The Plan? Be flexible, I guess.

[LahoudOrBillyC]

In late July 2014 Cherington blew up the team, sending away AJ, Peavy, Lester, Lackey, Doubront, Drew, Gomes, Miller.  From that point on the Red Sox had the worst record in baseball, and finished last with a bullet.
 
People like to point out that this was the second last place finish in the past three years.  This is obviously true, but I think overstates the problem.  
* In 2012, the Red Sox hoped to contend, and were over .500 in late July.  They were "sort of" contending, so they did not do anything at the deadline, lost Ortiz, had a bad August, made the big trade with the Dodgers, and were the worst team in baseball down the stretch.  Last place. 
* In 2014, the Red Sox hoped to contend, were "sort of" contending into July, slumped badly, then blew up the team.  Last place.
I don't think it really matters that they finished third or fifth.  Once they knew they could not make the playoffs, in each year they shifted gears to *next* season, and drifting to last place was an irrelevant side effect.
 
I am not excusing either season.  They believed they could contend and they did not.  That is a failure. I don't want to rehash all of that, but I suspect that Red Sox think of both seasons as "Failed to Contend" rather than "OMG, Last Place".
 
In mid-summer, the team added Betts and Vazquez to the big league roster.  Since giving up, the team has added Castillo, Sandoval, Ramirez, Miley, Porcello, and Masterson -- starting CF, LF, 3B, and three starting pitchers -- without losing any players anyone expected to play a big part in the season.

 
Stepping back, the last place team is obviously better. I think we would all agree on that, right?  There are still holes, but every team has holes.  It is still December.
 
But I think people tend to overstate the idea that the Red Sox have a "plan".  The team wanted Lester, probably wanted Hamels (might still), wanted Cueto, wanted McCarthy, and tried to get many other people that they will not get.  There are other rich teams who also want these same players, and free agents have a say in where they end up.
 
Example; if the Red Sox decide they REALLY want James Shields, what are their chances?  25%?  The Dodgers (who have an unlimited payroll) probably want him, and he lives in So Cal.  So, you still try.  The Red Sox will have one of the highest payrolls in baseball, so obviously they get a lot of the players that they want.  But this does not mean that they always got their first choice.
 
I read a tweet this morning that said that if the Red Sox were going to sign all of these ground ball pitchers they should have signed Headley instead of Sandoval.  Maybe, but they did not go into the off-season planning to sign the guys they signed.  It just worked out that way.
 
I apologize if this sounds annoying, but the Red Sox are trying improve the team in an environment where their options are opening and closing by the hour.  It is hard to "judge" how they are doing because we don't really know enough about these (temporary, fleeting) options.
 
They seem to be getting better.  I suspect most analysts would consider them the AL East favorites at this moment.   Hopefully they are not done.
 
 
 

 

 

[Adrian's Dome]

How can they be considered the favorites with such a weak rotation? Porcello can't strike people out. Miley is mediocre. Masterson is a platoon specialist coming off a terrible year. Buch is unreliable. Kelly hasn't hit his potential.
 
The offense should be above-average, but other than that, the team's nothing but question marks.

 

[TomRicardo]

How can they be considered the favorites with such a weak rotation? Porcello can't strike people out. Miley is mediocre. Masterson is a platoon specialist coming off a terrible year. Buch is unreliable. Kelly hasn't hit his potential.
 
The offense should be above-average, but other than that, the team's nothing but question marks.

 
The offense is far above above average.  That is an offense capable of scoring 800+ runs which only one team did in the last 2 years (2013 Red Sox).
 
800 runs is the new 1000 runs.
 
There are no Yankees or Tampa Bay (both have garbage teams).  Your main competition is the Blue Jays and Orioles who aren't very deep or particularly talented.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

How can they be considered the favorites with such a weak rotation? Porcello can't strike people out. Miley is mediocre. Masterson is a platoon specialist coming off a terrible year. Buch is unreliable. Kelly hasn't hit his potential.
 
The offense should be above-average, but other than that, the team's nothing but question marks.

 
I don't know...who is a clear cut favorite ahead of them?  I'm not prepared to declare them a prohibitive favorite or anything, but none of the AL East teams stand out as head and shoulders above the rest.  The Jays have a formidable line up but their rotation isn't stacked by any means.  The O's just won the division with a rotation not all that much more impressive than what the Sox have assembled, and they've lost a couple key guys from their lineup already.  The Yankees are still old and broken down and haven't added anything yet beyond Miller.
 
It isn't a stretch to see the Sox pushing for the division title as constituted right now.

 

[TigerBlood]

How can they be considered the favorites with such a weak rotation? Porcello can't strike people out. Miley is mediocre. Masterson is a platoon specialist coming off a terrible year. Buch is unreliable. Kelly hasn't hit his potential.
 
The offense should be above-average, but other than that, the team's nothing but question marks.

