Should the Red Sox go full push for next year?

[The Mort Report]

I've read recently that the Nats might have to move one of their starters, naming Zimmermann the most likely to go.  He is very comparable to Hamels overall, but 2 years younger though not as strong K/9.  I know the last couple years his 2nd half numbers are not as strong as his first half, but I wonder what he would cost compared to Hamels.  Being a FA after next year he might not be as pricey in terms of prospects and might be able to extend him something like 5/90 through his age 33 season

 

[MakMan44]

I guess at this pointed I'd have to ask why is the notion unreasonable?

It's the notion that you "need" 3 front line starters. Would it be great to have? Sure, of course. It's it needed to compete? Not so much. 
 
EDIT: And Mort, Zimmerman has been tossed around in a couple threads. Personally, I have trouble seeing him signing an extension this close to FA and I don't think the Red Sox should give up the prospects it would take to get him without one. 

 

[lxt]

It's the notion that you "need" 3 front line starters. Would it be great to have? Sure, of course. It's it needed to compete? Not so much. 
 
EDIT: And Mort, Zimmerman has been tossed around in a couple threads. Personally, I have trouble seeing him signing an extension this close to FA and I don't think the Red Sox should give up the prospects it would take to get him without one. 

The "need" was if nothing else changed, that is as far as positional players and the addition of Miller, then with the current group of pitchers the Sox would "need" 3 "quality" starters. Agree, they don't necessarily have to be front-line which is why I suggested a pitcher like Samardzija. But when I thought about it, if it was possible to get those 3, then it would be great. I guess things got a tad out of hand and three quality pitchers became three front-line pitchers, my bad.
 
Is it feasibly for the Sox to acquire them, then I'd say yes. Is it reasonable with all the other teams hunting for pitching that they'd get them, then I'd say no. Would the Sox be willing to spend the money, I don't know. Would the perceived need for a 3B and backup catcher drive the Sox to look at those possibilities, could be. Would it be nice to have them, most certainly.
 
Reality will be what the Sox do. Then we get to talk about what they did right, what they did wrong and see how things play out.

 

[snowmanny]

I said it would be insane for the Yankees to let Headley go and the Giants will not let Panda go without a fight. That does not at all state that I think either team has the "power to decide".
Simply, if Headley and/or Panda make it to free agency then the Sox should consider them as possible additions to the 2015 team, if a 3B in their eyes is deemed necessary.

You said "Headley would be my choice but the Yankees would be insane to let him go. I don't think Panda is worth the $100million he wants and I'm not sure SF will let him go" which is, in fact, actually a little different from your revised comment. There is basically no excellent FA that can be had "without a fight" from some other suitor, whether it's the player's previous team or some other interested team.

 

[Harry Hooper]

N.M.

 

[sean1562]

no way Jordan Zimmermann signs a 5/90 deal. If he is willing to sign that deal, there is no way the Nationals trade him. 

 

[lxt]

You said "Headley would be my choice but the Yankees would be insane to let him go. I don't think Panda is worth the $100million he wants and I'm not sure SF will let him go" which is, in fact, actually a little different from your revised comment. There is basically no excellent FA that can be had "without a fight" from some other suitor, whether it's the player's previous team or some other interested team.

Well thank you for correcting my small but meaningful digression. To answer your statement ... yeah, I agree.

 

[lxt]

Could be put into other threads as well, but I'll drop it here. Olney had an interesting take today: 
 
 
Who knows how accurate that will prove - at least with regards to what the big guns end up signing for this offseason - but it's certainly something to consider, especially for the Sox and other teams that have ammo in the minor leagues to go after what they need. 

Thanks for drop this here. This is actually a very interesting take on the market. Once again thank you.

 

[Rasputin]

I guess at this pointed I'd have to ask why is the notion unreasonable?

 
Because you don't need three front line starters. Look at the teams in the league championship series. Do ANY of them have three front line starters? Do the Orioles even have one?

 

[Rasputin]

The "need" was if nothing else changed, that is as far as positional players and the addition of Miller, then with the current group of pitchers the Sox would "need" 3 "quality" starters. Agree, they don't necessarily have to be front-line which is why I suggested a pitcher like Samardzija. But when I thought about it, if it was possible to get those 3, then it would be great. I guess things got a tad out of hand and three quality pitchers became three front-line pitchers, my bad.
 
