example1

But Haren signed with WAS today, so he's off the market.

Who says they don't have the funds to sign Hamilton, Haren, Sanchez or Swisher? They might not want to sign them with the funds they have, but they have the funds. What Victorino does is give another versatile veteran presence who has played on winning teams for a relatively team friendly length contract. The Sox will be introducing enough home grown talent the next few years that the salary will be under control. Victorino might end up being very expensive bench depth, but when LL talks about having "deep depth" perhaps he's not talking about having AAAA players available at AAA. Perhaps he means having guys who would otherwise be starters/regular players elsewhere in a regular rotation at the MLB level. I don't love the signing but I don't hate it either. The Sox are slowly building a clubhouse full of guys who, salaries aside, any team would love to have. These are character guys who aren't just character guys. They have skills too. Remember, the salary is likely a tool to prevent the deal from having been 4 or 5 years, which is likely what Victorino and Napoli wanted. The Sox will be able to clear this money off the books soon, or could absorb the salary if they wanted to trade some of these guys in the future. Finally, Napoli and Victorino and Ross all have decent health records. Having guys who are likely to stay in the lineup is a novel thing for the Sox.

Supposedly he's an excellent clubhouse guy too, and has been pretty healthy throughout his career.

If they could have him at 7-8 m a year for a few years, ok. At almost 13m, ouch. They should move Ellsbury then.

They are trying to get payroll under the LT threshold. Just as the sox would have been had they not made LAD trade.

Swisher is incredibly consistent. Starting in 2006 he's had OPS+'s of 125, 126, 93, 122, 129, 120, 126. He's put up HR totals of 35, 22, 24, 29, 29, 23, 24 and OPS's of .864, .836, .743, .869, .870, .822, .837 during that time. He can be chalked up for an OPS+ of 120's, 20+ HR an OBP of .360ish and an .820-.850 OPS most likely. Oh yeah, he's also played in 148 games or more for 7 seasons in a row and has positional flexibility. The Sox could really benefit from a consistent, injury-free player to contrast their injuries of the past few years. He's not worth a huge contract, but if they can get a reasonable deal for him (3 years, 45m with an option) they should go for it. By contrast, Cody Ross's OBP over his past 5 seasons hasn't been higher than .326, though he's consistent too (.316, .321, .322, .325, .326). His highest OPS during that stretch was .807 last year. Swisher has been better than that in 6 of the past 7 seasons.

I suppose so BSN but Tampa Bay tends to do pretty well with their moves, so I hate to see them being active in any regard.

Your point was that teams don't trade top prospects. I gave you examples and you talked about the player returned. That has nothing to do with whether teams trade top prospects. Attitude problem, genital warts, it doesn't matter. You said they don't, I showed they do. He apparently didn't read the same scouting reports that I did or which have been posted here. Terrible fielders are placed in the corner OF positions, even in the minor leagues. It doesn't make sense to play him in CF. The scouting reports I've seen say he has good athleticism for a player his size. I don't disagree with Abraham's general concern about a COF for a SP. However, if Lester has been in a real decline (as you argue) then it's not a huge loss. Also, Myers has been playing CF in the minors. In theory, he could play that in Fenway, if the Sox didn't have superior fielders like Ellsbury and Bradley Jr waiting. No need for him to play there. Go to LF, play decent OF and rake. That's all he needs to do. I appreciate your history lesson. Baseball Ref lists Ruth's defensive contribution as -2.3 wins throughout his career, with a season high of 1.2 in 1923. Perhaps he was an excellent fielder, or maybe he was just a good hitter and an average fielder. Those numbers don't say anything great about his fielding. And yes, he was a pitcher too. As for Aaron, my bad. He was a great fielder. I take it back. Plenty of scouting reports and "experts" say they make that deal in a heartbeat. I don't agree with you that it never makes sense to trade someone who is a #2 or #3 starter for a player with the potential to put up a mid .900 OPS if that batter is only an average fielder. The fact that Myers will cost virtually nothing ($$ wise) and is only beginning his career adds enough to me to be comfortable with them taking that risk. Your opinion is clearly different. No point in disputing it much more.

Hanley Ramirez was a #1 prospect and was traded. I suspect Jacob Turner was a #1 prospect when Detroit moves him for Sanchez. I'm confident there are other examples. Secondly, just because a prospect isn't Harper or Trout doesn't mean they aren't good. Hell, Trout is a much better player than Harper so grouping them might not even make sense. As for being one dimensional, wasn't Ted Williams that way? Babe Ruth? Was Hank Aaron known for his defense? Unless its atrocious I think it will be tolerable. Finally you said that there are reports that Myers defense isn't MLB ready. I believe that you read that (rather than just citing made up stuff) but can you find the link so I can see it too? Thanks.