 [SIZE=14.3999996185303px]The offense should be above average? The offense should be [/SIZE]excellent. I agree they probably aren't favorites, but its not a strong division. I doubt the Rays are very competitive, and the Yankees have even more question marks than Boston. But they should definitely be competing with Baltimore and Toronto next year with such a potent offense and 

 

[grimshaw]

They still haven't added their (presumably) best pitcher yet, upgraded the pen, or figured out the Victorino situation. 
None of the other teams in baseball are done yet either.
We can't really say anything at all about their competiveness other than the fact they are going to annihilate lefties, and bludgeon everyone else.

 

[Adrian's Dome]

To consider the offense hands-down excellent, you have to guarantee yourself that Xander rebounds, Betts doesn't have a sophomore slump, Castillo transitions well, Hanley handles a positional change well, and Vazquez is at least average. I'm not willing to bet on all of that yet. I think it's safe to say they'll be above-average, but to guarantee excellence is jumping the gun a bit.
 
Plus, you've compiled a rotation of starters that all very well could have ERA+ numbers over 100 (they've all done it semi-recently,) or all very well under (they've all also done it recently.) Doesn't inspire a ton of confidence.

 

[LahoudOrBillyC]

Fangraphs updates projected standings every day based on playing time assumptions of current rosters.  Obviously, an exercise like this is FILLED with large error bars.  So it is one data point.
 
As of yesterday they had the Red Sox and Blue Jays at 84 wins, TB at 83, NY at 80, and BAL at 79.
 
Again, it is December.   They have as good a shot as anyone with the current roster, which is not the final roster.

 

[Devizier]

How can they be considered the favorites with such a weak rotation? 1) Porcello can't strike people out. 2) Miley is mediocre. 3) Masterson is a platoon specialist coming off a terrible year. 4) Buch is unreliable. 5) Kelly hasn't hit his potential.
 
The offense should be above-average, but other than that, the team's nothing but question marks.

 
On the other hand, 1) Porcello finished top thirty in WAR last season, and projects to do so again this year. 2) Miley is projected as a bounceback candidate after a decent season. 3) Masterson is a gamble who was very effective last year. 4) Buchholz was going to be here no matter what the Sox did. 5) Kelly is a fine fifth starter and can bounce to the bullpen if prospects or future acquisitions push him there. 

 

[pockmeister]

In addition to the points already made, the beauty of taking the "flexible" approach is that the Sox can remain responsive to opportunities offered by the market.  Rather than having $100m+ tied up in the starting rotation going into the season, they have the ability to react to changing circumstances, including adding starting pitching after the ASB, and perhaps picking up an impact bat late in the season.  Assuming one more starter is added before ST, this looks a well constructed and balanced roster, which ought to be right in the mix in the AL East.  And that's the job of the FO for the close-season - set the Sox up to contend, and hold back some additional flexibility to bring in short-term solutions to improve the team / replace injuries late in the season.  This looks like a great way to use a mix of generous payroll and an excess of decent minor league talent.  Sometimes it will work, and sometimes it won't - that can't be completely controlled, and that's why we watch.
 
Adrian's Dome clearly thinks otherwise.  But I'm going to choose to be positive about how things are being set up.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

As LOBC stated, let's take stock midway through the trading season.
 
2014 -> 2015
 
3B: Middlebrooks, Holt -> Sandoval
LF: Sizemore, Gomes, Nava -> Cespedes -> Ramirez
CF: JBJ -> Betts -> Castillo
RF: Nava, Cast of Thousands -> Betts, Victorino
C: AJP -> Vazquez
 
SP1: Lester -> ????
SP2: Lackey -> Porcello
SP3: Buchholz -> Buchholz
SP4: Peavey -> Miley
SP5: DLR, Workman, Doubrant, Kelly -> Kelly, Masterson
 
BP: Miller -> ???
BP: Uehara 39 -> Uehara 40
????
 
Could factor in an injured Napoli/Pedroia and a year older Ortiz.
 
All improvements, pending bullpen shakeout and SP1

 

[TomRicardo]

To consider the offense hands-down excellent, you have to guarantee yourself that Xander rebounds, Betts doesn't have a sophomore slump, Castillo transitions well, Hanley handles a positional change well, and Vazquez is at least average. I'm not willing to bet on all of that yet. I think it's safe to say they'll be above-average, but to guarantee excellence is jumping the gun a bit.
 
Plus, you've compiled a rotation of starters that all very well could have ERA+ numbers over 100 (they've all done it semi-recently,) or all very well under (they've all also done it recently.) Doesn't inspire a ton of confidence.

 
There isn't a line up in MLB that projects better unless you get a time machine and take the Yankees back to 2009.
 
Toronto has a great top five but gets incredibly dicey after Donaldson (and this assumes Encarcacion and Bautista can stay healthy)
Detroit can be good
 
After that you have to look at the Angels.
 
