What is the best way to return to contention?

[reYoukilis]

I was watching MLB network and they said that the dichotemy between Hamiltons hitting when it came to good vs bad pitchers was one of the biggest of all time, in other words he's really great against bad pitchers but tails off fast when it comes to good pitching. This is a telling stat.

[Lord Snow]

I am interested in knowing some can't miss free agent bats that you are talking about. I don't consider Hamilton one. With the amount of money he wanted, it is a gamble. Three year contracts are not all that bad. The only reason these short-terms contracts have a high AAV is because we have the financial flexibility to do so.

 

Napoli, Swisher, and LaRoche were the best FA first base options. We got one in Napoli, who can hit for power. Three years for him is not that bad. It is not like we will be tied down with him for seven years (assuming the deal does not fall through).

 

Victorino's AAV is way too high, but in terms of years, it is not that bad. He is only here for three years and can play all three OF positions. Ellsbury is probably going to the hit the FA market in 2014, so Victorino can fill in the void in CF in 2014 and 2015. Hopefully at some point during that time, Bradley will be ready to go and can take over during or after Victorino's contract. It is not a bad signing.

 

There are not a lot "can miss" free agent bats. The same goes for pitching. We are signing short-term contracts that will help this team out. There are not too many options. I really don't have a problem with your approach, but with a limited FA market, I don't think we are making bad decisions. We have a better team now then we did at the end of last year. That is a positive.

 

I gave some examples of "can't miss" free agents. They are few and far between. Which is why team's shouldn't miss the opportunity to sign them when they hit the market.

 

While I don't consider Hamilton to be in that category, I do think he signed for a reasonable enough contract for the Red Sox to have seriously considered him an option. I don't think there would have been many people complaining if the Sox decided to sign Hamilton instead of Napoli & Victorino.

 

In fact, this off-season there were none of the players that I consider to be "can't miss" targets. It was a weak free agent class. Had Matt Cain or Cole Hamels made free agency then they would have been "can't miss" free agents.

[Dojji]

You didn't give a single example of a can't miss FA.

 

What you gave was an example of "didn't-miss" FA's.

 

Johan Santana was right in the caliber of the other two when the Mets signed him. 5 years and some SERIOUS injury issues later, I'd call that one a miss.

 

You're trying to argue history as if the guys who worked out were always destined to work out and the guys who flopped were always going to flop -- and as if any of that gave us the ability to predict or control who was going to do either going forward. It's a ridiculous attempt at an argument.

[Dojji]

For the record, FWIW, if the Red Sox decided to kick the tires on Johan themselves, I'd understand what they were trying to do. The money is huge, but it's only 2 years left, technically a short term deal at this point. There are worse gambles out there.

 

If they actually pulled the trigger though they'd better be right.

[Lord Snow]

You didn't give a single example of a can't miss FA.

 

What you gave was an example of "didn't-miss" FA's.

 

Johan Santana was right in the caliber of the other two when the Mets signed him. 5 years and some SERIOUS injury issues later, I'd call that one a miss.

 

You're trying to argue history as if the guys who worked out were always destined to work out and the guys who flopped were always going to flop -- and as if any of that gave us the ability to predict or control who was going to do either going forward. It's a ridiculous attempt at an argument.

 

Huh? I didn't say Johan Santana. Santana never hit free agency, the Mets traded for him and then extended him.

 

The examples I gave were Cliff Lee, CC Sabathia, and Mark Teixeira.

 

My logic for signing guys like that is simple. If an elite player regresses they are generally still above average and worthy of a spot in the line-up. If a mediocre player regresses they end up borderline starters, and sometimes guys who belong on the bench.

 

Mark Teixeira is a perfect example. He hasn't performed as well as the Yankees would have hoped, or what they're paying him for, but he has still been acceptable, and worthy of a 3-5 spot in the line-up.

[DocHolliday]

For the record, FWIW, if the Red Sox decided to kick the tires on Johan themselves, I'd understand what they were trying to do. The money is huge, but it's only 2 years left, technically a short term deal at this point. There are worse gambles out there.

