Dojji

Honestly, unless you think you can get Buchholz back and Lester on form, I don't buy starting pitching at all.

One good year doesn't change that all that much. IF he comes back next year and does the same thing, it'll be time to reevaluate. Or if he helps lead us to the World Series, it would of course be time to do a lot of reevaluating.

I have no problem with the Middlebrooks part of the deal. We can take that hit easily enough. I have no particular desire for Jake Peavy. He's not worth the investment, and I have no desire to take a pitcher who's been both healthy and effective at the same time for only 1 year in the last 4 and move him to the toughest division in baseball. That spells "highly expensive disaster" in large flaming letters. This is THE ABSOLUTE LAST DIVISION IN BASEBALL where you DARE to make a move for a player based on name recognition from multiple seasons ago. Peavy's had exactly one season worth talking about since 2008, and that counts this year. I don't like his odds of doing what he's paid to do if he comes here, and giving up talent on top of it, to say nothing of 2 more years? That's a complete no-go. If we're overpaying for a pitcher, it had better be a pitcher able to play up to his own pitching ability, consistently, even with a spotty defense behind him, and be able to do it for 200 innings. Does that sound like Jake Peavy to any sane person here? I'd pay a whole heck of a lot more than Middlebrooks for an ACTUAL top starter rather than paying less talent for the "privilege" of clogging my team's salary and roster space space with an expensive, often-injured has-been. That's the crux of my problem with Garza too. We don't need #3's, those we have. We don't need pitchers who are decent when actually pitching but have more than a coin toss's chance of pulling up lame at a moment's notice, and at the worst possible times. Buchholz has that angle covered. And we certainly have no need of the damage to our cash flexibility Peavey would do even if he doesn't bust out utterly, which I wouldn't dare to rule out considering how actual healthy consistent pitchers have fared in the past when they came to Boston. When it comes to upgrading our Rotation, Peavy is a big step sideways with some serious potential negatives. Take one of these two options instead: Ramp up for a championship run now by bringing in an actual stud like a Shields type, preferably Shields himself who's nothing if not durable and who won't impact our cap space down the road. Or, alternatively, don't bother. I don't think our chances of going all the way are fantastic this year, so I'm not sure how heavily we should be buying starting pitching right now. But if we do, it's because we're Going For It, and if that's true, the last thing you want to do is leave anything on the table, or try to do your shopping in the bargain bin.

I can agree with that. There's a difference between Beckett's first extension and his second, just as an example. The first was a good idea even in the face of the bad year he was having in 06, since he was very talented and proven in the playoffs, and it helped lead us to the promised land. The second time, we were signing an inconsistent pitcher on the decline, which wasn't the best idea.

I only agree to a point. At some point when multiple big contracts don't pan out you have to be willing to face the music. Big contracts are a big risk, if you can't pick those risks well, then you need to adjust your tactics based on history, not just on "what's known at the time."

Stay away from Loney. Seriously, he's got talent, and he's proving it this year, but hes' exactly the kind of inconsistent hitter we don't want here. Someone's going to overpay for 2 above average years and 3 below average years of Loney. Don't be that team. There's nothing wrong with Mike Napoli. I take Napoli over Loney and don't think twice about it. 4 of the last 5 seasons agree with my assessment.

I don't think there's a single team out of the 30 in MLB that doesn't need a bat and bullpen help. It's like another pass rusher in football, or another third line scorer in hockey. There are certain things you can spend your entire wealth chasing after and never have enough to meet your ideal needs.

Well now it depends on what you mean by hitting. If I had to pick which guy is the best bet to get to 50 HR's at some point in his career, it's definitely Bogaerts. Which one has the best chance to win a batting title or put up a .400+ OBP? Cecchini. No question. That level of consistency is just as valuable as the long bombers -- it's what Youk did when he was at his peak, and he was one of the best in baseball while he was doing it. I see little reason to doubt that a kid with a AA OBP of .421 can translate a lot of that to the bigs. SBF has a valid point here. The idea of having one of Bogaerts and Cecchini at third, and the other at first, makes me somewhat giddy. Both of them are EXCELLENT bets to translate their skills to the big leagues too. Much moreso than, say, Will Middlebrooks. And if Bogaerts could stick at short, and those two could be the left side of our infield with Iglesias as the utility guy, then holy hallelujah.

I do not want to watch a squadron of 25 robots on the field for this team. Neither do you. When that emotionality backfires in a given game, I consider that OK -- it'll play in his favor again just as much later.

Not THAT much. The leverage they lost was simply enough to get Shields on the trading block potentially in the first place. I know if I'm KC, Shields is the difference between a longshot next year versus no shot at all, depending on what my young hitters do. I don't trade next year away lightly, especially because there's significant rumors flying around the KC fansites that Dayton Moore is fighting for his job -- even the anemic KC ownership can't love the results they've seen over the last 7 years. He's come as close as he ever has to a winner in KC and Shields has been a big part of that. There has to be a plan in Moore's mind to go full steam ahead, try one last time to ramp up around big Game James and find a new home for him at next year's deadline. That gives him counterleverage. Tempting him away from that option is going to take a bit.

KC wouldn't. They gave up a legit top prospect to get him, they're not going to accept our leavings for him. Ranaudo isn't chopped liver by any means, but he's not going to headline a deal for James Shields. If not Bogaerts, they would definitely demand two of de la Rosa, Cecchini or Bradley. You might be able to sell them on one of those three plus your idea of a package. Might.

I'd still rather go after Ervin Santana than either Garza or Peavy. He's a better pitcher than the other two right now and has fewer risks associated with the trade.

So we learn more about what people are here, when they drop their defenses. IF you're a dick on the internet, going out of your way to be impolite and abrasive, etc, then you're a dick plain and simple, the Internet simply made it easier for you to decide not to hide it.

Ehh. It's not like any of us doesn't know it's a risky signing in a couple senses, but there's no such thing as being risk-averse and winning in baseball. This is a risk the Red Sox needed to take.

I see Holt fitting into that o-so-useful utility role. Bogaerts at 3B, Iglesias at SS, whoever's left at first, Holt on the bench. not too bad at all.

We're not really in the market for a new LF right now, unless I've missed something. Any opportunities to crack the outfield should really be given to Bradley at the moment, and we still have to figure out how to get Cecchini into the lineup somehow.

In my ongoing quest to try to outguess the baseball gods, I stumbled onto this guy on the Pawtucket roster. Righthanded hitter, check. Good k/bb, check. Power? Mostly gap, but enough for bench service. Plays mostly right with a smattering of left, first and DH, suggesting we're not looking at a defensive wizard here. Ayone know anything about this guy? With Nava still not producing from the right side, we're hurting for righties in the outfield, it'd be a shame to miss an option that's right here.

I'd say Webster still has a far better chance to be starting successfully in the big leagues in 3 years.

Workman had a good debut and is under the radar but let's not get ahead of ourselves. He's got some talent but every young pitcher is wait-and-see until he proves otherwise.

All we can do, yes. I'd expect the brain trust to be at least a little bit more proactive.

And a lot of the people doing that are using "Theo" to mean "the Red Sox braintrust during Theo Epstein's tenure as GM." Goes both ways.

I dunno about him, but I would. We're talking about a 22 year old in A ball who isn't really hitting all that well. Just getting there is in the air with him.

I can see what the GM is thinking with this deal, and at this stage of things that's all I ask.

Agreed. Intuitively, offense feels more important, but they're balanced.

That's fine, if you have one of the best offensive shortstops in the history of baseball and a guaranteed hall of famer. But what do you do if you have, say, Stephen Drew and Jose Iglesias, and Iglesias is hitting