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.
6/9-6/11 Red Sox @ Orioles Series Thread
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Jun 12, 2015 6:42:22 GMT -5
As far as hoarding prospects, it is near certain that after the 2013 season, Cherington could have had Stanton for Xander + (JBJ? Owens?). Assuming he could have signed Stanton to a reasonable extension (admittedly uncertain), I make that trade with no hesitation, even if with a heavy heart Stanton to the Red Sox was a Boston Media Myth. If Miami wanted to deal him, why haven't they?
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Jun 12, 2015 6:49:52 GMT -5
In fact, they were mostly made in defiance of the figures. This former statistical consultant for the team excoriated one Cherington trade after another as being statistically indefensible, to the degree that it got written up in ESPN The Magazine and to the degree that the F.O. tweeted around my take-down of the Iglesias trade on SOSH, and my former colleague Tom Tippett gave me the courtesy of explaining the rationale behind it. Cherington has had success trading for minor league talent (ERod, Holt) where scouting is the dominant tool of assessment. I don't know why he's done such a poor job of using statistical analysis to judge MLB talent -- whether he's getting good analysis and ignoring it, or getting insufficient analysis. I do know that at one point Lucchino believed that it wasn't cost effective to spend any money at all paying statistical consultants to supplement Bill James and Tippett. I think it was after last season that Henry talked about re-emphasizing analysis. I rather suspect that for the previous five years, everyone doing analysis other than James (who is a visionary out-of-the-box thinker but not someone who actually does in-depth statistical analysis) and Tippett (who also has the full-time job of coding all the team's in-house software) was an intern or the equivalent. If they've hired anyone heavy-duty since, a) they've kept it under the radar as they didn't do with Voros McCracken and myself, and b) it's probably too soon to have started reaping the benefits -- and that probably includes the time it would take for Cherington to start trusting the new intel (if there is indeed any). We're using statistics to make our decisions. And, we should. Don't get me wrong there. I don't feel we're incorporating other tried and true scouting with it. Physical condition of athlete. What serious look at Sandoval makes someone comfortable giving that slob 5 years? I don't need stats to tell me Porcello isn't a front of the rotation starter. He is a borderline two at best. Hanley was a clubhouse problem in Miami and LA. The whole world knew that. We are asking him to do something different and didn't appear concerned about it. While many writers thought he might be an odd fit. Every interview I've heard with Cherington he defends the move by throwing out the; "Our projections show he's going to be a good fit here. " He may be using stats, just not the right ones. And, in all honesty, We made a ton of projection mistakes under Theo too. Lugo, Renteria, Clement, Dice-K, Lackey and Crawford come to mind. What stats did the front office use for those moves? Theo was able to make up for those bad signings because of our drafting and player development; Lester, Papelbon, Buchholz, Pedroia, Ellsbury and others used as trade chips. He had a great feel for in-season needs. Played his hunches well. 1yr deal for Beltre. Harder to draft and develop now with slotting and not as many supplemental picks. So, BC does it have it more difficult. He's been awful though. I'd rather have you making the call. You seem to have a feel and stats accumen. I thought Iglesias high BA was a result of babip luck. Doesn't appear so. Your pumping Wright's tires looks good to. What stats are we using now, and maybe more importantly. Which ones are we ignoring? a couple things, first Porcello is not being paid like a front of the rotation starter. If you think you can get a 25 year old front of the rotation starter for 4/80, you're delusional. Also, did you read what Eric wrote? He said there's 2 stats guys in our FO and the rest are interns. Were doing exactly what you want. Favoring scouting over stats, and its sucking. The Marlins and the Phillies are the least stat heavy teams and both of them are extremely poorly run franchises. The stats are what made this team great in the 2000s and Cherington is screwing it all up by not using enough stats.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Jun 12, 2015 7:03:31 GMT -5