It isn't a big step to say the Red Sox have a top three line up in the AL.  Everyone has huge question marks at the top.

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

The plan at this point seems to be to roll into 2015 with a rotation of #2-4 starters, an above average bullpen, and an elite offense. If you avoid bad luck, that puts you in playoff contention halfway through the year, at which time you can look to add a prospective 2016 FA like Cueto/Price/Zimmerman/Samardzija for the stretch run and playoffs. If the right deal comes around, of course, you can still add an elite SP this offseason. But there's no real pressure to do so.

Seems like a reasonable plan to me: We're primed for playoff contention, we haven't added any truly debilitating salary commitments, and we still have all our best young players.

 

[67WasBest]

The plan is to win in alternate years from the Giants :astonished:
 
Seriously, I love that they cut the cord and move on from a failed roster.  Been watching sports more than 50 years and falling to the bottom and rebuilding is a far better solution to years of slow gains while hoping for performance bumps across the roster..
 
The flexibility is mufti-faceted.  The financials are the most important aspect, followed closely by on field performance and to a lesser extent positional flexibility and farm management.  They are in a great position to offer vets (arms and bats) and prospects (high ceiling arms and bats) to do pretty much any deal that gets offered.  I can't say I've ever seen this franchise in a better position!

 

[LahoudOrBillyC]

Back to my point, I think the "plan" is to get better.  If an opportunity presents itself to do so in ways that are not obvious at this moment, they will explore those options.  The roster they put on the field in April is unknown, even by baseball ops.  This is true for every smart team, I believe.

 

[Adrian's Dome]

 
There isn't a line up in MLB that projects better unless you get a time machine and take the Yankees back to 2009.
 
Toronto has a great top five but gets incredibly dicey after Donaldson (and this assumes Encarcacion and Bautista can stay healthy)
Detroit can be good
 
After that you have to look at the Angels.
 
It isn't a big step to say the Red Sox have a top three line up in the AL.  Everyone has huge question marks at the top.

 
Key word: projects. Could it be a top-tier lineup, sure. My issue is that most are voicing it as a guarantee...and that's with assuming full health from Papi, Pedey, and Nap.
 
I hate having a team full of question marks, without any starters guaranteed to be above-average. As I said earlier, they all could be, or they all might not be. I must be the only one that values consistency and predictability. About the only thing that's transpired in this offseason that I'm a big fan of is not trading Xander and Mookie.

 

[DavidTai]

 
Key word: projects. Could it be a top-tier lineup, sure. My issue is that most are voicing it as a guarantee...and that's with assuming full health from Papi, Pedey, and Nap.
 
I hate having a team full of question marks, without any starters guaranteed to be above-average. As I said earlier, they all could be, or they all might not be. I must be the only one that values consistency and predictability. About the only thing that's transpired in this offseason that I'm a big fan of is not trading Xander and Mookie.

 
That could be effin' said every year. Nothing is guaranteed, ever.
 
The -probability- is high. Consistency and predictability isn't easy to come by, simply because every year there's going to be something that happens that throws things out of whack.
 
What you -could- do is give yourself the best chance all-around to adapt on the fly, and the team seems like it's been adapting quite well to changing circumstances.
 
Hanley Ramirez was one of those I didn't expect at all, and replacing Cespedes with him was, in my eyes, an opportunity that was there because the Sox didn't get locked in on having Cespedes, for example.

 

[LahoudOrBillyC]

The point you (AD) are missing is that all teams have this same unpredictability.  There are no 95 win teams out there -- some team will win 95 games, but no team will project to do so.  Of course the Red Sox would rather have more guaranteed stars, like the old days.  Jon Lester is not a guaranteed star either, and they still tried to make him one of the highest paid players in baseball.  
 
Your mileage may vary, but this is shaping up to be a fun team.  Lots of good young players, some speed, defense, some mashers.  Pitching is OK not great.  They could stand a few more improvements, which hopefully they will get.

 

[67WasBest]

The dialog on this site points to the variability in projections you're trying to outline.  Will so and so project better here?  Will so and so be the high ceiling guy we hope for or will he flame out?  There are so many opinions and the data can be parsed in many ways.  Add to this uncertainty the reality that no one knows who is going to be made available far enough in advance to plan foo far in advance.
 
Add all that up and you have a recipe that dictates they maintain a fungible, fairly priced roster loaded with veteran and prospects.  This allows them to make the moves they want when they come available.  The key seems to be maintaining fair value on the veterans so they have value, either in a one on one or package deal.. It seems the lesson learned from 2014 is eliminate as much uncertainty as possible from the roster.

