Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 2 of 2 pages
Exactly. Improving in 2013 is, kinda by definition, the first step in the "improve over 2013-2014" or "contend in 2014" or whatever you want to call it plan.
let Ben Cherington get back to what made this ownership group successful. And what started them down the path of on-field success 10 years ago were a lot of moves like this
Besides which, improvement in one year is not improvement in subsequent years -- the Sox have made themselves better for 2013, but have only added age 33 Napoli and age 34 Victorino to their 2015+ team. They've opted to use their resources to improve in the short term *in lieu of* improving the longer term.
I don't think you can say that until they actually deal away some prospects for proven players. They appear to have shied away from multiple situations where they could do just that.
Now you could argue that they need to acquire younger players to compete long-term but I don't think you've demonstrated convincingly how they could have done this. (I do realize that that is a hard thing to demonstrate, of course.)
I look at the offseason thusfar principally as Cherington buying the team some time.
I also also note that the v2003 of myself would absolutely rip into the v2012 of myself for the appeals to intangibles and such in #156. I must be getting soft in my old age.
I take your point, but not hindering the future isn't the same as helping it. I think they either should have decided that Bogaerts et al were key part of the next good team, in which case add some pieces who will be positively useful in 2015+, or decide they're not, in which case go for it in 2013 without worrying about protecting the 2015+ prospects or budget.
It's not that I can't see the rationale for going after Hamilton and Greinke. I think signing either of them to anything like the deals they got would have been a bad gamble though, as both guys strike me as candidates to have a toxic reaction to the trappings of playing baseball in Boston - especially at this particular time. I don't often go in for the intangibles stuff, but those two seem like cases where such things should have been a significant consideration.
It's looking like a really nasty division, especially if those current Jay/Dickey rumors turn to fruition.
I don't know that the Sox emerge from last year's wreckage as spectacularly as projected;
Matt, IMO a 7 game pickup from last season' Pythag based on the current signings would be pretty spectacular to me.
I think that if Ben Cherington were here, he'd argue that's a false choice.
If so, he'd be incorrect. Teams like the Rays and Indians added significant prospects who will be in their primes in 2015+ (at the expense of some near-term pieces). The Red Sox did not. No amount of semantic cleverness can get around the fact that these are two different choices.
Where is this 2014 and beyond high upside young talent that we should be looking for if the goal is to "rebuild"?
Portland and Pawtucket. The Sox have two very highly regarded positional prospects in Bradley and Bogaerts and Barnes, Webster and De La Rosa (the last is not technically a "prospect") on the mound. While everyone won't pan out just the sheer numbers should keep Sox fans feeling hopeful.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (10 members)
Page rendered in 0.6083 seconds, 70 querie(s) executed