Kimmi

You should actually come around more often Hitch.

I agree that trading Kimbrel would make more sense. As much as I like Kimbrel, I'd actually be okay with that if it brings back some decent prospects.

It actually would make some sense to trade one of our current players for prospects. I'd hate to see our OF broken up though.

1. Signing Price was 'okay'. I don't like the contract one bit, but I get that we needed pitching. I probably would have gone with one of the other free agent pitchers that were less expensive, but I'm okay with this move. No prospects lost. 2. I absolutely would not have traded for Kimbrel. I think we could have found another closer much cheaper who would have provided pretty much the same production in terms of closing out games. 3. I was okay with the trade for Pom, though I thought the cost was high. It was a move that needed to be done, IMO. 4. I actually liked the trades for Smith and Thornburg, but not in combination with the other trades for pitching. Acquire as many inexpensive but effective arms as you can, and see what sticks. 5. I would not have done the Sale trade. In hindsight, it turns out we needed him because of Price's injury, but at the time that we acquired him, our rotation was already pretty darn good. After already having acquired Price and Pom, Sale was a luxury that we did not need. In short, I think that Dombrowski could have built a contending team without blowing up the farm.

That is the problem with the 'win now' philosophy. There has to be a balance between long and short term goals.

Again, it comes down to having a strong farm system. That's what really irks me. Dombrowski took a top rated system that others worked hard to build and made it mediocre in approximately 2 years. Detroit is currently feeling the 'Dombrowski Effect'.

That's the thing. We can't pay top dollars for everyone, which is why we need a strong farm system, which we no longer have. With the new CBA and the push for parity among all teams, having a strong farm is even more important than it has been in the past.

You are right about Adams' lack of plate discipline. Santana is the better overall offensive player (not by a large margin) and the better overall player. He also seems to be the best fit for the Sox. The only thing I don't like about him is the QO that he has attached to him. I think JD, Hosmer, and Abreu are going to cost more than they are worth. But, the market may surprise us.

I think you know that I very much respect your opinion. I understand that my opinion is just my opinion, but I can't preface every statement that I write with "IMO". It is never my intention to be condescending to anyone who is debating me respectfully. I think you know that too.

The Sox were expected to contend both seasons. In 2014, they were the overwhelming favorites, by both the analysts and the computer projection systems, to win the division. I don't blame the GM for what happened on the field, and in no way consider those two years cliff worthy. The same will be true in 2020 and the following few years.

Much of that $300 million (Porcello and Castillo) was still building towards the 2016 season. Another part of that $300 million was from Pablo's contract, which IMO, was not Ben.

I will defend Ben against his critics until I'm blue in the face, but I have never claimed that he was without his mistakes. He just doesn't get the credit he deserves, which is more credit than Dombrowski deserves for our 2016 and 2017 teams.

No, I don't think that was pulling the trigger for 2015. The Porcello extension was given as part of the trigger for the 2016 and beyond seasons. He's been hit and miss so far. Castillo was another player acquired in hopes of helping the team for 2016 and beyond. He has been a complete bust or sure. IMO, Ben is responsible for those two moves. I just cannot and will not attribute the Panda signing to Ben. It goes so against his grain that it doesn't make any sense. I have no problems with the Hanley signing.

That's all I'm saying.

The trend in managers seems to be moving away from the old school guys and moving towards younger guys who can supposedly relate to the players better and who will embrace analytics. I don't know if will work or not, but I like it.

Agreed.

I have no problem with tendering Holt. I like the guy. I think he deserves a chance to show what he can do if he is fully recovered from his concussion.

And that point has been acknowledged over and over by me, Moon, and Notin.

Cherington wasn't given the chance to 'pull the trigger'. He was not ready to pull the trigger in 2015. The team was not quite ready.

I didn't say they were. I'm stating my opinion, just as you state your opinion that the cliff doesn't exist.

It's not about building a dynasty or winning championships year after year. It's about having a team going into the season that is good enough to contend. As I've stated before, since Henry took over, I have never felt that going into the season that the team did not have a legitimate chance to make the playoffs. That's really all you can ask of an owner and a GM, IMO.

I agree with this statement. If the FO plays its cards right, it can absolutely keep the team in contention beyond 2020. The problem, as I see it, is that Dombrowski has made it a very difficult task. Not impossible, but very difficult.

Not only that, but the media talks about the team having a '3 year window' all the time. That is exactly the same thing as talking about the cliff.

My opinion of the 'cliff' is that we will have a stretch of 2-4 years where the team will be 'rebuilding' to the extent that they will not be predicted to contend for the postseason. In other words, going into the season, we will know that our chances of postseason play will be slim to none. If we have a playoff contending team on paper going into the season, but fail to make the playoffs, I would not consider that a cliff season.

I think everyone has acknowledged that a lot can change in 2-3 years. For now, however, the cliff exists. It's looming.