Kimmi

That is, until I have to leave in about 10 minutes. Then I'm off of the game thread because I will be behind in the game.

I am going to make sure that this game thread is longer than one page. LOL Nice K to start the game!

Very fair article. There are a couple of points that I don't agree with, but it's a good analysis, and like I said, fair.

The only one I really agree with here is #2. He, like Theo, perhaps holds on to his prospects a little too tightly. That said, I think we are all thankful that he was insistent on not trading Betts, Bogaerts, and Swihart. OTOH, he was willing to part with Iglesias in 2013. Regardless, I prefer Ben's strategy of dealing with prospects over Dombrowski's. Would you agree that building a good team for the short and long terms starts with the farm, and not with free agents? #1 - What large contracts are you referring to? I don't consider Hanley's large. Panda's was too long, but I am not convinced that that was Ben's doing. When I say large contract, my definition is anything over 4 years, Prince Fielder type. #3 - JMO, but I think there was more reliance on scouting than most people think. The Sox have a rather large scouting department. Put another way, I think Ben gave more credence to scouting than Dombrowski has given to analytics. #4 - The pitching and defense should have been better than what they were. That said, fair point about not focusing on stronger starting pitching this season.

You are right a700. My comment was out of line and I retract it. I apologize for unnecessarily insulting you.

I think people tend to forget how long Ben has been in the organization, including being a scout when he first started. Things haven't worked out the past 2 years, but he knows a lot more baseball than most people give him credit for.

That's what the hope would be, and not an unrealistic expectation. I was not expecting any miracles defensively, only slightly improved defense over what he did at SS. What he was supposed to be able to produce offensively was supposed to more than offset the defensive deficiency.

Based on the responses that SK and Cycles gave.

Not always the result of an injury. Sometimes it really is an enigma.

The team as a whole looked good. The rotation was not supposed to be 'good', merely mediocre. The offense and the defense were supposed to bail the pitching out. On paper, I thought the pitching staff looked average, with a chance to be above average. I thought the offense looked like a #1 offense and the defense looked top 5. Obviously, I was very wrong. However, I was, by far, not alone in my opinion.

I have been warned that logic is frowned upon here.

If the Sox are trying to get rid of Hanley, why would they smear him while he's still on the team? If they are trying to get anything in return for a trade, reports like this would only bring his value down.

According to Sox Prospects, he has 2 options left.

I'm a huge JBJ fan. I would hate to see him traded. That said, every move has to be made with the overall picture in mind, not just what the best OF alignment would be. So the question is, would the team be better off with JBJ, Betts, and Castillo in the OF, or with Hanley, Betts, and Castillo in the OF along with a young, cost-controlled pitcher in the rotation? As much as I love him in the OF, if he can be part of a deal to bring us a Sonny Gray type, then trading him makes sense.

No, it really didn't. No one was expecting a Gold Glover, but on paper, he should have been a 3 WAR player.

Stating the rationale behind a move is not looking for an excuse. It's understanding why a move was made. If the move fails, then it is the task to figure out why and to avoid the pitfalls in the future. However, a sound rationale and a failed move are not mutually exclusive.

The moves did not look bad on paper. They also did not look bad to most scouts and talent evaluators. By a large majority, this team was favored to win the division. The people who do baseball for a living, analytics guys and scouting types, did not see all of this as being pretty predictable. In fact, they predicted a very good team. And I'm not talking about just Boston guys, I'm talking across baseball.

I give criticism when criticism is due. I have criticized the FO many times for the Lester debacle. That said, I am a strong believer in the philosphy that this FO has employed since Henry and company took over. That is reason #1 why you haven't heard a lot of criticsim from me. Reason #2, even when I disagree with a move (Sandoval), I look for the rationale behind it, which usually makes sense, whether I agree with it or not. Reason #3, when I do feel there is reason to criticize, I don't feel the need to say the same thing 10 times a day every day, forever. I am not a fan of big contracts. I am not a fan of trading away the farm system. If that becomes the norm, I will not be happy. However, I understand that there are times when these things need to be done. This offseason, we will either need to give a fat contract or trade away prospects in order to get a SP.

You think the FO is a bunch of overpaid knuckleheads who don't really deserve credit when things go right, but deserve all the criticism when things go wrong? Ben cannot control what happens on the field.

This offseason will be interesting, to say the least. As I said, I don't think that the teams needs to be stripped down or completely overhauled. If Dombrowski starts with that approach, I will likely not be a happy camper.

I don't disagree, except to say that for me, the Sandoval signing only appears unnecessary now, in hindsight. I was not a huge fan of his contract, but I had no problem with the FO signing both Sandoval and Hanley. Hanley should not be this bad. Also, like I said before, I can understand the need for a fresh pair of eyes. However, I have concerns that those eyes are so seemingly opposite from this ownership's long standing philosophy.

Exactly.

I've said before, acquire at minimum a #1 pitcher, and preferably a #2/3 as well. Add a few middle relief BP arms. Kelly and Wright can fortify the pen. Figure out who's going to play 1B. We need pitching help, no question. I think the position players, with the exception of exactly who is going to play where, are pretty well set.

I'm with you SK. We'll see how it goes.

Oh, I have biases, just as you and everyone else here does. I have concerns. That said, I am not concluding that hiring him was a terrible move or a great move until I see what direction this team takes.