|
Post by Oregon Norm on Sept 18, 2013 10:54:41 GMT -5
I don't mind repeating myself at all. So tell me again, why is it necessary to tease apart the hypothetical contributions of each and every member of the management team? I don't believe for a minute that any of this happened in isolation, which is what you seem to imply with "credit for the salary dump". Why bother assigning credit on an individual basis? Any owner-to-owner consultation would have to be vetted through the GM. Just as any request for additional talent would have to be vetted with ownership.
Again, that's the way organizations work, good ones. Evaluating Cherrington means evaluating him in the context of what that team has accomplished, The reductionist approach makes no sense to me. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Sept 18, 2013 11:06:09 GMT -5
I don't mind repeating myself at all. So tell me again, why is it necessary to tease apart the hypothetical contributions of each and every member of the management team? I don't believe for a minute that any of this happened in isolation, which is what you seem to imply with "credit for the salary dump". Why bother assigning credit on an individual basis? Any owner-to-owner consultation would have to be vetted through the GM. Just as any request for additional talent would have to be vetted with ownership.Again, that's the way organizations work, good ones. Evaluating Cherrington means evaluating him in the context of what that team has accomplished, The reductionist approach makes no sense to me. Sorry. Very True! LOL I think maybe we should send this to Jeffrey and the Marlins staff as they definitely need to read this...
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Sept 18, 2013 11:49:17 GMT -5
I don't mind repeating myself at all. So tell me again, why is it necessary to tease apart the hypothetical contributions of each and every member of the management team? I don't believe for a minute that any of this happened in isolation, which is what you seem to imply with "credit for the salary dump". Why bother assigning credit on an individual basis? Any owner-to-owner consultation would have to be vetted through the GM. Just as any request for additional talent would have to be vetted with ownership. Again, that's the way organizations work, good ones. Evaluating Cherrington means evaluating him in the context of what that team has accomplished, The reductionist approach makes no sense to me. Sorry. Right on. I give the front office a solid A. As past posts have pointed out, one bad trade. Otherwise solid. The team will have a chance to win it all this year without the team throwing future years away. Have to wait a few years to judge the drafting results, but I like the track they took.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2013 12:18:57 GMT -5
espn.go.com/boston/mlb/story/_/id/8323305/boston-red-sox-los-angeles-dodgers-blockbuster-trade-anatomyThe article above makes it pretty clear that what you "don't believe for a minute" is really what happened. Henry negotiated how much salary the Red Sox would take on and Cherington and his staff negotiated what prospects the Dodgers would give up. Therefor Henry deserves the credit for negotiating the salary dump portion of the trade and Cherrington and his staff credit for the prospects. As an aside the ownership of a baseball team is under no obligation to vett moves through their General Manager and the Red Sox have made moves that were not vetted through their GM. The General Manager is an employee of ownership and NOT an equal partner with an equal right to vet personnel moves.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Sept 18, 2013 14:04:46 GMT -5
I'm sure Henry and Cherrington had no conversation about any of the players involved in the trade and Henry acted off of all his own knowledge. Wait, we don't know what conversations happened behind the scenes? The article doesn't talk about that so it must not have happened. The overall point is you don't know. All you know is what was written in an article which is a GENERAL recap of how things took place. In a trade of that magnitude there were more than 2 or 3 conversations. All the article does is highlight those. The article also hints at Larry saying the Sox empowered Cherrington to be BOLD. If he had nothing (sorry very little) to do with the trade then why would they have to empower him to be bold?
There is no reason to conjecture. All we need to know is Ben is the GM, was when the trade took place and his name is on it as it should be. Whether he was a huge piece of it, a small piece of it. Whether he orchestrated Henry to talk to the other owner because his GM counterpart couldn't ok that type of money or whether Henry took control of it is irrelevant. No report out there has ever suggested that Henry and ownership forced this on to Cherrington which is basically what you are saying.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Sept 18, 2013 14:07:36 GMT -5
Let's get back to who should be blamed for Bobby Valentine...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2013 14:10:33 GMT -5
I think the article makes it very clear who was responsible for what aspect of the trade. If you STILL want to credit Ben Cherrington for things that he clearly didn't do because he had the title of GM at the time that's your business, but it doesn't make it accurate.
Right I'm sure the GM had veto power when the trade was brought to him.
The article said that Kasten empowered Colletti to be bold.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2013 14:11:07 GMT -5
Let's get back to who should be blamed for Bobby Valentine... Lucchino and to some degree Henry.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Sept 18, 2013 14:24:52 GMT -5
I think the article makes it very clear who was responsible for what aspect of the trade. If you STILL want to credit Ben Cherrington for things that he clearly didn't do because he had the title of GM at the time that's your business, but it doesn't make it accurate. Right I'm sure the GM had veto power when the trade was brought to him. The article said that Kasten empowered Colletti to be bold. jeez. If you really think Cherington had nothing to do with the players involved at the major league level (the salary dump)....I don't know what to tell you. Clearly this was a long process that involved numerous layers of negotiating. To think that this article suggests that the owners said "Hey we'll handle the salary dump, Ben will handle the prospects" is silly. Can we end this already?
