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 2014-15
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 13, 2014 9:49:58 GMT -5
Abreu was regarded as Cuba's answer to a young Albert Pujols while Castillo was seen as a potential young Shane Victorino. True that Castillo has his defense to fall back on, but that only goes so far - ask Jackie Bradley Jr. They both involved a lot of risk and watching the Sox blow away the competition for Castillo they way they did for Daisuke in 2007 shows that the Sox are willing to overextend themselves for something they really, really want very badly.
I have trouble believing that Hanley who signed a 4 year deal that vests to 5 years $110 million for $22 million/year, with an injury history and no OF history, is seen as roughly equal to Lester for $135 million over 6 years, without an injury history - or attitude issues.
Again I'm thrilled to have Hanley and I'm glad the Sox didn't shy away from risking the big bucks on him, but there are risks with him, too.
Honestly, if the rotation started out as Lester/Porcello/Miley/Kelly/Buchholz, wouldn't you think the Sox are looking at a 95 win season with a proven big game post-season performer fronting their rotatation? Would have offering him 6 years $150 million vs 6 years $135 million have been such a difference maker? Honestly? Enough to have to trade Owens in July to get a needed pitching upgrade?
I know it's more than a question of short term gratification and the history of 35 year old pitchers is sketchy, but that doesn't mean that Lester's fate is to be good until 32 or 33 and drop off a cliff. The Sox won their first world series in 86 years with a big assist from a 38 year old pitcher who had been a solid workhorse. I honestly think Lester would have been not to far off from the pitcher he is now down the road.
So now the Sox either stay as they are with Masterson subbing for Lester, which isn't nearly quite as good, or they do have to trade away young talent to secure a top of the rotation starter eventually, which leaves them with Hamels, who would fit their plan, but cost a needless fortune in prospects, Zimmerman who would cost them either Betts and/or valuable minor league near major league ready pitching prospects now and can fly the coup in November, or go after Cueto who isn't seemingly available until July, might cost less in a deal by then, but might only be a rental, and Sale isn't coming here or anywhere nor should he.
Not a ton of options there. They could wait until next December, but if Cueto or Zimmerman have good years, they'd need to spend a lot more than they were willing to for Lester. At some point I would think they need to bite the bullet. I just wonder how much that will cost them in terms of young talent and/or money.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 13, 2014 11:19:35 GMT -5
Abreu was regarded as Cuba's answer to a young Albert Pujols while Castillo was seen as a potential young Shane Victorino. True that Castillo has his defense to fall back on, but that only goes so far - ask Jackie Bradley Jr. They both involved a lot of risk and watching the Sox blow away the competition for Castillo they way they did for Daisuke in 2007 shows that the Sox are willing to overextend themselves for something they really, really want very badly. I have trouble believing that Hanley who signed a 4 year deal that vests to 5 years $110 million for $22 million/year, with an injury history and no OF history, is seen as roughly equal to Lester for $135 million over 6 years, without an injury history - or attitude issues. Again, this is not an issue of inconsistency, it's just an issue of you disagreeing with the front office's valuations. You're painting with an awfully wide brush if you think Castillo and Abreu and Matsusaka should be valued similarly just because they're all veteran IFAs. You really could not find three more different players if you tried. Bradley was literally the worst hitter in the majors last year and still ended up around replacement level. That's the kind of cushion that plus defense at an up-the-middle position gives you. Similarly, there's a huge difference between signing up for the age 31-34 seasons of a position player and the age 31-36 seasons of a pitcher. There are certainly reasonable, rational reasons for valuing these guys differently, even if you disagree with those reasons.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 13, 2014 12:57:10 GMT -5
Honestly, if the rotation started out as Lester/Porcello/Miley/Kelly/Buchholz, wouldn't you think the Sox are looking at a 95 win season with a proven big game post-season performer fronting their rotatation? Would have offering him 6 years $150 million vs 6 years $135 million have been such a difference maker? Honestly? Enough to have to trade Owens in July to get a needed pitching upgrade? You draw the line with Lester because he's been extremely, EXTREMELY, inconsistent. He's not an Ace. He's had one ace like season in his contract year. I, like you seemingly, do believe focus and circumstance effects some players performance, either for the better or worse. Lester seems like a guy who dominates when motivated ( see Playoffs, contract year, competing team) and goes on cruise control when not. See 2012 and beginning of 2013. He's been quoted as saying he thinks if he takes the ball every turn and throws 200 innings then he's an Ace. Doesn't matter about the real results because this was after 2012. The team and fans talked about NOT picking up a 14m option in 2014 because he had over a year where he wasn't seen as worth it. Just because he's paid like Kershaw and Hernandez doesn't mean he's like them. Verlander had fallen off a cliff and he was WAY better than Lester. Let's not let once contract year repaint what Jon Lester has been. Good not great.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Dec 13, 2014 12:59:11 GMT -5
Also, not sure where you heard Abreu being Cuba's young Pujols, but the one thing that stuck out to me in his scouting reports were the questions about his bat speed. There was plenty of risk there. His good first year doesn't change that fact.
