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.

I think that just muddies the language.

MCoA thinks it's reasonable for the Sox to aim for 85-88 wins in 2013 and then improve 90+ in 2014. 2-year incremental accumulation of improvement. The Sox current moves are compatible with this. I called this Contend in 2014 for short.

I think that if the Sox are going to make a run at this in the short term, it might as well all be done in 2013. I think this because there's no significant $ coming off the books after 2013, nor any special free agents to acquire in 2014 vs. 2013, and for all the other reasons in prior posts. The Sox current moves are not as compatible with this; I was advocating a Hamilton, Greinke, Upton, Marlins dump sort of approach. I was calling it Contend in 2013 for short. It's a completely different strategy.

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.

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

I have to disagree with this on a couple of levels. First, I don't think Cherington has shown that he's capable of being the guy to lead us out of this mess. I think it's fair to say that 2011-2012 was not an impressive bit of GMing by Cherington and while I'm more than willing to give him time I'm certainly not prepared to say "if Ben makes a move it must be a good one."

Second, the moves 10 years ago weren't Victorino, Napoli and Dempster. Maybe the talent was similar (Mueller, Millar, Walker) but all were relatively bargain players. Additionally the roster those players were being inserted into already had the superstars (Nomar, Manny, Pedro). The 2003 Red Sox didn't need Josh Hamilton. Now maybe the 2013 Red Sox don't either but that assumes Jacoby Ellsbury and Dustin Pedroia are your stars.

And as I type this out I find myself reversing my thought a bit. Maybe that's what a lot of us are missing. Maybe the issue here is simply that the Sox are evaluating the players they have with a level of confidence that the rest of us don't share. Maybe Ben Cherington is thinking to himself "these idiots want me to sign Josh Hamilton? I've got Jacoby Ellsbury, I don't need Hamilton! I just need to tweak, not rebuild." I can see that logic even though I'm not confident in it.

I don't know, I think I need to go to bed.

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 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.

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.

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 took a stab at it in post #87. That's about all I've got.

Well, apart from the general feeling that there sufficiently many overpriced contracts in MLB, and sufficiently many reasons for teams to ditch them, that there should be ways to trade 2013 $'s for players who will still be good in 2015. A decent GM ought to be able to do that, if that's the strategy.

Are the Red Sox better now then in 2012?

Well, I sure don't see how they could be worse, but a large part of my pessimistic projection for 2012 was based on the Sox overachieving against good teams in 2011, and a lot of teams getting better while the Sox stood still.

...and a lot of talent got added to a team the Sox play...#### I dont know with the new schedules....15 times?

I share a lot of the thoughts vi expressed in #150.

I look at the offseason thusfar principally as Cherington buying the team some time. Time to figure out if the existing core is going to rebound or not. Time to see if the younger guys like Middlebrooks, Doubront, and possibly Lavarnway and Kalish take a step forward. Time to see if the minor league talent is going to be ready to contribute in 2015 or possibly earlier.

I approve of this plan because I think a full teardown and rebuild for 2015 isn't what a big-market team should be doing and would mean selling low on the existing core. I approve of this plan because I think going for it in 2013 would have had a distressingly high chance of putting the club right back in the position it just bent over backwards to get itself out of.

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.

Legitimately "going for it" in 2013 would have meant shelling out another quarter billion dollars in long-term salary commitments to two players around age 30. If they work out as well as the last ones did, you're in a real bind again until 2017. And there may not be another newly minted club like the Dodgers willing to absorb a bunch of money waiting around in 2014 so the Sox can hit the reset button again.

For the price of Hamilton's contract alone, we've added SIX pretty solid contributors in Napoli, Victorino, Dempster, Ross, Gomes, and Uehara. Some of those additions have more upside than others, but on the whole it's a very decent group. Not to go all Gammons here, but if the existing core plays like we know they're capable of playing instead of playing like the suckiest bunch of sucks who ever sucked, and if a few of the younger guys take a step forward, and if the supplemental pieces acquired this winter produce as expected, then the Red Sox have as good a chance as anyone in the AL East of not only making the playoffs but winning the division.

I also note that, to the extent that this stuff matters to us, all six additions to the team have been significant contributors for a team that made the playoffs last year, the year before, or both. Insofar as the Red Sox clubhouse culture has been conspicuously appalling of late, maybe that stuff counts for something.

