A Realistic View at 2017 Part I

[moonslav59]

We have to trust our front office and scouts. I really believe our window is 4-5 years.

We will begin to see the affects of not having as many low-cost players in 2-3 years, but I agree, we should be highly competitive for 4 maybe 5 more years.

It could last longer with some shrewd moves, extensions and draft/IFA picks. I'm not projection doomsday in 5-6 years.

The way the rules have changed, it's going to be much harder for us to get guys like Moncada, Bogey, Devers, Espinoza, Raudes and Margot through international signings. By winning, we won't be getting top 10 draft picks like Kopech and Groome anymore. By facing heavier fines and even other strong penalties by going over the luxury limit or significantly over the limit, we may not be able to "buy our way" out of a mess, if we need to. With hefty arb raises and extensions on the near horizon, our ffront office and scouts may need to be near flawless to keep us highly competitive beyond 4 or 5 years.

An argument could be made and supported that "now was the time" to hold onto at least the far-away prospects to offset the reality of just how tough it will be to acquire top young talent while winning and spending so much.

Again, I'm fine with where we are, but I know we sacrificed a significant part of our extended future for this 3-4 or maybe 5 year window.

I'm glad we didn't take this road from 2011-2015, or maybe we wouldn't have Betts, Bogey, JBJ and others right now.

[moonslav59]

My dramatic comment was base on point number 3 where maybe we shouldn't draft pitchers anymore.

Yes, that was overly dramatic, I agree, but if we truly believe the weakness is still great and is still here now, it's not an outlandish idea, unless we plan on drafting and then trading them away like Espi and Kopech, before they fail due to poor development in our farm system.

I've heard some say that if Espi or Kopech thrive, we can't assume they would have here- already hedging the post-mortem debate on how these deals worked out 8 years down the road.

[moonslav59]

For me it's a philosophical thing. I've become a Zen fan of sorts - I hasten to add that I was only able to do so because of seeing us win it all 3 times.

There's not a thing any of us can do about what the team does. I'm fully aware of the possible negative outcomes of some of their moves. But worrying about the future is absolutely pointless suffering.

I don't see concern as suffering. Concern about the future kept us from trading Betts & Bogey for Hamels.

That foresight and concern for the future created this current "Zen moment" or "3-5 year window".

[moonslav59]

Agree enjoy the team now hopefully things work out.

I'm going to really enjoy the next 3-5 years and hopefully many years beyond that.

[Fisk]

We will begin to see the affects of not having as many low-cost players in 2-3 years, but I agree, we should be highly competitive for 4 maybe 5 more years.

It could last longer with some shrewd moves, extensions and draft/IFA picks. I'm not projection doomsday in 5-6 years.

The way the rules have changed, it's going to be much harder for us to get guys like Moncada, Bogey, Devers, Espinoza, Raudes and Margot through international signings. By winning, we won't be getting top 10 draft picks like Kopech and Groome anymore. By facing heavier fines and even other strong penalties by going over the luxury limit or significantly over the limit, we may not be able to "buy our way" out of a mess, if we need to. With hefty arb raises and extensions on the near horizon, our ffront office and scouts may need to be near flawless to keep us highly competitive beyond 4 or 5 years.

An argument could be made and supported that "now was the time" to hold onto at least the far-away prospects to offset the reality of just how tough it will be to acquire top young talent while winning and spending so much.

Again, I'm fine with where we are, but I know we sacrificed a significant part of our extended future for this 3-4 or maybe 5 year window.

I'm glad we didn't take this road from 2011-2015, or maybe we wouldn't have Betts, Bogey, JBJ and others right now.

That's why ithink Ben was the right person to build our farm, we were not at the point in our development to trade Betts, Bogey, Etc. now that we have that established positional group it was determined it was time to go all in. Probably why DD was hired.

[Fisk]

I'm going to really enjoy the next 3-5 years and hopefully many years beyond that.

Agree

[Bellhorn04]

I don't see concern as suffering. Concern about the future kept us from trading Betts & Bogey for Hamels.

There is no us. The team's concern is the only concern that matters. We can't do anything. There's no point telling other posters how concerned they should be about the future.

[cp176]

We've traded away 7 of out top 10 prospects in one year. (14 out of 21) That is dramatic and drastic.

Just talking about concerns, we've been called whiners and implied doomsday apocalyptic naysayes.

There can be a "middle ground" and I think that is what I had hoped for. I think Kimmi is pretty close to my position too.

True, we could have traded Swihart, Devers and Groome too, so I guess you could call what we have done a "middle ground", but to me and others what we did was at least a little too far to one end of the spectrum.

Personally, I'd take back the Pom and Kimbrel trades. With the money and some of prospects "saved" (I'd have traded Margot & Guerra) I would have acquired a not-so-glamorous closer and starter. I'd even feel much better without just the Pomeranz trade and maybe trying to sub Espi for Kopech in the Sale trade.

I'm not upset with where we are now, but I'm not going to deny that our future will be impacted.

Let's not deny that many posters said, "Don't worry; our farm can be rebuilt," or "We can spend more to fill future needs."

Easy - no one is denying that our future might not be impacted by the trading of prospects. It very well might be but it might very be a positive impact. I'm pretty sure that you will take this to mean that I am all excited about getting rid of our prospects. That could not be further from the truth. I believe that for the most part you get what you pay for and on occasion you have to take some risks in life. I tend to believe that DD knows exactly what he is doing and that he is also concerned about the future of the team. But once again I will add that I have no particular loyalties toward anyone involved with Red Sox management-past or present.

[moonslav59]

That's why ithink Ben was the right person to build our farm, we were not at the point in our development to trade Betts, Bogey, Etc. now that we have that established positional group it was determined it was time to go all in. Probably why DD was hired.

