2014 Offseason Thread

[User Name]

http://i.qkme.me/3qrk9w.jpg

[BSN07]

When talking about their multiple last place finishes I think it's important to think about how they happened. I would argue that their approach to both was similar--once they determined that they were out of the running they took the opportunity to make significant changes to the team. From a statistical point of view it isn't a trend, but it makes sense.

 

Some seasons just aren't going to be winners; when that happens the question is whether they should aggressively blow up the team and give up on the season, or aim to not finish last. I personally don't think they should care whether they finish last or 3rd or 4th if they're not competitive enough to win. Ultimately I'd rather they have the better draft pick. Both times they got pick #7 and used those last few months to strip their team and retool. In 2012 it was the Adrian Gonzalez salary dump (responsible for their spending this year). This year they will transition to a relatively new group on offense and a rebuilt rotation.

 

I understand the perspective that they should always try to finish as high as possible in the standings for the fans' sake. I just don't think it's strategically the best play. Hopefully they are now set up for a really nice run over the next few years. They have what appears to be a very solid offensive core with good depth at most positions. They also have enough money (thanks to their salary dump in 2012) to continue aggressively pursuing Lester even after landing Sandoval and Hanley. If they land Lester they will be in a pretty good position, in need of another #2 (ideally a #1a), but with all the pieces to make a deal: multiple MLB caliber outfielders (Cespedes, Bradley Jr, Craig, Victorino, Nava), 5-6 solid MLB ready young arms (RDL, Ranaudo, Webster, Barnes, etc.,), and a few blue-chip prospects (Owens, Swihart, Devers, Margot). I think they could put together a package for anyone who any team makes available. Yes, they need to make a deal, but they can afford to overpay and not be hurt longterm. Add a guy like Zimmerman or Hamels or Iwakuma and their rotation is suddenly pretty good.

 

How dare you just show up out of the blue and be completely logical and reasonable. You FO ball washer you...

[BSN07]

Red Sox outfielder Shane Victorino will swing a bat for the first time since undergoing back surgery on Monday and tells WEEI.com’s Rob Bradford that he’s on pace to be 100 percent by Spring Training. While Boston has quite the outfield logjam, Victorino plainly explains to Bradford that he feels he should be the starting right fielder next season. “…f I’m healthy if there’s a better outfielder in right field then show me and go out there and do it,” says Victorino. “I’m not saying that in a cocky or arrogant way. It’s just how confident I am to know I should be the starting right fielder.”

 

His name is moving up the trade list lol

 

I think the Sox should keep him around in case Castillo or Betts struggles. But if he's not happy with a reduced role get what you can for him.

[Orange Juiced]

But then getting bad seasons from almost everyone in the roster and a heaping of injuries to boot is the same thing in the opposite direction.

 

I agree. They really weren't as good as they showed in 2013, and they weren't as bad as they showed in 2012 and 2014. I think that's fair.

[a700hitter]

How dare you just show up out of the blue and be completely logical and reasonable. You FO ball washer you...

Yes, I am sure that the FO will adopt a business model where they don't care if they finish last if they can't make the post season. If Cherries proposed that at a meeting, he would be fired at that meeting.

[Spudboy]

Yes, I am sure that the FO will adopt a business model where they don't care if they finish last if they can't make the post season. If Cherries proposed that at a meeting, he would be fired at that meeting.

 

This team should be built to win every year. What is the sense in playing a season with being an also-ran as the objective? The idea of competition and games is to win.

 

The Sox have all of the resources to put a good, competitive team on the field each and every year. Not to do so is not a business model that should be respected or admired.

 

I do not expect the Sox to win the World Series every year. But I do expect that they construct a team aimed at going to the WS each year.

 

Finishing in last place is never good. It does not matter if it sandwiches a WS title.

[Palodios]

Yes, I am sure that the FO will adopt a business model where they don't care if they finish last if they can't make the post season. If Cherries proposed that at a meeting, he would be fired at that meeting.

 

From a business standpoint, there isn't any harm in finishing last, as long as you sell enough tickets in the beginning of the year when the team looks promising, and you save money from selling off high salary players midseason. That's the beauty of selling tickets before the games are played. With all the recent championships, fans have built enough faith in the team that they are going to buy tickets anyway. Winning consistently is a great business model, but unfortunately most teams haven't figured it quite out yet, including this one.

[Spudboy]

Although when the team fails to be competitive early in the season fans stop watching games on tv and share and revenue from advertising may drop off.