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 look at the offseason thusfar principally as Cherington buying the team some time.

Napoli+Victorino+Dempster+Ross+Gomes+Uehara will cost more than 50 million $'s in 2013. That's some very expensive time they're buying.

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.

Intangibles are the new market inefficiency. It all comes full circle.

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.

I think that if Ben Cherington were here, he'd argue that's a false choice. The Red Sox offseason has been structured to walk the line between building up to win now and breaking it down to win later. They don't want to give up significant present talent in a rebuild because they think they can compete next year, but they don't want to risk taking on significant contracts that project to be poor value for 2015-> either. They're hedging their bet on the farm system by building an 85ish win club for now, and they're hedging their bet on the current roster by carefully protecting future talent and future payroll.

In both cases, though, they're laying a relatively significant bet on the talent already in the organization. The core of the 2013-2014 roster is going to be mostly the remaining 2012 core, and the core of the future (the younger guys now plus the Rubby and the Bs) is also coming from inside the organization. There's room in 2013-2014 for one imported core / impact / All-Star - and I fully expect them to get one at least by 2014 - but for the most part it's about curating and protecting the players we've got.

I do expect a regression from the Orioles, but more in tune with around .500, as there should be improvement from their first half 2012 pitching and hopefully better offensive numbers from Davis, Jones, Weiters, Hardy, and left field (or even 3 of those 5), maybe from Manny (more likely a regression of some sort there.)

I don't know that the Sox emerge from last year's wreckage as spectacularly as projected; Though Ferrell isn't anything special, he's not Valentine, so that counts for something - but I think their signings are meh, and show a team who has 'lost their way', as Brian Kenny said last week.

It's looking like a really nasty division, especially if those current Jay/Dickey rumors turn to fruition.

If I had to pick an order of finish today based on current rosters, I'd go:

Rays
Yankees
Jays
Orioles
Red Sox

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 is worth noting that we've had serious clubhouse problems for two years running, and last year's was pretty much unlivable. Making moves with a goal to building a better clubhouse does make some sense.

The problem with intangibles is that if projecting individual talent is hard, projecting the interaction of humans is a thousand times harder. The Sox thought adding Crawford and Gonzalez to the 2010 club would guarantee a harmonious, hard-working clubhouse for the foreseeable future. So it's hard for me to justify moves based on "chemistry" concerns, because unlike with the chemistry of molecules, no one actually has any good way of predicting what happens when you add one player to the collective. (Maybe it's more like protein folding? Am I right in remembering that we still have trouble modeling protein folding?)

With Greinke in particular, I don't think you need to appeal to intangibles. He's just not been very good at preventing runs. I would not bet $150M on a pitcher if it meant I also had to bet on FIP against ERA over a pretty large sample. With Hamilton, I feel like the determinative questions are physical and mental health, and I'm not really in a position to judge. I don't trust the Sox to judge either, but that doesn't mean I can be particularly confident they were right or wrong.

It's looking like a really nasty division, especially if those current Jay/Dickey rumors turn to fruition.

I'd say it looks "nasty" both in the sense that it's tightly matched and in the sense that no one is going to be particularly fun to watch. I could easily see all five teams ending up within 10 games of each other. The closest the AL East has been in the Wild Card era is 18 games (2000), and the closest 5-team division was the 2006 NL West (12 games). I could see something like that happening again pretty easily.

I don't know that the Sox emerge from last year's wreckage as spectacularly as projected;

Who's projecting "spectacular"? It seems like the debate here is between people who think they'll emerge passably, and people who think they'll struggle to win 82. (Or it's between people who are disappointed they'll emerge only passably, and people who think "passable" is a fair outcome to the offseason.)

Matt, IMO a 7 game pickup from last season' Pythag based on the current signings would be pretty spectacular to me. I guess I was surprised to see a projection of the Sox at .500'ish, since the only signing I like so far is Dempster.

And yes, by 'nasty' I mean competitive top to bottom. Someone, or even two, of these clubs I expect to break out a bit and win 92-94 games, most likely from the Rays-Yankees-Jays group.

To me, that makes everyone 'fun to watch'.

