Voice of Reason

I'm embarassed for you because all you do is bitch and moan but you can't come up with a single idea of what the front office should have done differently. Are you having your monthly visit?

Haren vs. Dempster is a matter of preference. If that's the biggest gripe you have about how the front office handled the starting rotation then I guess they didn't do that bad a job. Their rotation is bad, we all know that. But going out and signing Greinke or Sanchez or trading most of our farm system for someone would be like throwing water on a grease fire.

You mean in 250 posts maybe you'll think of a way the Red Sox could have improved the pitching? Let me guess, you'll pick out a starter who's having the year of his career and suggest the Red Sox should have acquired him.

It's not an excuse to point out that there weren't a lot of moves to be made and that it wouldn't make sense to give up a lot of money or prospects when we're not going to be competitive next year anyways. Whining that the team didn't do enough to improve the pitching, drawing a blank when asked how and continuing to whine anyways is just petulant.

Too many balls in the air this year. We need to wait and see what we have in Lester, Buchholz, Doubront, De La Rosa, Barnes, De La Rosa, Wright before we assess our starting pitching needs. I doubt one top of the rotation starter is going to turn us in to a 90 win team. Does't make much sense to wipe our farm system and/or budget in order to acquire a starter now if we're going to waste their next one or two years of team control on teams that miss the playoffs.

That doesn't mean much coming from someone who's given zero ideas of their own. If you believe the Red Sox FO should have done more to improve the future of the starting rotation, then put up or shut up.

Unfortunately, I don't think there's much more they could have done. I don't like that they're paying $178 million for a team that likely won't make the playoffs but rebuilding the starting rotation is going to be a longterm project. At least they didn't give up any draft picks, trade any pitching prospects or take away Doubront's spot in the rotation. That's just my opinion though. If you feel otherwise, I'd love to hear what some of your ideas are for what they could have done differently. I understand why you'd be hesitant to answer that though, it's not an easy one.

It's an open question, not directed at any one person in particular. What should the Red Sox have done to improve the starting pitching in the future that wouldn't harm them in the future by trading a top 5 prospect or signing a fringe #1 pitcher to a 5-6 year deal? What options would have been better than what they did? I can see why you might not want to answer that, it's not an easy one. I suppose the Red Sox could have dealt some of their established players for pitching prospects. But I understand why they might want to see what they have in De La Rosa, Webster, Wright and Barnes before giving up someone like Ellsbury or Pedroia. I like that they at least kept a rotation spot open for Doubront.

Out of curiosity, what moves should Cherington have made to improve the starting pitching in the future that would not have hurt the team longterm by including a prospect like Bogaerts, Bradley or Barnes? I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with the premise that the team could have done more to improve the starting pitching. But saying "there were other options" is one thing, actually naming what other routes the team should have taken is another. If you actually name an option, such as signing Greinke or Sanchez to the deals they would have required to sign here, then we could examine the pros and cons of such options.