So how can you disagree with it if it made perfect sense - is it that you think they undervalued Iggy? Do you think they could have obtained Peavy for less? Or do you think Peavy wasn't essential? Which is it.
What we do know is that Peavy did almost exactly what the Red Sox and what any analyst should have expected him to do. If Ben Cherington thought the team needed exactly what Peavy provided, that's good enough for me. And we all know Ben was not a guy who liked trading prospects.
The Pomeranz trade looks bad, but at the time we were desperate for another starting pitcher and there wasn't much available, and we were hoping to win a ring. So it has to be put in perspective.
It's not really that puzzling, if the Sox really don't want to pay a fortune in luxury tax. They know they're going to lose some run production but they should offset that with run prevention.
It was a simple point, really. A GM can 'overpay' for a player and it can still be a smart move, even though critics will say 'Anybody could have done that'.
If you really want to blame someone for a shift in philosophy, there's only one man you should be blaming and that's JH himself. He's the one who replaced BC with DD, and you can bet DD is doing exactly what JH expected him to do.
But by the same token, Theo only got Lester because he bumped our offer by 20 million. Most people said Theo overpaid for Lester. Anybody (with the money behind them) could do that too.
It's not really the individual moves that determine a GM's success. It's the total package that he puts together.
You seem to be right that the players didn't get much. I wonder how the owners pulled that off? Maybe they produced some numbers showing that revenues were going to level off or something.