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Sept 18, 2013 14:30:46 GMT -5
The article above makes it pretty clear that what you "don't believe for a minute" is really what happened. Henry negotiated how much salary the Red Sox would take on and Cherington and his staff negotiated what prospects the Dodgers would give up. Therefor Henry deserves the credit for negotiating the salary dump portion of the trade and Cherrington and his staff credit for the prospects. it also says this: I am going to attack not you, but the belligerence and vitriol you keep bringing to this discussion, despite the fact that you are picking only the facts that support your ignorant argument (note, i'm not calling you ignorant here). How can you divide up blame and praise amongst a team of people with such precision when the facts, logic, and everyone's experience say that the players are interconnected? Moreover, what is the reason for doing this? It's an asinine argument with no grounding in reality or even rumor.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 18, 2013 14:53:37 GMT -5
Re: how much credit Cherington gets for the Punto deal
Everyone has said their piece. No need to keep going in circles. Let's move on.
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Sept 18, 2013 14:54:32 GMT -5
Let's get back to who should be blamed for Bobby Valentine... bobo valentine = one bad year + dump bad contracts + clean out clubhouse + set new luxury tax + set new guidelines for those under contract. Hmm 3rd best free agent deal of last 5 years. Thanks Bobo for 2013!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2013 15:34:28 GMT -5
You are right this isn't a discussion any more.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Sept 20, 2013 6:33:07 GMT -5
Let's get back to who should be blamed for Bobby Valentine... bobo valentine = one bad year + dump bad contracts + clean out clubhouse + set new luxury tax + set new guidelines for those under contract. Hmm 3rd best free agent deal of last 5 years. Thanks Bobo for 2013!!! I wonder how much Valentine communicated back to the front office about the bad apples in the Sox locker room? The Valentine year of pain seemed interminably long, while this season has flown by. I'm thinking a long run in the playoffs is the only way to remove all the stink from the Valentine year.
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Sept 20, 2013 7:50:59 GMT -5
Funny, just realized I haven't even thought of the Valentine fiasco since the early part of the season. Seems like so long ago now.
Also in retrospect it seems even more that his one year was meant to be entirely what it was from the get go - a bottoming out and full reset of a culture that had spiraled out of control done by a man who knew he wouldn't be around very long anyways.
|
|
|
Post by adiospaydro2005 on Sept 20, 2013 20:49:37 GMT -5
Hiring Valentine who is universally considered to be one of the most polarizing figures in MLB history was one of the worst decisions this ownership group (ie Lucchino). It would be good if we could erase that chapter from Red Sox history and refer to this guy as the manager who should not be named.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Sept 20, 2013 21:19:05 GMT -5
Bobby Valentine, was what Billy Martin was in another generation, then Leo Durocher another. Difference? Valentine never won a WS, only 1 DC. Valentine's style was a lot like those other 2 (controlling) in a different age when players will not tolerate it at all for good or bad.
Those other 2 managers went through multiple teams also during their careers as managers, they also won for the most part when they went there. They didn't win points for "style" and were pretty abusive to what little press there was at the time.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Sept 21, 2013 11:13:53 GMT -5
Bobby Valentine, was what Billy Martin was in another generation, then Leo Durocher another. Difference? Valentine never won a WS, only 1 DC. Valentine's style was a lot like those other 2 (controlling) in a different age when players will not tolerate it at all for good or bad. Those other 2 managers went through multiple teams also during their careers as managers, they also won for the most part when they went there. They didn't win points for "style" and were pretty abusive to what little press there was at the time. Seems to me like Martin and the others focused everything on the manager and provided a shield for the players. Valentine turned everyone against him, alienated coaches and turned player against player. He got under people's skin like Parcells,only he didn't have that warm, praising side when the players did what he wanted like Parcells did.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 21, 2013 14:05:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 21, 2013 16:05:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Sept 21, 2013 16:50:19 GMT -5
Both great reads, thanks jmei.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Sept 21, 2013 16:51:38 GMT -5
Good stuff. While these mirror a lot of the discussions we've had on the board, it's good to see it all summarized in one place, and to get the take from the staff and ownership.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Sept 21, 2013 23:08:47 GMT -5
Hmmm. I wasn't even thinking of that area when made the comparison Larry.. Durocher was good with kids, even in his latter years and an older man. Martin was always Martin.. Solid one day and would fly off the handle and walk into the clubhouse drunk the next sometimes, but he was pretty stable in general with his younger players and especially the Oakland years. You are right though the more think about Bobby V and praise.. he always was a bit "short" on passing it out to others 1st.
Good point.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 23, 2013 18:12:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Sept 23, 2013 18:41:24 GMT -5
Again, something that the board has batted around for a while. The Sox' "bridge" plan has been obvious since the pre-season, and it's been well executed so far. If we believe that the prospects are as good as we seem to think they are, we should look forward to the next stage - getting them regular playing time. That's something that isn't all that easy in Boston given the largely artificial media-imposed pressures.
This has the feel of Speier acting as a front office go-between with those talking heads. But some of those heads are pretty hard. We may get to see how the advance work goes if the team gets off to a rough start with young talent next year.
|
|