 

[Clears Cleaver]

The Red Sox now have a competitive team and five or six top prospects that can be moved for an impact pitcher or bat. If they started the season with this roster (assume add a backup catcher and a reliever) they compete for the AL East. If the team performs well, they can certainly acquire a stud pitcher (many of whom are in last year on contracts) or a reliever or whatever else they might need given their young assets. However, if the team does not perform well, has key injuries or whatever, they have a couple starters on one year deals to trade, a closer and a starting OF to trade away. This is probably the most flexible roster the Sox have had in a long time.
 
From a risk management perspective, its pretty impressive. IT also allows them the time to see what they have in their young pitchers

 

[Adrian's Dome]

I'm not saying predictability as in: playoff spot guaranteed, or 95 wins guaranteed. I mean predictability in established, consistent players. We have almost none of that.
 
Flexibility is nice, past and future results are better. This entire rotation could very well easily tank, in fact, I give it the same realistic chances as them being good, in which case the Sox are a last place team again...and people are excited about this? We're excited about having a pitching staff of groundballers with a platoon specialist on the back end?
 
The potential to make late-season moves or adjustments is always there, to look at that as a perk or the main plan regarding roster composition on Dec. 11th strikes me as misguided.
 
Hell, look at this own site's analysis of Toronto. It's basically, yeah, they've got some big bats but also injury concerns, and the rest of the roster doesn't look so hot other than that. I don't see it as all too different on the local side of the fence.

 

[Plympton91]

 Pitching is OK not great.  They could stand a few more improvements, which hopefully they will get.

They currently do not have a bullpen or a staff ace. Couple that with all the injury and inexperience in the everyday lineup plus the parity in the weakened AL East, and they could still just as easily finish last again in 2015 as finish first if all the questions come up roses. That's not my modal prediction, but it remains a no immaterial possibility.

I think people are underrating the Rays. With Matt Moore coming back, they have the best rotation in the Division, by far (Cobb, Archer, Odorizzi, Moore, and Smyly), and they project as average around the diamond with good defense and the prospect of star level output from Myers and Longoria, who as a pair are as likely to bounce back as Bogaerts and Pedroia. Their bullpen is an even bigger mess than Boston's, which is why I wouldn't rate them the favorite, but they always seem to fix that somehow.

 

[LahoudOrBillyC]

people are excited about this? 

 
Speaking for myself, I am excited because it is baseball, baseball is fun, and my favorite team seems to be getting better and has a lot of enjoyable talent.  The end.

 

[lexrageorge]

 
Key word: projects. Could it be a top-tier lineup, sure. My issue is that most are voicing it as a guarantee...and that's with assuming full health from Papi, Pedey, and Nap.
 
I hate having a team full of question marks, without any starters guaranteed to be above-average. As I said earlier, they all could be, or they all might not be. I must be the only one that values consistency and predictability. About the only thing that's transpired in this offseason that I'm a big fan of is not trading Xander and Mookie.

The reality is that nearly every team goes into the season with similar question marks and concerns.  There's no one team that is yet shaping up to be a dominant force going into 2015, from what I can tell.
 
Consider the Red Sox recent history:  they went into 2007 with their newly acquired young starting pitcher having a very mediocre 2006, their other key starter dealing with injuries over 2005 and 2006, one of their young pitching prospects undergoing cancer treatment, and their promising closer ending the year on the shelf with shoulder problems.  
 
People were even more pessimistic about this team going into 2013.  
 
The last 2 times the Red Sox looked like they were going into a season without major question marks were 2004 and 2011, and we all saw how the latter went down.  
 
The offseason is by no means over.  They've added some very good bats to last season's weak offense.  They've replaced two uncertainties in their starting rotation with 2 known quantities and one player looking for a bounce back year.  And there's still over 8 weeks until pitchers and catchers need to report, and the team still has some very tradable chits.  They may or may not win the World Series in 2015 (likely not), but they should be more competitive than last season, and it's not fanboy talk to say they could compete for the AL East title.  

 

[LostinNJ]

I'm not saying predictability as in: playoff spot guaranteed, or 95 wins guaranteed. I mean predictability in established, consistent players. We have almost none of that.

 
By this definition, two of the most predictable teams in baseball for 2015 are the Yankees and the Phillies.

 

[Hoplite]

I'm not saying predictability as in: playoff spot guaranteed, or 95 wins guaranteed. I mean predictability in established, consistent players. We have almost none of that.
 
Flexibility is nice, past and future results are better. This entire rotation could very well easily tank, in fact, I give it the same realistic chances as them being good, in which case the Sox are a last place team again...and people are excited about this? We're excited about having a pitching staff of groundballers with a platoon specialist on the back end?
 
The potential to make late-season moves or adjustments is always there, to look at that as a perk or the main plan regarding roster composition on Dec. 11th strikes me as misguided.
 
Hell, look at this own site's analysis of Toronto. It's basically, yeah, they've got some big bats but also injury concerns, and the rest of the roster doesn't look so hot other than that. I don't see it as all too different on the local side of the fence.

