SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Evaluating Ben Cherington
|
Post by jmei on Sept 14, 2013 0:33:09 GMT -5
My bigger issue with Cherington's drafts: his seeming focus on pitchers over position players. Only 2 of the 12 top-five-round draft picks made under his tenure have been of position players so far. Pitchers carry a high level of inherent injury risk, so much so that multiple analyses have concluded that the expected value of drafting a position player is significantly higher than a pitcher.
Obviously, you can't just draft hitters, and there's something to be said about developing a Tampa Bay-esque fleet of young starters (sort of what the Red Sox have now in the upper minors between Workman, Webster, De La Rosa, Ranaudo, and Barnes). Maybe some analysis revealed that a big market team can easily find position players on the free agent market but needs to develop pitchers from within. Hell, maybe the draft board just lined up such that pitchers were the best player available at each of the picks. But it certainly seems a little curious to me.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Sept 14, 2013 0:40:19 GMT -5
Something I think which gets overlooked with Cherington is that he positioned this team with a lot of depth. The only 2 players with anywhere near 600 AB will be Ellsbury and Pedroia and most starters will barely crack 500. Each player is kept relatively fresh and when guys go down there has been ample back up. Instead of blowing all the cash on a few top players he has spread it around and had more depth than normal, including by keeping guys in the minors which will pay dividends in the future.
The guy is prudent and forward thinking. Carefully managing his resources. He's not a spendthrift and he's comprehensively detailed.
I like him. He's a good GM. Vastly underated.
|
|
|
Post by fdrnewdeal on Sept 14, 2013 8:11:39 GMT -5
Something I think which gets overlooked with Cherington is that he positioned this team with a lot of depth. The only 2 players with anywhere near 600 AB will be Ellsbury and Pedroia and most starters will barely crack 500. Each player is kept relatively fresh and when guys go down there has been ample back up. Instead of blowing all the cash on a few top players he has spread it around and had more depth than normal, including by keeping guys in the minors which will pay dividends in the future. The guy is prudent and forward thinking. Carefully managing his resources. He's not a spendthrift and he's comprehensively detailed. I like him. He's a good GM. Vastly underated. To this point (though I'm not sure how repeatable it is): The 2013 Boston Red Sox have fielded 14 batters with wRCs of greater than 100. Of those, only Berry and Xander have not had a significant amount of PAs. On any given game the Red Sox have 3 batters who can provide league average or better offense off the bench is pretty cool. Carp would be starting by now on a lot of teams. Gomes' would be if it weren't for his glove and history with platoon splits. Nava has of course been a wonderful surprise. Lavarnway has been a nice complementary piece in the time that he was up. Iglesias was of course spectacular as a supersub/ starting 3b before being traded. This team is versatile. How much of that is good planning vs good fortune, I don't know, but I've enjoyed it.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Sept 14, 2013 8:41:14 GMT -5
Obviously, you can't just draft hitters, and there's something to be said about developing a Tampa Bay-esque fleet of young starters (sort of what the Red Sox have now in the upper minors between Workman, Webster, De La Rosa, Ranaudo, and Barnes). Maybe some analysis revealed that a big market team can easily find position players on the free agent market but needs to develop pitchers from within. Hell, maybe the draft board just lined up such that pitchers were the best player available at each of the picks. But it certainly seems a little curious to me. I tend to think his goal in his early drafts (LAD trade) was to get that depth that the Rays seem to always have. Not having to try and trade for SPs with ERAs over 5.00 to pitch a potential play in game. Like you said he needs more balance going forward but every year there will be FA hitters that would love to play half their games at Fenway. The depth in the upper levels is at an all time high with Webster, Ranaudo, Barnes and Owens projected to be in AAA or AA. The lower levels have potential too. www.soxprospects.com/2014.htm
|
|
rjp313jr
Veteran
Posts: 14,012
Member is Online
|
Post by rjp313jr on Sept 14, 2013 10:37:21 GMT -5
Going back to previous drafts and picking out guys who could've been picked instead is a fools errand. It's also awful conversation and completely useless, especially in baseball.
