Here's what you don't seem to understand...the Sox' "window" for playoff success is rapidly closing. We have several players who won't be around (or effective) much longer and we don't really have viable replacements for them in the minors. The time to "go for it" is now, before Konerko is gone, before Peavy is gone, before Dunn is gone, etc. If they go around picking up a "Keppinger" here, a "Lindstrom" there...those are nice pieces to have but, without something "major", the Sox won't catch Detroit.

 

You can't just GET players. The opportunity has to be there to make trades and you DON'T just sign any free agent at market level solely because he's the best guy available. If Hahn acted like you seem to be wanting him to, you'd be calling for his head in two years when you find your team full of washed up old guys on massive multi-year contracts. It's practically that way now, and we've made a ton of progress the last two years toward a more balanced, sustainable roster, and you just want to go right back to where we were before?

Here's what you don't seem to understand...the Sox' "window" for playoff success is rapidly closing. We have several players who won't be around (or effective) much longer and we don't really have viable replacements for them in the minors. The time to "go for it" is now, before Konerko is gone, before Peavy is gone, before Dunn is gone, etc. If they go around picking up a "Keppinger" here, a "Lindstrom" there...those are nice pieces to have but, without something "major", the Sox won't catch Detroit.

 

This is very likely the best product the Sox can put on the field. If it's not good enough - oh well.

 

Spending irrationally to try and make the playoffs before your intangible playoff window closes should not be a priority - setting the team up for sustainable success in the long-run should be the entire goal right now, and going out and signing 30-somethings for $100 million contracts is the worst thing the organization could do.

 

/repeated for the 50th time

You can't just GET players. The opportunity has to be there to make trades and you DON'T just sign any free agent at market level solely because he's the best guy available. If Hahn acted like you seem to be wanting him to, you'd be calling for his head in two years when you find your team full of washed up old guys on massive multi-year contracts. It's practically that way now, and we've made a ton of progress the last two years toward a more balanced, sustainable roster, and you just want to go right back to where we were before?

Question: Were there players available vis free agency this off season who's acquisition(s) woul've improved the team's chances for success?

Question: Were there players available vis free agency this off season who's acquisition(s) woul've improved the team's chances for success?

 

Followup question: Are these players affordable according the the actual(not your percieved) financial model?

 

Because the answer to the first question is "of course".

 

 

The answer to the second question is a resounding "NO"

Followup question: Are these players affordable according the the actual(not your percieved) financial model?

 

Because the answer to the first question is "of course".

 

 

The answer to the second question is a resounding "NO"

 

Please leave logic out of future discussions. Thank you.

This is REALLY digging to find something to complain about. You say that like we don't have any depth in our bullpen.

 

I don't see it as complaining. Lindstrom needs to be handled with care. I think it would be best if he split the set up role with Crain meaning I'd rarely like seeing him and Crain in the same game.

I don't see it as complaining. Lindstrom needs to be handled with care. I think it would be best if he split the set up role with Crain meaning I'd rarely like seeing him and Crain in the same game.

 

That's probably true, but that seems more strategic considering their roles more than it is a problem with the signing. I think Lindstrom is a good, useful piece who won't be asked to anchor the bullpen -- and that it's a good pick up regardless of how well Ventura uses it.

Question: Were there players available vis free agency this off season who's acquisition(s) woul've improved the team's chances for success?

 

Of course, but there's no way you don't understand that there's SO much more to it than that. Compare the upgrade you'd get this year to how much it improves THIS team's chances to succeed in THIS environment, then compare the cost and how it will affect your franchise financially and competitively for the next 5 years to come.

 

We could have signed several players that would have added a couple wins to our .500 team this year that would have blown open the payroll as they decline for the next five years, putting the team in horrible financial shape for the next half decade, unable to make any improvements at all while the players all get worse.

 

Would you guarantee 2-3 more wins to this year's team against this year's competition if you knew it you'd be taking lots more wins away from the team the next four years?

Followup question: Are these players affordable according the the actual(not your percieved) financial model?

 

Because the answer to the first question is "of course".

 

 

The answer to the second question is a resounding "NO"

Then you can't honestly say that the Sox are doing everything they can to give the fans another championship. Maybe they're doing all that they are willing to do, but not all that they can do.

Of course, but there's no way you don't understand that there's SO much more to it than that. Compare the upgrade you'd get this year to how much it improves THIS team's chances to succeed in THIS environment, then compare the cost and how it will affect your franchise financially and competitively for the next 5 years to come.

 

We could have signed several players that would have added a couple wins to our .500 team this year that would have blown open the payroll as they decline for the next five years, putting the team in horrible financial shape for the next half decade, unable to make any improvements at all while the players all get worse.

 

Would you guarantee 2-3 more wins to this year's team against this year's competition if you knew it you'd be taking lots more wins away from the team the next four years?

If the Sox had 3 more wins last year (and 3 less losses) they'd have been in the playoffs!

If things go to hell this season, he will be very tradeable at the deadline with that contract and history as a closer.

Then you can't honestly say that the Sox are doing everything they can to give the fans another championship. Maybe they're doing all that they are willing to do, but not all that they can do.

 

SMH. You just dont get it.

Then you can't honestly say that the Sox are doing everything they can to give the fans another championship. Maybe they're doing all that they are willing to do, but not all that they can do.

Forget the Sox for a moment... I think you fail to understand the basics of baseball roster building.

