The 2013 and 2014 seasons will not be weighed so much less than the 2015 season that they will be completely ignored by this ownership. They will still attempt to field a competitive team every single season, and they have shown that since they have been here.
If you don't yet see the offseason strategy, which combines both the short-term and long-term plans for this organization, then I doubt anything I say at this point will enlighten you. As has been said ad nauseum in this thread already, the strategy is to:
I am not having a problem seeing or even understanding this offseason's strategy in itself, minus the isolated case with Victorino. It's with extending that logic beyond any chance of a one year reassessment, and the presented notion that the FO is really out there making absolute decisions or plans based on the assumed 2015-2016 contributions of guys in A/AA ball right now. Repeating what Pokey_Reese stated here, 3 years is simply too long of a time period there.
Ben seems to be making a calculated bet that he is indeed putting together a team that will be competitive in 2013. If it works great, he builds off that and goes from there. If it does not work though....things are just not as clear cut for me. I showed you in detail the rough math on what it's going to cost just to bring the same team back again (that just failed), and as Ras himself went on the indirectly support, the limited amount of upgrade opportunity Ben will then be looking to tinker with from within. I mean sure, you can let Ellsbury go, or watch Lester walk in free agency a year latter, ectt. But this isn't Lugo/Lowell/Renteria money we are talking about coming off the books anymore. Those financial steps forward are likely additional steps backwards on the field, and as we are seeing now sometimes simply having the money available isn't enough to create ideal replacement opportunity by itself.
I don't doubt for a second that we want/need to infuse this team with cost controlled talent going forward, or that we will do just that (on some level regardless) in the very near future. I just don't agree in the absolute "stay the non-Bogaerts course at all costs" manner in which it's being presented, especially if/when this FO goes into next winter looking at no real ETA on when we are
going to be competitive again. For me, and coming off a 4th straight year of missing the playoffs, one year reassessments still rule the day.
Ok, so your proof against the logic is that they were "reportedly" interested in free agents who would have required draft pick compensation to sign, and yet you are weighing that evidence more heavily than the fact that they actually did not sign any players with draft pick compensation attached to them yet? (I say "yet" because it is still possible that the Napoli deal falls through and they may end up deciding to sign Swisher or LaRoche.)
It was actually you earlier in this same thread who asked for supporting evidence based on what has actually happened versus what the front office has been saying. I think you need to take a step back and look at the big picture that has unfolded this offseason.
C'mon man, that would be like claiming based on the fact that Ben didn't make a trade for Lee or pony up for Greinke this winter, one should reasonably conclude that he's not
interested in getting us a legitimate front line pitcher.
I see a good chance of things playing out differently there had Swisher been available earlier and on a more agreeable set of terms. But if you want to get back to what we did see the Sox do, I saw them go out and get a guy (Napoli) who was one of the few legitimate power hitters the market had to offer. At a free agent price tag i'm probably going to prefer over what Swisher ends up getting when all is said and done, regardless of any draft pick consideration.
So again, for me personally there's no hard "prioritizing the pick" proof to be found in any of that.