Melancon humors me because people rip BC for the trade to get him AND for the trade to send him out. He sucked in Boston and he sucked in NY. He's been good in Houston and Pittsburg.
Ben may have headed the last couple drafts but has been heavily involved in them for years. It's way too early to draw any conclusions about if he's too pitching centric. These things go like this sometimes. Look at 2009-2011. There are more position players drafted high then pitchers. Last 2 years its been opposite. People also ignore the international market when discussing the draft. Sox signed the top bat this season plus another bigger money OF. Last year, the majority of bonus signings were bats as well even if the most expensive single signing was a pitcher. The next 6 were bats.
People expect perfection and its just not realistic. System is in nice shape based on the rest of the league. As for strategy the last couple drafts. It's new, teams are figuring it out an adjusting. Patterns may have started to emerge, but as fans it's still speculative as we don't know it teams have settled in on the best way to handle it.
If one thing is clear BC laid out his plan at the beginning of the offseason and has followed it. It's gone perfectly, but he had a vision and has executed. Is luck involved? Surely, but as a GM you play odds and put the team n the best position possible and he's done that. Should be executive of the year. He probably started a new trend. We'll see.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Sept 14, 2013 15:40:46 GMT -5
Focusing on pitching seems like a sound target here. It is at a premium for quality pitchers and has been for years. Quality pitchers will buy quality bats nearly every time.
The game is very hitter oriented now at this day and age. Diluted by the number of teams/players. No longer can 1 team have 4 20 game winners ('71 Orioles), or boast a Maddux/Glavine/Smoltz type. Teams that have incredible pitching depth can afford to trade the surplus pitching for hitters that are easier to develop and locate.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Sept 14, 2013 16:19:46 GMT -5
The game is very hitter oriented now at this day and age. This is just not true. All the division leaders are top 5 in ERA in their league, plus look at the Giants winning 2 WS titles with that offense. I agree with the rest of your argument, however.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Sept 14, 2013 18:34:12 GMT -5
The game is very hitter oriented now at this day and age. This is just not true. All the division leaders are top 5 in ERA in their league, plus look at the Giants winning 2 WS titles with that offense. I agree with the rest of your argument, however. Will go with the SF Giants for sure. Those teams had terrific pitching and nearly non existent offense, much like some old Orioles teams had. Oakland this year? I encourage fans to watch that team and see how they win. It's always someone different. Pitching of course is outstanding, but the way that offense puts together support, with what little it has is incredible. Detroit has the great front 4, then lets not forget they also have probably the most feared top 5-6 hitters in the league. It's a lot more than pitching going on there. LA has it all going. Kershaw and Grienke, Ryu and Nolasco pitching like he has never before? Then combined with probably the best offense in the league (NL) to me at least? More than pitching involved with all but the Cardinals and Oakland. Great post and Thanks doncaballero
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Sept 15, 2013 11:05:49 GMT -5
Focusing on pitching seems like a sound target here. It is at a premium for quality pitchers and has been for years. Great pitching Solid defense Timely hitting You can never have enough good pitching. Cherrington seems locked in on tall pitchers. I have no problem with Cherrington loading up on tall pitchers in early part of each draft, and then going after hard to sign bats in subsequent rounds.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Sept 15, 2013 11:53:07 GMT -5
That takes the best attributes of Oakland and the old Orioles teams as examples. Some of the top teams now that have tremendous pitching (Detroit, LAD) are capable of bludgeoning a team to death even if the pitching falters a few times.
