What Can Be Done to Fix the Sox?

That's rich. Give me a break. Cecchini has never had power and he's always been a question mark on defense. So, the guy's entire value has always been predicated on him being the second coming of Wade Boggs. Cecchini was, even at the time, EXACTLY the kind of prospect that you trade - Because even if the stars aligned perfectly for him, he was still going to be a flawed major leaguer. This isn't a question of winning popularity contests. It's a question of opportunity cost.

I do think there were some prospects they could have sold high on. There were major questions about Checchini and Middlebrooks immediately following their breakout seasons on 2012 and 2013 respectively.

I think Marrero at 24 is getting to the point where there is no spot for him and any value starts to decline.

Oh stop. He didn't have to be the next coming of Boggs; he could have been the next coming of Daniel Nava with sub-par defense at third and that would have been great. And again:

This idea that the market for players is perfectly efficient has got to stop. It's proven false all the time. Flawed players coming off remarkable seasons are often traded for more than they are worth. It happens all the time. i completely reject the idea that just because a players flaws are known that you can't sell high on the player. Front offices are run by humans who overreact to strong seasons and ignore evidence that the performance may not be sustainable.

Jake Peavy had a pretty bad start to the year and was on an expensive contract. They likely could not get anything better than two low-ceiling upper minors arms for him.

The problem with Lester was not signing him before last season. Most think 6/120 would have gotten it done. We threw out the 4/70. Then, Detroit offered Scherzer 6/144m. He was headed to free-agency at that point.

I don't believe we've gone over 5 years with anyone other than Gonzo and Crawford since they bought the team. Gonzo's contract was fine given his performance. The ink wasn't dry on Crawford's before people started questioning his fit in Boston, and on the team. Already had Ellsbury and Pedey at the top of the line-up.

I'm doubting any big signings given their history. It puts more pressure on the GM to come up with the correct
short-term deals.

My bad, Dice-k signed for 6

I am a great admirer of the St. Louis team and how they manage to be competitive year after year. In fact, I think in their entire history they only have finished last once or twice. Even through ownership and management changes they have kept the team competitive.

There was a time when most of their talent came from trades and free agent signings. Up until the early 2000s, their farm system was not highly ranked. But they made a decision to change and from then on have focused on building from within, occasionally making trades or signing a free agent. But basically relying on their farm system - and their development process - to produce most of their players. I think the 2011 team had 17 players from their farm system.

I don't know much about how they operate internally, but it seems pretty clear that they have management, scouting and coaching talent throughout their system. I think they are particularly good at evaluating their own players.

And despite the fact they seldom get a high draft choice, they have drafted well and their system continues to produce quality players.

The Red Sox are supposed to have a well-coordinated and managed farm system, but its production is not that great. Of course, this partly is due to some drafts simply not producing much talent. I went back through the drafts from 2005 to 2012 to see what quality players, players who became regulars in the majors, were produced.

(Note: In fairness, the draft is not the only source of amateur talent. The Sox have had some success getting players from the international pool, including Bogaerts and Tazawa.)

2005: Buchholz, Ellsbury, Lowrie
2006: Masterson, Reddick
2007: Middlebrooks, Rizzo
2008: Vazquez
2009: none
2010: Workman is the only one so far to see much time in the majors
2011: Swihart, Bradley, Betts and maybe Barnes (also Owens, and Shaw as likely futures)
2012: None yet, but possibles are Marrero, Johnson, Light and Buttrey

Of the standouts from these drafts, Buchholz, Ellsubry, Lowrie, Reddick, Rizzo Vazquez, Swihart, and Betts, four are playing for other teams.

The very recent drafts and international signings have produced quite a crop of extremely promising prospects, but nearly all are Greenville or below. There are very few players in A+, AA, or AAA who currently are projected to be regulars with the Sox.

Near-term (next year and the year after) better performance by the Sox is going to have to come from improved performance by existing players, and acquisition by trade and free agency of quality players.

What evidence? You've basically cited one or two trades, while ignoring all of their other moves, their approach to free agency, and most of all, their decision to not trade prospects. If they were so philosophically dedicated to short-run success, wouldn't they have traded Xander mid-season of 2013 for an ace or an established bat? Wouldn't a Hamels/ace trade already have been done? There's a huge flaw in your argument. They make the moves they think are going to lead to sustainable success. They might not be making the right moves, but that's not the same question. There's absolutely no evidence that they have some kind of consistent philosophy to win now at all costs. They've made moves that could help them stay competitive in the short run without mortgaging the future.

Beyond all the contradicting elements there, the evidence you're presenting doesn't even prove your point. Maybe they could've gotten higher ceiling low minors arms (although that's also a "huge assumption" on your part), but the fact that they elected to go with guys in the higher minors just signifies that they're somewhat risk averse when trading. If they'd gotten high-ceiling low minors arms, there's a pretty good chance they never would've gotten to AAA, let alone the majors. You can look at it as trying to win now, but it could just as easily be an effort to avoid risk

I noticed you've changed the hypothesis but whatever. First off: last July, when they got Eduardo Rodriguez. Pretty simple, don't have to think too hard on that one. The fact that he's in the majors right now is immaterial, he wasn't projected to be when they acquired him. And why would you trade a player signed the following year if he's a good player? That makes no sense for a team with resources unless the team is a total teardown, and there's not much reason to think that it is with a bunch of young talent under team control for the next several years. Also, I'm not sure what trade you're referring too when they acquired prospects, but the one that comes to mind is the Punto trade, and those savings resulted in a World Series win, so I don't see why they'd change their philosophy. You cited them trying to the same thing since 2010 "and it hasn't worked." Really? Cause almost every other team in the majors would beg to differ and tell you that one championship in 4 seasons is a pretty solid result, especially when you have a lot of young talent still developing.

Ok so you want them to take more risks; do you really think Jake Peavy was going to bring us back a future ace? Or even someone who profiled as a major league starting pitcher? He had an ERA well over 5 at the time he was traded if I remember correctly, and a history of injuries. Beyond that, in general, why would you trade established major league talent under team control for prospects when you have a stacked system with a lot of near-major league ready talent, and key pieces in place? That's not how the front office does business, you're right. They're not going to take a boom-or-bust guy (which most prospects, at their core, are) over proven commodities. That still doesn't mean they're prioritizing the present over the future, because as I said before, if they were, we wouldn't have one of the 5 best farm systems in the game.