 
Is there an alternative route you would have preferred? Should the Red Sox have paid $150+ million for Lester and $50+ million for McCarthy? Should they have traded Bogaerts, Betts and/or Swihart for someone like Cole Hamels?

 

[InsideTheParker]

 
Speaking for myself, I am excited because it is baseball, baseball is fun, and my favorite team seems to be getting better and has a lot of enjoyable talent.  The end.

The same could be said for the Astros. I hope that there's another pitcher coming, because the rotation as is looks weak. But I expect another pitcher so I am not (yet) distraught.

 

[Adrian's Dome]

 
Is there an alternative route you would have preferred? Should the Red Sox have paid $150+ million for Lester and $50+ million for McCarthy? Should they have traded Bogaerts, Betts and/or Swihart for someone like Cole Hamels?

 
I would've preferred Latos, for one. If not him, any one of Zimmermann, Iwakuma, Samardzija, Cueto, Hamels (especially if it only cost Swihart+,) or Fister, if that's naming enough pitchers rumored to be available. Past that, yes, I would've loved to have signed Lester, he is exactly the type of player I'm talking about in regards to be able to predict knowing what you've got to a degree going in. Any one of those guys plus a McCarthy type would've rounded out the staff more than well enough, but as it stands it's filled with inconsistent groundball-types.
 
Secondly, I think the offense could've done without one of Hanley or Sandoval. There's still a glut in the OF, even after moving Cespedes. That money should've been put towards pitching.

 

[JimD]

 
I would've preferred Latos, for one. If not him, any one of Zimmermann, Iwakuma, Samardzija, Cueto, Hamels (especially if it only cost Swihart+,) or Fister, if that's naming enough pitchers rumored to be available.

 
They can still trade for Zimmermann, Cueto, Hamels or Fister.  None of the current group are going to block one of those guys and it's entirely possible that one or two would go the other way in such a trade.

 

[rodderick]

 
I would've preferred Latos, for one. If not him, any one of Zimmermann, Iwakuma, Samardzija, Cueto, Hamels (especially if it only cost Swihart+,) or Fister, if that's naming enough pitchers rumored to be available. Past that, yes, I would've loved to have signed Lester, he is exactly the type of player I'm talking about in regards to be able to predict knowing what you've got to a degree going in. Any one of those guys plus a McCarthy type would've rounded out the staff more than well enough, but as it stands it's filled with inconsistent groundball-types.

 
Latos is coming off a bad season with a remarkable velocity drop, how is he a better bet to be good in 2015 then the pitchers the Sox acquired? McCarthy is almost the definition of an inconsistent groundball-type. All the other guys you cited are still in play. Relax and let it play out.

 

[67WasBest]

I'm not saying predictability as in: playoff spot guaranteed, or 95 wins guaranteed. I mean predictability in established, consistent players. We have almost none of that.

That is a stretch unless you are referencing only the bullpen.  They have 5 starter now and deep depth.  They could compete.
 
But it's not even Christmas yet.  One doesn't have to be a SABR savant to see they are in a prime position to obtain any one of many aces that have been rumored available?  Not to mention they still retain the ability to sign a guy like Scherzer or Shields; however unlikely I see those moves.  Lahoud nailed it and I think if you step away and think about it, you'll see it that way also.

 

[LahoudOrBillyC]

They currently do not have a bullpen or a staff ace. Couple that with all the injury and inexperience in the everyday lineup plus the parity in the weakened AL East, and they could still just as easily finish last again in 2015 as finish first if all the questions come up roses. That's not my modal prediction, but it remains a no immaterial possibility.

 
I do not disagree.  They still want to get better, I am sure, before feeling confident about the upcoming season.  They just got three pitchers who will paid what Jon Lester will be paid this coming year.  I can see an argument that you'd rather have Lester in 2015 than these three, but that is before you consider the following six years.  But still, we are complete agreement that the Red Sox do not have a surefire 90 win team.
 
There are generally 1-2 teams per year that improve by 20 wins (I studied this a few years ago).  Will the Red Sox do it?  Who knows?  They have a shot.
 
The way to build more certainty into the team, in my opinion, is to develop star players.  Pedroia/Ellsbury/Papelbon/Lester/Youkilis was a pretty great core whose low cost allowed them to go out to the market on occasion to find missing pieces.  Hopefully they can do something similar again.  

 

[TigerBlood]

I'm not saying predictability as in: playoff spot guaranteed, or 95 wins guaranteed. I mean predictability in established, consistent players. We have almost none of that.
 
Flexibility is nice, past and future results are better. This entire rotation could very well easily tank, in fact, I give it the same realistic chances as them being good, in which case the Sox are a last place team again...and people are excited about this? We're excited about having a pitching staff of groundballers with a platoon specialist on the back end?

 
Sounds like you want an ace, not predictability. Your last sentence tells me you want an exciting big name guy, not a bunch of predictably effective guys who get outs how they can. I am as excited about groundballers as I would be about equally good strikeout guys.
 