Is it feasibly for the Sox to acquire them, then I'd say yes. Is it reasonable with all the other teams hunting for pitching that they'd get them, then I'd say no. Would the Sox be willing to spend the money, I don't know. Would the perceived need for a 3B and backup catcher drive the Sox to look at those possibilities, could be. Would it be nice to have them, most certainly.
 
Reality will be what the Sox do. Then we get to talk about what they did right, what they did wrong and see how things play out.

 
You're still wrong. The Red Sox can do fuck all on the position player side of things and field a competitive team and it doesn't require getting three pitchers.

 

[MakMan44]

Cafardo mentions in his column today that the Sox made a play for Shark at the trading deadline but didn't want to part with Owens. Can't see that changing with less time of Shark. 

 

[lxt]

 
You're still wrong. The Red Sox can do fuck all on the position player side of things and field a competitive team and it doesn't require getting three pitchers.

Time will tell, time will tell. I hope your right and I'm 100% wrong and they can make it without three. I guess at this stage me must agree to disagree.

 

[Rasputin]

Time will tell, time will tell. I hope your right and I'm 100% wrong and they can make it without three. I guess at this stage me must agree to disagree.

 
If the Sox don't go get three front line starters (which they won't) and they aren't competitive, it won't mean I'm wrong. There are ALWAYS things that can go wrong and ruin a season. You want a guarantee and those just don't exist.

 

[lxt]

 
If the Sox don't go get three front line starters (which they won't) and they aren't competitive, it won't mean I'm wrong. There are ALWAYS things that can go wrong and ruin a season. You want a guarantee and those just don't exist.

There are no guarantees in life other than taxes and death. Well there is the fact that you'll have a response and it won't mean that your wrong. I downgraded my want for three front line starters to three quality starters. I already confessed to that sin.
 
Poutine's post on Olney's comments gives me hope that three quality starters will be found. Now whether the Sox go for three is to be seen. To be honest the pen needs shoring up, there is plenty of justification for adding a solid, consistent 3B who has some offensive tendencies and finally a little stronger bench support could be helpful. Can't always depend on Holt. Adding the before mentioned need to the picture along with the need for some starting help the Sox will have a great deal on their plate.
 
With all the starters available this year there is always the hope the Sox can get at least two quality starters. Three would be better but the right two would do just fine if they can address all the other possible weak spots on the team.
 
And when all is said and done things can still go wrong to ruin a season, there is ALWAYS that possibility.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

I'm really getting tired of this discussion. Right, if the Red Sox get 3 quality starters, a 3rd baseman, relief help and a strengthened bench - they will be better off.

We get it.

Edit: you forgot to mention an 800 OPS LHH catcher.

 

[67WasBest]

Wait, from the A's? Or from CHC?

Cubs

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

Wait, from the A's? Or from CHC?

 
Yeah, I would think Beane would be less interested in Owens than Theo/Hoyer were last summer, although I'm guessing price will still be prohibitively high for Boston.

 

[Plympton91]

Cafardo mentions in his column today that the Sox made a play for Shark at the trading deadline but didn't want to part with Owens. Can't see that changing with less time of Shark. 

That seems overly simplistic (From Cafardo? Nah, never...). A deal was going to be "Owens plus," so it seems more likely that it was the whole package, which included Owens as a significant piece, that they didn't want to give up.

But, assume it's true. Does that mean that many of us who said trading Owens for Hamels was a no brainer are wrong? Does it suggest that they view Owens at the upper tail of his scouting reports rather than closer to the negative reports that see him as a mid rotation starter?

Interesting either way.

 

[MakMan44]

I assumed Cubs, just the wording of "at the trading deadline" threw me off, since he was moved almost a month before that (and also that it wouldn't have made any sense for Oak to move him at the deadline). I just wasn't sure if Little Nicky used those words or Mak just used the wrong ones when paraphrasing.

Yeah, that was my bad. 

 

[MakMan44]

That seems overly simplistic (From Cafardo? Nah, never...). A deal was going to be "Owens plus," so it seems more likely that it was the whole package, which included Owens as a significant piece, that they didn't want to give up.

But, assume it's true. Does that mean that many of us who said trading Owens for Hamels was a no brainer are wrong? Does it suggest that they view Owens at the upper tail of his scouting reports rather than closer to the negative reports that see him as a mid rotation starter?

Interesting either way.

Hamels has been better than Shark for longer and has 4 years to Shark's 1 1/2 (at this years trading deadline). Maybe you're right and this suggests the FO doesn't want to move Owens at all, but I'd rather have Owens than Shark.