 

That is not a good business model.

[sk7326]

I have no idea why you brought in Francona when I never mentioned him once in my post. As for the 2011 season it WAS a miserable failure because that record might look good on paper keep in mind that the Red Sox suffered the biggest collapse in baseball history that September. We went from 1.5 games in first place on the first of that month to a hideous 8-22 mark that month, not only dropping out of first place but failing to make the playoffs at all. It doesn't matter who was at fault, the result was the same. When it counted most we sucked. You know I coined a phrase on another board that might be just timely for this discussion and whenever losing teams and disappointing seasons are discussed and here goes......

 

Defeat has all sorts of excuses, rationalizations and worthless meanings and statements but

victory doesn't have any of these, nor do they need it because victory speaks for itself.

 

(it was tied for the worst collapse of that season if you want to get technical)

 

Listen, you can have good moves with bad results, bad moves with good results, good moves with good results and bad moves with bad results. The latter earns firings. Now from your original phrasing - there are no good moves that for one reason or another just don't work. I guess that is an impasse.

[Spudboy]

Was the 2011 collapse Francona's fault?

[a700hitter]

This team should be built to win every year. What is the sense in playing a season with being an also-ran as the objective? The idea of competition and games is to win.

 

The Sox have all of the resources to put a good, competitive team on the field each and every year. Not to do so is not a business model that should be respected or admired.

 

I do not expect the Sox to win the World Series every year. But I do expect that they construct a team aimed at going to the WS each year.

 

Finishing in last place is never good. It does not matter if it sandwiches a WS title.

 

Agreed. Good post. With the resources at their disposal, they should field a competitive team every year.

[a700hitter]

From a business standpoint, there isn't any harm in finishing last, as long as you sell enough tickets in the beginning of the year when the team looks promising, and you save money from selling off high salary players midseason. That's the beauty of selling tickets before the games are played. With all the recent championships, fans have built enough faith in the team that they are going to buy tickets anyway. Winning consistently is a great business model, but unfortunately most teams haven't figured it quite out yet, including this one.

winning isn't the business model, but utilizing available resources to put out the most competitive team within their very ample budget is surely what they try to do.

[a700hitter]

Although when the team fails to be competitive early in the season fans stop watching games on tv and share and revenue from advertising may drop off.

 

That is not a good business model.

 

Yep, that is s the reality.

[Spudboy]

I applaud the Sox for being proactive this off season. Although I do not see signing both Sandoval and Hanley as a best foot forward move.

 

Yes, the Sox now have a legitimate 3rd baseman. Even if they decided to pay way too much for him. I'm not concerned about Sandoval's projected injuries related to being fat. I want him to produce in 2015 and 2016. Beyond that I do not really care about him. The Sox can eat his contract if needed or they can trade him away. It would be nice to see him continue to play at the level of his MLB career to date throughout his contact. But if not then I say "next".

 

The Sox have endured many years with mediocre or poor play at short. Hopefully XB changes that at least with his bat since he is not likely to become a defensive stalwart at that position. I see him as a 1st baseman down the line.

 

Now the Sox have been suffering a similar void at 3rd. With Sandoval at the position one area of need appears to be fixed. At least on paper.

 

I have no idea what the Sox are thinking by signing Hanley for 4 years ( or 5 ). He just does not fit the team's needs at the moment. Sure, his bat is one just about any team would want. But he is no longer a complete player on the field from all of the negative crap I have read about his injuries and play at short. Can he be a serviceable left fielder? I believe that is entirely up to him. He has to work at developing news skills and knowledge of the game. The guy has been viewed as an immature punk for so long it's hard to see him making the effort without hiccups.

 

I really hope that the Sox can move players like Cespedes, Craig , Middlebrooks along with some prospects to secure viable mid rotation arms and of course sign Lester or the equivalent. This would send the signal that the Sox are going for it again in 2015 and maybe 2016.

 

Beyond that, who knows what can happen.

[sk7326]

Was the 2011 collapse Francona's fault?

 

Kyle Weiland principally

 

The Red Sox absolutely should field a contender every year - that is absolutely true. Now, I'd submit that between 2013 and 2014 they made moves which would have led to being a likely contender. It did not happen, but I cannot point to anything that took place during that time which would have been foreseen as an absolute recipe for a 30 game dropoff.

 

Between 2011 and 2012 they did some things which actively hurt the team (and you could see it at the time - the manager change in particular). But still a lot of crap just went wrong to get to the 2012 result. That could be seen by how much changed in 2013 just by the virtue of the s***** luck factors being reversed.

