As am I. I just take exception to the tone of such articles that fawn over Theo's brilliance in acquiring players like Beltre.
-- This is simply a tremendous addition for the Red Sox. They got a +3 win player with upside, at age 30, on a one year deal for $10 million. They significantly upgraded over *Mike Lowell*<http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=527&position=3B>, and put their defense back on track to being an asset, not a liability. Theo Epstein saw an opportunity to add undervalued assets and made huge improvements to the team by bringing in both Cameron and Beltre. Boston fans, get ready to be spoiled. You’ll never see another third baseman play the hot corner as well as you’ll see it played in 2010. -- I don't think Cameron and Beltre count as HUGE IMPROVEMENTS to the team. Bottomline, Theo is wisely saving his chits for the next off-season. He'll go hard after Mauer and Gonzalez. Maybe take a shot at Lee, who knows. I'd enjoy watching Carl Crawford play everyday for the Sox. We'll see if Theo agrees. I'm fine with that. It's a sound strategy, and it's one that I recognize Theo can't say publicly. We need to win the World Series, or at least beat the Yankees, every year. But just because I agree with the strategy doesn't mean I have to buy into the fawning that will go on this off-season. If Beltre were that exceptional a signing why wasn't anyone else interested in him? Perhaps all other MLB teams are just managed by dummies. In closing, Theo did a good job with what he had to deal with. I just don't think his performance needs any lipstick. On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Steve Ouellette <[email protected]>wrote: > Not saying that it's THE key to winning. It's just one way of winning. If > you can score 1,000 runs you can outslug people. If you've got a brilliant > pitching staff, you can win lots of low-scoring games. Any way that you can > score more runs or allow fewer runs makes you better. I'm just saying adding > to the defense may be an underppreciated way of improving a team's run > differential, thus cheaper. If the defense can stop 50 runs from scoring, > that helps exactly as much as adding 50 runs to the offense. > > And I don't know what Ray is trying to say. The best defensive teams didn't > win last year, so defense doesn't matter? > > I don't think anyone expected that ragtag collection the Mariners threw out > there to win 85 games last year and have the best ERA in the American > League. That defense (and that park) made Jarrod Washburn a star, and he > flat out sucks. Nobody predicted San Francisco, the top defensive team in > the NL, to win 88 games either. Some experts thought they'd be the worst > team in the league. > > The difference between those teams and the Sox is that Boston also has a > very competitive offense. I'm looking forward to 2010. > > Steve O > > > On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Tom Salemi <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I agree with the first part, and I'm fine with that. I trust Theo's >> measure of value. He's right a lot more than he's wrong, with the most >> glaring example of the latter being Texiera, but the Yanks probably would >> have just bid $1 more. >> >> And I'm on board with his signing Lackey. Love the deal. And Beltre is a >> good deal as well for the Sox as well. Gives us great flexibility. >> >> But I'm just not buying the notion that we've disovered the secretthat >> defense is the THE key to winning, and that's why we're adding capable >> fielders. We signed the capable fielders because they're willing to play for >> short money. >> . >> . >> >> On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Steve Ouellette < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Really? It seems obvious to me that -- unable or unwilling to pony up >>> for Holliday or Bay -- the Sox decided to focus on defense and pitching. >>> >>> Steve O >>> >>> >>> >>>> But I'm not going to lean too heavily on the defense argument. It just >>>> strikes me more as a justification for deals that have happened than an >>>> explanation of why the Sox made the deals in the first place. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "Red Sox Citizens" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> [email protected]<redsoxcitizens%[email protected]> >>> . >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/redsoxcitizens?hl=en. >>> >>> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Red Sox Citizens" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]<redsoxcitizens%[email protected]> >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/redsoxcitizens?hl=en. >> >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Red Sox Citizens" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<redsoxcitizens%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/redsoxcitizens?hl=en. > >--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Red Sox Citizens" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected].
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/redsoxcitizens?hl=en.
