example1

C. Nothing great. Nothing horrible. He's banking on the quality of the 2011 team to actually shine through this season. I don't disagree with that assessment.

That's funny, I thought from your quote that Valentine actually said that about Ozzie Smith. Obviously, he didn't. Better range than Ordonez? That's a nice place to start...

It's certainly unreliable if you're using the wrong year! And cut to the immediate deflection from that embarassment... Maybe they could. Certainly if a year from now they have a few hitters in the top 100 (especially OF) you can expect someone to get traded.

Yep. He doesn't have to be Ozzie Smith, just good enough to warrant a spot on the Sox in the next few years.

Yes, Bleacher Report makes its appearance again. I thought we put a stop to that as in any way being a credible source. Listen to the podcast interview between Alex Speier and Jim Callis, who writes for Baseball America (I believe). Callis is clear that the Sox don't rank in the top tiers because they don't currently have anyone on the threshold of stardom like other clubs do and like they did in the past. He is also very clear that they likely have a bigger 2nd tier of prospects (guys who can be significant contributers at the MLB level) than almost any team in baseball. It doesn't take a genius to see that is the case. They have had two really big drafts in 2010 and 2011 (8 1st round picks) and some of those guys are just starting to show their talents. However, most of them are 19 or 20 years old, half of them haven't played any professional ball yet, etc.,. We should expect their rank to grow over the next few years and be back among the best in baseball due to these recent draft classes.

Ostensibly the argument is that Iglesias couldn't be ready to play for the Sox, since that was the context of the discussion and you are coming to the defense of those arguing that he isn't. The crux of your argument is that because the words "Ozzie Smith" were mentioned in a discussion with "Jose Iglesias" people are making direct comparisons of the two, saying Iglesias IS Ozzie Smith. Saying he has defense like Ozzie's is not saying he's Ozzie. Comparing the two is an illogical jump, ergo, Iglesias couldn't be ready to play for the Sox due to his s***** offense. If you aren't saying that then you are only obfuscating the discussion by saying people here are saying he is as good as Ozzie Smith, which isn't happening. In other words, at best you are making the discussion about something it isn't; at worst you are creating a strawman to defend the same point that everyone you are siding with is defending. Neither of those is very good. And, it is Monday, so I can't argue with you there.

Do you remember when I said you were creating a strawman, and you got defensive? This is why. To me, you hold your hands out and say "what, me? I'm not doing any of those things you say I am." And then you turn around and jump right back into it.

I'll give you a bunch of names who could have a similar level of production: Middlebrooks, Boegarts, Coyle, Brentz, Jacobs, Ranaudo, Barnes, Swihart, Lavarnway, Cecchini, Britton, Kalish, Pimentel... just off the top of my head. I bet half of those guys will be MLB'ers at some point in their career. Just because they aren't on the threshold of being in the majors today doesn't mean they don't have a good system. They do. Remember, Youkilis, Bard and Ellsbury all had holes in their games at some point of their development. All you have to do is go back and read all of a700hitter's prognostications about their future to realize that they were anything but a sure thing. Hell, most people on this board are currently treating Bard like he's a chump going out there for the 4th spot in the rotation, rather than him having one of the best arms in all of baseball. Pessimism is pervasive.

Drafting well is the single most important thing a GM can do. There is no doubt about that. It is the most cost effective way to get talent. Being superior in that area should be weighted more heavily than other areas, particularly when the product are guys who are annually worth 15-20m but who get paid 6 figures for their services. Theo put his efforts there because it was a competitive advantage a team like the Sox had, being able to let so many type-A FAs go and getting draft picks in return. Also, part of drafting well is not signing washed up has beens that fans are very attached to. He didn't just happen to land Ellsbury and Buchholz and Bard, etc.,. He let Pedro and Lowe and Damon go and turned those seeming losses into gains by getting superior talent. I suspect we will be seeing the fruits of this strategy for another 4-5 years.

To each their own. I notice you didn't mention any of the players he drafted, including the guy who won an MVP, the guy who just finished 2nd for MVP, the guy with the highest win % at this stage of his career of just about anyone in history, the closer everyone was weeping over losing earlier this offseason, etc., Convenient to forget that out of the entire possible universe of draft eligible players, he chose those guys who are now the centerpiece of the team. Also, we disagree about the state of the current team.