 

[Sampo Gida]

The team has a boat load of money and prospects, and has missed the playoffs 4 of 5 years with 2 last place finishes. Yeah, they should try and win next year.  Couple of other reasons.
 
Cespedes, Victorino and Napoli in the last year of their deals.  Pedroia and Ortiz 1 year older. 
 
They have some nice looking prospects, but projecting them with any certainty is difficult.  At this moment it looks like XB and Betts are ready to be productive regular position players.  WMB, Vazquez, Holt and JBJ should probably have backup roles or another year in AAA.  So that leaves holes at C (Martin?) and 3B (Pablo or Headley?). 
 
Biggest project will be pitching.   Obviously they need an elite SP'er and perhaps a middle of the rotation guy,  and some bullpen help either via free agency or trade .   Going to need some of the prospects to come through though.
 
None of this looks like it should strap the budget too badly.  JWH has already expressed the idea he could go past 189.
 
Of course, if the Red Sox can continue to come close to selling out every game finishing in last place, maybe there is no compelling need to win next year, but I doubt they want to test this

 

[snowmanny]

They can sell tickets, but the TV ratings tank when they are out of contention.

 

[OptimusPapi]

Perhaps this is crazy and I am going to invite snark and being chased through the streets with pitch forks but here goes. What if this off season is not the time to buy pitching. The main targets would be Lester Shields and Scherzer. The problem with all of them is that it would require dumping a gigantic amount of money and years to acquire them. Next off season though you have Cueto, Latos, Zimmerman and Price. If I left anyone out let me know. Just taking a quick look at Fangraph I would much rather have any of those pitchers sign to long term deals then any pitcher available this off season. Now I am not suggesting they punt this season. I have to imagine there might be a slight depression to the pitching market. In addition to the three big free agents I mention you have possible pitchers like Shark, Fister, Hamels and maybe Zimmerman being dangle. So what if we target someone like Shark or Fister who is a notch below Cueto Latos and Hamel. Maybe for some package of two of Rananudo/Barnes/Webster/De la Rosa/ Coyle and some lottery pick. Or if we target Shark maybe Oakland has enough pitching but they need offense. Cespedes could be an attractive option. I say that half joking. The one year pitcher allows the Sox to compete (I realize more moves need to be made) while allowing them to hold off until something truly great comes along next off season. Just a thought.

 

[sean1562]

the nationals are not gonna trade fister for a combination of our AAAA arms. i doubt the A's would accept that after trading addison russell for Shark a few months ago. i think that if we want to upgrade our rotation through a trade we are going to have to trade swihart or owens, something most people here seem quite reluctant to do

 

[Plympton91]

There's also no guarantee any of Fister, Zimmerman, Shark, Price, Latos, or Cuetto actually reach free agency. So it's a double gamble, you need them to a) not be extended or traded and extended and b) want to come to Boston for the price the Red Sox are willing to pay if they get to FA.

If they like those guys, they have to go get one of them on the trade market this offseason and extended them.

One ace, plus hope to get "good Buccholz" and substantial improvement from one of the kids growing into a #3 is feasible. Add a bullpen ace and a recognizable 3B and it's not great, but probably enough to market and sell tickets.

 

[OptimusPapi]

There's also no guarantee any of Fister, Zimmerman, Shark, Price, Latos, or Cuetto actually reach free agency. So it's a double gamble, you need them to a) not be extended or traded and extended and b) want to come to Boston for the price the Red Sox are willing to pay if they get to FA.

If they like those guys, they have to go get one of them on the trade market this offseason and extended them.

One ace, plus hope to get "good Buccholz" and substantial improvement from one of the kids growing into a #3 is feasible. Add a bullpen ace and a recognizable 3B and it's not great, but probably enough to market and sell tickets.

No guarantee but given the length of the list it's likely

 

[pdub]

We definitely need an "ace" pitcher to be acquired, I just can't see how this team could at all be comfortable with the rotation after this past season. We lost Lester (#1) and Lackey (pitched like a #2-3). We also cannot depend on Buchholz to suddenly figure things out and stay injury free next season. 
 
Here are some combinations I think may work out:
 
1. Sign Lester, trade for Latos
Give Lester a strong offer ($120M?), trade for Latos since his stock is lower than Cueto's. You now have two pitchers who can pitch like aces on any given day. Latos is arbitration eligible this upcoming year and is still not expensive. This deal would keep the large contracts to a minimum. Well, for now. 
 