 

Right now the 2015 team is a solid bounceback candidate. Unlike 2013, there is more work to do from the GM seat and a wider range of outcomes. I am curious as to how it will turn out.

[Navafan29]

Why don't the Sox do what they did before the 2013 season? They got lots of established talent like Napoli, Victorino, and Gomes at a reasonable amount of money/years. But before the 2014 season, they didn't follow up with that strategy and relied too much on prospects. Now they're doing the opposite and spending tons on a couple long contracts. Adding superstars would be good for a less popular team that needs to boost ticket sales, but that's not us. If we weren't using up all this cash on Sandoval, then we could be trading prospects for established talent.

[Bellhorn04]

Why don't the Sox do what they did before the 2013 season? They got lots of established talent like Napoli, Victorino, and Gomes at a reasonable amount of money/years. But before the 2014 season, they didn't follow up with that strategy and relied too much on prospects. Now they're doing the opposite and spending tons on a couple long contracts. Adding superstars would be good for a less popular team that needs to boost ticket sales, but that's not us. If we weren't using up all this cash on Sandoval, then we could be trading prospects for established talent.

 

So who would you have preferred they acquire for third base?

[Spudboy]

Kyle Weiland principally

 

The Red Sox absolutely should field a contender every year - that is absolutely true. Now, I'd submit that between 2013 and 2014 they made moves which would have led to being a likely contender. It did not happen, but I cannot point to anything that took place during that time which would have been foreseen as an absolute recipe for a 30 game dropoff.

 

Between 2011 and 2012 they did some things which actively hurt the team (and you could see it at the time - the manager change in particular). But still a lot of crap just went wrong to get to the 2012 result. That could be seen by how much changed in 2013 just by the virtue of the s***** luck factors being reversed.

 

Right now the 2015 team is a solid bounceback candidate. Unlike 2013, there is more work to do from the GM seat and a wider range of outcomes. I am curious as to how it will turn out.

 

I believe that we all feel this way. There are some that are skeptical. Not me. I know that the Sox have the ability to turn the ship around in one off-season. I've seen it before.

 

The Sox need to get not only a #1 and #2 , they probably need a real #3 or at worst #4 type and they need a catcher to back up Vasquez AND they need to round out the pen.

 

While the Sox seem to be in a holding pattern in building the pitching staff until Lester makes his decision, I wonder why they have not made some low leverage decisions /signings concerning the pen?

 

It would seem to be a no-brainier to resign Badenhop, at least. Of course I'd love to see Miller back. Could the Sox sway his decision by offering 2/24 or 3/32 even though he is said to be in line for a 4 year deal? I don't know. But if so, can spending that amount on a reliever with one outstanding year to his credit be justified? Salary constraints be damned.

 

In any case, Thanksgiving is now gone and I look for many moves in the near future.

 

GO SOX!!1!!!

[Spudboy]

So who would you have preferred they acquire for third base?

 

The free agent pickin's are slim this year.

 

Thankfully the Sox don't need a shortstop!!!

[jacksonianmarch]

If I were a sox fan, I'd be looking hard at Headley. The guy is a damn strong defender who's bat is better than Sandoval's. He comes with less of a commitment in years and money and he didn't cost you a draft choice

[jd98]

They should just let Sandoval be the backup catcher too, since they paid so much for him. It would make his contract look better since Sox wouldn't have to spend on a backup C, and it frees up a roster spot for the 17 OFs on the team.

[example1]

Yes, I am sure that the FO will adopt a business model where they don't care if they finish last if they can't make the post season. If Cherries proposed that at a meeting, he would be fired at that meeting.

 

Don't you think the fact that they have now done it twice indicates it actually IS their business model? Obviously their aim is to win every year, but when that's not in the cards their business model says to do something to make it better rather than holding onto what should have been. That becomes more important than their finish in the standings. Isn't that what businesses do? They invest in a direction and cut bait when it doesn't work. Do you really think they spend their time sitting around the table saying "Our business model says we are supposed to be in first place. It's late July and we are 17 games out, let's stick with the original plan. Maybe we can pull out a 3rd place finish and get the 19th draft pick! Who cares if we lose out on being able to trade guys above their actual value to teams desperate for a LH reliever?"

 

If their #1 objective was to finish as high in the standings as possible-whether April 3rd or August 15th-you would have seen Cherington fired multiple times already.