An interesting question about lingo arises. We often use the terms five-tool player and multi-dimensional. Is a player who hits for average, and power with a good arm one dimensional? Maybe...? But if to be multidimensional you have to be a five tool player then the universe of true multidimensionals is quite small. It doesn't take long to find examples of players whose skills in the five tools rank as mid-range to exceptional, who are extremely valuable. Hell, if the bat is good enough then being one dimensional doesn't matter all that much. Overall, the point is overblown. The kid has the offensive potential of a first division, middle order bat at a very young age. When we are arguing in other places about Papelbon being worth 14m or about the necessity of bringing Ortiz back despite his inability to field or run at all, I suspect we would all be okay with a corner OF who put up a .940 OPS year after year, right?

I think the fact that Papelbon was always intent on testing the FA market didn't help either. He was demanding premium FA salary and got it. There's nothing wrong with that, but most of us could have predicted that the Sox weren't going to pay that from about 2008 on. It just wasn't going to happen. I for one don't have a problem with the Sox not outbidding the Phillies to keep him around. I bet the Phillies wish they didn't have him on the payroll right now, and they certainly would get back at least a couple million from his bloated salary if they could--given that they suck right now.

What are you basing that on a700? Who is reporting that he is 1 dimensional? I've seen average speed with good arm. For a player with no speed it is strange that the Royals would have started him in CF more than any other position the last two years, and that other sites would list him as having above average athleticism.

You make good points. At the same time, this team existed for a long time without Jon Lester and would exist after he's gone. I'm not saying he's expendable, he's not. At the same time, if he puts up another season like 2012 does it really matter? They might as well sign Brandon McCarthy or someone else. The team won't be without pitching over the next few years, they will just need to find more. Also, the market of available pitchers (through trade, FA, etc.,) will change over time. It sucks right now. Trading Lester would be a bold move and could either lead to great things or a bunch of mediocrity for awhile. I'd rather they do bold things right now when the relative risk is lower, but I understand completely people hesitating about them giving up a semi-sure thing (Lester) for an unknown quantity. Mostly its the reports about Myers skillset that have me impressed. The kid just seems to be a tremendous hitter for his age, with highly advanced power. He's shown it across multiple levels. I actually see a lot of parallels with the Dodgers Crawford-Gonzo trade. It is very, very rare that a team takes on that much salary and gives something in return. It was too good an offer to pass up. It is also pretty rare for a small-market team to be seeking established veterans in exchange for the minor league player of the year on the cusp of breaking through with the big club. Other teams won't be doing that next year or the year after--that's why the Sox have to consider it strongly.

Sure. There's always a risk.

Presuming that means trading Lavarnway, probably not. Dickey was tremendous last year though, so if he's got 3-4 more years of that in him it wouldn't be a bad thing. I would just much prefer that they move Salty, who I am already tired of watching.

If they misjudge which of those bridge years it is they potentially set the organization back a number of years. Holding on to Lester so the team can be an 84-88 win team doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I think they can be better than that, but even then what does that get them? Let's say, just for the hell of it, that Myers turns out to be.. I don't know, Ryan Braun. If the next Ryan Braun is available for a pitcher who has two years left on his contract and then becomes a FA, don't you have to take that deal? Wouldn't it be foolish to pass it up? Especially if, at the time the deal was available, you literally had no chance of being a contender anyway? I don't know.... it is a tough call. I suppose I'm so eager for the next generation of talent to get to Boston that I'm willing to have them roll the dice on a guy who might be a centerpiece for the next 6+ years.

I just don't think the fan base is so easily destroyed. Maybe I'm wrong. Teams rise and fall and so do fan bases. Maybe I'm giving Sox fans too much credit, but I think they would be back if the team were really exciting in 2014 or 2015 even if they totally suck in 2013.

And yet just about every post here is saying that if they don't do something that is aesthetically pleasing to the fans, the fans will lose interest. Fans being interested and doing the right thing for wins are not necessarily the same thing.

The problem is that when this facade is successful fans believe they are actually trying. And if they believe they are trying and the team failes then they are seen as incompetent and they want heads to roll. Theo tried to span this gap by talking about the bridge year in a realistic way and he was ripped apart for it. He said they were building a highly competitive team but acknowledging to the fans that they weren't going all in because they were intentionally planning for the future. The media and fans went nuts, so they responded with "splashes" that didn't work, to keep the fans happy. That strategy has been tried, and it failed.

