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 grandsalami on Dec 10, 2012 13:09:49 GMT -5
so we are going back to the BC is a puppet route..... YIPPE :-l ENOUGH for F*** sake Calling him a puppet/errand boy is actually a compliment. Personally, I think he's incompetent. bulls**T GIVE me REASONS why according to you he is "incompetent"
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 10, 2012 15:15:06 GMT -5
Calling him a puppet/errand boy is actually a compliment. Personally, I think he's incompetent. bulls**T GIVE me REASONS why according to you he is "incompetent" What, are you related to him or just bff's? So far he has been plodding, unimaginative and I haven't liked most of his moves. It's a subjective assessment so that's my opinion. We all play GM in our minds, and I've liked a very few of his moves so far. He's reminded me more of J.P. Ricchardi than Jon Daniels, Andrew Friedman, Theo Epstein, John Mozeliak, Billy Beane or Alex Anthopolous. I can get into specifics if you like, but I've been pretty vocal on my opinions over the past few years as deals go down or are strongly rumored by sourced media. So this should be enough for most anyone else, but if you really want specifics, read on... Off the top of my head I liked: - Franklin Morales, though barring injury I think it's insane if he doesn't open the year as the 5th starter; - David Ross was fine but he's only good for 80 games a year or so; - Love the Uehara move though I still see him as a 7th inning guy. I disliked at the time: - Trade of Reddick - Acquisition of Melancon - Hiring of Bobby V (or do you want to say Lucchino is in charge again here)? - Acquisition of Nick Punto - Passing on Darvish (although I'll give you that one is on Luchhino/Ownership; then again a guy like Daniels/ Theo/Anthopolous/Mozeliack gets this done, esp. when 2/3s of one year of NESN revenues cover the posting fee). - Passing on Yoenis Cespedes and/or Soler (or was this Lucchino again?), esp when it was the last time you could game the Intl market. - Trade for Marlon Byrd - Quick trigger on trade of Youkilis - Trade of Shoppach 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.
|
|
|
Post by dmaineah on Dec 10, 2012 16:59:21 GMT -5
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. Agreed, unacceptable.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Dec 10, 2012 18:20:28 GMT -5
Look, I don't question BC's competency, just the club direction. They pulled off an incredible deal jettisoning all that salary commitment. When will we ever again have that same opportunity to start over and most efficiently use those resources? Probably not in my lifetime. The tough part for the Sox was choosing the appropriate forward course.
They felt some obligation to the fans and out of self-interest (money) to try to put an entertaining team on the field. If they did not, revenue decline would off-set the 'gains' they made by the salary dump. But, with a poor team, they had less attraction for free agents....and even that market was near historically slim on major talent that had no taint. They did what they could, as fast as they could to walk this tightrope but had to overpay.
Realistically, they are not going to contend in 2013. Our major ups were not retained by their own teams!! We will have more RH pop and the excitement that comes from that at least in Fenway. We still might finish last in the East. I say this because there are too many ifs...just a fact. I understand that Christ rose from the grave but......
I don't know what course I would have taken if a GM given the competing interests. As a fan I would liked to have had us embark on a 3 year plan to maximally infuse talent. If I could do so by trading an Ellsbury and/or a Lester for outstanding MilB talent, I would do so. Ells has been terribly injury prone, wildly inconsistent and has a 'Damon arm" while Lester appears in physical decline. He has never been a 7 or 8 inning guy and has trouble consistently throwing quality strikes. That is not likely to change. Farrell was here before as I recall.
Hey, I will be a fan no matter what but I see us, as presently constituted, on the outs looking in come October 2013.