[a700hitter]

Don't you think the fact that they have now done it twice indicates it actually IS their business model? Obviously their aim is to win every year, but when that's not in the cards their business model says to do something to make it better rather than holding onto what should have been. That becomes more important than their finish in the standings. Isn't that what businesses do? They invest in a direction and cut bait when it doesn't work. Do you really think they spend their time sitting around the table saying "Our business model says we are supposed to be in first place. It's late July and we are 17 games out, let's stick with the original plan. Maybe we can pull out a 3rd place finish and get the 19th draft pick! Who cares if we lose out on being able to trade guys above their actual value to teams desperate for a LH reliever?"

 

If their #1 objective was to finish as high in the standings as possible-whether April 3rd or August 15th-you would have seen Cherington fired multiple times already.

You are a great baseball fan, but such a business model would be improbable because executing it would require that the FO take action to tank the team's chances part way through a season. If they put together a roster that they thought would be competitive, those players will continue to try to win throughout a season. If they see that the team will finish out of the playoffs, the players will not stop trying because that would endanger their own careers and diminish their own market value. Such a strategy by the FO would require that the FO sabotage the team's chances. I don't see that as realistic. If the team finishes last, it will be because the FO built a last place team going into the season.

[User Name]

Why don't the Sox do what they did before the 2013 season? They got lots of established talent like Napoli, Victorino, and Gomes at a reasonable amount of money/years. But before the 2014 season, they didn't follow up with that strategy and relied too much on prospects. Now they're doing the opposite and spending tons on a couple long contracts. Adding superstars would be good for a less popular team that needs to boost ticket sales, but that's not us. If we weren't using up all this cash on Sandoval, then we could be trading prospects for established talent.

 

What does this even mean? This makes no sense.

[User Name]

You are a great baseball fan, but such a business model would be improbable because executing it would require that the FO take action to tank the team's chances part way through a season. If they put together a roster that they thought would be competitive, those players will continue to try to win throughout a season. If they see that the team will finish out of the playoffs, the players will not stop trying because that would endanger their own careers and diminish their own market value. Such a strategy by the FO would require that the FO sabotage the team's chances. I don't see that as realistic. If the team finishes last, it will be because the FO built a last place team going into the season.

 

That's one of the biggest leaps of logic i've ever seen presented in this website.

[Spudboy]

I can't even figure out what is being said. And I'm not drunk.

 

Whatever.

[example1]

You are a great baseball fan, but such a business model would be improbable because executing it would require that the FO take action to tank the team's chances part way through a season. If they put together a roster that they thought would be competitive, those players will continue to try to win throughout a season. If they see that the team will finish out of the playoffs, the players will not stop trying because that would endanger their own careers and diminish their own market value. Such a strategy by the FO would require that the FO sabotage the team's chances. I don't see that as realistic. If the team finishes last, it will be because the FO built a last place team going into the season.

 

Thank you for the part re: great baseball fan. That's a nice compliment. You are as well, to be sure.

 

I guess my point is that the worst-to-first pattern can easily be overblown. They were the worst in the AL East for two years, in both instances really blowing up the team at the end of the season. The first time they did that (2012) they went worst to FIRST with a World Series. The 2013 team was a really good club, built by their strategy when bound to miss the playoffs in 2012. Their success isn't unrelated to their strategy when blowing the team up.

 

The 2015 team could be shaping up to be a really good club too, we will see. In either case I think any team should play the game outside the game as the season progresses. Ultimately their goal is to put together a core of players who can be effective over multiple years--it seems that's what the best dynasties do. Whatever they can do to get to that point I'm all in favor of--including finishing last instead of 4th or 3rd.

[BSN07]

See the ex1 that's the difference right there. You are willing for the last place finish to build a better team going forward. a700 believes the team should give in ever.

 

It's the age old tail around these parts. Younger generation is typically fine with the occasional "retooling" season and the older gents want every year they have left to be competitive.

[sk7326]

So who would you have preferred they acquire for third base?

 

Josh Donaldson apparently

[jacksonianmarch]

The sox did the unthinkable in 2012, and dealt off the heart of their club, or so we thought. They actually dealt the decrepit Apple core of a rotting team and filled the team with good baseball guys. Their 2014 problem was that they lost 2 all star caliber talents, replaced them cheaply and expected the career years of 2013 to resume. Instead of making shrewd moves, they go long term with a fat 3b who is an average hitter and defender and sign a SS to play LF at huge money who is known as a loser and a malcontent. Seems like they're repeating 2011 all over again