 

If they actually pulled the trigger though they'd better be right.

 

I like the idea of taking gambles on guys like Santana on short term deals.

 

In this particular case, I just don't like the idea of 3 LH starters in the Red Sox rotation with 81 games in Fenway Park.

[Lord Snow]

I like the idea of taking gambles on guys like Santana on short term deals.

 

In this particular case, I just don't like the idea of 3 LH starters in the Red Sox rotation with 81 games in Fenway Park.

 

If the Sox add Santana, everybody stays reasonably healthy, and players bounce back from off-seasons, then they'll have a decent shot at the playoffs. Santana is a true ace. He's an older arm but he still has something left in the tank as he proved last season.

 

Not to mention, the Sox can make Santana a qualifying offer if they trade for him before the season starts.

 

I think it would be a really nice patchwork move by the Sox. Give them a *chance* during a rebuilding time.

[DocHolliday]

If the Sox add Santana, everybody stays reasonably healthy, and players bounce back from off-seasons, then they'll have a decent shot at the playoffs. Santana is a true ace. He's an older arm but he still has something left in the tank as he proved last season.

 

Not to mention, the Sox can make Santana a qualifying offer if they trade for him before the season starts.

 

I think it would be a really nice patchwork move by the Sox. Give them a *chance* during a rebuilding time.

 

Also have to consider what the Mets would want in return. Based on the RA Dickey trade for a pitcher in a similar contract and age situation, I'm sure they wouldn't just settle for players like Iglesias, Kalish, or Brentz. They'd most likely ask for one of the B's or a Felix Doubront.

 

If Farrell has any say in personnel decisions, I'm sure he'd share the same opinion about trading Doubront for Santana as he did several years back when it was Ellsbury and Lester to the Twins for Santana.

 

Also have to consider how much $ the Mets would pick up.

[jung]

I am not sure I understand how the term "can't miss FA" is being used in this discussion. Does it imply a guy that was or would be considered worth the price paid for him even if he only met the lowest expectations had for him at the time of his signing? Are we talking about the next David Ortiz deal here. Ortiz came off the waiver wire as I recall so he really was not a FA. If he had gotten to FA that year I don't know what kind of money he would have attracted but I doubt it would have been much.

 

The lower the cost I guess the closer you would get to a description like "can't miss". Taken to an extreme, if you paid 0 for a FA, then he can't miss right. How can you lose on that deal?

 

It seems to me though that every FA carries with him some of risk burden. As such there is no such thing as a can't miss FA. Each and every one of them could flop taking your investment in them right down the drain.

 

If we look at recent Sox examples that were maybe examples of much more likely to miss, I would say the more you are dealing with a player that is hampered by a physical problem that has not as yet come into full flower or a player that has not played a single game since having gone through a major surgical procedure the more it would seem you are playing with fire.

 

For example, Agons while being a trade and extension had not played a single game since his shoulder surgery when the Sox sent SD prospects and agreed to an extension for Agons that gave him ten years at $21m per. Seemed to me the error was in giving Agons all the money under those circumstances. Crawford's wrist issue was known to the Sox and if I am not mistaken, he had been experiencing growing pain throwing the ball up to the point where the Sox signed him yet once again the Sox signed him to a long term deal in that case for all the money and then some. Lackey clearly had some physical issues when the Sox signed him again giving him all the money but in Lackey's case, inserting language that would be triggered by a decline in his capability to pitch with the injury. In Lackey's case it sort of worked out for the Sox cause he just could not continue to pitch with that injury, had to get the surgery thus tripping the language in his contract.

 

JD Drew however successfully danced around the language in his contract for years and the Sox never got anything out of that contract language. Their current situation with Napoli may be directly related to the Sox inability to gain anything out of the language they inserted into JD's contract.

