a700hitter

Griffey would play CF in 2006 and 2007 at most. In 2008 or earlier, move him to a corner or DH. This would not hinder Ellsbury's progress at all. As far as I know, there are no plans for him to make the ML roster in '06. As an asside, whether Ellsbury is a "classy young man" is irrelevant. It may be important to his agent and the club for marketing purposes, but that translates into zippo on the field. Some of the greatest players were crude, profane and totally without class, e.g. Cobb, Ruth, and to a large extent Teddy Ballgame.

The Yankees went in a direction of youth-- Pavano who had one good year under his belt and they turned away from a proven star , Pedro. That has worked out well for them so far. Again, I'll ask the question if Pedro is an All-Star for 3 years and wins 10-12 games with a 4+ ERA in the 4th year, have the Mets made a good acquisition?

So, you agree with me. They would be sacrificing the future, i.e., Marte, for Crisp , who is young, but he would be a stop gap until the farm yields a crop for CF.

Lots of you think that letting Damon go was a) smart financially, and a future-looking move. While I am not going to get into a discussion of Damon's FMV, I have been concerned that it would take top prospects to fill the CF hole, thus sacrificing the future somewhat and certainly not building or preserving the future. Let's hope they don't part with two prospects. If they do, letting Damon walk was a big mistake. They should have kept the overpaid but proven Boston star until the fram kids were ready. That's when they would have enjoyed the financial savings with a seemless transition in CF. Now, we have no one in CF, and worse yet, every team knows we have no one thus driving up their price. The Red Sox are a premier franchise with a ton of expensive ML talent, so they are not going into 2006 with Stern or Harris in CF. They've got a roster that can make the playoffs, so they will not throw away the opportunity by putting a non-entity in CF. However, it is going to cost them to fill the whole. It's going to cost part of the future.

Duh, I realize that, but there is nothing interesting about signing a bench player. There is no reason to analyze this move. He is a dime a dozen. No one puts their hard earned $ down to see Willie Harris. In fact, most fans would be disappointed if they got the game and Harris was starting instead of Loretta. I get the concept. Teams need depth on the bench, but this guy is not even a special bench player. I'd much rather have signed Jeff Davannon, who is superior to Harris in every aspect. God, do I have to be thrilled about every acquisition they make? It's just not worth the effort to discuss. Do I also have to be thrilled about the new kid from Down Under, Mate?

He may not be the old Pedro, but you are likely to never see that kind of pitcher (i.e., '98-'00 version) in a Sox uniform in your lifetime. I am 47 years old, and I have never seen anything like that. He may not be that guy, but he is still an All-Star. With all these great arms that we have on the farm, it will be several years before any one of them becomes an All-Star. I have to disagree with you again. You take the risk on Pedro, because if he stays healthy, he is something special, even if he can't bring the '97 mph heat. He had a good year in '05. If he has a good year in '06, I have to ask you at what point is it a good acquisition for the Mets? If he is #1 ace and an All-Star for 3 years, but only wins 11 or 12 games in year 4, were the Mets stupid? My opinion would be that the Sox blew it.

I'm not negative, but I don't get excited about players like Harris. I wouldn't equate him with Pokey, because Pokey was a defensive super-talent and I knew that about him before he came to the Sox. There is nothing extraordinary about Harris. I've seen hundreds like Harris come and go into oblivion in a blink... some may even have been named Harris. So, I am not real charged up about the acquisition. If we acquired Franco Harris, I'd be more excited.

I think the guy still has plenty left in the tank. He is a step slower, but he still has a lot to offer. The sox still have the $ they saved on Pedro, Damon and Renteria to reallocate.

I agree that the FO should not spend money foolishly. $24 million for Jared Wright who has won more than 5 games only once since 1999 is pure foolishness, but investing in a great like Pedro would not be foolish. You can never gauge these things perfectly, but when guys have a successful track record like Damon and especially Pedro you take a chance that they stay healthy and won't go into a steep decline. Guys like that don't grow on trees or in farm systems either. A guy like Pedro comes around once in a generation. If you get stuck with one year of his contract at the end, he probably was more than worth it for the other three years. We could get stuck with Tek being in decline in 2 more years. This is very common for catchers in their mid-30's. Plus, Tek is not an all-time great like Pedro, but he is a big part of the team's heart and you don't cut out the heart. What makes you guys think that the FO guessed right giving Tek 4 years, but would have guessed wrong giving giving Pedro or Damon 4 years?

