FredLynn

Belanger or Visquel...or a few other sub-Smith guys would be fine. Personally, I think he has a lot to prove before his value can accurately be assessed. There is a decent chance that he won't make it in the majors too.

The reason why the Sox farm system is "middle of the pack" Then you agree that the Sox farm system is neither good nor bad; its MIDDLE OF THE PACK, just as that gosh darned Bleacher Report said, right? If you disagree, find me a couple of references to support your position, if such references exist. Also, all those guys who are "developing" are at high risk not to make it at all. Some will come through and help the club; most won't.

I am not sure who you are addressing, but you are correct: the Sox farm system IS average now. Not good: average. There is some potential there, but not as much as either the Yankees or Rays. I don't like it, but thats the way it is.

I found two rankings that place our farm system in the middle of the pack. I found NONE that place us in the upper third. Maybe you can find such a document.

Very well put.

I could not care less what level of credibility I have with you. Why should I? Furthermore, I think this henpecking between you and me has gone far enough. I think we should stick to baseball and try to at least tolerate one another, if not ignore one another. I understand where I stand with you; I trust the reverse is also true.

Gee, 10 games. Do you think I JUST MIGHT have been referring to starting for the team? Or did that along with everything else I have tried to teach you slip past your confused brain.

I am always happy to educate those who are less educated. Stick around...you might learn something.

We are middle of the pack, at best. Both of our major competitors in the ALE rank far ahead of us. If middle of the pack is "good" then sure, we have a "good" farm system. I prefer top third or better before I call it "good". http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/10/2011-farm-system-rankings/ http://bleacherreport.com/articles/834247-mlb-power-rankings-rating-every-mlb-farm-system#/articles/1071951-mlb-free-agency-grading-every-teams-offseason-heading-to-spring-training

Right now our minor league system does not contain the kind of talent that will produce impact players in the majors. Who is really down there that will make the same impact as Ellsbury and Youkilis and Bard right now? When Theo left he left us a minor league system that is severely lacking.

Like I said, he gets partial credit for the 2004 team. Not full credit; partial credit. He also gets full credit for everyone on the list of failed FA acquisitions I presented. I expect better from our GM.

Sorry. I reserve the right to defend myself here. If SFF can't stand the heat, he shouldn't have started the fire.

Then put me on ignore. Both of us will feel better.

Ah...the old "run prevention" theory again. How did that work out a couple of years ago for us when Theo signed Mike Cameron to defend against runs? Nonsense. Ever read "Moneyball"? The data Billy Beane used to create all those winning teams disregarded "run prevention" and still managed to win 95+ games a year until everyone else caught on to those theories too. Jose Iglesias has played 10 games for the Red Sox and in your mind he is already Ozzie Smith. Talk about rose colored glasses.... I realize this is way over your head to comprehend, but at least I am making an effort to explain it to you, right? As for being a talent evaluator, yes, I do think I could do it with the proper training and access to data. Its largely an educated guess anyway, a calculated crapshoot. Professionals can be wrong, and frequently are wrong. If your doctor tells you to drink a glass of hemlock to cure your acne, are you going to do it or are you going to question him? How about if he tells you to take echinacea for your cold? Learn to think for yourself. It will be a very liberating feeling for you.

I presented the data to support my opinion. I realize that others think he was better than I think he was here. I posted my next post (above) before I read yours. I admit that he was much better at drafting good players than most GMs. On another board I did an extensive review of how his draft picks did relative to other GMs, and his track record was pretty good in that regard. Only Friedman of Tampa Bay is superior to him (that I could find) in terms of the percentage of draft picks that made it to the majors. But there is more to being a GM than drafting well, and in the other areas he fell down. I would grade him a B+ for drafting, but a D for getting good FAs and a C for trades. So overall in my opinion he did C+ work for us. Not horrible, but not up to snuff either.

Just responding to this: You're actually being an incredibly annoying idiot right now Two can play the name-calling game, right? I NEVER start that game, but sometimes I play it when invited.

Then we will disagree about how good a GM Epstein was for this team. The fact of the matter is that he had relatively little to do with assembling the 04 championship team. He added a few key pieces; the rest were already there. His list of failures is extensive: Lugo, Renteria, Cameron, Clement, Smoltz, Penny, Gagne, Lackey, Matsusaka, Jenks, Pena, Kim, and so forth. He did well to get us Ortiz, Mueller, and Foulke, a trio who made 2004 possible. Thats just too many failures to be classified as a great GM-and it doesn't even count Crawford, who is being overpaid but may still perform decently one day. Look at the state he left us in: hamstrung by a series of long term contract in which we overpaid underperforming players and unable to spend the money on quality guys as he exited through the back door in shame. Instead we sign guys like Silva, Padilla, Germano, and Cooke to pitch for us because he bankrupted the budget. No, Theo Epstein is no Hall of Fame GM. He was a mediocre GM for a high budget team, and he was very fortunate to have the amount of money he had to spend. He was able to make mistakes and still win games because of his large budget. Showalter was right: he would likely fail in a small market area.

Epstein was regarded by some as a "talented baseball professional". Look how he left this franchise-laden with overpaid spoiled ineffective bums, to a large extent. The list of his failures is overwhelming; the list of his successes, slim. Yet he is one of those "experts". You too should learn to question anyone who calls himself an "expert". They are often wrong.

Forsythe said that "expert talent evaluators" are comparing him to Ozzie Smith. The discussion was not about his suitability for this year's roster. It was about comparing him to a Hall of Fame player. Sorry you cannot grasp that fact. There is NO comparison other than both players rely/relied on defense to make their contribution. So far Iglesias hasn't even done that. It is correct to say that he has POTENTIAL defensively because that is what he has showed us so far. He has NOT showed us that he is any kind of Ozzie Smith facsimile whatsoever. To compare the two is absurd.