 

As I have said before I don't like the idea of trying to insert language in the contract that offers some protection to the team should a known preexisting condition deteriorate to a certain point. I would prefer that the club make an offer to the player that assigns a value to the risk. Either the player takes the offer or he does not. If some other team decides to ignore the risk and offers the player more than you are willing to offer then just let them sign him. Seems to me that for a period of time, common sense went right out the window with the Sox and they simply ignored negative elements that came as part of a player's package. Maybe they saw their willingness to ignore those risk elements as the domain of the big market team. They surely paid for that mistake proving that enough things can go wrong with enough players to even bring the big market team to its knees.

 

I don't think that the can't miss FA exists because the implication is that you paid very little for him. If you paid very little for the FA I suspect he carried with him a huge risk of being a total bust and that was reflected in the price.

 

The real mistake to me goes beyond simply ignoring the risk elements that came along with particular FA's or trade candidates. That was part of it for sure. But the bigger problem was using that logic while also deciding to build a team primarily through FA signings. Now they really had their asses hung out in the breeze cause they were going to make a number of these FA signings ignoring risk elements and paying all the money every time. At the same time the Sox left a gapping hole in the developmental cycle for their prospects trading a good number of them away for guys like VMart and AGons.

 

To me there is nothing wrong with FA signings and nothing wrong with big FA signings and even not much to complain about in big risk FA signings. The mistake is in not relying mainly on your system to develop players for your big league club instead trading those players away. Instead of using FA to fill holes in a roster mainly made up of the players you developed, you end up with to many FA's on your roster all of them carrying some element or risk and none of them cost controlled.

[Lord Snow]

Also have to consider what the Mets would want in return. Based on the RA Dickey trade for a pitcher in a similar contract and age situation, I'm sure they wouldn't just settle for players like Iglesias, Kalish, or Brentz. They'd most likely ask for one of the B's or a Felix Doubront.

 

If Farrell has any say in personnel decisions, I'm sure he'd share the same opinion about trading Doubront for Santana as he did several years back when it was Ellsbury and Lester to the Twins for Santana.

 

Also have to consider how much $ the Mets would pick up.

 

I think if the Mets could give him away for a B or C level prospect or two, and eat less than $5M of the $30-something milllion he owed, I think they would jump all over that.

[dupree]

Are the Red Sox really kicked around the idea of Santana or is this a presumed upgrade trade that someone thinks should happen but the two teams are not talking about it

[Gringo]

No contracts over 5 years for anyone older than 29

 

Emphasize pitching, defense and speed

 

Be smart and don't make desperation moves, ever.

[Lord Snow]

No contracts over 5 years for anyone older than 29

 

Emphasize pitching, defense and speed

 

Be smart and don't make desperation moves, ever.

 

This. Going 5+ years for anyone in their 30s is a mistake. If a player is 30 on the button, its not as big of a gamble. In my experience almost every player experiences noticeable decline by age 36 either in health or performance.

[Lord Snow]

I am not sure I understand how the term "can't miss FA" is being used in this discussion. Does it imply a guy that was or would be considered worth the price paid for him even if he only met the lowest expectations had for him at the time of his signing? Are we talking about the next David Ortiz deal here. Ortiz came off the waiver wire as I recall so he really was not a FA. If he had gotten to FA that year I don't know what kind of money he would have attracted but I doubt it would have been much.

 

The lower the cost I guess the closer you would get to a description like "can't miss". Taken to an extreme, if you paid 0 for a FA, then he can't miss right. How can you lose on that deal?

 

It seems to me though that every FA carries with him some of risk burden. As such there is no such thing as a can't miss FA. Each and every one of them could flop taking your investment in them right down the drain.

 

If we look at recent Sox examples that were maybe examples of much more likely to miss, I would say the more you are dealing with a player that is hampered by a physical problem that has not as yet come into full flower or a player that has not played a single game since having gone through a major surgical procedure the more it would seem you are playing with fire.