|
|
|
Post by Smittyw on Dec 13, 2014 13:16:43 GMT -5
You draw the line with Lester because he's been extremely, EXTREMELY, inconsistent. He's not an Ace. He's had one ace like season in his contract year. I, like you seemingly, do believe focus and circumstance effects some players performance, either for the better or worse. Lester seems like a guy who dominates when motivated ( see Playoffs, contract year, competing team) and goes on cruise control when not. See 2012 and beginning of 2013. He's been quoted as saying he thinks if he takes the ball every turn and throws 200 innings then he's an Ace. Doesn't matter about the real results because this was after 2012. The team and fans talked about NOT picking up a 14m option in 2014 because he had over a year where he wasn't seen as worth it. Just because he's paid like Kershaw and Hernandez doesn't mean he's like them. Verlander had fallen off a cliff and he was WAY better than Lester. Let's not let once contract year repaint what Jon Lester has been. Good not great. If you want to argue that he's not Kershaw or Hernandez (i.e., a consistent top 5 pitcher in baseball) then I don't think anyone would disagree. But I don't think "extremely EXTREMELY inconsistent" is fair. The Lester of 2008-11 was, on the whole, very consistent, and if not for his tendency to suck for 2-3 starts at the beginning and/or end of the season I think he'd have had a 2014-like year or two already. Lester had a bad year in 2012 and a couple of bad months in 2013. Other than that he's been much the same pitcher his whole career. (Compare to someone like Greinke, who had one Cy Young-type season and otherwise ranged from very good to mediocre prior to signing a 6/147 contract.)
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 13, 2014 13:29:53 GMT -5
Also, not sure where you heard Abreu being Cuba's young Pujols, but the one thing that stuck out to me in his scouting reports were the questions about his bat speed. There was plenty of risk there. His good first year doesn't change that fact.Uhhh... yeah it does. He was as good as any hitter in the game last year and there's probably about 27 teams wishing they'd signed him right now. And the other two teams are wrong. That said, I don't think his success is particularly relevant to BC's record as a GM. The entire industry undershot his value by at least a hundred million dollars. So fine, assign equal demerits to every GM, which doesn't effect anyone's standing relative to anyone else. It's baseball, things happen.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Dec 13, 2014 13:47:18 GMT -5
No it doesn't. Risk today is risk today. If a year down the road that risk is mitigated, doesn't change the fact that there was risk a year ago. You can't go back in time and make decisions based on the mitigated risk.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 13, 2014 14:22:22 GMT -5
Also, not sure where you heard Abreu being Cuba's young Pujols, but the one thing that stuck out to me in his scouting reports were the questions about his bat speed. There was plenty of risk there. His good first year doesn't change that fact.
Prior to his 2014 debut in MLB, there were a lot of folks saying that, in fact, Abreu might be the best hitter in the world.
grantland.com/features/cuba-jose-abreu-migh-best-offensive-weapon-planet/
Those who questioned his bat speed have lost all credibility going forward in any future player evaluations.
So every scout who saw him on literally every team? Because if any team (including the White Sox) knew how good he was going to be, he would have gotten an easy $100m.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Dec 13, 2014 14:45:06 GMT -5
I think it is very hard to assess Cherington independent of the ownership without knowing inside information. The ownership was involved in the Lester negotiations, as they have been in the past with some free agents. I don't think that is a good idea. The GM should be the guy dealing with the agents. The ownership should stay out of negotiations. It's OK to take the guy out to dinner, to make him feel good, but the business should be left to the GM. Boras, of course, wants to deal with the owners because he understands their egos. A team is better off keeping ego out of deals.