Sure thing on the tall pitchers, only negative is if some develop mechanical issues, like Miller had earlier.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 15, 2013 17:16:18 GMT -5
My bigger issue with Cherington's drafts: his seeming focus on pitchers over position players. Only 2 of the 12 top-five-round draft picks made under his tenure have been of position players so far. Pitchers carry a high level of inherent injury risk, so much so that multiple analyses have concluded that the expected value of drafting a position player is significantly higher than a pitcher. Obviously, you can't just draft hitters, and there's something to be said about developing a Tampa Bay-esque fleet of young starters (sort of what the Red Sox have now in the upper minors between Workman, Webster, De La Rosa, Ranaudo, and Barnes). Maybe some analysis revealed that a big market team can easily find position players on the free agent market but needs to develop pitchers from within. Hell, maybe the draft board just lined up such that pitchers were the best player available at each of the picks. But it certainly seems a little curious to me. I think it may be as simple as this. Certainly pitchers have a higher inherent risk - everyone knows that at this point. With pitchers being more risky, perhaps they are falling in the draft to the point where they have become the new market inefficiency. It at least seems possible the available pitchers profile so much better than the available hitters when Boston is picking that Cherington, Sawdaye, and Co. think that the reward outweighs the risk.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Sept 16, 2013 4:57:35 GMT -5
I remember an article where BC said that good pitching was too expensive on the open market. While position players of good value could be found much easier: see, Napoli, Victorino, Gomes and Carp for one year "proof". In that same article, or possibly another, he also said that the draft was the most efficient method of getting MLB pitching. So, in conclusion, they're probably valuing pitching higher than hitting and fielding at the amateur level.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Sept 16, 2013 7:38:21 GMT -5
I remember an article where BC said that good pitching was too expensive on the open market. While position players of good value could be found much easier: see, Napoli, Victorino, Gomes and Carp for one year "proof". In that same article, or possibly another, he also said that the draft was the most efficient method of getting MLB pitching. So, in conclusion, they're probably valuing pitching higher than hitting and fielding at the amateur level. Makes me wonder,if Cherrington had the chance to do the Pirate trade over again, I wonder if he would have. We appear to have been smoked in that trade.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Sept 16, 2013 8:04:32 GMT -5
Makes me wonder,if Cherrington had the chance to do the Pirate trade over again, I wonder if he would have. We appear to have been smoked in that trade. My thoughts from an earlier post in this thread: Basically they gave up 4 years of potentially poor pithcing from Melancon for a lot of roster flexibility in the next few years. It's ok from my POV. Also, for the "Melancon is great this season" arguemnt: maybe he wouldn't be with Boston. I won't go on with any of that vitriole about the NL being sub-par; he's in a solid division and doesn't pitch against any pitchers. He did change his approach to throw a lot more cutters at the expense of his least valuable pitch (4seamFB), so while it could be sustainable success he also has a ridiculously low HR rate.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 16, 2013 8:19:00 GMT -5
Cherington gave up too much for Melancon, then gave up on him too quickly. It was a classic buy-high, sell-low blunder. It's kind of been beaten to death so I won't belabor the points too much, but Melancon isn't as good as he has pitched this year, nor is he as bad as he pitched last year. Huntington would do well to sell high on the guy this year if he's given the chance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2013 10:02:34 GMT -5
Cherington will be judged well in part because of the Dodger trade. But does he really deserve all of the credit for the trade?
From everything I've read about the trade, most of the details involving the veteran players was worked out at higher levels with Luccino, Henry, Kasten et. al. Cherington and his team were responsible for the prospects they received in return.