2. Trade for Hamels, sign Shields
I'm a bit bullish on this one. Hamels is comparable to Lester, I'd rather spend the cash instead of the prospects. Also, I'd have a hard time seeing this happen since Hamels is owed $90M on his deal and Shields is poised to earn $80M+ on the open market. I don't see this happening.
 
There are other possibilities such as trading for Sale. I mention it only for the sake of mentioning because I think it has no chance of happening. We could potentially hold out this season and prepare for next year's free agent period, but its a huge risk and I don't think the fanbase would take kindly to another year of half-tanking-half-competitive. Especially not at such high ticket prices. Part of the lesson the team seems to have learned this year is that its never prudent to depend on too many rookies and younger players. Therefore, I just can't see them taking a gamble on a rotation consisting of RDLR, Workman, Ranaudo, Buchholz, Webster, and so forth. 

 

[snowmanny]

Assuming they aren't going to sign anyone to a contract that pays a 36 year-old $20Million, a trade for one pitcher then signing one of Santana/Liriano/Maeda would make some sense.

 

[lxt]

The Reds maybe a place to go for Pitching. They're in a tad bit of a money crunch and may be willing to cut some pitching for a young arm or two, an OF or two and may be a prospect - SS. Would be great to see if Cueto & Chapman could be had. Take care of one spot in the rotation and definitely help the pen out. The savings to the Reds is about 18million minus the cost of what the Sox trade to them.

 

[OptimusPapi]

The Reds maybe a place to go for Pitching. They're in a tad bit of a money crunch and may be willing to cut some pitching for a young arm or two, an OF or two and may be a prospect - SS. Would be great to see if Cueto & Chapman could be had. Take care of one spot in the rotation and definitely help the pen out. The savings to the Reds is about 18million minus the cost of what the Sox trade to them.

Are you willing to give up Swihart Owens and Betts?

 

[lxt]

Owens is a possibility for those two but I think I'd like to hang on to Swihart & Betts. Try Webster, Craig and Marrero.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Owens is a possibility for those two but I think I'd like to hang on to Swihart & Betts. Try Webster, Craig and Marrero.

 
Webster, Craig and Marrero for Cueto and Chapman? Walt Jocketty should be fired for not blocking Ben Cherington's phone number after an offer like that. Even if you added Owens, you're fucking nuts to think it will get it done.
 
Also, the idea of trading for one of the Red's starters has been beaten to death in this forum already. This is not a new suggestion and there probably isn't anything new to be discussed on the topic. Hell, post 167 had a chunk of an Olney article where he talks about all of the names that are likely to be thrown about this winter, including four Reds pitchers. Try reading before posting.

 

[Rasputin]

If the options are to trade some premium prospects or only get one pitcher from outside the organization, I'm going to keep the prospects and just get the one pitcher.
 
I'll define premium prospects as Betts, Swihart, Bogaerts (yeah, not a prospect, but still), Marrero, Owens, Vazquez, that guy we got from Baltimore that I'm always going to confuse with that guy we got from San Francisco [Eduardo Rodriguez], and Allen Webster.
 
And all of you are going to laugh at the notion of including Allen Webster on that list, but the guy misses bats and that, to me, is the key to a pitcher who can outperform his projections. If he gets his control issues ironed out--and that's a big if--I think he's going to be a damn good pitcher.

 

[lxt]

 
Webster, Craig and Marrero for Cueto and Chapman? Walt Jocketty should be fired for not blocking Ben Cherington's phone number after an offer like that. Even if you added Owens, you're fucking nuts to think it will get it done.
 
Also, the idea of trading for one of the Red's starters has been beaten to death in this forum already. This is not a new suggestion and there probably isn't anything new to be discussed on the topic. Hell, post 167 had a chunk of an Olney article where he talks about all of the names that are likely to be thrown about this winter, including four Reds pitchers. Try reading before posting.

Read post 168.  It came up again on Trade Rumors http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2014/10/offseason-outlook-cincinnati-reds-6.html

 

[lxt]

If the options are to trade some premium prospects or only get one pitcher from outside the organization, I'm going to keep the prospects and just get the one pitcher.
 
I'll define premium prospects as Betts, Swihart, Bogaerts (yeah, not a prospect, but still), Marrero, Owens, Vazquez, that guy we got from Baltimore that I'm always going to confuse with that guy we got from San Francisco [Eduardo Rodriguez], and Allen Webster.
 
