This might have been covered elsewhere. If so, apologies.
Were you, P91, advocating that the Sox offer more than the MFYs when he signed in NY? If so, what was your upper limit?
I ask that because it's hard to argue against spending big on the right players. Larry has said repeatedly that while there's a presumption against big dollar, long term deals, that it's rebuttable and that for the right player and under the right circumstances, they would do it...or at least be open to it. All of that makes sense.
Knowing what I knew about Ellsbury -- his various injuries, the time he took to recover from them, that he had only put up one truly dominant year (2011), and that his game might decline more rapidly than other players given the extent to which it relies on speed (a la Carl Crawford, seemingly) -- I would have been very concerned this past fall had the Sox paid $153.1 mm for this player. I would have worried a lot about him being way overpaid for a long time and it having a material negative impact on the Sox ability to field a contender for years to come.
Now, seeing Ells doing what he's doing, how well he's fit into the MFY line-up, and what the Sox have done at lead off and in CF, it's tempting to grind my teeth. But at the time, I was applauding Ben for using the proper restraint and I don't recall reading or hearing many people, here or elsewhere, who disagreed with me.
Sometimes -- and we don't know if this will turn out to be one of those times -- investments that seemed expensive at the time turn out to be things we wished we would have made. That makes the result regrettable but doesn't call into question the decision making process.
Are you questioning the result or the thought process? Or both?
(Not that I yet agree with you on the result as I think it's way too early even on that).