It's actually going to be very difficult since the CBA fundamentally changed the rules for how teams can stockpile draftpicks and pay over slot for draftees. The same offseason that Theo left coincided with significant changes to the landscape for how to run a baseball team. I'm not sure what other markers were distinctly "Theo" in my view. I think it is fair to say that he was a key part of their organizational philosophy and that much of the orgaization was on board with that philosophy. The fact that we can be critical in retrospect is an indicator that they got to a very high level of success, where winning a WS was a reasonable and realistic goal each and every season. There were many seasons in my Sox fandom where they only had one or two noteworthy players. I'm sure you remember those years too.

Believe it or not, Jung, I understood what the rest of your post meant. I was responding to this. The very first line. But to your point, I have no way of knowing whether Phase 1 or Phase 2 were very different. I suspect Theo's desire to leave was at least partially related to things not being exactly as he would have wanted them. Plus the higher salary. Plus an exciting opportunity. Plus the promotion. However, I think there was a certain synergy between LL and Theo in that they agreed about the principles of running a baseball franchise, in terms of signing in-prime talent, and putting lots of money into international and player development strategies. It's not like they (or BC and LL) have fundamentally opposite worldviews when it comes to what makes a baseball team work.

Your argument isn't going to have traction with me. I think Epstein was a very good GM. I think he will end up in the Hall of Fame some day if he sticks in the game. The list of successes, slim huh? 2nd most wins during his tenure of any team in baseball? Tied for the most World Series during that time? 2nd in playoff appearances? That's a slim list of successes?

And you have a hard time differentiating talented baseball professionals from amateurs who think they know what they are doing but don't.

Jesus, nobody is electing him to the Hall of Fame, we're arguing that he might, might be suitable hitting 9th and gobbling up balls at SS for the current Red Sox. The arguments that he doesn't have enough bat is what prompted the discussion about Ozzie Smith. You and a700 love this kind of strawman though. Take a valid point (superior fielders can survive at SS even if they are hapless with the bat) and then take the most absurd conclusion of it ("he's arguing he will be Ozzie Smith") and stake your chips on that. It's typical of the types of discussion around here.

How exciting.

.623 .522 .589 .549 .653 Those are the OPS for Ozzie Smith in his age 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 seasons. In his 19 seasons he had an OPS+ above 100 only FOUR TIMES. Ozzie Smith was such a rare and strange talent that evaluating his value and worthiness of being in MLB essentially relies on a different paradigm of player evaluation. His offense was entirely insignificant. His best season was 1987 when he had a .775 OPS (!!). Dustin Pedroia shits .775 OPS before breakfast. It is theoretically possible that a player could be all glove and pitcher-level bat and still be a net positive for the team; he would just need to get to almost every ball hit his way, turn spectacular double plays, cut down runs at the plate when no other player would even think about it, extend his defense beyond the SS position (flyballs in LF/CF, plays in the hole, etc.,). Ozzie did it and talent evaluators don't make comparisons to him lightly. Iglesias was the youngest player in AAA last year, so his offensive numbers shouldn't be too surprising. Also, as a 20 year old at AA he put up a .672 OPS. By comparison, that's better than Ozzie Smith's career OPS and would be servicable at the MLB level if his defense is close to Smith's. Can Iglesias develop enough to do that at the MLB level? We will have to see. Nobody would willingly put a .600 OPS in the lineup every day... except that we would all gladly do it to have Tim Lincecum or Felix Hernandez on the mound every day. There is a point where defensively having a tremendous glove at SS IS worth the shot in offense. Would we be willing to trade a s*** bat for a .75 reduction in team ERA over the course of the season? If a SS made every pitcher on the team 9% more effective, would that be a worthwhile trade off? I tell you this: I'm glad that the Red Sox have a FO full of intelligent people who are capable of making those types of evaluations, rather than a message board full of people who think they know what they're talking about without having ever seen the kid play. I would much rather have the combination of elite scouts and analysts (like Bill James) tackling this complicated problem, and trust that they can come to a conclusion that is based on the facts, rather than opinions based on limited observations.

Laughable. If four other teams are making offers for that guy then they are insane.

You're right jung. I really don't think that BC has any interest in Wakefield coming back with any reasonable chance of actually pitching. He would be like 12th on the list. Maybe higher, I haven't really counted honestly.

If the three of you ever needed a solid example of why "realist" can be interpreted as "pessimist" this is it. A washed up 45 year old pitcher retires after no offers from any other teams. The Sox are loaded with other, higher ceiling cannon fodder. You three immediately jump to "there's a good chance he could be back"... Realists.