Three of the players received in the trade are now gone and realistically, nothing more than a few games of Joel Hanrahan was received in return. The jury is still out on the two players remaining. If they turn out to be huge contributors down the road, then Cherington and his staff deserve credit for that. But if they turn out to be nothing, then they do not.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Sept 17, 2013 10:47:14 GMT -5
Cherington will be judged well in part because of the Dodger trade. But does he really deserve all of the credit for the trade? From everything I've read about the trade, most of the details involving the veteran players was worked out at higher levels with Luccino, Henry, Kasten et. al. Cherington and his team were responsible for the prospects they received in return. Three of the players received in the trade are now gone and realistically, nothing more than a few games of Joel Hanrahan was received in return. The jury is still out on the two players remaining. If they turn out to be huge contributors down the road, then Cherington and his staff deserve credit for that. But if they turn out to be nothing, then they do not. The impact of the trade is larger than the future value of Webster & De La Rosa. The financial flexibility that the trade created was obviously crucial to rebuilding this offseason and creating a 90+ (outside chance of 100) win team. Once again, whether or not we assign credit to Cherington or the ownership group is up for debate, but the trade's impact was much greater than the players involved. Any contributions from Webster and De La Rosa are really icing on the cake.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 17, 2013 11:00:54 GMT -5
Plus, hindsight is 50/50. At the time, literally every national prospect analyst was blown away by how great the prospect return was in what was essentially a salary dump. Webster was ranked the 49th best prospect in baseball per BA coming into 2013, and per Jim Callis, De La Rosa, had he been eligible, would have ranked above Barnes, who was 40th on BA's preseason list. That's an elite haul by any stretch of the imagination. Remember, when Boston traded for Gonzalez two years earlier, San Diego netted Casey Kelly (#31 on the 2011 BA preseason list), Anthony Rizzo (#75), and Reymond Fuentes (unranked). The fact that Cherington got a comparable package for Gonzalez two years later (after he signed a big extension and started entering his decline phase) would be impressive enough, let alone that the Red Sox also dumped $140m in dead weight. In my mind, there is -zero- chance that the Dodgers trade is anything but a huge, huge win for Cherington, even if you only give him credit for the prospect package.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2013 13:18:52 GMT -5
Certainly. But Cherington had little if anything to with that aspect of the trade.
I really don't understand how that could be if the prospects don't turn out. In the end, the return is judged on how the prospects perform and/or what you get for them in a trade not on how BA ranked the players at the time of the trade.
Besides, I think we all are capable or reading Baseball America and evaluating prospects based upon the rankings. It's the job of the baseball operations staff to evaluate prospects that turn into valuable major leaguers, not to acquire guys whom Jim Callis likes. I would hope that the Sox evaluate players better than BA does.
It will certainly take some time to evaluate how De La Rosa and Webster perform as major leaguers. But to me they both seem less valuable than they did a year ago.
|
|
rjp313jr
Veteran
Posts: 14,012
Member is Online
|
Post by rjp313jr on Sept 17, 2013 14:12:26 GMT -5
Of course Cherrington gets credit. Someone doesn't have to do something all on their own to get credit for it. There also doesn't have to be one person to get credit for something like that. It's a huge trade with a TON of salary and star power being moved. Every franchise would have ownership involved. I don't get why it's all or nothing with everyone all the time.
You want to argue how much it was because of him? Fine, but that's stupid to do any ways because no one knows the exact roles of each individual and what impact their conversations or negotiating skills had. All we know is he's the GM, he was involved in it and it was a great move. Why does it need to be more or less? Why can't the guy just get credit for it? Basically, withdrawing credit and putting it elsewhere is pretty speculative.
He followed up the trade with a remarkable offseason so what evidence is there to suggest he just got lucky with the deal? If he bombed after the fact then maybe we question, but since he's done well after the fact there's no need to be negative.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Sept 17, 2013 14:21:33 GMT -5
I think the LA trade would have been good if the Sox had gotten NO prospects. It simply was addition by subtraction. The Sox got rid of players who either were not performing, were performing below expectations, or were just bad influences. And they freed the team from the yoke of those salaries.
The two pitchers may be Andrew Millers - pitchers with great stuff that it will take some time for them to learn to control. But anything they contribute will be a bonus.
Cherington's real skill was in crafting this year's team. He had a plan and he executed it, and the plan worked. In the business world, that is what outstanding management does. He made some mistakes. Every GM does because the principal commodity in which they are dealing is human talent, and human beings are not all that predictable, especially when talent is involved.