 

For example, Agons while being a trade and extension had not played a single game since his shoulder surgery when the Sox sent SD prospects and agreed to an extension for Agons that gave him ten years at $21m per. Seemed to me the error was in giving Agons all the money under those circumstances. Crawford's wrist issue was known to the Sox and if I am not mistaken, he had been experiencing growing pain throwing the ball up to the point where the Sox signed him yet once again the Sox signed him to a long term deal in that case for all the money and then some. Lackey clearly had some physical issues when the Sox signed him again giving him all the money but in Lackey's case, inserting language that would be triggered by a decline in his capability to pitch with the injury. In Lackey's case it sort of worked out for the Sox cause he just could not continue to pitch with that injury, had to get the surgery thus tripping the language in his contract.

 

JD Drew however successfully danced around the language in his contract for years and the Sox never got anything out of that contract language. Their current situation with Napoli may be directly related to the Sox inability to gain anything out of the language they inserted into JD's contract.

 

As I have said before I don't like the idea of trying to insert language in the contract that offers some protection to the team should a known preexisting condition deteriorate to a certain point. I would prefer that the club make an offer to the player that assigns a value to the risk. Either the player takes the offer or he does not. If some other team decides to ignore the risk and offers the player more than you are willing to offer then just let them sign him. Seems to me that for a period of time, common sense went right out the window with the Sox and they simply ignored negative elements that came as part of a player's package. Maybe they saw their willingness to ignore those risk elements as the domain of the big market team. They surely paid for that mistake proving that enough things can go wrong with enough players to even bring the big market team to its knees.

 

I don't think that the can't miss FA exists because the implication is that you paid very little for him. If you paid very little for the FA I suspect he carried with him a huge risk of being a total bust and that was reflected in the price.

 

The real mistake to me goes beyond simply ignoring the risk elements that came along with particular FA's or trade candidates. That was part of it for sure. But the bigger problem was using that logic while also deciding to build a team primarily through FA signings. Now they really had their asses hung out in the breeze cause they were going to make a number of these FA signings ignoring risk elements and paying all the money every time. At the same time the Sox left a gapping hole in the developmental cycle for their prospects trading a good number of them away for guys like VMart and AGons.

 

To me there is nothing wrong with FA signings and nothing wrong with big FA signings and even not much to complain about in big risk FA signings. The mistake is in not relying mainly on your system to develop players for your big league club instead trading those players away. Instead of using FA to fill holes in a roster mainly made up of the players you developed, you end up with to many FA's on your roster all of them carrying some element or risk and none of them cost controlled.

 

I would define a "can't miss free agent" as a player who has been one of the top players in baseball at their position for the last 2-3 years, is still in his 20s, always had good health (or at least has been very healthy over the last 2-3 years) and with no real reason to expect decline in the near future (example: player is in peak physical condition).

[jacksonianmarch]

From within. That's the only way to truly stay back in contention. Otherwise you are spending out the ass for piss poor production. The only reason the Yankees stayed in contention was the fact that their home grown talent turned into HOF or borderline HOF performers and they had the means to build an expensive team around them. If Jeter, Rivera, Pettitte and Posada werent there for the past 17 yrs, then there'd be no titles in the Bronx in that era. You need to build from within then fill in around them.

[Lord Snow]

From within. That's the only way to truly stay back in contention. Otherwise you are spending out the ass for piss poor production. The only reason the Yankees stayed in contention was the fact that their home grown talent turned into HOF or borderline HOF performers and they had the means to build an expensive team around them. If Jeter, Rivera, Pettitte and Posada werent there for the past 17 yrs, then there'd be no titles in the Bronx in that era. You need to build from within then fill in around them.

 

Part of the problem with building from within is the playing field has been leveled with the new rules regarding draft pick compensation.

 

Teams like Boston could get 1st and 2nd round talent late who didn't get picked because of sign-ability concerns, that's gone now. The new frontier is to focus heavily on international scouting as that system remains the same.

[jung]

I was listening to one of the radio talk shows today. Thought I would relate this and see what folks think. The premise of the argument being made was that the Jays got tired of building from within and finally threw in the towel. That they decided to just go balls to the walls and go nuts in the FA agent market in order to make a serious run this year.

