I like to call this the "but if" defense which is really a weak argument, because it is based on projected consequences to hypothetical circumstances. In this case, the argument is "but if Porcello had been good and we hadn't signed him, you guys would be mad." That's a double or triple hypothetical. Hypothetically, if Porcello had been good. We can end the argument right there, because he hasn't been good so we can't get to the other hypothetical that the Red Sox didn't sign him after the good season. Also, I don't know how that is the only conclusion to be drawn if he had a good year. Why wouldn't we sign him? I thought he was the young arm that the FO coveted. Then after getting through two levels of hypotheticals -- one that hasn't happened and one that we don't know the answer to, we are left with the prediction/projection of the emotions of others based on an analogy to our reaction to the Lester situation. Well that is a bad analogy, because Lester is a much better pitcher than Porcello and he had been very successful in Boston. These arguments are silly and weak rationalizations of what was clearly and simply a very bad move by the organization.