I think there are some important external factors that contributed to the success of the Sox this year. While highly competitive as usual, the AL East is not as strong as it once was. The Yankees are a ghost of what they once were - although the ghost has performed very well. Toronto is a basket case and is going to be hard to fix. Tampa has very good pitching and little else. Baltimore is rising and probably will be better next year. Throughout baseball, there are not very many "super" teams. Talent has evened out. The Sox have the record they do in part because they improved enough to be better than a field a little weaker than normal.
However, this does not take much away from Cherington's achievement, especially - and I have no way of knowing this - if he anticipated what was going to happen with these other teams. I predicted Toronto would not be as good as expected - and definitely would not win the Division - and what do I know? I predicted the Sox and Yankees would compete for last place! So, not that much. Someone who knows a whole lot might have figured out how to build a team inexpensively that had both the character of a winner and enough talent to be a winner against the current competition.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Sept 17, 2013 15:29:33 GMT -5
It's a team game, right? And that means the management team as well. The overall impact on the Sox has been crucial to everything that's happened since. The idea that Cherrington has no input or say into those decisions, makes no more sense than arguing that he makes all the decisions by himself with no input from ownership.
The current success surely reflects the nature of that relationship. Separating out contributions is a useless exercise from a business standpoint.
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Sept 17, 2013 15:34:44 GMT -5
Never mind
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 17, 2013 15:53:19 GMT -5
I really don't understand how that could be if the prospects don't turn out. In the end, the return is judged on how the prospects perform and/or what you get for them in a trade not on how BA ranked the players at the time of the trade. Besides, I think we all are capable or reading Baseball America and evaluating prospects based upon the rankings. It's the job of the baseball operations staff to evaluate prospects that turn into valuable major leaguers, not to acquire guys whom Jim Callis likes. I would hope that the Sox evaluate players better than BA does. It will certainly take some time to evaluate how De La Rosa and Webster perform as major leaguers. But to me they both seem less valuable than they did a year ago. You're right in that we expect GMs to out-evaluate media outfits like BA (or SoxProspects, for that matter) and so it's worth looking at how prospects turn out. But we also have to recognize that prospects bust all the time for unforeseeable reasons, and that taking a purely hindsight evaluation of the trade without looking at how the players were viewed at the time is not a great way to evaluate a GM either. Even if (knock on wood) those two end up as non-factors at the major league level, the fact that Cherington got two highly rated prospects out of a pure salary dump trade is pretty impressive.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2013 9:33:31 GMT -5
I hate repeating myself. So I am only going to do this once more.
According to news reports after the trade, the trade was neither nor originally negotiated at the General Manager level. The GMs only came into negotiations once the issues regarding the veteran players were agreed to. Since neither GM had anything to do with the veteran players salaries you can't possibly give the baseball operations staff credit for an event they had nothing to do with. The baseball operations staff were only involved in negotiating the four players that the team would receive in return.
I think that can be taken a little too far. It's the job of the baseball operations staff to forsee prospects who will bust and those that will be better than expected. Most everyone in there receives at least a six figure salary to do that. Not every prospect that turns out better than expected is due to luck and not every prospect who busts is due to an unforseen circumstances. I just don't see how one can possibly credit a baseball operations staff for acquiring prospects that don't turn into major leaguers no matter how highly rated they are.
Take the Shane Victorino signing for example. I think it's fair to say that he has played MUCH better this year than anyone expected and might come close to earning his entire contract in 2013. I also think it's fair to say that the Red Sox did a better job of evaluating him than other teams.
You want to give someone credit for the salary dump? Credit John Henry and Larry Luccino for insisting the Dodgers take on other salary AND give prospects in exchange for Adrian Gonzalez. Give the Dodgers credit for saying no when the Red Sox wanted to put John Lackey in the trade as opposed to Crawford.
|
|
|