Kimmi

^^^This.

Kimbrel should still be a very good closer, even if his numbers are down slightly. He's a good get for the team. That said, for anyone to think that we didn't overpay for him is just crazy. I have not read a single analysis of this trade that came to the conclusion that we did not overpay.

For Sale, I think if you add Swihart and one other prospect (maybe Devers?), that would be enough. I don't know what Oakland is interested in, but something similar for Gray. Perhaps JBJ and another prospect might have been enough for Carrasco or Salazar. To be fair, it's likely that Sale and Gray really are not available. However, I would have been happy with Carrasco or Salazar, one of whom I think would be available.

Yes, I know that. I am talking about at the time the moves were made.

And Cherington (or Lucchino) was the boss last year. Did you cede to his judgment on the Hanley and Pablo signings?

I still don't understand how picking up a $13 mil option for a starter who was worth 3.2 WAR last season is such a bad move, yet giving up 4 prospects, 2 of whom are very good, PLUS paying $12 mil in salary for a reliever who was worth 1.5 WAR is a good move. I think some of you are judging these moves by your like or dislike of a player rather than on the actual worth of the player.

I think you understand what my point is, but judging by some posts, others seem to be misinterpreting.

Seriously, you all need to stop with your silliness about this trading prospect business. The outcry is not about trading prospects, it's about the value of what was given up versus what we got in return. Had we put together a package for Gray or Sale, there would be no outcry provided that what we gave up was not a huge overpay. Overpaying is one thing - we all know it's often necessary. A steep overpay is another. For what we gave up for Kimbrel, we could have thrown in a couple more key pieces and probably gotten Sale or Gray, or at least Carrasco or Salazar, who sound like they are more "available".

There likely will be some people pouncing on Dombrowski if the Kimbrel deal blows up in our faces. I won't be one of them. I understand the rationale behind signing him, and I believe that acquiring him is a good thing. If it turns bad, that doesn't change the fact that acquiring Kimbrel was a good move on paper, even though the cost of acquiring him was too steep. It's similar to the Sox getting Pablo. I didn't like the contract, and I thought there were better options, but I understood the rationale behind signing him. It hasn't worked out to date, but that doesn't change the fact the acquiring Pablo made us a better team on paper at the time and it was a good move to acquire him, even though the cost of acquring him was too steep.

It's a lot of money, but I beg to differ that that money was spent like drunken fools. Pablo was an overpay which I disapproved of, but not a drunken fool overpay. When you spread that $400 million out between the 5 players over the number of years of each contract, it's not outrageous. On the other side of that, anyone complaining that the Sox ownership is tight with its money should just stop.

That's all I've been saying - the trade was not equitable. The offseason is far from over, so we will have to wait and see what else Dombrowski does. I have no doubt this team can be competitive this year, with a couple more key moves. As of now, I'm good with what has transpired.

Oh, and I don't whine.

That's the thing. Most people are misinterpreting what we are saying.

I agree that Kimbrel is a bigger improvement than just the difference he makes over Koji. The improvement trickles all the way down the pen. That said, his point about the Sox paying a very steep price for the amount of improvement we gained does stand.

I don't think anyone has a problem with trading those 4 prospects, or with trading prospects in general. I don't think anyone has a problem with getting Kimbrel. So statements about preferring competitive major league baseball over watching the prospects really have no relevance.

Many teams have expressed interest in trading for Buchholz because his contract is appealing for a pitcher who can be so good. They know the risk involved with him, yet they are interested in obtaining him anyway. Picking up his option was a no brainer. It's not a no brainer that he will be worth $13 mil this season. No one can say that for sure. But it was absolutely a no brainer in the sense that the potential reward far outweighs the risk.

Well, you want to have some proven back end guys in the pen, but to an extent you do load up on a bunch of cheap relievers and wait for lightning to strike. And just because the Sox are a big market club doesn't mean that they should be spending like drunken fools. That's what the Yankees do.

That approach didn't work last year, but it is still the best approach to building a pen. Resources, both money and prospects, are well better spent in other areas of need. As far as our BP not working last year, I wonder how much better they might have been had our catchers not been injured, and also how much better they might have been had our starters not necessitated them being called into so many games so early. I'm not saying it would have been a lights out pen, but I don't think they would have been as bad as they were.

I agree on both points. Most outrageous contracts for starting pitchers do indeed end up being bad contracts. That's why I think we would have been better off trading for a cost controlled starter and finding relief help through free agency or lesser trades. The way it appears now, we are going to have to offer some starter an outrageous contract. On your second point, I like having Kimbrel and his consistency. Obtaining him was a good move. The cost for him was not good.

LOL SK. I agree with the others that Kimbrel strengthens more than just the closer's role, but your overall point stands.

Not liking the package that we gave up for Kimbrel has nothing to do with thinking that he will blow up in our faces. I am not concerned with how he will perform. Even though I don't like what we gave up for Kimbrel, I agree with your sentiment about being "OK" with this overpay at this time. Our team got better, our farm system is still in great shape, and our future has not been sacrificed. If Dombrowski becomes reckless in trading away our prospects, then that will be a different story. That said, I think acquiring a starter has become more difficult now. I agree with you that Dombrowski is not necessarily finished making trades. Perhaps he said that in an attempt to bring other teams' prices down just a tad. If he does make a trade for a starter, it will now be much more difficult, and painful, to put together a package. IMO, he would have been better off adding a few more pieces to the package he gave up for Kimbrel and getting a starter. If Dombrowski is indeed intent on going the free agent route for a starter, there is no guarantee that we can land Price, even if Henry okays a big contract. From what I've read, Price seems to be interested in some NL teams, with the Cubs leading the way. As I said with Lester, the allure of the Cubs might just be too much to resist. IMO, if the Sox offer roughly the same as other teams, Price would choose several other teams over the Sox. The Sox will have to overpay above the other teams bidding in order to land him.

The team is better. It's not better enough to justify the cost. I understand the need to overpay sometimes. I understand the idea of dealing from your areas of strength. I understand how much we needed BP help. I just don't like that we gave up so much for a relief pitcher, regardless of how good Kimbrel is.

We obviously needed some strong BP relief. Bringing in someone who is a proven closer is, no doubt, a very good move. But did we need a closer? Not definitively. As far as finding a closer being easy, maybe, maybe not. But I think we could have found one for cheaper, and used our assets more productively. Most of your closers are found unexpectedly for very cheap, and then go on to earn outrageous contracts. And most of those outrageous contracts for relief pitchers end up being bad contracts. I love having Kimbrel added to our BP. I am not arguing against that part of the trade at all.

I don't understand the logic in thinking that paying the 4-prospect package that we paid for Kimbrel, along with a $12 mil salary is worth it, but paying $13 mil for Buchholz is not. Kimbrel will give us roughly 60 innings. Buchholz will give us roughly 100. Kimbrel was worth 1.5 WAR last year. Buchholz was worth 3.2.

I'm sure Dave Cameron is fully aware of exactly who the Angels gave to the Braves, including major league players. His opinion is that the Sox still paid quite a bit more for a reliever than the Angels paid for Simmons, even with including Aybar. The consensus in the baseball world is pretty much that the Sox paid a steep price. Mind you, that doesn't mean that everyone is against the trade, just that the price was very steep.