Porcello has been very consistent, Miley has been consistent, Masterson was consistent until this year when he had a freak injury and had to rehab in-season. Are they predictably amazing? No, but then again, pitchers who are are very rare commodities, most teams don't have one. No one in our division really does, except Tanaka, and he's on the worst team in the division.

 

[Adrian's Dome]

 
Latos is coming off a bad season with a remarkable velocity drop, how is he a better bet to be good in 2015 then the pitchers the Sox acquired? McCarthy is almost the definition of an inconsistent groundball-type. All the other guys you cited are still in play. Relax and let it play out.

 
Latos has an upside that none of the acquired pitchers do. McCarthy's AAV equivalent wouldn't have been significantly higher than what they gave Masterson, just for more years, which would've been fine given he doesn't have the same platoon split issues. I'm just saying I would've preferred one big pitcher in trade and only dollars for a round-out-the-rotation type as opposed to the throwing spaghetti against the wall and seeing what sticks method they've actually gone with.

 

[Adrian's Dome]

 
Sounds like you want an ace, not predictability. Your last sentence tells me you want an exciting big name guy, not a bunch of predictably effective guys who get outs how they can. I am as excited about groundballers as I would be about equally good strikeout guys.
 
Porcello has been very consistent, Miley has been consistent, Masterson was consistent until this year when he had a freak injury and had to rehab in-season. Are they predictably amazing? No, but then again, pitchers who are are very rare commodities, most teams don't have one. No one in our division really does, except Tanaka, and he's on the worst team in the division.

 
Porcello ERA+: 114, 85, 87, 93, 96, 116.
Miley ERA+: 88, 122, 109, 86.
Masterson ERA+: 84, 122, 79, 110, 63.
 
If that's your definition of "predictability effective guys", then I don't know what to tell you. I find sinkerballers frustrating to both watch and follow, as the nature of contact, even weak contact, is that often times it goes against you. Keeping the bat off the ball is the most coveted of all things a pitcher can do, and none of the guys assembled do it well.

 

[Shamus74]

 
Sounds like you want an ace, not predictability. Your last sentence tells me you want an exciting big name guy, not a bunch of predictably effective guys who get outs how they can. I am as excited about groundballers as I would be about equally good strikeout guys.
 
Porcello has been very consistent, Miley has been consistent, Masterson was consistent until this year when he had a freak injury and had to rehab in-season. Are they predictably amazing? No, but then again, pitchers who are are very rare commodities, most teams don't have one. No one in our division really does, except Tanaka, and he's on the worst team in the division.

 
Adrian's Dome's definition of acceptable predictable performance sets a bar above what's avaialble, at least on the offensives side. The Sox signed two of the best hitters on the free agent market and that's not good enough? Do you want them to trade for Miguel Cabrera?
 
On the pitching side, the Sox are clearly not done. They traded for Miley and people whined that it wasn't enough. They traded for Porcello and they whined some more. They bought a lottery ticket with Masterson and people whined even more. It seems like every positive move the team makes people get more unhappy.
 
The Sox still have a ridiculusly stacked farm that could land them an ace in a trade. It's not even Christmas. Chill out.

 

[lexrageorge]

 
I would've preferred Latos, for one. If not him, any one of Zimmermann, Iwakuma, Samardzija, Cueto, Hamels (especially if it only cost Swihart+,) or Fister, if that's naming enough pitchers rumored to be available. Past that, yes, I would've loved to have signed Lester, he is exactly the type of player I'm talking about in regards to be able to predict knowing what you've got to a degree going in. Any one of those guys plus a McCarthy type would've rounded out the staff more than well enough, but as it stands it's filled with inconsistent groundball-types.
 
Secondly, I think the offense could've done without one of Hanley or Sandoval. There's still a glut in the OF, even after moving Cespedes. That money should've been put towards pitching.

To your first point, many of those pitchers are likely still available.  The Winter Meetings is not the only trade window available to teams these days. 
 
There's no real guarantee that Hamels is truly available; we've never heard definitively that he would waive his no-trade to come to Boston.  
 
The signing of Sandoval and Ramirez had nothing to do with the Sox losing the Lester sweepstakes.  
 
The OF right now looks like Ramirez, Betts, Castillo, Victorino, Nava, Craig, and JBJ.  4 of those guys will have options remaining in 2015, so the glut is a lot less serious of a problem than it was last week.  

 

[alwyn96]

The Red Sox haven't put together the rotation I dreamed about, but it seems like there's a fair amount of upside, and they've held on to their higher-end prospects, which is nice (I'm assuming the team is basically done, save for putting a bullpen together. Might still be big moves to come, but I kinda doubt it). Getting back to the OP's point, I think staying flexible and taking the deals that the market gives you isn't a terrible plan, especially if you know you're basically going for it in 2015. It seems like there are a lot fewer teams with dumb or uninformed front offices these days, so getting aces for cheap or trading for secretly awesome talent just isn't really happening anymore. The Moneyball-type low hanging fruit of neglected high-OBP players seem like they're being properly valued these days. The Red Sox have built what looks to be a contending team without destroying their future or dealing their most valuable prospects, which seems pretty good to me. 
 