So, 28/30 teams are doing it right. A team with our payroll shouldn't miss the playoffs 5 times in 6 years. Poor evaluation of major league talent is our problem. Let guys like; Beltre and Lester go. Signed bums like; Crawford, Sandoval and Lackey. Poor trades. Reddick, Iglesias. Those moves were all made because the figures backed them up. Why did they fail? The person making the decision has to know more than stats. In fact, they were mostly made in defiance of the figures. This former statistical consultant for the team excoriated one Cherington trade after another as being statistically indefensible, to the degree that it got written up in ESPN The Magazine and to the degree that the F.O. tweeted around my take-down of the Iglesias trade on SOSH, and my former colleague Tom Tippett gave me the courtesy of explaining the rationale behind it. Cherington has had success trading for minor league talent (ERod, Holt) where scouting is the dominant tool of assessment. I don't know why he's done such a poor job of using statistical analysis to judge MLB talent -- whether he's getting good analysis and ignoring it, or getting insufficient analysis. I do know that at one point Lucchino believed that it wasn't cost effective to spend any money at all paying statistical consultants to supplement Bill James and Tippett. I think it was after last season that Henry talked about re-emphasizing analysis. I rather suspect that for the previous five years, everyone doing analysis other than James (who is a visionary out-of-the-box thinker but not someone who actually does in-depth statistical analysis) and Tippett (who also has the full-time job of coding all the team's in-house software) was an intern or the equivalent. If they've hired anyone heavy-duty since, a) they've kept it under the radar as they didn't do with Voros McCracken and myself, and b) it's probably too soon to have started reaping the benefits -- and that probably includes the time it would take for Cherington to start trusting the new intel (if there is indeed any). Really conflicted about this. Great to read inside info ,but, seems bad work ethics to share it. You were right about Iggy though. He'll be at his first all star game and win the first of many gold gloves this year if he stays healthy.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,685
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 12, 2015 7:17:08 GMT -5
Sounds like you've come around. They are quite a bad team. Anything is possible - I do remember a 50-57 1991 Red Sox team going 31-9 before dropping dead down the stretch with a 3-12 record. That team had Roger Clemens heading the rotation, unlike this team. I think this team is far more likely to lose 90 games than to actually compete for a playoff spot. The lineup is made up of guys who have seen better days, guys who will see better days, and guys who simply aren't that good. BC invested heavily in Kelly, Masterson, Porcello, and Miley, guys who should be hitting their prime, but they're just not very good, unfortunately (we'll hold out hope for Kelly and Porcello nonetheless, though). I'm starting to think that 2016 will be a washout, too. They might have need to focus on youth over the next few seasons. Concentrate on putting together a good young core and let it mature. Don't tie up payroll with these mid tier Sandoval type contracts. Theo traded for Schilling and Gonzalez, both of which helped us win a WS. I'm guessing it was Hoyer or Lucchino who traded for Beckett because I see no way Cherington does that. Theo traded very little for Curt Schilling. The DBacks held the Sox to lower standards to mess with the Yankees who they knew wanted him, but had stolen David Wells from right under their noses the year before. With Gonzo, Theo probably wasn't crazy about doing it. Life would have been just as good had he held onto Beltre and kept Rizzo to play 1b for when Youks' career wound down. Gonzo didn't directly help the Sox win anything, but dumping his contract and spreading it around did wonders in 2013, but not afterwards. It was Lucchino and Bill Lajoie who were proponents of the Beckett/Lowell for Hanley/Sanchez deal. Hoyer and Cherington (and Theo) were against it. It worked in 2007, but long-term the Sox were better off had they not made the deal. Still they wouldn't trade back their Championship, though. That was a good deal for both teams.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Jun 12, 2015 7:47:27 GMT -5
Theo traded for Schilling and Gonzalez, both of which helped us win a WS. I'm guessing it was Hoyer or Lucchino who traded for Beckett because I see no way Cherington does that. Theo traded very little for Curt Schilling. The DBacks held the Sox to lower standards to mess with the Yankees who they knew wanted him, but had stolen David Wells from right under their noses the year before. With Gonzo, Theo probably wasn't crazy about doing it. Life would have been just as good had he held onto Beltre and kept Rizzo to play 1b for when Youks' career wound down. Gonzo didn't directly help the Sox win anything, but dumping his contract and spreading it around did wonders in 2013, but not afterwards. It was Lucchino and Bill Lajoie who were proponents of the Beckett/Lowell for Hanley/Sanchez deal. Hoyer and Cherington (and Theo) were against it. It worked in 2007, but long-term the Sox were better off had they not made the deal. Still they wouldn't trade back their Championship, though. That was a good deal for both teams. It wasn't dumping Gonzalez's salary, Gonzalez was and still is a good deal. He had a ton of value and allowed us to dump Crawford and Beckett
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 12, 2015 9:05:18 GMT -5
As far as hoarding prospects, it is near certain that after the 2013 season, Cherington could have had Stanton for Xander + (JBJ? Owens?). Assuming he could have signed Stanton to a reasonable extension (admittedly uncertain), I make that trade with no hesitation, even if with a heavy heart How do you know that? Did you talk to any of the parties involved?