I really think this is hindsight Palodios, as much as I respect your position. Beltre's previous 3059 PAs in Seattle led to a .759 OPS and a 101 OPS+. In no season did he have an OBP above .330. Then in a contract season in Boston he put up a .919 OPS, his best since his previous contract season in LA. It was highly suspicious and unreliable, at least as far as I'm concerned. Otherwise your point makes sense though. As for the draft pick discussion, there are always players who are selected later in the draft who do well. You selected a nice list. I noticed you didn't list all the guys who go in the top 10 picks who go on to be the type of players we are talking about. Selecting early in the draft logically gives you a larger universe of players to draft from. Weaver was selected 12th, for instance, which means that teams 13 and on would not have had a chance to draft him. To put it another way, all things being equal (here, that means literally "without any noticable difference in the seasons that lead up to having one draft slot or another") a team would always prefer to have the first pick. Nobody would say the Sox should tank their season, but at some point if they are going to have an unsuccessful campaign it becomes preferable (to me at least) for them to start moving up in the draft order (like they did in 2012). What the team does with the draft pick is a different matter, which is why all those guys were still available at those spots. I'm sure plenty of people hate the idea of the Sox not winning every game. I'm just saying what I think about the value of getting a tremendous player through the draft and how their odds increase as their slot increases. Finally, add in the fact that teams with unprotected picks can lose their first round pick if they dare to sign a protected FA, and finishing in the middle sucks even more. At the very least, if the Sox are going to be bad they benefit by having a protected pick.

Sometimes what benefits fan re-engagement after a few poor seasons is having someone who is a near-generational talent. Fans will rally around a star player who they really like. I think about how Justin Verlander is the center of the Tigers universe, even with Cabrera and Fielder there now. Evan Longoria is that guy in Tampa. Washington has a number of good players but that will be Bryce Harper's and Steven Strasburg's team; Anaheim has Pujols but Trout might be the guy the fans come to like the most. Where does that leave the Red Sox? Needing to find that next guy. I would propose two things: 1) moves like the Lester for Myers move should be pursued aggressively. Who knows if Myers is that guy, but his numbers suggest he's got a good chance to be at least a very good MLB regular, if not a perennial all-star. They need that lottery ticket more than they need a #2 starter moving forward. 2) Amass top draft picks. As far as I'm concerned, if they're going to be bad in 2013 they might as well be really bad. The most obvious generational talent usually lives at the top of the draft, but it's hard to get there. The Sox being an 80 win team for 3-4 years won't help them as much as being a 69 win team for another season. All that said, there might be ways to make this team actually competitive this year, in which case they should do that. If Anibel Sanchez is willing to sign a reasonable deal to come to Boston, Josh Hamilton will sign a 5 year deal, and they can trade some players for future stars (or future stars for necessary pieces now, i.e., pitching) then they should do that. I just don't know that it is likely. I'm prefacing all of my comments above from the fact that I, like many Red Sox fans, am not as inve$ted in their being interested year in and year out. For those fans I do sympathize. I love the Red Sox and spend a good portion of my summer watching them... from my house. In Oregon. Those of you who invest a significant amount of time and money in going to games, having to pay for parking, sitting through Sox events (Christmas at Fenway), etc., will experience a fair amount of disconnect between what is being sold and what the team is in reality, and that's not easy at all. I would completely understand you wanting something great now and not tolerating another terrible season. It is all in the eye of the beholder, I suppose.

Why did you say a 70 year low? Geez, over state things much? Just kidding. Sorry, I should get my hyperbole right.

Well, I think it was implied that this might be what a bridge year looks like. Not much action early in the offseason, waiting to find the crumbs left over when the vultures desperate to compete now have overpaid for guys like Anibel Sanchez. Not making moves believing that it is all about winning in 2013. I definitely think that trading veterans for prospects would represent it, though we haven't seen that yet (I'm hoping we do though) :dunno: High upside young talent they are waiting for (estimated year): Jackie Bradley Jr (CF) (2014) Rubby De La Rosa (SP-RP)(2013) Allen Webster (SP) (2013-2014) Bryce Brentz (COF) (2013-2014) Xander Bogaerts (SS/3B ) 2014 Matt Barnes (SP) (2014) As for team friendly deals, I would say that the signing of Kuroda last year (NYY) and Edwin Jackson (WAS), along with the Sox signing of Beltre in recent years are examples of the types of moves they could make. They didn't make them last year because they were literally counting every last 100k due to tax threshold concerns. They won't have those concerns this year. I also think moves like Swisher and/or Napoli could be good bridge year signings because they will still be viable players in 2 seasons, won't be superstar contracts, and are good clubhouse presences. They will contribute next year at the level of their likely contracts. Signing Josh Hamilton or Zack Greinke would not be an example of that, IMO.

No need to get defensive. Your statement was a complete fabrication, you've acknowledged it. No need to go on the war path. I acknowledge fan interest is at a relative low, I just don't see the need to by hyperbolic about it. I was simply curious if you actually had information that would imply the Sox were worse off than they have been in 60 years in the eyes of fans.

A bridge year is literally nothing more than filling your roster with team friendly, short-term deals, which allow you to have the maximum payroll flexibility at the time when all the young players are ready to come up and join the club. Those kinds of deals are best found after the market has sorted itself out, not when players are out to maximize their value.