Matt, IMO a 7 game pickup from last season' Pythag based on the current signings would be pretty spectacular to me.

Well, it's not just based on current signings. Pedroia, Ellsbury, Ortiz, Lester, and Buchholz combined for 9-11 WAR last year, and CAIRO projects them to 13-14 WAR next year. The Sox had some significant injury and star underperformance issues last year, and part of the projection is that the club should probably see a bit better fortune next season.

Well, it's not just based on current signings. Pedroia, Ellsbury, Ortiz, Lester, and Buchholz combined for 9-11 WAR last year, and CAIRO projects them to 13-14 WAR next year. The Sox had some significant injury and star underperformance issues last year, and part of the projection is that the club should probably see a bit better fortune next season.

I'll go along with that. By the same token, the O's were without their starting left fielder the entire year, their right fielder for half the year, their second baseman (though at this point no one's expecting his return), their best starter for half the season, and a sub-par year from their shortstop. I'm not sure how that, along with the natural regression of an otherwise lucky season, results in a projected 20 game drop.

I didn't cherry-pick Red Sox who were poor in 2012. I chose the five best players on the club, one who had a notably better season that he projects for next year, one who had a basically on-par season.

EDIT: Take five core Baltimore players - include Hardy and Markakis and Hammel from your underperforming file, add Jones and Wieters. These guys combined for 14-15 WAR last year, and CAIRO projects them to 13-14 WAR next year. I'm not saying I think Baltimore are a 74-win club, but I don't think they had comparable star injury/underperformance problems to the Red Sox.

The problem with intangibles is that if projecting individual talent is hard, projecting the interaction of humans is a thousand times harder. The Sox thought adding Crawford and Gonzalez to the 2010 club would guarantee a harmonious, hard-working clubhouse for the foreseeable future.

To clarify, I don't think Hamilton and Greinke were risks because they are clubhouse jerks or anything. Whatever their other issues, they both come off as perfectly nice guys. My worry was that both of them have a history of off-field stuff that might react poorly to being exposed to the unrelenting scrutiny and, occasionally, the outright meanness of the Boston baseball-industrial complex. Particularly when bringing the two of them in for huge money after what happened the last two years would, fairly or not, inevitably focus the spotlight on them as the saviors of the franchise.

I tend to avoid the armchair psychology stuff, but I don't know how one looks at Hamilton's substance abuse issues and Greinke's (past?) social anxiety issues and concludes there'd be nothing to worry about. This can be a pretty unforgiving place to play at times. Matt Clement got smoked in the head with a batted ball, and the press basically called him a giant p*ssy and accused him of milking a different phantom injury (that turned out to be real) when he pitched poorly afterwards. There's no shortage of other examples to cite, but that's a recent one that stands out.

Part of the Red Sox experience is being able to deal with vicious a**holes, and Hamilton and Greinke don't strike me as being particular adept at dealing with vicious a**holes. (Best of luck to Zack if he lets Simers get within earshot, by the way.) Given that both guys have baggage of one kind or another, I would be very nervous that they'd get personally pilloried if they didn't play like franchise saviors straight out of the gate. And that would be the beginning of the end.

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.

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.

This is how I feel. All we've done is fill holes with old, short term players.

Where is this 2014 and beyond high upside young talent that we should be looking for if the goal is to "rebuild"?

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.

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.

And presumably Will Middlebrooks, Felix Doubront, possibly Lavarnway, Bard (assuming he's not permanently broken), Tazawa (whose 2012 doesn't seem to get much respect), etc also count. Trades can also occur. I think the Red Sox are in ok shape. Let's take it one step at a time here.

I agree with the sentiment that the Sox fortunes in the next few years rely on the performance of players already in their system. MLB is flush with money, and there's basically a de facto cap in place - this means that it's much more difficult to get a Manny via FA or a pre-arb Pedro via trade. I think there's still room to find the Muellers of the world, but probably not the Ortizes - the Sox aren't light-years ahead of everyone on Major League talent evaluation. That means they can get the complementary players for reasonable prices, but the stars are mostly going to have to come from within. If those stars are Ellsbury, Pedroia, Lester, and Buccholz, then the Sox can win now. If they're a subset of Bradley, Bogaerts, Barnes, and company then they can win in a couple years.