And all of you are going to laugh at the notion of including Allen Webster on that list, but the guy misses bats and that, to me, is the key to a pitcher who can outperform his projections. If he gets his control issues ironed out--and that's a big if--I think he's going to be a damn good pitcher.

Shit! Something we agree upon.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Read post 168.  It came up again on Trade Rumors http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2014/10/offseason-outlook-cincinnati-reds-6.html

 
Yes. I've read the thread. My point is, you are posting as though you haven't. Rehashing the same ideas over and over isn't really all that productive. And I get it. I've done it, too. I'm just suggesting you take a step back and consider whether what you are about to post is new, or at least a new spin on things. The idea of trading for Cueto or Latos has been beaten into the ground at this point.
 
Also, maybe consider whether what you are posting makes any kind of sense at all, because your trade proposal doesn't.

 

[rodderick]

Shit! Something we agree upon.

 
Well, to be fair, you believe the Sox can have young, top of the rotation pitchers, for a backup OF and fringe top 15 prospects, which kind of makes it easier to keep your premium young players. No one is really disagreeing with your thoughts on the need to get a starting pitcher, or even the possibility of trading for one, the problem is you keep rehashing the same delusional trade proposals that do nothing to advance the conversation. 

 

[DavidTai]

I'm really getting tired of this discussion. Right, if the Red Sox get 3 quality starters, a 3rd baseman, relief help and a strengthened bench - they will be better off.

We get it.

Edit: you forgot to mention an 800 OPS LHH catcher.

 
Acquiring -one- ace-caliber starting pitcher would do a lot to improve the rotation overall...
 
You'd rest the bullpen and throw them in to bolster other starting pitchers, and suddenly, their stats look better because more rested bullpen arms are less likely to let in inherited runners.
 
A second one that just eats innings would be nice too, but I don't think the Sox are too far off from putting together a useful pitching staff if they can just acquire that ace that saves the bullpen... they just have more problems on the offense, and I think the chips are better spent that way.
 
That would probably help out the staff in terms of being affordable enough to spend chips on something more useful. What, I don't know, but I think there's a point at which acquiring more and more starting pitchers will give you diminishing returns in a system that's full of young pitching prospects.
 
In fact, I'd submit that it might be useful in this market to just spend the money on ONE ace pitcher, and try and build the staff backwards with a lights-out bullpen and a long-reliever (Steven Wright?) that would save you more money to go after where the market is weaker.

 

[lxt]

I'm curious. This topic was to be a discussion as to whether the Sox should go full push for 2015 yet there seems to be a very timid/conservative/cautious approach to addressing 2015. This seems to be counter to what the poll indicates. I guess what I'm looking for is a better understanding of what the Board feels is a "full push". 
 
Now, we all seem to agree that the offense will be better next year, through the mid-season acquisitions, health returning to players and the growth of the younger players. However, is this enough has been contested. The team has too many OF which has prompted many a talk on who should stay and who should go. That, a solid (defensive/offensive is a debated subject) 3B would be a nice to have. There is an ongoing debate as to whether there is a need for a backup catcher or can Swihart handle the job. Everyone seems to agree that the pen needs some improving but as to how much or to what extent is questioned. There is a ton of talent in the organization but when, how and where to use it is wholly deliberated. And finally that the starting rotation could use a tad bit of and upgrade (No I'm not raising this discussion again).
 
So, what do we mean by "full push"? Do the Sox do whatever it takes to get back to the World Series and what does this actually mean? Do the Sox work to return to the playoffs without a WS being a necessity? Build for 2016 but at least be competitive in 2015? As long as they win and continue win that's all that counts? What say you?

 

[KillerBs]

The idea is to give the team the best chance to win next year and each year after that. The Sox are not going to punt 2015, I don't think anyone is suggesting they will or should. At the same time, I certainly do not think the Sox ought to be significantly compromising their 2016, 17, 18 etc. outlook in order to maximize our chances next year.  Again, I do not see anyone suggesting that we should, tho the advocates of Betts or Swihart for Hamels (are there any such people?) might fall into this category. 
 
In short I think most Sox fans expect the Sox to go "full push" each year and be in a reasonable position to do so.
 