There is a point beyond which a deal gets silly and dangerous, and I think Lester's deal is close to those. But the way revenues are going in baseball, the owners and the players are going to make much more money in the future unless somebody gets the bright idea that maybe it shouldn't cost so much to go to a game. So a deal no longer can be judged by what was done in the past. His deal may look reasonable six years from now.
Cherington has made a number of mistakes, but he seems to be learning on the job, and getting better. He has become a very good trade-maker, and the drafts have gotten better. Overall, the organization is stronger now than it has been in a while.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,984
|
Post by jimoh on Dec 13, 2014 16:58:13 GMT -5
Also, not sure where you heard Abreu being Cuba's young Pujols, but the one thing that stuck out to me in his scouting reports were the questions about his bat speed. There was plenty of risk there. His good first year doesn't change that fact.
Prior to his 2014 debut in MLB, there were a lot of folks saying that, in fact, Abreu might be the best hitter in the world.
grantland.com/features/cuba-jose-abreu-migh-best-offensive-weapon-planet/
Those who questioned his bat speed have lost all credibility going forward in any future player evaluations.
The claim in your last line is not really supported by the story you cite, which says that some degree skepticism about Abreu was perfectly reasonable. From that story: Ben Badler: "Jose Abreu, who could step into a major league uniform tomorrow and immediately be an above-average major league player.” Jona Keri; "the wildly optimistic view is that it’s possible — not likely, but possible — that Abreu might be as good at — or better at — than Miguel Cabrera. And the more realistic and pervasive view is that he could hit like Ryan Howard" "Scouts do have information on Abreu. But in many respects, it’s flawed and difficult to interpret." "When it comes to Abreu, scouts can’t be sure what those realities are."
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 13, 2014 17:02:24 GMT -5
I think it is very hard to assess Cherington independent of the ownership without knowing inside information. The ownership was involved in the Lester negotiations, as they have been in the past with some free agents. I don't think that is a good idea. The GM should be the guy dealing with the agents. The ownership should stay out of negotiations. It's OK to take the guy out to dinner, to make him feel good, but the business should be left to the GM. Boras, of course, wants to deal with the owners because he understands their egos. A team is better off keeping ego out of deals. ---------- I concur. There is a point beyond which a deal gets silly and dangerous, and I think Lester's deal is close to those. But the way revenues are going in baseball, the owners and the players are going to make much more money in the future unless somebody gets the bright idea that maybe it shouldn't cost so much to go to a game. So a deal no longer can be judged by what was done in the past. His deal may look reasonable six years from now. I am disheartened that BC did not sign Lester. What he has done, however, leaves this team with a better pitching rotation beginning in 2015 than what was being wheeled out at the end of 2014 Cherington has made a number of mistakes, but he seems to be learning on the job, and getting better. He has become a very good trade-maker, and the drafts have gotten better. Overall, the organization is stronger now than it has been in a while. The bottom line for all GM's is wins. IMO BC has added 10-12 wins to the 2014 team. Depending on how Spring training shakes out picking up another 5-7 wins is within reason. Despite the failure to resign Lester BC has done an admirable job this off season.
|
|
|
Post by Sammy on Dec 13, 2014 18:40:09 GMT -5
bulls**T GIVE me REASONS why according to you he is "incompetent" Moves I would've made so far this O.S. that he hasn't: - I would've beat the Tigers' 2 yr offer to Hunter by $2M rather than pay Victorino 3yrs at $39M. - I would've signed Brandon McCarthy for $1-2M more than what AZ gave him. - I would've traded Lester for Myers then either held Myers or offered him plus any 3 of the Sox top 5 prospects to Tampa, who is hot for him, for David Price. If they want more than that maybe we talk names, maybe we bring in a 3rd team but I get it done. Some of that talent can be replaced within the 3 years you'll have Price; the rest you can buy or acquire. Those are off the top of my head. As for the big trade - I'll wait to pass judgement until the other shoe drops. That was a salary dump that Dodgers clearly drove in their lust for Gonzalez. If you're telling me he just moved all that salary so we can replace those players with Shane Victorino and Mike Napoli assorted pieces of dreck that right now look to make the Sox a 84 win team at best then, yes, I DO question his competency. This team hasn't been to the playoffs since 2009. He's making moves like it won't be back until 2015. Meanwhile, the competition keeps getting better. Unacceptable with the resources and prospects this team has. I love how this thread has been going since 2012 or earlier. It provides gems like the above. Regardless of record, BC has successful built a deep and diverse portfolio of "assets" (seems to be the trend with John Henry as owner) without exposing the team to a lot of long term risk. Interestingly, I think that is how Theo started out too, relying on the draft plus a healthy volume of shorter term, low risk, high upside FA plays, until he had seemingly set up the team to compete every year at which point he went all evil empire on the rest of baseball then ran off to Chicago and left BC holding the bag. BC has done alright with that so far. Any of us would gladly take a WS win sandwiched by two last place seasons. But it will still take a little while to determine whether it was the WS or the last place finishes that were the fluke.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Dec 13, 2014 18:45:26 GMT -5
There was supposed to be a new thread. I guess it got mixed up.
