Kimmi

I know that a lot of people did not agree with trading Lester and Lackey for major league players. Ben was attempting to keep the team competitive while rebuilding, which is no easy task. I was not at all unhappy with the Lackey trade, though it looks terrible in hindsight.

Very tragic news. My understanding is that the way they drive in the Dominican Republic is crazy.

I don't think most of the moves were bad. I think they were decent moves that turned out badly. Even the Pablo signing, which I didn't necessarily like, should not have turned out as badly as it did in 2015. The same with Hanley and the left field experiment, with which I was fully on board.

He did. As you mentioned, I think they were banking on him rebounding from an injury. They were wrong on that one.

It was too much. Just as Dempster's $13 mil salary was too much. That said, I really don't have a problem with taking a chance on a player on a one or two year deal like that. I have always preferred shorter term deals for more money per year. If the player stinks, it's much easier to eat that contract than it is to eat a long term one.

Keep the garbage coming. Dombrowski has stated that he is looking to add more of these depth type players, both in pitching and in the OF. Players are reluctant to sign with the Sox, however, because our positions are so well set. Players are looking to sign with teams where they have a more realistic chance of getting regular playing time.

I have no problem with the Masterson signing. He didn't work out, but I thought he was worth the risk.

Yes, I am aware of this. And Ben was Theo's right hand man when those players were acquired. Ben was also adamant about not trading those players away when many people were calling for it. I have no problem calling this mostly Theo's team, if you prefer. The point still stands that Ben was right on track with his plan, and it was a darn good plan, both short and long term, despite the two last place finishes.

I don't think the FO will have much concern in going over the tax limit next season, once they've reset. Resetting this year seems to be vital for them. We may not have been as good in 5 years as we are this year, even if we kept our prospects, but our long term outlook would look much better. Perhaps this year's team would not be quite as strong, but we would still be a contender. As someone wrote several weeks ago, Sale is a luxury a luxury that we did not need. Seriously, does it matter whether we win the division by 2 games or by 5 games? If given the choice between winning the division by 2 games and keeping our prospects versus winning the division by 5 games and depleting the farm, I'll take the first option.

It's no secret that Ben (and Theo) are all about building a strong farm system, then filling the holes with free agent signings and trades. A '5 year plan' was never mentioned specifically, but it takes about that long to get the pieces into place. The Red Sox fan base, on the whole, does not have the patience for a complete rebuild, like Theo did with the Cubs. Ben had to try to keep the team competitive while rebuilding. IMO, he did a pretty good job of that. We won a championship in 2013. Our teams failed miserably in 2014 and 2015, but 'on paper', the teams that Ben put together were contenders. As I've said many times, that's really all you can ask of a GM. What happens on the field is beyond his control. What I think happened is that Henry 'panicked' after two last place finishes. JMO, of course, but he has shown the tendency to act rashly when things go badly. He should have given Ben the chance to stay on as GM, now that his long term vision has come to fruition. I am very certain that our teams would have done just as well with Ben at the helm as they did or will do with Dombrowski at the helm. This is still largely Ben's team, after all.

100% agree.

I have always believed that men, kids, and dogs are all the same species. Really, what's the difference?

Perhaps I should have said that I don't agree with the knocks against Dempster, rather than I don't understand them. As I said about Price, I think a lot of it is about perception, but I have no problem with what Dempster contributed to our team, regardless of his $13 mil salary.

I very much disagree with most of this post.

I agree that Cherington would have dealt away some of his prospects. His long term vision was coming to fruition. He should have been given the chance to see it through. What deals he might or might not have done, I don't know. But I can say with almost 100% certainty that we would have had a contending team last year, a contending team this year, and we would still have a strong farm.

What he wrote is mostly his opinion, nothing more. I just happen to agree with pretty much everything he said. Had Cherington remained GM, I think he was at the point where he would have traded away some of his prospects to better the current team, but he would not have depleted the farm. He would have struck more of a balance between the current team and preserving the future. I think what irks me is that Theo and Ben spent years building one of the best farm systems in baseball, and in less than two years, Dombrowski has stripped it. I believe Keith Law's latest ranking was #16. Perhaps it wouldn't bother me so much if they were Dombrowski's prospects, in which case I would feel that he had more of a 'right' to deal them away. Dombrowski is reaping the benefits of someone else's hard work.

Absolutely. I never understood all the knocks against Dempster, especially when you consider his intangibles along with his performance. Like you said, I'll take that any day.

I think that's what it is. Leon earned the job last year with his BABIP spiked offense. Someone else will have to show that they can do better.

LOL I've never thought of the word 'doghouse' as being fun to use. Do people even keep their dogs in doghouses anymore? All of the dogs I know are spoiled rotten house dogs who think they are human. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Well, I do think that there are specific cases where the first situation could be better than the second (a lot of different factors come into play), but I agree with your overall point. The first case will obviously lead to a much better ERA, which I think can be misleading and misses the bigger picture. This is a similar argument that I've had with people regarding quality starts. I don't think that quality starts are the best way to measure a pitcher's performance, but a starter who goes 6 innings and gives up 3 or fewer runs has done a pretty darn good job IMO. The ERA of 4.5 doesn't look good, but the pitcher has gone fairly deep and has kept his team in the game. I'll take that pretty much any game.

Agreed. I like the Moreland signing. I think he's a good fit. I think he will help our first base defense as well as help Hanley's production by keeping him rested. Notin does have a fair point about who will play first base if Moreland is removed for a pinch hitter.

Exactly. Voting should not be a matter of whether you agree with or like what Schilling has to say.

Once again, Matthew Kory nails it in the following article: Dave Dombrowski and the Three Year Window He likens our team after the 3 year window to 'a beach house on the edge of an eroding cliff'. LOL

I'm not sensing the doghouse feeling towards Vaz that some others are. If he really is in the doghouse, I guess we'll know soon enough.

That's why we have WAR.