I agree that it is a nice crop. It took a lot of hard work and research to put it together, and we will be lucky if one nor two of them develop into All-Stars. It's really difficult to develop All-Stars, which is why you don't let them walk away.

It(i.e., a Dynasty) never happens when you let your stars walk away. I am actually not hard to please. I can live on the memories of 2004 for a long time, because I waited soooo long. I also know bad personell moves when I see them. You guys can yak yak yak all that stuff about a strong farm, the future, budgets, etc. All I know, is that the 2005 team would have been better with Pedro and Lowe, and we would be better in 2006 with Pedro, Lowe and Damon. ... and we'd still have our prospects. Lighten up guys, I can be a fan without agreeing with management or analyzing moves like I am a virtual gm with a budget. Screw Luchinno and the twins. Give Theo a checkbook and let him get us some players.

I am still not excited.

Look me up when that happens.

It would be plausible, if the Sox made an effort to get Griffey.

No disagreement, but I am not all excited about the acquisition.

You asked for suggestions.

The Angels and the Marlins were one -year wonders, which is what the red Sox turned out to be.

Go get Griffey. Play him two years in CF then move him to a part-time corner and DH.

Your theory does not hold water as far as a being a proven method of success. You saw the two lists- homegrown vs. imported. The Yankee problem has been poor balance. Too much hitting and not enough talent on the mound. It has nothing to do with homegrown talent. They still have that.

Bichette, Saberhagen, Nomo and Cone were in their prime? Pull the stats and look for yourself.

The following key players from the most recent Yankee Dynasty were not home grown: 1.Tino 2.Knoblauch 3.Brosius 4.O'Neil 5.Cone 6.Clemens 7.Wells 8.Chili Davis 9.El Duque 10. Nelson 11. Stanton 12. Boggs 13. Girardi 14.Curtis 15. Strawberry 16. Gooden 17. david Justice 18. Denny Neagle 19. Cecil Fielder 20. Jimmy key 21. John Wetteland 22. Tim raines 23. Sierra The following key players were homegrown: 1. Jeter 2. Posada 3. Bernie 4. Mo 5. Pettitte (left after '03) 6. Mendoza (left after '03) Most of the homegrown guys are still with them, while they are winning nothing. Almost all of the imported top talent is gone. Tell me again why it is important to grow your own talent.

I think we can agree to disagree, but I think 26 to 6 might back me up that this philosophy has not been very successful. Getting top ML talent has proven to be the better winning formula. This long-term approach is nothing new, and it is not unique to this ownership group. I have been hearing this tune for more than 30 years. They sang the same song when they let the '75-'78 team fall apart. That ownership group had a much smaller economic base than this ownership group, which makes today's FO somewhat more disappointing.

I am afraid that you have been drinking the FO kool aid. Management in sports is and always has been full of BS. They screamed about salaries when they had the reserve clause. They screamed that free agency would wreck the game financially. Yeah right. Keeping Pedro and Damon would have made the 2005 and 2006 teams stronger, and "in the long run" management is full of BS. If you would start to think like a fan, you would realize these nerdy suits in the FO are screwing up your favorite past-time--- watching winning Red Sox baseball. Instead they subject you to Matt Clement and now Willie Harris when you should be watching Pedro and Damon. Anyway, enjoy Clement and Harris and Stern. I can't.

There is a difference between being a smart fan and a smart businessman. The smart businessman can accurately assess the financial risk/reward of a transaction. The "smart fan" knows the good players. Pedro/Lowe are better than Wells/Clement any time. Unless you are a GM , or you own a piece of the Sox, I am puzzled at why you apply a financial analysis to these player moves instead of analyzing whether it improves your team. The Sox got the dough. They are not a small market team. An additional $ 2-3 million/year for Damon and the risk that Pedro would crap out in his 4th year would not devastate this billion dollar franchise.

That tradeoff was not a wash, regardless of stats. We have no way of knowing Pedro/Lowe's 2005 stats if they had stayed with the sox. Pedro/Lowe are better. The 2005 team was weaker for letting them leave. I watch the team year- to- year. I don't run the team or share in their profits, so the long term means very little to me. I find little comfort in the hope that they are building a solid foundation for the future as I am watching Clement consistently miss his target by a foot or more against a bad team in September when Pedro could have started that game. But that's just me.