 

Not sure I buy that though. Not like they paid huge money for guys like Bautista and Encarnacion when they got them and it is not like those guys were tearin it up and makin huge money when the Jays got them.

 

So what do you guys think? Does the Jays effort look like a "spend like drunken sailors kind of thing or does it look more like a build sensibly to a certain point and then fill in the final pieces aggressively kind of thing?

[DocHolliday]

I was listening to one of the radio talk shows today. Thought I would relate this and see what folks think. The premise of the argument being made was that the Jays got tired of building from within and finally threw in the towel. That they decided to just go balls to the walls and go nuts in the FA agent market in order to make a serious run this year.

 

Not sure I buy that though. Not like they paid huge money for guys like Bautista and Encarnacion when they got them and it is not like those guys were tearin it up and makin huge money when the Jays got them.

 

So what do you guys think? Does the Jays effort look like a "spend like drunken sailors kind of thing or does it look more like a build sensibly to a certain point and then fill in the final pieces aggressively kind of thing?

 

For me, their spree falls somewhere in between. A number of the fill in pieces have significant health concerns - either based on their history, their age, mileage, or some combination of all of those.

 

They gave up a ton of cost controlled, talented pieces to get the additions and will end up looking like fools if they don't win big in the next 2 years. Then again, a failure will go much less noticed in Toronto than it will if the Dodgers spending spree fails to bear success.

[Lord Snow]

For me, their spree falls somewhere in between. A number of the fill in pieces have significant health concerns - either based on their history, their age, mileage, or some combination of all of those.

 

They gave up a ton of cost controlled, talented pieces to get the additions and will end up looking like fools if they don't win big in the next 2 years. Then again, a failure will go much less noticed in Toronto than it will if the Dodgers spending spree fails to bear success.

 

I don't think the Dodgers are going to win with their team.

 

Outside of Kershaw the rotation lacks meaningful depth. They can pay Zack Greinke like an ace all they want, it doesn't make him one. Greinke is a #2/#3 pitcher. Same with Beckett (when he is healthy, but as we know if he has the slightest nagging injury forget about positive results), an unproven Ryu could become a Dice-K, Billingsley was a consistent #3/#4 but his health is way up in the air, Harang can't be relied on.

 

So you look at the rotation and they really need good results from Kershaw, Greinke, and Beckett to compete. If that doesn't happen they could be in for a long season. I don't expect Greinke will handle the pressure of that big contract well, and I believe Beckett to be in very real decline.

 

If everybody plays to their potential they can win 130 games, but I can also see them being a disappointing 80 win team. More likely they'll win 90 and make the playoffs.

[jacksonianmarch]

Zach Greinke is a #2/3? Really?

[jacksonianmarch]

Part of the problem with building from within is the playing field has been leveled with the new rules regarding draft pick compensation.

 

Teams like Boston could get 1st and 2nd round talent late who didn't get picked because of sign-ability concerns, that's gone now. The new frontier is to focus heavily on international scouting as that system remains the same.

 

No, it doesnt. Starting last yr, each team got a slotted amount of money they could spend on IFA's and if they went over it, they'd run into the same issues you'd run into with the draft. Seeing as the sox sucked a gaggle of cock this yr, their IFA slot will be much higher in 2013, so they can go nuts without repercussion. The same can be said with their draft allotments. The sox lack any comp picks, but their first and second picks are going to bring high slot assignments, and if they pick a guy in the first round who signs under slot, they can reassign a lot more money to the later picks

[Palodios]

Zach Greinke is a #2/3? Really?

 

He has a 3.74 career ERA. If you ignore his CY Young year, he has been a #2 starter every year of his career.

[Spitball]

He has a 3.74 career ERA. If you ignore his CY Young year, he has been a #2 starter every year of his career.