 

In any given year, there are 2-3 teams that are willing to pay anything, spend stupid money, to go for broke that season. This year, it appears to be the Dodgers and Nationals. Sometimes those teams succeed - other times they don't (see; 2012 Marlins). And almost no teams have every gone on binges like that for more than a few seasons But almost every team, every year, have financial constraints to deal within. That includes the Sox. So the question really isn't "are they spending top money at all positions", it is, are they doing the best they can with the dollars they have to spend.

 

Forget the Sox for a moment... I think you fail to understand the basics of baseball roster building.

 

In any given year, there are 2-3 teams that are willing to pay anything, spend stupid money, to go for broke that season. This year, it appears to be the Dodgers and Nationals. Sometimes those teams succeed - other times they don't (see; 2012 Marlins). And almost no teams have every gone on binges like that for more than a few seasons But almost every team, every year, have financial constraints to deal within. That includes the Sox. So the question really isn't "are they spending top money at all positions", it is, are they doing the best they can with the dollars they have to spend.

 

Unwaveringly and most certainly, the answer to that question is yes.

Forget the Sox for a moment... I think you fail to understand the basics of baseball roster building.

 

In any given year, there are 2-3 teams that are willing to pay anything, spend stupid money, to go for broke that season. This year, it appears to be the Dodgers and Nationals. Sometimes those teams succeed - other times they don't (see; 2012 Marlins). And almost no teams have every gone on binges like that for more than a few seasons But almost every team, every year, have financial constraints to deal within. That includes the Sox. So the question really isn't "are they spending top money at all positions", it is, are they doing the best they can with the dollars they have to spend.

 

For god's sake even the Yankees and Red Sox have had to meltdown and/or quit spending in the last year. That alone should be a clear indicator that spending alone isn't enough in today's game.

SMH. You just dont get it.

I know all about "financial constraints" and "working within a budget", etc. I get it.

 

But when the Sox try to tell it's fans that "we are doing everything possible to put a winner on the South Side.", what they're doing is pissing on our heads, and trying to convince us that it's raining.

 

My oldest son will be driving within two years; should I tell him that I'm going to buy him the best car possible, then get him a jalopy, and then try to convince him that its the best, or should I tell him I'll get him the best car that I can afford?

I know all about "financial constraints" and "working within a budget", etc. I get it.

 

But when the Sox try to tell it's fans that "we are doing everything possible to put a winner on the South Side.", what they're doing is pissing on our heads, and trying to convince us that it's raining.

 

My oldest son will be driving within two years; should I tell him that I'm going to buy him the best car possible, then get him a jalopy, and then try to convince him that its the best, or should I tell him I'll get him the best car that I can afford?

 

He should expect you to get the most expensive car on the market, and then have a meltdown when you don't do it. After all, that means you aren't doing your best to prove you love him.

He should expect you to get the most expensive car on the market, and then have a meltdown when you don't do it. After all, that means you aren't doing your best to prove you love him.

FTW

 

I know all about "financial constraints" and "working within a budget", etc. I get it.

 

But when the Sox try to tell it's fans that "we are doing everything possible to put a winner on the South Side.", what they're doing is pissing on our heads, and trying to convince us that it's raining.

 

My oldest son will be driving within two years; should I tell him that I'm going to buy him the best car possible, then get him a jalopy, and then try to convince him that its the best, or should I tell him I'll get him the best car that I can afford?

 

The way I interpret it, you'd be telling your son the exact same thing.

 

"Best team possible" and "Best team they can afford" means the exact same thing to me, so this is basically an argument of semantics.

 

Now, if you are seriously advocating that they spend more then they can afford...keeping it PC again...then you are not wishing for what is best for the organization long-term.

The way I interpret it, you'd be telling your son the exact same thing.

 

"Best team possible" and "Best team they can afford" means the exact same thing to me, so this is basically an argument of semantics.

 

Now, if you are seriously advocating that they spend more then they can afford...keeping it PC again...then you are not wishing for what is best for the organization long-term.

 

I think this is the disconnect. There is building the best organization possible, and then there is building the best team possible. They may sound alike, but they are two very different and distinct things.

I think this is the disconnect. There is building the best organization possible, and then there is building the best team possible. They may sound alike, but they are two very different and distinct things.

 

Personally, I prefer the organizational thing. Put another way, I'd rather be Alabama than Auburn right now.

I think Sox management should articulate its plan. That they don't makes me question if they have a clear direction.

I think Sox management should articulate its plan. That they don't makes me question if they have a clear direction.

 

Kenny Williams did last year. Rick Hahn did the day they promoted him. He will again at Soxfest.

Kenny Williams did last year. Rick Hahn did the day they promoted him. He will again at Soxfest.

 

What did they say the plan was.

I know all about "financial constraints" and "working within a budget", etc. I get it.

 

But when the Sox try to tell it's fans that "we are doing everything possible to put a winner on the South Side.", what they're doing is pissing on our heads, and trying to convince us that it's raining.

 

My oldest son will be driving within two years; should I tell him that I'm going to buy him the best car possible, then get him a jalopy, and then try to convince him that its the best, or should I tell him I'll get him the best car that I can afford?

 

At no point did the Sox say they are going to go buy a ferrari, if that is the metaphor you are going to use.

 

If you tell your son you are going to buy him the most expensive car on the market, and buy him a jalopy, then yes you should have to explain your difference in promise and reality.

 

The problem here is at no point did the Sox promise to buy a ferrari, yet that is what you expect them to do.