If you take the projected best pitcher out of a bullpen, along with two projected contributors, that bullpen will look bad.

Likewise, if next year Pedroia's injuries drag him down to average and Lavarnway/Ross and Middlebrooks collapse, the Sox will probably have a bad lineup.

This is a really uninspiring move. This sounds like just enough money to cut into efforts to get actually good players.

I don't think it's the money, it's the roster spot for 2 years.

As Ray says, there's really no such thing as a bullpen you can be comfortable with. There are only about 30 reliable relievers in the game, other than that you've got guys who have been good for a short bit or guys who K a ton of people but all might blow up and all are badly injury prone.

The Cubs recently re-signed Shawn Camp. He'll be 37. Over the last 3 seasons he has 216 IP with a 115 ERA+, under 110 the last two years. He is probably at best an average reliever (given the standard reliever boost) ... and he's 37. It's hard to imagine a less-inspiring signing.

But over the last 3 seasons, there are only 45 relievers (95% relief appearances) with at least 180 IP. Camp is #34 by ERA+, #5 by IP and #28 by WAR (2.2). Shawn Camp seems both perfectly fungible and one of the better reliable relievers in the game.

Chances are if you have one guy with a track record at least as good as Camp plus one guy who projects better than Camp plus one guy who was better than Camp two years ago but got hurt (or some kid who K's 10/9) then you've got a pretty good offseason bullpen. You've also got a bullpen you should have zero faith in. :-)

Globe: Gomes deal worth $10 mil. -- bleccchhhhhh.

Yeah, that's a bit more money than I would have spent on Jonny Gomes. Still, I don't hate the deal. Gomes should project as a reasonable right-handed hitting outfielder in a platoon and the money, while more than he's probably worth, should not be something that keeps the Sox from making other moves.

One way to leverage the big spending advantage is to make sure you get solid depth. Just to ballpark it if Gomes is truly worth 2/6 does the extra 2 million per year hurt the Sox in anyway? I don't think it does. It's not such a big number that if he's hitting .210 and Hassan is hitting .350 at Pawtucket that they won't make a move and I can't imagine the Sox getting to a #### or get off the pot point with a guy like Hamilton or Anibal and saying "geez, if we could just scrounge up an extra $4 million."

To contradict myself a bit I'm not convinced that Gomes is worth a two year deal. When I heard about this my first thought was signing Punto a year ago. Signing the guy isn't a big deal but it seems a bit unnecessary to put two years toward the type of player who is available on an annual basis.

Bill James, the most optimistic projection system ever, says .236 .337 .441 for Gomes next year. That plus a lead glove equals WTF?

This is the team that gave a fatass in the person of Bobby Jenks (coming off a below average season) 12 mill. The Sox and sense do not mix.

Dante Bichette hit 19 homeruns in 137 games for the Red Sox. He had 0.6 WAR. That is my prediction for Gomes.

$10m? I mean, it's only two million per year more than I'd want. That isn't world changing money. The Sox are fine either way.

But Johnny Gomes is not a league average regular, and of they think he should be paid like one, I'm concerned about the decision making in the Sox front office. Which, obviously, has been a big problem for a couple years now.

I'm wondering if the 2-year deal isn't so that Boston has a trade chip through 2013 and the off-season next year.

Here's why: a guy on a 1-year deal is worth almost nothing (aside from performance) to a club acquiring him mid-year. But if they get 1 year/2 months of him (and the $ for that remaining year is reasonable), then the acquiring club has some cost certainty--which in an unpredictable FA market with crazy gobs of cash slushing around may be a very big deal to some clubs.

Is Gomes worth $10 million? I don't think so. But if he performs decently/doesn't crater and the FA market goes ape-#### crazy this offseason, suddenly Gomes on a 1 year/$5 million deal won't look so bad, either before the trade deadline or next off-season.

I still wouldn't do the deal, mind you, but I wonder if some of this isn't performance-based, but based instead on making his value as a trade chip worthwhile going forward.

But Johnny Gomes is not a league average regular, and of they think he should be paid like one, I'm concerned about the decision making in the Sox front office. Which, obviously, has been a big problem for a couple years now.

...of course, this crossed my mind too... They could just be making very poor decisions.

[sigh] We'll always have 2004 & 2007, right?

What's the market for a 32 year old who plays 130 games a year in a corner with an OPS+ in the 130s? It can't be that high, can it? He had the one fantastically lucky year, which he'll repeat one year in 20. He's a 4 win player who won't be in the league in any capacity at age 38.

Bill James, the most optimistic projection system ever, says .236 .337 .441 for Gomes next year.

God only know what offensive context that projection is for (the general problem with silly BJ projectsion) but assuming that is his projection IN OAKLAND, that would have been a 115 OPS+ last year. That's darn good for 4th OF/1B/DH.

But Johnny Gomes is not a league average regular, and of they think he should be paid like one,

They're paying him for about 1 WAR. While it's true that league average OF are often had pretty cheap (see Cody Ross's career), we're still talking less money than Jeromy Burnitz made in 2005-6 (that's 8 years ago folks!). So, rest assured that Cherington is no worse than Hendry or Littlefield. :-)