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Dec 14, 2014 0:02:44 GMT -5
To me it is so obvious what Ben is doing to the pitching staff. He acquired pitchers with upside with no term. Because I feel he has something special with those three kids. Owens,Rodriguez, Johnson. And maybe Barnes still. He does not want to part with any period. His pitching staff is not tied up with 4 year commitments or even 3. I am excited if this pans out wow. But it might take a little patience.
|
|
TX
Veteran
Posts: 265
|
Post by TX on Dec 16, 2014 16:06:30 GMT -5
To throw my .02 in this thread, it's obvious what BC's strength is: He is a dynamo scouting director. I am starting to wonder if that talent is effecting his role as GM, though, as he may be hugging those prospects more than a first division, top 5 payroll team should want.
If he ignores this team's need for a 15+ win starter in favor of his farm, as he ignored other positions last year for the same, he won't be as successful in Boston. Not as GM, anyway. It might be that he would be better suited managing a bottom payroll team instead.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 17, 2014 7:28:17 GMT -5
tx, it's an organizational philosophy that has been developed since the 2012 disaster. It's not just Ben.
And it's clear that to be successful, you cannot just buy a team, you also have to develop your own talent. Free agency isn't what it used to be post-steroids.
|
|
|
Post by bigpapismangosalsa on Dec 17, 2014 8:37:50 GMT -5
In my opinion, I think this is a really interesting thread, and a lot of posters are giving really good insights and not throwing away one liners or just spouting purely uninformed opinions. Based off some of the "transactions" topics, it makes for really good reading.
To say that Theo was the best GM in team history (an opinion that I agree with) and that Cherington has also done a very good job are not mutually exclusive statements. Honestly, I feel very confident in the direction of this organization, and would have with either one running the ship.
One thing that I think has come a off a little bit "too far" is the thought process that Cherington over-values his prospects / young players or refuses to part with them in deals. Lets take a look at some of the trades he has made acting as the GM for the Red Sox: While he (and Hoyer) were acting as co-GMs, they dealt Ramirez and Sanchez (and others) for Beckett and Lowell; He swapped Reddick, Alcantara and Head for Bailey; He moved 5 more years of control of Jose Iglesias and Montas (among others) out in the Peavy deal; He just traded De La Rosa and Webster for Porcello. None of these moves suggest to me someone that wont move prospects or places any unreasonable "love" on our young players.
Now, there are some moves I don't think he'd make (trading Betts, Bogaerts or Swihart for any one year rental or a deal they'd otherwise have some consternation on), but this is very similar to Theo (with an assist to Farrell) refusing to part with Lester in any Santana deal following the 2007 season. This in my opinion is a strenght, not a weakness. A good front office is going to place a value on assets (players) and generally stick to it, this is a good thing.
It's like they "tier" their assets: Bogaerts and Betts are worth "Chris Sale"; Swihart and Owens are worth "Stephen Strasburg"; Margot, Devers and Rodriguez are worth "Dallas Keuchel"; and so on until "De La Rosa and Webster are worth Wade Miley". Then, if they're making deals and Bogaerts only got them "Dallas Keuchel" they politely say no thank you, and move on to the deal we completed. You can assign the same type of thinking to Free Agents, though would one think there is an inverse relationship between length of deal and AAV that that the team has on a roling scale (I bet they would have paid Lester $30M for 4 seasons; but balked at $25M for 6 of them, though they would have paid $22M for 6 of them).
These methods of thinking aren't the negative connotation of "reactionary" of "directionless", they're more reaosonably stated as "flexible" and "adaptable". This isn't to say that Cherington is perfect (the Hanrahan trade was a mess; we didn't sign Abreu; I still think the Lackey trade was horrible); nor that Theo was either (Matt Clement, David Wells, Julio Lugo, Freddie Sanchez for Suppan, trying to give Manny away multiple times, etc).