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jun 12, 2015 9:14:49 GMT -5
It was Lucchino and Bill Lajoie who were proponents of the Beckett/Lowell for Hanley/Sanchez deal. Hoyer and Cherington (and Theo) were against it. It worked in 2007, but long-term the Sox were better off had they not made the deal. Still they wouldn't trade back their Championship, though. That was a good deal for both teams. You have your history rather mixed up. The trade occurred when Theo was not with the Sox. It was during the time after he quit because of his rift with Lucchino and before he came back. I think this deal was done by Hoyer, not opposed by him, obviously with agreement of the higher ups. Hanley was considered a bit of a head case at the time and he had not done as well as expected at AA. It was considered a hell of a deal for the Sox at the time. And I disagree completely with your contention that long term the Sox would have been better off. The trade won them a world championship. Long term would have meant not winning one. Mike Lowell was a throw-in, a salary dump, and he turned out to be a prize for the Sox.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,685
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 12, 2015 9:46:56 GMT -5
It was Lucchino and Bill Lajoie who were proponents of the Beckett/Lowell for Hanley/Sanchez deal. Hoyer and Cherington (and Theo) were against it. It worked in 2007, but long-term the Sox were better off had they not made the deal. Still they wouldn't trade back their Championship, though. That was a good deal for both teams. You have your history rather mixed up. The trade occurred when Theo was not with the Sox. It was during the time after he quit because of his rift with Lucchino and before he came back. I think this deal was done by Hoyer, not opposed by him, obviously with agreement of the higher ups. Hanley was considered a bit of a head case at the time and he had not done as well as expected at AA. It was considered a hell of a deal for the Sox at the time. And I disagree completely with your contention that long term the Sox would have been better off. The trade won them a world championship. Long term would have meant not winning one. Mike Lowell was a throw-in, a salary dump, and he turned out to be a prize for the Sox. Actually I know Theo technically wasn't with the Sox then, and was probably touring with Pearl Jam, but I have trouble believing he didn't know what was going on at all times. I remember reading that Cherington and Hoyer were against the deal while the veteran guys like Lajoie, Craig Shipley, and Lucchino were in favor of the deal. The younger guys didn't want to give up on Hanley or Sanchez.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,685
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 12, 2015 9:49:00 GMT -5
Theo traded very little for Curt Schilling. The DBacks held the Sox to lower standards to mess with the Yankees who they knew wanted him, but had stolen David Wells from right under their noses the year before. With Gonzo, Theo probably wasn't crazy about doing it. Life would have been just as good had he held onto Beltre and kept Rizzo to play 1b for when Youks' career wound down. Gonzo didn't directly help the Sox win anything, but dumping his contract and spreading it around did wonders in 2013, but not afterwards. It was Lucchino and Bill Lajoie who were proponents of the Beckett/Lowell for Hanley/Sanchez deal. Hoyer and Cherington (and Theo) were against it. It worked in 2007, but long-term the Sox were better off had they not made the deal. Still they wouldn't trade back their Championship, though. That was a good deal for both teams. It wasn't dumping Gonzalez's salary, Gonzalez was and still is a good deal. He had a ton of value and allowed us to dump Crawford and Beckett Yeah, I know. Poorly worded on my part. Gonzo's salary PLUS Beckett's and especially Crawford's salary enabled the Sox to get out from under, although I will say that for value purposes I'd rather be paying Rizzo than Gonzo and it wouldn't surprise me if that crossed Theo's mind even back in Dec 2010 when he made the deal. As he said later on, he made moves he normally wouldn't have liked to make because of the situations surrounding him.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Jun 12, 2015 10:43:45 GMT -5
