Kimmi

Even worse, he thinks he's the main attraction of the ball games.

It isn't a straight vesting option. It's a club option with a $12.5 mil buyout that becomes guaranteed at 200 innings pitched. So, even Lee does not reach 200 innings, the Phillies can still exercise the option. And Lee is guaranteed $12.5 mil either way. As Bellhorn said, if Lee stinks in 2015, that could be a very expensive one year contract.

Well, Maddon is a self-important twit.

I would have too. First and most importantly, I wouldn't be able to continue to work for someone like Lucchino, whose philosophies about building a team were so inherently different than mine. Second, the Chicago job offers new challenges that would be inviting to any GM, especially having already won 2 WS in Boston. Third, the autonomy he has in Chicago has to be appealing. I blame Lucchino.

LOL I often don't get such references because I don't watch much tv or many movies, but I love Seinfeld.

I thought there was probably an inside joke attached to that, but wasn't sure. I am very easily amused. So yeah, I like really bad puns.

I am a proud, card-carrying Theo groupie. Simply put, he's the man.

Fair enough point that the casual fan makes up the vast majority of ticket sales, but the casual fan does not usually understand what it takes to put a winning team together for the current year without sacrificing the future. Not that I'm saying I know everything there is to know - far from it. But personally, I thought Theo's 2010 was fine. The problem is, most fans are looking for the "sexy" players, and as far as offense is concerned, they're looking for homeruns and RBIs. Those are the types of players that will put fans in the seats, but are they the types of players that are going to win games? FTR, as a fan, I'm happy to have Sandoval on the team. Given the choice, however, I'd have taken Headley over Sandoval. Sandoval is splashier, but Headley provides the better value. As far as the Crawford signing goes, Theo may have pulled the trigger, but that move has Lucchino's influence written all over it. Making the big splash. IMO, when Lucchino sticks his nose where he shouldn't, things go very wrong.

Still posting on STFU, not posting on the other.

It's a tough call. No amount of scouting and data can project with certainty whether a kid just needs more time or if he really isn't cut out for the majors. If it were my call, I would preach patience. I feel that if the rest of the offense had done what it was projected to do last season, JBJ could have been hidden in the 9 hole without much attention given to his non-existent offense. There's also a good chance that his offense would not have been so bad had the rest of the lineup played up to par. The fact that almost nobody on the team was hitting, and the losses that went along with that, compounded JBJ's woes. At any rate, I am a huge fan of defense. I am pulling for the kid.

To the casual fan, perhaps. IMO, most fans under value and under appreciate "value" contracts and run prevention. It didn't work out, but signing Mike Cameron was a far better value than re-signing Bay would have been.

Since this ownership group took over, I have not entered a season feeling like the team that was assembled was not going to contend. I felt like we had a team that would contend last year, and I feel like we have a team that should contend this year. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't, but I have felt good about the teams going into each season. As a fan, that's really all you can ask for.

Most people misinterpreted what was meant by "bridge year". Theo was not saying that they were writing off 2010, with their eyes on 2011, but rather that some of the players that were signed were a one or two year "bridge" until the youngsters were ready. The FO had every intention of competing that year. If I'm not mistaken, that's also the year Theo said their focus was on "run prevention". Certainly not a novel idea, but many people did not take well to that phrase.

Too many people don't understand that building a strong farm system means more than just having home grown players on the team. As you mentioned, the farm system essentially produced Miley (and others via trade). Additionally, the farm system effectively produced Hanley and Panda. It's the cost-controlled, young guys on the team that allow for spending money on free agents to fill the holes.

I agree. The FO wouldn't have signed who they signed, and wouldn't have gone over the luxury tax this season if their eyes are on 2016. I believe they are all in it for this year.

This is true. Pitching and defense still wins championships. More often than not, teams that win it all will have both good pitching and good hitting. A team with below average pitching, as measured by regular season ERA+, has won the WS only 3 times between 1903 and 2010 (2.83%). A team with below average offense, as measured by regular season OPS+, has won the WS 33 times over the same period (33.02%). This doesn't mean that the team needs an ace to win it all. It means that we need an overall solid (above average) pitching staff, bullpen included. http://www.hardballtimes.com/pitching-almost-always-wins-championships/

I don't really follow football, so I can't really comment. I don't really know anything about him other than recognizing the name.

Being new here, I'm not really sure how to respond to this. LOL I will say that you're cracking me up, and that for some reason I'm getting a George Costanza risque picture in my mind. No offense.

Thank you. I enjoy posting and discussing/debating baseball. The issue for me, usually, is finding the time to do so.

Go figure, huh? The correlation between regular season success and postseason success is .28. That is the strongest correlation to postseason success that any of the studies have been able to find. In other words, the idea that the playoffs are mostly a crapshoot is true. Baseball, more than any other sport, falls victim to randomness or luck. When you're talking about a short series, skill is likely to be overwhelmed by random variation.

I am a huge fan of the research that the folks at BP, Fangraphs, and The Hardball Times do. One of the problems with trying to compare postseason numbers to regular season numbers is that you're usually looking at small samples spread out over several years. So, I don't put much stock into a player who has had a couple of bad postseasons. IMO, he is just as likely to exceed his regular season numbers in the next postseason as he is to perform below par again. I would feel much better if the Sox did add another arm, but as I posted before, I am okay with this team as currently constructed.

As far as predicitions for the 2013 season went, you start with the Pythagorean W-L record of 74-88, not the actual record of 69-93. Factor in the subtraction of Bobby Valentine, and that team was easily at 85 wins before making their first offseason move.

IMO, 2014 was about as big a fluke season as any team could have. As far as I've read, I have not seen anyone predict or foresee the offensive drop off that the team incurred last season. Sure, most people expected there to be a drop off, but not anywhere close to that magnitude. IMO, Ben's only fault last season was not having a viable back up plan on the left side of the infield or in CF, should the starters get injured or underperform. One thing I like about this year's team is that the depth is much improved.

Thank you for the welcome, Username. Let's hope you still like me in about a month. ;-)

It turns out the the best predictor of postseason success is regular season success, which should make sense intuitively. The better the winning % in the regular season, the better the chances of winning in the postseason, regardless of whether the team has an ace, a strong defense, a strong offense, momentum, etc.