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,823
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Dec 10, 2012 19:27:52 GMT -5
Look, I don't question BC's competency, just the club direction. They pulled off an incredible deal jettisoning all that salary commitment. When will we ever again have that same opportunity to start over and most efficiently use those resources? Probably not in my lifetime. The tough part for the Sox was choosing the appropriate forward course. They felt some obligation to the fans and out of self-interest (money) to try to put an entertaining team on the field. If they did not, revenue decline would off-set the 'gains' they made by the salary dump. But, with a poor team, they had less attraction for free agents....and even that market was near historically slim on major talent that had no taint. They did what they could, as fast as they could to walk this tightrope but had to overpay. Realistically, they are not going to contend in 2013. Our major ups were not retained by their own teams!! We will have more RH pop and the excitement that comes from that at least in Fenway. We still might finish last in the East. I say this because there are too many ifs...just a fact. I understand that Christ rose from the grave but...... I don't know what course I would have taken if a GM given the competing interests. As a fan I would liked to have had us embark on a 3 year plan to maximally infuse talent. If I could do so by trading an Ellsbury and/or a Lester for outstanding MilB talent, I would do so. Ells has been terribly injury prone, wildly inconsistent and has a 'Damon arm" while Lester appears in physical decline. He has never been a 7 or 8 inning guy and has trouble consistently throwing quality strikes. That is not likely to change. Farrell was here before as I recall. Hey, I will be a fan no matter what but I see us, as presently constituted, on the outs looking in come October 2013. Sarasoxer has a lot of good ideas. I too would have loved for them to go at the "future" full bore, but we sort have one foot in and one foot out. THAT makes no sense. Either you spend like a drunkin sailor to win next year or make up your mind it is going to take a couple of years (or 3). Improving just enough to be a .500 team is ludicrous. Heck we won 69 games last year. Even our fans, who are somewhat spoiled, would understand that next year could be a little more of the same.......if we went young. All I'm saying is the front office also doesn't quite know if we are in for 2013 or waiting for 2014 (or 2015). A Wil Myers and a Jake Ordozzi would have been exciting to watch. Even the "pink" hats would have been OK with it.....if these guys are cute. I'm (just) half-kidding. A trip to Fenway is still almost like a pilgrimage for most. The sell-out streak means nothing and I really doubt even if we put a team that won just 75-77 games next year, Henry and the boys would still make out just fine. Look I'm fine with most of the moves Cherington has made (including Victorino), but unless they do something big (and I mean BIG), the Sox will probably win between 82 and 87 games. That is not going to get us in the play-offs. We are one foot in!!!! That is what I'm not happy about. .500 is the absolute worse place to be in professional sports.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 10, 2012 19:34:43 GMT -5
Look, I don't question BC's competency, just the club direction. They pulled off an incredible deal jettisoning all that salary commitment. When will we ever again have that same opportunity to start over and most efficiently use those resources? Probably not in my lifetime. The tough part for the Sox was choosing the appropriate forward course. They felt some obligation to the fans and out of self-interest (money) to try to put an entertaining team on the field. If they did not, revenue decline would off-set the 'gains' they made by the salary dump. But, with a poor team, they had less attraction for free agents....and even that market was near historically slim on major talent that had no taint. They did what they could, as fast as they could to walk this tightrope but had to overpay. Realistically, they are not going to contend in 2013. Our major ups were not retained by their own teams!! We will have more RH pop and the excitement that comes from that at least in Fenway. We still might finish last in the East. I say this because there are too many ifs...just a fact. I understand that Christ rose from the grave but...... I don't know what course I would have taken if a GM given the competing interests. As a fan I would liked to have had us embark on a 3 year plan to maximally infuse talent. If I could do so by trading an Ellsbury and/or a Lester for outstanding MilB talent, I would do so. Ells has been terribly injury prone, wildly inconsistent and has a 'Damon arm" while Lester appears in physical decline. He has never been a 7 or 8 inning guy and has trouble consistently throwing quality strikes. That is not likely to change. Farrell was here before as I recall. Hey, I will be a fan no matter what but I see us, as presently constituted, on the outs looking in come October 2013. Sarasoxer has a lot of good ideas. I too would have loved for them to go at the "future" full bore, but we sort have one foot in and one foot out. THAT makes no sense. Either you spend like a drunkin sailor to win next year or make up your mind it is going to take a couple of years (or 3). Improving just enough to be a .500 team is ludicrous. Heck we won 69 games last year. Even our fans, who are somewhat spoiled, would understand that next year could be a little more of the same.......if we went young. All I'm saying is the front office also doesn't quite know if we are in for 2013 or waiting for 2014 (or 2015). A Wil Myers and a Jake Ordozzi would have been exciting to watch. Even the "pink" hats would have been OK with it.....if these guys are cute. I'm (just) half-kidding. A trip to Fenway is still almost like a pilgrimage for most. The sell-out streak means nothing and I really doubt even if we put a team that won just 75-77 games next year, Henry and the boys would still make out just fine. Look I'm fine with most of the moves Cherington has made (including Victorino), but unless they do something big (and I mean BIG), the Sox will probably win between 82 and 87 games. That is not going to get us in the play-offs. We are one foot in!!!! That is what I'm not happy about. .500 is the absolute worse place to be in professional sports. You and Sarasoxer have hit the nail squarely on the head. They're building a 3 year bridge perhaps? Being an 85 win team might get you into the wild card one game playoff, but I'd hate to see the Sox have to catch lightning in a bottle to win. That's how they were built when I grew up. It's kind of funny, but historically to me the most bland of forever .500 teams are the White Sox who took 88 years to win. Then you have the A's who have been cumulatively bad to mediocre over the years (OK, being in KC dragged their overall down), but their history has been to build, win championships, dismantle, be exceedingly awful, rebuild, and win more championships. I don't think they hand out trophies for "respectability". Isn't that what teams like KC or these days Pittsburgh shoot for? I personally can be patient enought to wait a few years if the Sox are building an amazing core. They definitely have one awesome player and some good building blocks, but they definitely need more.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Dec 10, 2012 19:46:05 GMT -5
The administration is not yet done dealing. