the team win this year.  Neither of those options were preferable to me over what the FO did.

You and others keep missing the clear option that could have involved not trading one single prospect:

Trade all players that were to become FAs after 2013 and all players not in our longterm plans that were to become FAs after 2014. Maybe they would not have netted us what you guys think they were worth, but we could have gotten some very nice prospecst for the bunch (or younger veteran players under team control beyond 2014). We'd also have saved money that could have been used to sign or obtain salary dump players from teams looking to trim their budgets either this winter or at the trade deadline.

We could have still signed most or all of the bridge players we ended up signing and then some with the savings from losing Ellsbury, Salty, Aceves, Bailey and others. We'd be close to the same level of competitiveness in 2013, but way better situated for 2015 and beyond.

 

Coulda shoulda woulda. I'm just going to go ahead and cheer for the team we have even if we aren't odds on favorites to win the division.

In response to moonslav59's comment:

Yes, but it also included a pile of games with no Ortiz, no Middlebrooks, and guys like Nava and Podsednick pressed into regular duty in the outfield.  It was a decimated and demoralized team the last two months.

 

In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

 

In response to moonslav59's comment:

 

We were not a 74 win base team at the end of 2012. The Pythagorean W-L Record included many games with AGon, C Ross and others on it. The record should be adjusted downwards to reflect those loses and to give us the starting point at which we were to work from this winter.

 

 

last years season was conceded after the trade but even with those guys still here im thinking barely over .500

Yes, but it also included a pile of games with no Ortiz, no Middlebrooks, and guys like Nava and Podsednick pressed into regular duty in the outfield.  It was a decimated and demoralized team the last two months.

 

 

 

 

In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

82 wins sounds about right. It would require LUCK to get more than that. Thats a gain of 13 wins over last year, a significant improvement and to EXPECT more is unrealistic. As long as progress is made on our future (2015) I would be happy with 82 wins. Unfortunately, 82 wins is unlikely to give us a playoff berth.

Almost the exact definition of a "punt". 

The main difference being that I believe the team is a serious contender.  If I didn't believe that the team had a good chance of contending, then I would agree with you that this offseasn was a punt.

We punted on the future since the Dodger trade. Even you must concede that, and basically have already. I understand the need for a big market team to appear to be competitive every year, but clearly our number one priority was to rebuild this team for the long run. To think we could turn the post Dodger trade team into a viable contender over one winter without getting any big named FAs is close to absurd. 

Yes, if everything goes right, we may contend for the WC playoff slot, but at what expense? That's the point I'm making. We punted on the future in order to have some slight chance at just squeeking into the playoffs with virtually no chance to even advance to the AL Championship series, let alone a WS victory.

 

 

but living in an alternate universe is not my idea of being a realistic fan.

So, because my opinion differs from yours, I am living in an alternate universe?  I am optimistic.  That doesn't mean I'm being unrealistic.  I don't think we need near perfect health or performances to make the postseason.  I just think we need better than average luck in these areas.

Perhaps, I used a poor choice of words, but for several years now many of us have been wishing on a perfect alligment of luck, health, and more to get beyond our obvious 2 big weaknesses we have had: 

1) Lack of a top of rotation starter.

2) Lack of a top RH'd 3 or 4 slot hitter.

Although I have been harping on these two high need areas over recent years, especially the SP, I still have thought, if we stayed healthy, we could win 94+ games and possibly win a ring. I realize that was a fallacy to begin with. 

This winter has not addressed the two biggest here and now needs, and we are again relying on a near perfect confluence of events to occur to just have a chance to make the playoffs. The  fact is, even if we have normal health, we are not going to win it all this year, unless we have a bunch of luck on our side and bad luck on other team's sides. Yes, that can happen, but in reality the odds are extreme. You don't seem to acknowledge how extreme those odds are, so I feel like you are not facing reality. It's fine to hope. I will be doing that all year long. I will be watchingz every pitch of every game, even if we only win 69 games again. I am hoping everyone stays healthy, but we have some older key players on our roster. We have some key players with recent injury histories. We have 5 of more players headed to the DL to start the season already. 

What will you feel like if we win 76-82 games this year, miss the playoffs by 10-15 games, and go into next winter in the same position or worse than we did going into this winter? We will almost certainly ;ose Ellsbury and Salty. Many of the top named FAs for next winter will have already been extended by taheir teams. Not many FA will view the Sox as a serious contender again for 2014 and may avoid us for that reason. We will have a nice draft pick(s) from this June and a comp pick for losing Ellsbury, but how much better will this team look like going into 2014 and 2015 than we do right now? Some of our prospects will hopefully look ready to contribute in 2014 or 2015, but that's not really an improvement on what we have now. Those players are already in our system. We have not done anything since the Dodger trade to help our longterm future. We punted on our future and missed by a mile on being a highly competitive team in 2013. 

If Salty has a good season I see no reason why they wouldn't try to sign him.

Moon, why Sanchez? Why not just go for the best pitcher, Grienke? It seems to me that youre playing into the same logic that Ben suffered from (hedging your bets) 

1) I was not for signing either of these two, but only mentioned that I'd rather have Sanchez than the guys I listed who totaled over $100M in salaries.

2) I think Sanchez is as good as Greinke and was cheaper.

 

This team needed to be blown up in 2011, it didnt happen until 2012 when Beckett's nonsense was clear even to the pollyannas like ben....

OK, but without Beckett, now we needed 2 top of rotation SPs not 1, so Greinke alone would not have helped enough.

 

so we spent 150 mil on short term contracts to B level free agents? I got news for all of you -  150 mil isnt cheap and three years isnt short term.  We couldve had Grienke pitching every five days and being our ace and reinvigorating our starting unit - do you think Lackey/Dempster will do that? We couldve went with the B-boys on the roster from the get-go instead of the tired, over the hill vets we signed to suck up time and space until ben deems them "ready"...

Why are you acting like I'm Ok with what we did this winter?

 

Sox fans seem to think they are so sophisticated when it comes to the team but instead of taking the lumps now and building towards the future, we have mortgaged it to marginal players who offer neither a future or success. This is why I argued to keep it simple in December...sign papi (which he did to keep the big bat in) sign Grienke, and let the kids play. Instad we have a calvacade of nobodies who we are supposed to pledge loyalty to while at the same time hearld their short term future? 

Insane....

We punted the big decisions to next winter.

No, the 82 wins assumes everyone stay healthy. To win more than 82 will take near perfect health, and career years, bounce back years, and some luck.

 

We played it half way this winter. We won't win it all this year, and we did nothing to make us better longer term either. Playing it inbetween got us neither.

We will now have to wait until the deadline or next winter to start all over. We punted this winter. Face it.

 

I disagree.  Several players were injured or underperformed last year and/or the year before, and the team's aggregate WAR would still put us at 82 wins, not including any contributions from relievers or bench players.  82 wins assumes an average number of injuries and/or underperformances, not everything to go perfectly.

The 82 wins does not project normal injuries. It assumes these guys all play in 2013. 

We are not going to be 100% healthy. We already know that with 5 guys headed to the DL. It's going to be a mess this year, and you'll see soon enough.  Next winter, we will have to start from the same place we are now.

 

We may not win it all this year, but I think we have a very legitimate chance of making the playoffs.  Once you get there, it's a crapshoot.

That's a fallacy. Billy Beane said that, and how far have they advanced in the playoffs.

Look at a team like the Cards. They lost one of their best SPs and still won. The Giants' offense is full of holes, but they have a staff that could still lead them to a ring without Lincecum helping at all. Can we say the same of our staff, even if we stay healthy? No way.

Predicting a WS win would be living in an alternate reality.

 

 

Saying this team should have it's best player perform up to expectation  and having some luck break the team's way is reasonable.

We need more than just our best player to meet expectations.

 

If some fans fragile psyches wont let them be disappointed again, that' understandablre, I guess.

 My psyche is not even close to being fragile.  I never expected us to win a ring the last few years due to our lack of top starting pitchers, so to say I was dissapointed is assuming falsehoods.

We replaced a proven playoff winner (Beckett) with an old pitcher who hasn't seen meaningful games in a long time, unless you count his poor record in a short time last year. We have Lackey returning- pardon me, if I don't jump for joy. We have a kid with a WHIP in 2012 of over 1.4 coming to camp out of shape for the second time in 3 years. I'm supposed to be thrilled here? Lester has lost velocity and must reinvent himself into a pitcher not a thrower. Buch has back issues- it's hard to not be discouraged by that.

In recent years, I have thought we could overcome our glaring weaknesses and with some good health and luck maybe win a ring. The fact that we haven't won or done as well as I expected is a bit dissapointing, but that is not the basis of my expectations for this year. Usually, I take last year's team and project what I think each position will gain or lose into the next season, but doing that this year would be folly. We could look at the team we had last March and what we excpected of them and compare to this team right now and what we expect of them. I would have higher expectations from the March 2012 team that won 69 games than the March 2013 team. I realize a lot went wrong last year. I'm no dummy. It is unrealistic to expect the same amount of things going wrong this year. I'm not projecting 69 wins this year, but the fact is we failed, again, to address our biggest two weaknesses (top SP and top H'd 3/4 hitter), and plugged holes with decent but unspectacular bridge players. This is not a better team on paper than last year's March team, so why should I expect more this year than I did last spring?

 

But, they seem to put a lot of time and energy into trying to convince others of thinking the same, without much to back it up.

You just don't agree with my "backing it up" thoughts, but I have provided a lot of reasoning and facts to back up my position.

In response to moonslav59's comment:

 

I agree 100% Kimmi. This offseason was just phase 1 of a longer term plan. Once they figure out what  value they can put on certain peospects and players this year, then they will move forward woth the next part of the plan.

You're actually sounding like you agree more with me than Kimmi. 

You just reworded the concept of a "punt". 

We are holding over for the next phase.

 

No, I wouldnt call it a punt. I truly believe they have the talent to compete. They are without a doubt the underdog, but certainly not a pushover. Were not holding over Moon and I never suggested or used those words. Like ive said numerous times, you CANT do it all in one year. This is a big year for a few prospects and players.

 

Exactly. We could not do it in one year, unless we repeated the same mistakes of the past and gone hogwild in a weak FA class winter. We should have accepted that and realized that we can NOT do it one year. We should have made "phase one" and extension of the Dodger trade. Realizing that rebuilding for 2014 or 2015 will be a 2-3 year job. Signing some bridge players to short-term deals is fine, but where was the rebuilding continued? 

To turn a 69 team that lost some of its best players in August needed continued rebuilding and additions of young players or prospects this winter. We did neither. We punted the rebuilding of our future to this dealine at the earliest, but more probably next winter.

 

BC has a tough job being the GM in Boston. He cant just give up on a year in this market.

So, instead he gave up on improving our outlokk for 2015?

I never said he shouldn't have signed some placeholders this winter that would make us a team worthy of casual fans wanting to watch, but that more knowledgeable fans would realize is a team in rebuild mode.

 

I think what he did this offseason was start the ball rolling in the other direction, all while keeping the future in tact, cleaning up the clubhouse, and putting a product on the field that fans can get behind.

The ball stopped rolling after the Dodger trade.

 

In response to moonslav59's comment:

How does the fact that Oakland hasn't advanced far in the playoffs prove that it isn't a crapshoot?

Just look at last year.  The Giants were down 2-0 in the first round and had to win 3 in a row.  They were down 3-1 in the NLCS and had to do it again.

St. Louis was the second wild card last year and they were up 3-1 on the Giants in the NLCS, with Game 5 in St. Louis, and with Barry Zito pitching for the Giants.  St. Louis was that close to going to the Series as the second wild card team.

Explain how the playoffs aren't a crapshoot.