I do kind of like the idea of offering the QO to Miley/Porcello/Masterson if they perform well enough. With the new slotting system, the Red Sox can't just use their financial advantage to snap up guys with high bonus demands in the lower rounds anymore. The top end talent is going to be more concentrated in the first round, and those first round picks are really worth more than ever. 

 

[czar]

 
Porcello ERA+: 114, 85, 87, 93, 96, 116.
Miley ERA+: 88, 122, 109, 86.
Masterson ERA+: 84, 122, 79, 110, 63.
 
If that's your definition of "predictability effective guys", then I don't know what to tell you. I find sinkerballers frustrating to both watch and follow, as the nature of contact, even weak contact, is that often times it goes against you. Keeping the bat off the ball is the most coveted of all things a pitcher can do, and none of the guys assembled do it well.

 
Use peripheral stats and the story changes.
 
You'd be hard pressed to find anyone not named Pedro Martinez who has the ERA+ consistency you are looking for. There's just too much year-to-year variability with ERA-based metrics.
 
Ex: Lester's 5-year ERA+ 75, 82, 113, 90, 63

 

[foulkehampshire]

 
Porcello ERA+: 114, 85, 87, 93, 96, 116.
Miley ERA+: 88, 122, 109, 86.
Masterson ERA+: 84, 122, 79, 110, 63.
 
If that's your definition of "predictability effective guys", then I don't know what to tell you.

 
ERA+ isn't exactly the measure of ability I'd be looking at. Yes, it would be great if all those guys had the track record of Lester, Hamels, and Shields...but those guys are going to cost significantly more in prospects and cash. The upside is fairly significant too considering the age and underlying ability (FIP,xFIP, GB%, K/9, K/BB).
 
The rotation isn't yet a world-beater, but if you add Hamels or Shields-type ace they suddenly have a good-great rotation without sacrificing too much in prospect depth, financial resources, and flexibility going forward. Color me intrigued, I don't think Cherington is done yet.

 

[Shamus74]

 
Latos has an upside that none of the acquired pitchers do. McCarthy's AAV equivalent wouldn't have been significantly higher than what they gave Masterson, just for more years, which would've been fine given he doesn't have the same platoon split issues. I'm just saying I would've preferred one big pitcher in trade and only dollars for a round-out-the-rotation type as opposed to the throwing spaghetti against the wall and seeing what sticks method they've actually gone with.

 
 
At this point, I view Latos as having downside. lots of health problems, declining velocity. He's too risky.
 
And you want to sign McCarthy long-term? This season was the one and only time he was healthy enough to make 30 starts. He's spent more time on  the DL than the Drew brothers.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

 
Porcello ERA+: 114, 85, 87, 93, 96, 116.
Miley ERA+: 88, 122, 109, 86.
Masterson ERA+: 84, 122, 79, 110, 63.
 
If that's your definition of "predictability effective guys", then I don't know what to tell you. I find sinkerballers frustrating to both watch and follow, as the nature of contact, even weak contact, is that often times it goes against you. Keeping the bat off the ball is the most coveted of all things a pitcher can do, and none of the guys assembled do it well.

 
No, it doesn't. The highest infield hit percentage in the majors last year was 15.9%. That was Mike Trout. Even if we just look at contact on balls put in play league average is around .300 from year to year meaning roughly 70% of balls put in play are outs. Consistently inducing weak contact is a good thing. Doing so in a park like Fenway, which has a tendency to turn weak fly balls to left field into singles and doubles, is doubly good. Yes, striking out a hitter means he's not putting the ball in play, but there is more than one way to skin a cat. The Red Sox have identified what they believe is a market inefficiency in ground ball pitchers. Maybe they are incorrect about that, but this has been a pretty savvy front office and I think they deserve the benefit of the doubt on this.

 

[Adrian's Dome]

 
Adrian's Dome's definition of acceptable predictable performance sets a bar above what's avaialble, at least on the offensives side. The Sox signed two of the best hitters on the free agent market and that's not good enough? Do you want them to trade for Miguel Cabrera?
 
On the pitching side, the Sox are clearly not done. They traded for Miley and people whined that it wasn't enough. They traded for Porcello and they whined some more. They bought a lottery ticket with Masterson and people whined even more. It seems like every positive move the team makes people get more unhappy.
 
The Sox still have a ridiculusly stacked farm that could land them an ace in a trade. It's not even Christmas. Chill out.

