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.
Red Sox have hired former Angels GM Jerry DiPoto
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,672
|
Post by gerry on Aug 13, 2015 10:51:23 GMT -5
Didn't realize Panda had sunk so low, to last in fielding. This makes it more expensive to move him. Talk about an immovable object, literally and figuratively. Amazing that the increasingly valuable Travis Shaw at 3b + cost to move Panda > Panda.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 13, 2015 10:54:42 GMT -5
Didn't realize Panda had sunk so low, to last in fielding. This makes it more expensive to move him. Talk about an immovable object, literally and figuratively. Amazing that the increasingly valuable Travis Shaw at 3b + cost to move Panda > Panda. I absolutely love that. Instead of calling Sandoval "The Kung Fu Panda", we should nickname him "The Immovable Object". That sums up his defense and his contract.
|
|
art
Veteran
Posts: 338
|
Post by art on Aug 13, 2015 13:16:39 GMT -5
Rob Bradford @bradfo 55s56 seconds ago In case you were still wondering, Red Sox hire DiPoto as consultant to primarily evaluate their own organization (outside eyes) for now If this is the case I would think that he would be reporting directly to John Henry and to no one else. For an organization evaluation, everyone else needs to be under the microscope.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Aug 13, 2015 13:20:38 GMT -5
Rob Bradford @bradfo 55s56 seconds ago In case you were still wondering, Red Sox hire DiPoto as consultant to primarily evaluate their own organization (outside eyes) for now If this is the case I would think that he would be reporting directly to John Henry and to no one else. For an organization evaluation, everyone else needs to be under the microscope. Make sure to keep a record of his intranet passwords.
|
|
|
Post by arzjake on Aug 13, 2015 14:13:12 GMT -5
Cherington will be the President, Dipoto GM. Post it
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Aug 13, 2015 17:38:17 GMT -5
I have to admit it crossed my mind too when the Lucchino news came down but god can you imagine the reaction if they actually gave Cherington a promotion.
|
|
|
Post by arzjake on Aug 13, 2015 18:59:27 GMT -5
Some trades have been suspect. Farm system has yielded some dividends and a core group of hitters developing in A ball. We can talk about Pitching development, Owens, Erod, Johnson, Kopech are a good start.. What Cherington needs to do is go back to the old days which the game has reverted to the last few years post steroid, Pitching and defense first!
I think with LL out of the way, Cherington will flourish.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Aug 13, 2015 20:03:23 GMT -5
Some trades have been suspect. Farm system has yielded some dividends and a core group of hitters developing in A ball. We can talk about Pitching development, Owens, Erod, Johnson, Kopech are a good start.. What Cherington needs to do is go back to the old days which the game has reverted to the last few years post steroid, Pitching and defense first! I think with LL out of the way, Cherington will flourish. Betts, Vazquez, Bogaerts, Swihart, maybe Bradley... don't you think you're short-selling the system a little? All these guys have less than two years of experience - those 1,000 at bats someone mentioned, yet there appears to be some outstanding talent in there. The lack of insight into guys who are all 24 years old or less often has me shaking my head.
|
|
|
Post by telluricrook on Aug 13, 2015 23:33:43 GMT -5
Some trades have been suspect. Farm system has yielded some dividends and a core group of hitters developing in A ball. We can talk about Pitching development, Owens, Erod, Johnson, Kopech are a good start.. What Cherington needs to do is go back to the old days which the game has reverted to the last few years post steroid, Pitching and defense first! I think with LL out of the way, Cherington will flourish. Betts, Vazquez, Bogaerts, Swihart, maybe Bradley... don't you think you're short-selling the system a little? All these guys have less than two years of experience - those 1,000 at bats someone mentioned, yet there appears to be some outstanding talent in there. The lack of insight into guys who are all 24 years old or less often has me shaking my head. Ben cherington is not responsible for bringing in Betts, Vasquez, Bogaerts, Swihart, Bradley, Owens. Just Erod, Kopech and Johnson.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Aug 13, 2015 23:58:08 GMT -5
No one said he was, including the poster I responded too.