 

 

This is excerpted from "Future Shock: Dylan Bundy and Future No. 1 Starters" by Kevin Goldstein

 

To be clear, “No. 1 starter” is a scouting/industry term, not a slot in the rotation. There were plenty of No. 3 starters taking the bump on opening day. There are maybe ten No. 1 starters in baseball. These are the guys who enter your head every time it comes time to predict who will win the Cy Young award each year. It takes stuff and command, but also durability, consistency, and that extra something else.

 

“The label is the ultimate of the ultimate, and there's nothing wrong with a strict standard,” said an American League executive. “I never project a prospect as anything more than a No. 2 starter for a reason,” he continued. “You're not a No. 1 until you actually prove over a period of time that you are a No. 1 in the big leagues. You cannot be anointed by a scouting report.”

 

“The radar gun can't tell you who is going to be a No. 1,” agreed an American League scout. “We envision guys in the mid-90s with crippling breaking balls and physicality, but at the end of the day, guys like Verlander or Pedro Martinez become No. 1s at the major league-level. Until you are pitching in the big leagues and putting away Cabrera and Fielder back-to-back, you're not a one.”

 

As for the extra component, people in the industry have trouble explaining it, but they know it when they see it. “No. 1 guys are the guys where every time they take the mound you feel you are going to win. Every time out, you are going to get a defined area of performance. Good starters will give you average starts half of the time, and then be really good 25 percent of the time and bad the other 25 percent,” another executive explained. “A No. 1 is giving you 50 percent elite starts, 25 percent really good and 25 percent average. When you see Verlander get hit hard by the Yankees, you know he's going to deal the next time out. That's a No. 1. When you see Sabathia going late in the season for the Brewers on three days rest and pitching them into the playoffs, that's a No. 1. Most starters can't do that.”

 

If we use Goldstein's standards and accept the theory that there are probably ten number ones, then Greinke is in the mix at the bottom of the top ten.

 

I count only nine definite number ones. Is Greinke even in the running for a number one?

 

Clearly number ones:

 

Verlander

Hernandez

Sabathia

Kershaw

Halliday

Lee

Cain

Price

Weaver

 

Nearly number ones:

 

Hamels

Gonzalez

Strasburg

Shields

Dickey

Cueto

Greinke

[Rdsxmbnt]

This is excerpted from "Future Shock: Dylan Bundy and Future No. 1 Starters" by Kevin Goldstein

 

 

 

If we use Goldstein's standards and accept the theory that there are probably ten number ones, then Greinke is in the mix at the bottom of the top ten.

 

I count only nine definite number ones. Is Greinke even in the running for a number one?

 

Clearly number ones:

 

Verlander

Hernandez

Sabathia

Kershaw

Halliday

Lee

Cain

Price

Weaver

 

Nearly number ones:

 

Hamels

Gonzalez

Strasburg

Shields

Dickey

Cueto

Greinke

 

Agree with this list completely. I definitely see Strasburg getting the bump up with another solid season. I think Hamels is also probably in the top group too

[Behindenemylines]

Long term success comes with teams that consistently have solid drafts and have minor league systems that can mold them into productive major leaguers.

[Spitball]

Long term success comes with teams that consistently have solid drafts and have minor league systems that can mold them into productive major leaguers.

 

The Sox could not continue to contend if they continued to gamble on Epstein's/ownerships' ridiculously irresponsible spending on free agents. Also, the trading of prospects made it impossible to build a roster of young affordable players to combine with high priced veterans.

[PlugInHysteriaBaby]

To me it's all about balance - Having the ability and gusto to go for the right free agents, the right trades, and not ignoring things like chemistry, and the quality of the player as a ballplayer, and as an individual.

 

The Blue Jays have had some smart maneuvering, and quality drafting pay off. They were in a position where they saw some quality prospects, like d'Arnaud, Nicolino, etc. that were variables distances away from helping the team, and they decided to "go for it", but they didn't go hogwild like we've seen the Sox, Dodgers, and Yankees do. To me, what the Jays did was smart, and seems quite balanced. How the team gels remains to be seen, but they appear to be awfully good.

 

I love what Boston is doing. You can't expect EVERY youngster to pan out and be a quality big leaguer, it just doesn't happen.