 
I haven't said a word about the offensive side other than I thought both Sandoval and Hanley was unnecessary and I believe the money put to either of those guys should've been spent on the starting rotation. For every word people say about the offense's potential, the rotation is every bit as shaky and there's still not a bullpen.
 
I would've been fine with Miley as a fill-in type to go along with a front line starter or someone who can miss bats. I hate Porcello, he can't strike anyone out and his upside is entirely dependent on luck on ground balls and the defense behind him, and I think we could've used Cespedes plus some of the "ridiculously stacked farm" to acquire higher-end pitching talent in trade. I also don't like Masterson, a pitcher coming off injury with major platoon split problems who's been all over the place as far as his numbers go. If all that makes my opinion radical, then so be it. The rotation, as it stands right now, will be both underwhelming and frustrating to watch.

 

[DJnVa]

 
 I find sinkerballers frustrating to both watch and follow, as the nature of contact, even weak contact, is that often times it goes against you.

 
Can you expand on this? Because it seems completely backwards.
 
What do you mean by "often"?

 

[Adrian's Dome]

 
Can you expand on this? Because it seems completely backwards.
 
What do you mean by "often"?

 
Seeing eye singles + infield hits + errors. All outcomes that don't happen with strikeouts that are always in play with high GB pitchers.

 

[dynomite]

The O's just won the division with a rotation not all that much more impressive than what the Sox have assembled, and they've lost a couple key guys from their lineup already. 

Not to turn this into the 2015 AL East thread, as I agree with your main point, but would point out that they're also getting Wieters and Machado back, who missed much of the year. If Davis rebounds to a degree -- a 2012 type year -- their offense will be pretty solid.

 

[Shamus74]

 
I haven't said a word about the offensive side other than I thought both Sandoval and Hanley was unnecessary and I believe the money put to either of those guys should've been spent on the starting rotation. For every word people say about the offense's potential, the rotation is every bit as shaky and there's still not a bullpen.
 
I would've been fine with Miley as a fill-in type to go along with a front line starter or someone who can miss bats. I hate Porcello, he can't strike anyone out and his upside is entirely dependent on luck on ground balls and the defense behind him, and I think we could've used Cespedes plus some of the "ridiculously stacked farm" to acquire higher-end pitching talent in trade. I also don't like Masterson, a pitcher coming off injury with major platoon split problems who's been all over the place as far as his numbers go. If all that makes my opinion radical, then so be it. The rotation, as it stands right now, will be both underwhelming and frustrating to watch.

 
Actually you complained about the entire offense being a quesiton mark. "can Xander rebound?" "Ortiz is a year older." "Will Mookie have a sophomore slump?" "Will it rain every Tuesday?"
 
Also, "missing bats" is not the most coveted thing a pitcher can do. Getting hitters out efficiently and consistently matters. Yeah, Miley induces a lot of ground balls. But he had an 8.2 K rate last season. You're underrating him big time. Porcello is a more classic ground ball specialist who has spent most of his career pitching in front of a calcified defense. He shined with an imporved infield last season, he's improved from year to year through most of his career, and he's not even 26 yet.
 
Also, the whole thesis of your complaint is the assumption that they are done building this team, which clearly they aren't.

 

[sackamano]

I hate Porcello, he can't strike anyone out and his upside is entirely dependent on luck on ground balls and the defense behind him, and I think we could've used Cespedes plus some of the "ridiculously stacked farm" to acquire higher-end pitching talent in trade.

You don't think the Red Sox farm system is stacked? Otherwise I see no reason for the quotation marks.

It's ranked near the top in MLB by most experts, not just the "experts" that post here at SoSH.

 

[Adrian's Dome]

 
Actually you complained about the entire offense being a quesiton mark. "can Xander rebound?" "Ortiz is a year older." "Will Mookie have a sophomore slump?" "Will it rain every Tuesday?"
 
Also, "missing bats" is not the most coveted thing a pitcher can do. Getting hitters out efficiently and consistently matters. Yeah, Miley induces a lot of ground balls. But he had an 8.2 K rate last season. You're underrating him big time. Porcello is a more classic ground ball specialist who has spent most of his career pitching in front of a calcified defense. He shined with an imporved infield last season, he's improved from year to year through most of his career, and he's not even 26 yet.
 
Also, the whole thesis of your complaint is the assumption that they are done building this team, which clearly they aren't.

 
That "complaining" was a response to someone saying the offense would be ridiculous. There's still question marks there.
 
Miley's improved K rate last year also came with a BB% spike, and Porcello has been nothing if not underwhelming his entire career outside of one decent season last year. Yes, he's young, but where's the upside?

 

[DJnVa]

 
Seeing eye singles + infield hits + errors. All outcomes that don't happen with strikeouts that are always in play with high GB pitchers.

 
But you said happen "often".
 
I mean, if your argument is that singles, IF hits, and errors will happen more often than when someone swings and misses, well, I guess you nailed it, but that can't be what you were actually saying was it?