|
|
alnipper
Veteran
Living the dream
Posts: 619
|
Post by alnipper on Aug 14, 2015 12:30:11 GMT -5
Betts, Vazquez, Bogaerts, Swihart, maybe Bradley... don't you think you're short-selling the system a little? All these guys have less than two years of experience - those 1,000 at bats someone mentioned, yet there appears to be some outstanding talent in there. The lack of insight into guys who are all 24 years old or less often has me shaking my head. Ben cherington is not responsible for bringing in Betts, Vasquez, Bogaerts, Swihart, Bradley, Owens. Just Erod, Kopech and Johnson. He was responsible for not trading them. BC trade history is not good.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Aug 14, 2015 14:09:21 GMT -5
I have to admit it crossed my mind too when the Lucchino news came down but god can you imagine the reaction if they actually gave Cherington a promotion. I suppose there would be negative reaction, but I think that's kinda silly ... the job of President is different than GM. Cherington actually seems like he'd make a good President. He's attuned to organizational direction, there's an overall philosophy that they are sticking to and is correct, the overall health of the system is very strong ... the team has just fallen down on the actual day-to-day transactions while he is GM (outside, of course, the magical winter of 2012-2013). Trades have been meh, free agent signings haven't worked out, the team's rosters have proven to be unwieldy. Maybe there's some other reform needed - like a reform of the major league evaluation process and personnel - but I'd have nothing against Cherington moving into the President's role and someone like DiPoto moving into GM. This is actually a broader pet peeve of mine. Different jobs just require a different set of skills (I'm better at the exec level than I ever was at the management level). Thinking of everything as a "promotion" leads you into the old "Peter Principle" where people get promoted to their level of incompetence.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Aug 14, 2015 15:08:33 GMT -5
there's an overall philosophy that they are sticking to and is correct, [...] Trades have been meh, free agent signings haven't worked out, the team's rosters have proven to be unwieldy. I think the "overall philosophy" of being behind the curve in analytics is exactly what has led to trades being meh and free agent signings not working out. And the team's roster being unwieldy is certainly also a failure of the "overall philosophy" that Cherington stands for.
|
|
|
Post by benogliviesbrother on Aug 14, 2015 15:31:01 GMT -5
Well, at least that proves that they're committed to analytics. He's pretty much 100% an analytics guy ... That he played MLB ball for a decade+ and scouted for a couple of years would suggest he has a more well-rounded evaluation philosophy then what one typically thinks of when reading, "analytics guy." At least, I would hope so.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Aug 14, 2015 15:44:29 GMT -5
Yeah, there were people on this board who really questioned the wisdom of getting Sandoval. The extreme lack of discipline and his downward trending numbers were red flags. I don't put as much stock in the defensive metrics, and I don't see that as anywhere near the problem his hitting is. He's still better at third than anyone else they could stick there. There have been a lot of plays with Holt and, lately Shaw, at third that would have been in the can for the guy. But the hitting can drive you batty. I'm still not sure why they thought they needed him. Ramirez has been, and probably will continue to be, an enigma both physically and at the plate. When he's on and healthy he can have extended stretches where he kills it. I thought he was a good pick up, and I'd wager there's a few more of those in his future. Keeping him healthy, however, seems near impossible, for whatever reason. And watching him learn the outfield requires the patience of John Cleese in this scene from A Fish Called Wanda:
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 14, 2015 15:45:52 GMT -5
Well, at least that proves that they're committed to analytics. He's pretty much 100% an analytics guy ... That he played MLB ball for a decade+ and scouted for a couple of years would suggest he has a more well-rounded evaluation philosophy then what one typically thinks of when reading, "analytics guy." At least, I would hope so. Gabe Kapler is similar. Some former players are smart enough to grasp those advanced stats.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxrich on Aug 14, 2015 15:47:22 GMT -5
New poster here- one thought here - how much does luck play into all of this? Specifically, I realize that there are some GM's who are much more successful than others, but if the Angels don't draft Mike Trout, wouldn't it be fair to call Dipoto a very unsuccessful GM? I mean the signing of Hamilton was one of the all-time worst; Jared Weaver signing looks to be a trainwreck; Pujols has been good and bad so far but he still has 7(?) years left on his deal and I don't think anyone thinks that is going to end well.