 

In response to carnie's comment:

So will I, but I shouldn't be criticized for stating the obvious: we "aren't odds on favorites to win the division" and we could have done just a little more to improve our longterm outlook this winter. 

Think about: a team that won 69 games did basically nothing for a whole winter to improve our outlook for 2015 and beyond. Not even one tiny thing.

That's hard for me to "cheer for". 

The whole "we kept our farm intact" argument is all fine and dandy, but it is status quo not proactive in any way.

It's a punt on our future in order to give some fans the perception that we have a chance in 2013.

 

 

In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

StL and SF both have multiple top of rotation SPs and can even win when one of them is hurt or underperforming to a large extent. It was not a crapshoot that they won. They both have pitching. The A's and Sox have some decent SPs, but there is just a tiny chance they were good enough to win in recent years. The A's could not handle losing Brett Anderson last year. The Sox could not handle an off year by Beckett or an injury to Buch.

I realize that StL and SF were not the top favorites to win in recent years, but with great pitching and management, it's not a crapshoot. With our rotation, our only hope is to believe it is a crapshoot once in the playoffs.

This talk of the "loss of AGone" is wearing thin on me. Defensively, 1B is the easiest position, on ANY team. Teams throughout history have been known to hide shortcomings there. Offensively, Napoli will provide more power and more clutch hitting than AGone ever provided on the Sox, w/ a better attitude.

 

This team wins 89 games this year, not sure that'll be enough to make the post season but there it is. 

In response to moonslav59's comment:

Detroit won the pennant last year in spite of having the worst record of all the AL playoff teams, and only the 7th best record in the league. 

When we won in 2007, we only had one starter with top-rotation numbers, and that was Beckett.

A lot of things can happen if you reach the playoffs.

 

 

 

We were not a 74 win base team at the end of 2012. The Pythagorean W-L Record included many games with AGon, C Ross and others on it. The record should be adjusted downwards to reflect those loses and to give us the starting point at which we were to work from this winter.

I disagree.  If anything, I think it should be adjusted upward to reflect the losses we had with the decimated AAA lineup that we played with the last 2 months of the season.  The team that played before the big trade is  more comparable to the team that will play in 2013, and a better starting point.

 

In response to moonslav59's comment:

Miami.... You can have any seat you want.....

In response to moonslav59's comment:

Not sure how you could claim farm is not better after the trade w/ Dodgers? Adding 2 possible starters to the rotation in Webster / De La Rosa did not improve the farm system. Also using Sands / Ivan D to get Hanrahan and make the RS bullpen better also improve the big club. But more importantly for all those worried about 2015 and beyond, did it not rid millions of $ of future commitments. RS will still spend the $, but I think it will be a very long time before the RS start handing out any 7 yr deals again. 

In response to garyhow's comment:

since the trade happened during the season it does not fall under the category of "offseason" which moon is PO'ed about. we did nothing during the "offseason" to imrove out outlook for 2015+

Trade all players that were to become FAs after 2013 and all players not in our longterm plans that were to become FAs after 2014. Maybe they would not have netted us what you guys think they were worth, but we could have gotten some very nice prospecst for the bunch (or younger veteran players under team control beyond 2014). We'd also have saved money that could have been used to sign or obtain salary dump players from teams looking to trim their budgets either this winter or at the trade deadline.

Trading all players who were to become FAs after 2013 or who were not in our long term plans might make sense if you really don't think the team has a chance to compete this year. If you are looking to compete this year, it doesn't make much sense to sell low on Ellsbury, Salty, and the like.

 

We punted on the future since the Dodger trade. Even you must concede that, and basically have already.

No, I don't concede that. Again, if you don't see this team as having a legitimate chance to compete, then I can understand your opinion. However, if you're of the opinion that we will compete this year, then the FO did exactly what they needed to do to balance the short and long term goals. I don't consider keeping the farm intact and maintaining financial flexibility for 2015 as punting, if you're also keeping the current team in contention.  Apparently, we just differ on what our opinion of punting is, and I think it boils down to you not thinking this year's team will compete versus those of us who think they will.