As far as hoarding prospects, it is near certain that after the 2013 season, Cherington could have had Stanton for Xander + (JBJ? Owens?). Assuming he could have signed Stanton to a reasonable extension (admittedly uncertain), I make that trade with no hesitation, even if with a heavy heart How do you know that? Did you talk to any of the parties involved? No, but it's a reasoned deduction drawn from the fact that it is known that the Marlins approached the Astros and offered Stanton for Correa and Springer (this is uncontested from leaked Luhnow notes) and the Astros said no during the 2013 offseason. Now, I'm treating Bogaerts as a double for Correa (at the time, I think it's fair to say that Bogaerts was more highly regarded than Correa if only because he was already in the majors) - not clear who the substitute for Springer would have been (maybe WMB+ at the time?). Combined with the numerous reports by beat writers that the Red Sox coveted Stanton, and the similarly reported to death that the Red Sox viewed Xander as untouchable (which I wouldn't be surprised if you heard at least secondhand). Now is it possible the Marlins preferred Correa to Xander (in 2013)? Sure, but unlikely. Maybe the Marlins would rather be burned at the stake than trade with the Red Sox? I guess. Circumstantial? Sure, so near certain is too strong, highly probable is better; but it isn't much of a stretch to deduce that a team that was actively willing to trade Stanton for Correa and Springer wouldn't have contemporaneously shopped at the Red Sox asking for Xander +, in fact it would be rather bizarre if it wasn't the case
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Jun 12, 2015 11:13:46 GMT -5
It wasn't dumping Gonzalez's salary, Gonzalez was and still is a good deal. He had a ton of value and allowed us to dump Crawford and Beckett Yeah, I know. Poorly worded on my part. Gonzo's salary PLUS Beckett's and especially Crawford's salary enabled the Sox to get out from under, although I will say that for value purposes I'd rather be paying Rizzo than Gonzo and it wouldn't surprise me if that crossed Theo's mind even back in Dec 2010 when he made the deal. As he said later on, he made moves he normally wouldn't have liked to make because of the situations surrounding him. And of course that wouldn't be Theo engaging in after the fact rationalization and general *** covering; jejune is too kind
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,685
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 12, 2015 12:45:44 GMT -5
Yeah, I know. Poorly worded on my part. Gonzo's salary PLUS Beckett's and especially Crawford's salary enabled the Sox to get out from under, although I will say that for value purposes I'd rather be paying Rizzo than Gonzo and it wouldn't surprise me if that crossed Theo's mind even back in Dec 2010 when he made the deal. As he said later on, he made moves he normally wouldn't have liked to make because of the situations surrounding him. And of course that wouldn't be Theo engaging in after the fact rationalization and general *** covering; jejune is too kind Maybe, but then again I look at his actions. He grew up worshipping the Red Sox, yet he was quite cool with leaving and going to a franchise he knew would take quite awhile to rebuild and would need to do it through the farm system. He knew he'd have time to build the team properly, something that seems apparent to me, that he didn't feel he could quite do in Boston as you're never really allowed to rebuild in Boston and patience wears very thin.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 12, 2015 14:50:24 GMT -5
How do you know that? Did you talk to any of the parties involved? No, but it's a reasoned deduction drawn from the fact that it is known that the Marlins approached the Astros and offered Stanton for Correa and Springer (this is uncontested from leaked Luhnow notes) and the Astros said no during the 2013 offseason. Now, I'm treating Bogaerts as a double for Correa (at the time, I think it's fair to say that Bogaerts was more highly regarded than Correa if only because he was already in the majors) - not clear who the substitute for Springer would have been (maybe WMB+ at the time?). Combined with the numerous reports by beat writers that the Red Sox coveted Stanton, and the similarly reported to death that the Red Sox viewed Xander as untouchable (which I wouldn't be surprised if you heard at least secondhand). Now is it possible the Marlins preferred Correa to Xander (in 2013)? Sure, but unlikely. Maybe the Marlins would rather be burned at the stake than trade with the Red Sox? I guess. Circumstantial? Sure, so near certain is too strong, highly probable is better; but it isn't much of a stretch to deduce that a team that was actively willing to trade Stanton for Correa and Springer wouldn't have contemporaneously shopped at the Red Sox asking for Xander +, in fact it would be rather bizarre if it wasn't the case 1) Your history is a shade off: www.sbnation.com/mlb/2014/7/1/5860426/astros-giancarlo-stanton-trade-leaked-hacked The deal was presented in a way that suggested that Jennings knew it was asking for the moon and the stars. 2) The Red Sox didn't have a substitute for Springer. Correa and Springer were consensus top 20 prospects in the game at the time. Middlebrooks never was regarded as highly and his star had faded by that point. The Red Sox never had the guns to trade for Stanton.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 12, 2015 14:52:07 GMT -5