One could argue (not me) back during the year up to when Cole Hamels was eventually traded, that a Betts & Bogey for Hamels would have been just what we needed for the "Papi window". We had just won a ring in 2013, so the base was there to add to and keep the "window" open for 2-3 more years.

I'm not arguing against the Sale and Thornburg trades. I love them. I'm just saying I think striking a better balance would have made us very competitive now while still improving our extended outlook as well.

I'm tickled to death with our 25 man roster and about 5-6 guys beyond that. We have a nice window. It's not easy building a team with a 3-5 year "window" and one could argue 2016 was within the window too as we had a good chance last year. That's really a 4-6 year window Ben & DD built.

I hope we find a way to be highly competitive from 4-8 or more years beyond that. I'm concerned not obsessed. I'm a bit worried but not "suffering".

It's winter. There's no baseball, so sometimes the talk diverts to our extended future.

[moonslav59]

There is no us. The team's concern is the only concern that matters. We can't do anything. There's no point telling other posters how concerned they should be about the future.

I'm not telling others to be concerned.

I'm responding to those who wrongly label us concerned posters as "suffering".

I'm responding to those, who a while back, seemed to be saying rebuilding the farm back up to a plus was something we should expect and felt even talking about how difficult that was going to be under the new system was "whining" or negating the thought that we have ability to enjoy what we have now, because we are somehow "suffering" over our long term outlook.

If the team's concerns are the only thing that matters, why are any of us here voicing our opinions, concerns and beliefs?

BTW, I think the team was concerned aout our long term future when they said no to Philly, but that's just my opinion.

[moonslav59]

Easy - no one is denying that our future might not be impacted by the trading of prospects. It very well might be but it might very be a positive impact. I'm pretty sure that you will take this to mean that I am all excited about getting rid of our prospects. That could not be further from the truth. I believe that for the most part you get what you pay for and on occasion you have to take some risks in life. I tend to believe that DD knows exactly what he is doing and that he is also concerned about the future of the team. But once again I will add that I have no particular loyalties toward anyone involved with Red Sox management-past or present.

I've never said or implied anyone is happy to get rid of prospects, but clearly there are posters who for a long time are much more willing to trade prospects than others. There are others on the other extreme who seem to never want to trade prospects.

In my opinion, much of the debate about our long term future heated up when some posters seemed to be making light of just how difficult it was going to be to rebuild the farm to even close to what it was a year or two ago. Maybe I misread their statements like many misread mine, but there were a few posters who came right out and said, "Don't worry about the future." It's hard not to assume they meant there was nothing to worry about, or that they are the types of people who live in the moment. Maybe I'm wrong on those assumptions the same way others are wrong in saying we're "suffering", when nothing is further from the truth, for me anyway.

I'm ecstatic right now, and I think having some higher concern about the future than I had 1-2 years ago in no way implies or suggests my current enjoyment is compromised or lessened in any way.

We all want the Sox to win now and forever.

[moonslav59]

Easy - no one is denying that our future might not be impacted by the trading of prospects.

Some posters clearly hinted this might be the case when they spoke of it just being potential we traded and nobody knows if the prospects ever will amount to anything.

That was saying our future "might not be" impacted.

Of course, they are right, but the chances are our future will be significantly affected by at least one of these trades over the last year is great.

[Kimmi]

I love prospects I follow the minor league boxes every day during the season, but I have to disagree with you. This was the right time to cash in, we have our young core in place, but our pitching was not good enough to win, by the time Kopech, Espinoza and Groome are ready our young guys will be in the later years of arbitration and starting to hit free agency. Our problem has not being able to develop pitchers, and its far from a guarantee that our young pitchers will reach there ceiling

I agree with you that now is the time to 'cash in'. What I disagree with is the extent of the cashing in. I don't think that we needed to add Sale. We were already strong contenders. Perhaps it would have been better to wait until midseason to see if there was a real need that we needed to trade for.

As I have said before, I don't have a problem with the Sale trade per se. What I have a problem with is what Dombrowski has done to our farm system in less than 2 years. Yes, he needed to make some moves because it is time to cash in. I do not like the 'win now at any cost' philosophy. IMO, we could have had a strong contender for the next 3 years and kept some of the prospects that were traded.

[Kimmi]

I don't understand how some posters can't at least just understand the concept that having less great prospects diminishes the chances that we will have enough low-cost quality players to off set the larger contracts down the road.

Those of us with concerns understand the "win now" theory and argument.

Also, there are many in the middle who feel some "win now" type deals were called for but maybe not so many or all. It's a valid position to hold.

That's my contention. You can have a win now philosophy without sacrificing the future. Is it really necessary to improve your team from one that should win the division by 3 games to one that should win the division by 6 games, at the expense of the long term outlook? My answer is no.

[Fisk]

I agree with you that now is the time to 'cash in'. What I disagree with is the extent of the cashing in. I don't think that we needed to add Sale. We were already strong contenders. Perhaps it would have been better to wait until midseason to see if there was a real need that we needed to trade for.

As I have said before, I don't have a problem with the Sale trade per se. What I have a problem with is what Dombrowski has done to our farm system in less than 2 years. Yes, he needed to make some moves because it is time to cash in. I do not like the 'win now at any cost' philosophy. IMO, we could have had a strong contender for the next 3 years and kept some of the prospects that were traded.

I'm not sure our overall pitching was going to be good enough, with the top three we have now we really lesson the load on the bullpen, all three should be able to pitch over 200 innings and if Wrights healthy he can too. Should make the pen stronger. We still have our whole young core , along with a couple blue chipper so still coming. Understand your angst but still think organization is in great shape.