Yes they did end up drafting Trout, but how much of that was that he just fell to them and they were as surprised as anyone that he became as good as he has? Unless they would have drafted him if they had the number #1 pick and he was no doubt their guy, isn't all of it a little luck?
I guess what I'm saying is I'm not a huge fan of Cherington, but most of his moves had at least some basis in good judgment when they were made (maybe except for extending Porcello before he needed to and not building a better bullpen) and some of it is just bad luck. Should a guy that generally had good luck during his GM tenure (Dipoto) be reviewing our organization when you could say that if the Angels didn't have Mike Trout they would be one of the worst organizations in baseball?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 14, 2015 15:52:22 GMT -5
New poster here- one thought here - how much does luck play into all of this? Specifically, I realize that there are some GM's who are much more successful than others, but if the Angels don't draft Mike Trout, wouldn't it be fair to call Dipoto a very unsuccessful GM? I mean the signing of Hamilton was one of the all-time worst; Jared Weaver signing looks to be a trainwreck; Pujols has been good and bad so far but he still has 7(?) years left on his deal and I don't think anyone thinks that is going to end well.
Yes they did end up drafting Trout, but how much of that was that he just fell to them and they were as surprised as anyone that he became as good as he has? Unless they would have drafted him if they had the number #1 pick and he was no doubt their guy, isn't all of it a little luck?
I guess what I'm saying is I'm not a huge fan of Cherington, but most of his moves had at least some basis in good judgment when they were made (maybe except for extending Porcello before he needed to and not building a better bullpen) and some of it is just bad luck. Should a guy that generally had good luck during his GM tenure (Dipoto) be reviewing our organization when you could say that if the Angels didn't have Mike Trout they would be one of the worst organizations in baseball? Welcome to the board. He's made some bad moves, but it appears that the owner gets involved a lot out there, so I'd probably put a lot of responsibility regarding Pujols and Hamilton on him. The Trumbo and Kendrick trades were pretty awesome though, and he has built a great bullpen. The fact that he quit because he couldn't do what he wanted pretty much says he can't hold all the blame there.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Aug 14, 2015 15:57:03 GMT -5
there's an overall philosophy that they are sticking to and is correct, [...] Trades have been meh, free agent signings haven't worked out, the team's rosters have proven to be unwieldy. I think the "overall philosophy" of being behind the curve in analytics is exactly what has led to trades being meh and free agent signings not working out. And the team's roster being unwieldy is certainly also a failure of the "overall philosophy" that Cherington stands for. We have no evidence for the analytics that they use to make free agent decisions. The only evidence we have is that their results have been problematic. Is that because they were pushing the bleeding edge on statistical analysis and using unproven theories that didn't work out? Or is it because they weren't assimilating empirical and subjective evaluations properly? Or do they perform their statistical analysis on an abacus and make decisions on Cherington's readings of goat entrails? We just don't know. And the second point is the exact opposite of "overall philosophy" ... you are talking about tactical decisions rather than strategic direction.
|
|
|
Post by benogliviesbrother on Aug 14, 2015 15:57:23 GMT -5
Edit: this post is in response to redsoxrich (welcome!), a few posts above:
Some of the moves you list as "evidence against" were reported to be ownership-driven. And sometimes good process returns bad result.
And they have Mike Trout. Arguing "yeah, but take him out of the equation and ..." is just another logical fallacy, akin to arbitrary endpoints.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxrich on Aug 14, 2015 16:18:20 GMT -5
I would agree with you about the Trumbo deal, but the Kendrick deal was essentially a three way and I think Miami got the best player. I think Heaney will be a serviceable starter, but is not as good as his early results suggest.