I disagree about the scouting background. I think we need a stats oriented GM who isn't a prospect hoarder like Ben is. Theo was great for us Our stats orientated front office is the reason we're in the predicament we are. #truth So you think we should stop looking at stats, like Arizona and Philadelphia?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 12, 2015 15:10:12 GMT -5
No, but it's a reasoned deduction drawn from the fact that it is known that the Marlins approached the Astros and offered Stanton for Correa and Springer (this is uncontested from leaked Luhnow notes) and the Astros said no during the 2013 offseason. Now, I'm treating Bogaerts as a double for Correa (at the time, I think it's fair to say that Bogaerts was more highly regarded than Correa if only because he was already in the majors) - not clear who the substitute for Springer would have been (maybe WMB+ at the time?). Combined with the numerous reports by beat writers that the Red Sox coveted Stanton, and the similarly reported to death that the Red Sox viewed Xander as untouchable (which I wouldn't be surprised if you heard at least secondhand). Now is it possible the Marlins preferred Correa to Xander (in 2013)? Sure, but unlikely. Maybe the Marlins would rather be burned at the stake than trade with the Red Sox? I guess. Circumstantial? Sure, so near certain is too strong, highly probable is better; but it isn't much of a stretch to deduce that a team that was actively willing to trade Stanton for Correa and Springer wouldn't have contemporaneously shopped at the Red Sox asking for Xander +, in fact it would be rather bizarre if it wasn't the case 1) Your history is a shade off: www.sbnation.com/mlb/2014/7/1/5860426/astros-giancarlo-stanton-trade-leaked-hacked The deal was presented in a way that suggested that Jennings knew it was asking for the moon and the stars. 2) The Red Sox didn't have a substitute for Springer. Correa and Springer were consensus top 20 prospects in the game at the time. Middlebrooks never was regarded as highly and his star had faded by that point. The Red Sox never had the guns to trade for Stanton. And then we'd need a SS plus maybe a catcher while paying $30 million a year for Stanton. Stanton is very good, but he's not Trout or McCutchen.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jun 12, 2015 15:11:36 GMT -5
Our stats orientated front office is the reason we're in the predicament we are. #truth So you think we should stop looking at stats, like Arizona and Philadelphia? Who said Philly doesn't look at stats? RAJ is a big RBI guy.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 12, 2015 15:15:14 GMT -5
All the talk about Cherington vs. Theo is kind of crazy and there's a lot of selective memory. It's probably easier to build a WS champion around a 28 year old Papi and 30 year old Manny. What they're doing now is trying to build a WS around a bunch of 22,23 year olds and a 39 year old Papi.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jun 12, 2015 15:16:22 GMT -5
“@alexspeier: Breslow is going on paternity leave. Hence, Hembree callup.”
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Jun 12, 2015 15:22:17 GMT -5
All the talk about Cherington vs. Theo is kind of crazy and there's a lot of selective memory. It's probably easier to build a WS champion around a 28 year old Papi and 30 year old Manny. What they're doing now is trying to build a WS around a bunch of 22,23 year olds and a 39 year old Papi. That we agree on. We also can't do over the slot signings in the draft. We also can't get all those supplemental picks Theo was great at accumulating. MLB evaluation is imperative. Unfortunately, it appears to be the weakness of the current front office. Not sure how you fix that.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 12, 2015 15:25:32 GMT -5
I think we just need to wait for Mookie, Xander and Blake to become 6 WAR players.
|
|
|
Post by threeifbaerga on Jun 12, 2015 16:44:57 GMT -5
What they're doing now is trying to build a WS around a bunch of 22,23 year olds and a 39 year old Papi. Are they really? Or are they trying to field a competitive team until those 22 and 23 year olds are in their prime?