 

With short term contracts (Napoli, Victorino, Ortiz, Dempster, so on.) they've set themselves up to be competitive while still maintaining their plan of developing quality young players to mix in to the team, all while holding a hand full of aces if the right trade presents it's self.

 

Now, this is just completely hypothetical, off of the top of my head, but..

 

Let's say it's 2 years from right now and a few of the better prospects have worked out, others are on the cusp, or are viewed as "change of scenery" type players. Maybe the team can parlay some of the youngsters in to, let's say, a Troy Tulowitzki, just for the sake of argument.

 

You'd have a lineup of cost controlled talent - Middlebrooks, Bogaerts, JBJ, and then could trade a few players that are blocked at the MLB level for someone dynamic.

 

Having those "chips" on the table means everything when it comes to long term building.

[SoxSport]

The Red Sox had deep problems in their organization. That resulted in way overspending for $20 million dollar guys with long contracts who underachieved. They had no luxury cap room to maneuver. Kind of like the Yankees right now. The Dodgers saved them by taking all those expensive contracts off their hands.

 

The Red Sox are trying to correct their organizational problems. Whether Farrell, a new coaching staff, and some additions to the FO are going to solve their problems is hard to say. Their strategy of filling the team with 3 yr contracts of declining veterans and keeping a lid on their prospects is open to question. It isn't such a conservative approach when you consider they have spent themselves back up close to the luxury cap and have pushed some of their prospects back 2-3 years. That's not what a small market team would do. Even TB wouldn't do it that way. We'll have to see how it pans out. If any of those veteran signings doesn't hack it, it'll be deja vu all over again, and no Dodgers to bail them out this time.

[User Name]

The Red Sox had deep problems in their organization. That resulted in way overspending for $20 million dollar guys with long contracts who underachieved. They had no luxury cap room to maneuver. Kind of like the Yankees right now. The Dodgers saved them by taking all those expensive contracts off their hands.

 

The Red Sox are trying to correct their organizational problems. Whether Farrell, a new coaching staff, and some additions to the FO are going to solve their problems is hard to say. Their strategy of filling the team with 3 yr contracts of declining veterans and keeping a lid on their prospects is open to question. It isn't such a conservative approach when you consider they have spent themselves back up close to the luxury cap and have pushed some of their prospects back 2-3 years. That's not what a small market team would do. Even TB wouldn't do it that way. We'll have to see how it pans out. If any of those veteran signings doesn't hack it, it'll be deja vu all over again, and no Dodgers to bail them out this time.

 

This is simply not true. The positions played by their main offensive prospects (Bogaerts, JBJ) are not filled by long-term contracts, and making space in a rotation whose back-end is filled with mediocrity is no problem. That argument makes no sense.

[jung]

I actually like Victorino cause it gives the Sox some protection on Ells. I am really not high on Victorino otherwise but reluctantly I have to admit they have to protect themselves on Ells. I like Ross (the catcher). Gomes I can take or leave. They took him...ok. It still looks like we are stockpiling #4 outfielders. Does anybody have more #4 outfielders than the Sox? I like the pitching acquisitions they have made this year with the exception maybe of Dempster. While I like the guys they have acquired as some of us have discussed, some here think it useful to "stockpile" bullpen depth. I simply am not of that school. Starter depth...totally agree with that concept....bullpen depth...not real convinced on that one. Seems to me they have made upgrades and can cut something away at this point. But in the long run it really won't matter, so fine....it is what it is. The biggest glaring weakness is still the biggest glaring weakness. That was going to be the case with or without Dempster.

 

The one everyday player move I really don't like so far is the one that is hung up, Napoli. So if that falls through, I won't be all that disappointed.

 

I am just not convinced that the Sox have accomplished what they appeared to be trying to accomplish for 2013 either from a business perspective (fannies in seats) or a performance perspective (wins). Is it an interesting team...not really...not to me anyway. Is it a team that can get to the post season...I doubt it. If you are neither interesting nor good, what are you?