As to benogliviesbrother's point, that's exactly my point of the randomness of the MLB draft. When something akin to Portland taking Sam Bowie over Michael Jordan or in the NFL when the Colts took Manning over Leaf, that's bad/good scouting that set those franchises up for a decade. The Red Sox have gotten killed on this forum for drafting Trey Ball #7 while the Dodgers got Clayton Kershaw at #7 in the 2006 draft. In the Ball draft, there were 3 "sure things" in that draft (Appel, Bryant, Gray) and the others at the top of the draft all had various questions about them. Whereas the Dodgers happen to be bad in 2005, get the 7th pick in draft, have 6 teams pass on the eventual best player and after picking Kershaw had him fulfill his potential. That draft has set the Dodgers up for 10-15 years while the Red Sox had the unfortunate to draft 7th in a mediocre draft, not have any of the top players fall to them and have the player they draft struggle to develop. To me there is a lot of randomness of being an MLB GM and allows some organizations to be deemed "successful" while others are "failures."
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Aug 14, 2015 16:33:10 GMT -5
there's an overall philosophy that they are sticking to and is correct, [...] Trades have been meh, free agent signings haven't worked out, the team's rosters have proven to be unwieldy. I think the "overall philosophy" of being behind the curve in analytics is exactly what has led to trades being meh and free agent signings not working out. And the team's roster being unwieldy is certainly also a failure of the "overall philosophy" that Cherington stands for.I don't think the team's roster is a "failure of the overall philosophy that Cherington stands for". And what philosophy is that exactly? That's awfully sweeping a statement. You can have a broad philosophy, but issues with execution that lead to roster inflexibility. The only thing I can point to that I think more or less fits with the above, is the whole "deep depth" thing, which is great in principle, but in practice means you often send the better player to AAA to keep the lesser guy, or you play guys at positions that are not their best position. Even the "rotation of #3s" thing might have looked different if Porcello hadn't decided to have the worst year of his career. I have my issues with Cherington (after this year, everybody does I guess). But I do find it funny that people long for other GMs that become available. Dombrowski? Check, he was great in Detroit, he built a "winner", and all the bad contracts were done by the owner. And he made some good trades. DiPoto? Check; he made some good trades with the Angels. Really? Making trades is now the primary standard by which we rate the GM? I've said this before, but even with the "last place 3 years out of 4", Cherington would be leaving in place an organization with more talent and money flexibility than the shambles Dombrowski is leaving in Detroit. And if you take out Trout, the same can probably be said with DiPoto and the Angels. It's even funnier when the same people lust after Billy Beane, who's made some of the worst recent trades known to man. And I like Beane - but every time I see Donaldson come to bat for the Blue Jays, I just shake my head at that trade. I'd rather have somebody who's a bit more rounded in building an entire baseball operation, minor leagues + major leagues. The Sox have issues at the major league level, that's where they need the help. So go ahead and fire Cherington by any means - but you kinda need to do a bit better than "he made good trades", I think.
|
|
|
Post by gator39 on Aug 14, 2015 16:55:44 GMT -5
Everytime I see Josh Donaldson I shake my head that we signed Sandoval instead of trading for him
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Aug 14, 2015 17:09:52 GMT -5
Everytime I see Josh Donaldson I shake my head that we signed Sandoval instead of trading for him Us and a bunch of teams who didn't even know he was available. Ergo my point above on Billy Beane. It's not like the Sox lost him in a bidding war. People didn't even know there was a bidding. For a player of that caliber and contract, that's just mindboggling.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Aug 14, 2015 18:07:41 GMT -5
I think the "overall philosophy" of being behind the curve in analytics is exactly what has led to trades being meh and free agent signings not working out. And the team's roster being unwieldy is certainly also a failure of the "overall philosophy" that Cherington stands for. We have no evidence for the analytics that they use to make free agent decisions. The only evidence we have is that their results have been problematic. Is that because they were pushing the bleeding edge on statistical analysis and using unproven theories that didn't work out? Or is it because they weren't assimilating empirical and subjective evaluations properly? Or do they perform their statistical analysis on an abacus and make decisions on Cherington's readings of goat entrails? We just don't know. No, we can't be 100% certain but we certainly have a damn good idea of which case is most likely based on what Eric has told us. And it's not like sabremetric theory is so unstable that a new idea could come along anytime and completely contradict everything we know. It seems incredibly implausible that the Red Sox have a reasonable analytical theory that tells them that Craig Breslow is the kind of pitcher you want in your bullpen. No, when your depth-first philosophy is so extreme that you have to option Nava to keep Sizemore, that is a strategic mistake, not a tactical one.
|
|
|