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jun 12, 2015 16:51:48 GMT -5
You have your history rather mixed up. The trade occurred when Theo was not with the Sox. It was during the time after he quit because of his rift with Lucchino and before he came back. I think this deal was done by Hoyer, not opposed by him, obviously with agreement of the higher ups. Hanley was considered a bit of a head case at the time and he had not done as well as expected at AA. It was considered a hell of a deal for the Sox at the time. And I disagree completely with your contention that long term the Sox would have been better off. The trade won them a world championship. Long term would have meant not winning one. Mike Lowell was a throw-in, a salary dump, and he turned out to be a prize for the Sox. Actually I know Theo technically wasn't with the Sox then, and was probably touring with Pearl Jam, but I have trouble believing he didn't know what was going on at all times. I remember reading that Cherington and Hoyer were against the deal while the veteran guys like Lajoie, Craig Shipley, and Lucchino were in favor of the deal. The younger guys didn't want to give up on Hanley or Sanchez. I think I was mistaken about Hoyer. After writing that post I did what I should have done before writing, a little research. Lajoie and Shipley apparently were the movers and shakers in that deal. I wonder if that had anything to do with Shipley's departure later? I read several post mortems on that deal that have been written in recent years and they all generally conclude that it was a good deal for both teams, but that the Red Sox got more tangible benefits - i.e. a WS championship. The deal now might look worse if Hanley had continued on the tangent of his first few years, which might have taken him to the Hall of Fame.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 12, 2015 16:59:47 GMT -5
Actually I know Theo technically wasn't with the Sox then, and was probably touring with Pearl Jam, but I have trouble believing he didn't know what was going on at all times. I remember reading that Cherington and Hoyer were against the deal while the veteran guys like Lajoie, Craig Shipley, and Lucchino were in favor of the deal. The younger guys didn't want to give up on Hanley or Sanchez. I think I was mistaken about Hoyer. After writing that post I did what I should have done before writing, a little research. Lajoie and Shipley apparently were the movers and shakers in that deal. I wonder if that had anything to do with Shipley's departure later? I read several post mortems on that deal that have been written in recent years and they all generally conclude that it was a good deal for both teams, but that the Red Sox got more tangible benefits - i.e. a WS championship. The deal now might look worse if Hanley had continued on the tangent of his first few years, which might have taken him to the Hall of Fame. Shipley's departure (in 2011, which was seven years later) was because he was kind of awful as the Int'l Scouting Director.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jun 12, 2015 17:20:29 GMT -5
I think I was mistaken about Hoyer. After writing that post I did what I should have done before writing, a little research. Lajoie and Shipley apparently were the movers and shakers in that deal. I wonder if that had anything to do with Shipley's departure later? I read several post mortems on that deal that have been written in recent years and they all generally conclude that it was a good deal for both teams, but that the Red Sox got more tangible benefits - i.e. a WS championship. The deal now might look worse if Hanley had continued on the tangent of his first few years, which might have taken him to the Hall of Fame. Shipley's departure (in 2011, which was seven years later) was because he was kind of awful as the Int'l Scouting Director. I've never known much about the internal workings of the Sox management. You guys are much better informed. For some reason I had been under the impression that Shipley was good at his job but didn't get along with some of the team's management. That impression may have been formed before Dice-K cratered. Didn't he also get Tazawa?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 12, 2015 17:34:47 GMT -5
Shipley's departure (in 2011, which was seven years later) was because he was kind of awful as the Int'l Scouting Director. I've never known much about the internal workings of the Sox management. You guys are much better informed. For some reason I had been under the impression that Shipley was good at his job but didn't get along with some of the team's management. That impression may have been formed before Dice-K cratered. Didn't he also get Tazawa? Yeah, but he also gave a lot of money to guys who suuuuuuucked. I'm not even talking about talented kids like Almanzar who didn't pan out, but like, Adalberto Ibarra and Oscar Perez were just abysmal signs. The Red Sox also got nothing out of their international signees for years, a weakness I remember Theo acknowledging at a Hot Stove Cool Music event during a roundtable interview.
|
|
|