On a different topic, there are a thousand combinations/permutations that could develop in the off-season. Safe to say the FO will surprise us. On the other hand, there is a reasonably obvious set of moves which seem quite achievable to pull off. Ie sign Lester (let's say 6/150), sign Miller (3/26?), Koji (1/8?) and Panda (4/80, 5/90?). Find away to dump/DL Craig/Victorino and run out Vazquez, Napoli, Pedroia, Panda, Bogie, Cespedes, Betts, Castillo, Ortiz, with random catcher, Nava, Holt and Craig or Vic on the bench. Find a 4th and 5th starter and some pen arms from the kids. I think the 60M or so in signings should meet budget or be close enough. BBref has the Sox at estimated 120MM now. Substitute Headley or even a Pedro Alvarez trade for Panda if you prefer.  
 
My question is would folks be pleased with that off-season? I would be thrilled. IOW all I really want this off-season is Lester, then Miller, then Koji back in the fold and (being a bit greedy) an upgrade at 3b.  

 

[chawson]

The idea is to give the team the best chance to win next year and each year after that. The Sox are not going to punt 2015, I don't think anyone is suggesting they will or should. At the same time, I certainly do not think the Sox ought to be significantly compromising their 2016, 17, 18 etc. outlook in order to maximize our chances next year.  Again, I do not see anyone suggesting that we should, tho the advocates of Betts or Swihart for Hamels (are there any such people?) might fall into this category. 
 
In short I think most Sox fans expect the Sox to go "full push" each year and be in a reasonable position to do so.
 
On a different topic, there are a thousand combinations/permutations that could develop in the off-season. Safe to say the FO will surprise us. On the other hand, there is a reasonably obvious set of moves which seem quite achievable to pull off. Ie sign Lester (let's say 6/150), sign Miller (3/26?), Koji (1/8?) and Panda (4/80, 5/90?). Find away to dump/DL Craig/Victorino and run out Vazquez, Napoli, Pedroia, Panda, Bogie, Cespedes, Betts, Castillo, Ortiz, with random catcher, Nava, Holt and Craig or Vic on the bench. Find a 4th and 5th starter and some pen arms from the kids. I think the 60M or so in signings should meet budget or be close enough. BBref has the Sox at estimated 120MM now. Substitute Headley or even a Pedro Alvarez trade for Panda if you prefer.  
 
My question is would folks be pleased with that off-season? I would be thrilled. IOW all I really want this off-season is Lester, then Miller, then Koji back in the fold and (being a bit greedy) an upgrade at 3b.  

 
Except that a Lester-Buchholz-De la Rosa-Kelly-Webster rotation is still pretty bunk.
 
We'd need someone at least projectably better than RDLR to make all that other shit worthwhile. Those men's names have been tossed about to death so I won't do it again. But the way I see it there's only nine of them via FA, and I'm not talking Josh Johnson.

 

[lxt]

I think Sampo is on to something. We've all watch KC make it to the WS (7-0 is pretty) with a great bullpen. They've proven a solid pen is a great vehicle to get you into the playoffs. They've also done it with Shields leading the rotation and a solid set of "other" pitchers. Solid defense and good base running has also helped. So maybe the answer is for the Sox to go big on the pen and add that one front-line ace to the staff with a secondary inning eating starter to round out the rotation.
 
As Sampo stated (Along with so many others) the Sox have so many promising players that adding a 3B & backup catcher with a strong pen and an ace may be the ticket. Are there enough remaining arms in the organization to handle the rotation, maybe. With a much more productive offense (my estimate 150 more runs) and a defensive improvement (Headley) overall could be the answer. 

 

[ivanvamp]

There are many ways to skin a cat.  Some teams have won with great offense.  Others with dominant starting pitcher.  Still others with defense and timely hitting. 
 
Or some with various combinations of all this.
 
There is no one "right" or "best" way to play baseball.  You can win with a lineup full of high OBP singles/doubles hitters, and you can win with a lineup of high K, low OBP mashers.  
 
You can win with dominant starting pitching (the 2005 White Sox had 4 complete games in the WS…didn't need to use a single relief pitcher all series long).  You can win with decent starting pitching and a shut down bullpen.

 

[sackamano]

The White Sox used relief pitchers in the 2005 World Series.
 
Jenks had 2 saves ... there was a 14 inning game that Buehrle saved.

 

[ivanvamp]

The White Sox used relief pitchers in the 2005 World Series.
 
Jenks had 2 saves ... there was a 14 inning game that Buehrle saved.

 
Yeah, my bad.  They had 4 straight CGs in the ALCS.  Then starters pitched 28 out of 41 innings in the WS (not counting Buehrle's relief performance).
 
So wrong on the details, but I think the larger point stands.  That was a dominant starting pitching performance by the ChiSox in that playoff run.