One thing that I LOVE about Cherington, that I don't think Theo ever did, is Cherington's ability to "punt" a season when the team isn't going to make a serious push to contend. We get so caught up in the "worst to first to worst" mantra, because that's easy to sell. However, does anyone really think that if we had held onto Gonzalez, Beckett and Crawford, the team wouldn't have struggled to about and 83-79 season? How about last year, if we'd held on to Lackey, Lester, and Miller we probably end up with 80 wins or so, and ahead of TB. We also probably wouldn't have that nice little 2013 season either. He's quicker to realize a sunk cost and acquire assets for the future - at least in my opinion this is Cherington's greatest strength and it's not reactionary, it's brilliant.
Overall, I think he's one of the best GMs in the game, somewhere in the top 8 overall (by the way, Theo isn't a GM any more) and I'm happy to have him. If I were to evaluate his tenure to this point, I'd easily give it an A- grade.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 17, 2014 8:51:00 GMT -5
I think it's important to give him some time. Can we blame him for Middlebrooks flaming out? I realize he traded for Webster and Rubby so maybe some blame can go there for them not working out as hoped, but they were secondary to dumping the salary.
This team is in transition mode while waiting for the young kids to arrive. The long term viability is dependent on kids like Xander and Betts and Vazquez being legit higher end to all-star caliber players.
The fact that Ben has not overpaid for a top of the rotation starter is a positive thing and gives me more confidence in him than if he had done so. The timing isn't right and teams that throw money and prospects at patch jobs ultimately fail long term and often times short term.
|
|
|
Post by bigpapismangosalsa on Dec 17, 2014 9:01:29 GMT -5
Agree totally with your last point, RJP. I admit I was concerned after signing Sandoval, Hanley and losing out on Lester that we might be headed down a darker road, but the restraint shown, and the "plans B, C, D, E, F and G" that we seem to have had are great. How those moves were made were a huge swing between a very poor and a very good off-season in my opinion. I think it's been (up to this point) a very good one, and I don't think we're done.
Also, I'd like so just briefly say "sorry" to Eric. I made literally the same point about "prospect hoarding" that he did earlier, but it was in another thread that I hadn't read yet - even using some of the same examples. Wasn't my intent to lift your stuff, we just happen to agree that the mindset that Cherington refuses to deal young players is incorrect, and we thought of some of the same (somewhat obvious) examples to make our point.
|
|
sarasoxer
Veteran
Posts: 3,774
Member is Online
|
Post by sarasoxer on Dec 17, 2014 9:32:15 GMT -5
To me it is so obvious what Ben is doing to the pitching staff. He acquired pitchers with upside with no term. Because I feel he has something special with those three kids. Owens,Rodriguez, Johnson. And maybe Barnes still. He does not want to part with any period. His pitching staff is not tied up with 4 year commitments or even 3. I am excited if this pans out wow. But it might take a little patience. Amen! This is what I would like the Sox to do. ...and I have not given up on Middlebrooks either....
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 17, 2014 9:54:57 GMT -5
Why haven't you given up on Middlebrooks? Isn't it somewhat obvious that he has no future in Boston?
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Dec 17, 2014 20:58:07 GMT -5
I think you'd have to say the ownership must be thrilled with Cherington right now, yes? He's rebuilt the team (again) without sacrificing much in the way of future assets and (big point from ownership perspective) hasn't even gone over the luxury tax level, afaik, which many of us (including me!) thought was an inevitability. What's not to love from Mr Henry's perspective?
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 17, 2014 22:37:43 GMT -5
Where did this flood of over reactionary clowns come from? They're starting to make me look like a rational poster. Know your place, losers.
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Dec 17, 2014 23:10:43 GMT -5
Where did this flood of over reactionary clowns come from? They're starting to make me look like a rational poster. Know your place, losers. Is that Theo getting ready to leave the cubbies?
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Dec 21, 2014 15:13:55 GMT -5
I think Ben has done well. The only move I didn't like this off season was resigning Breslow and that is a minor move. I got over the low offer to Lester last spring and he turned that loss into a decent starter. Still like to see a big trade for a top of the rotation pitcher but the team has been improved.
|
|
|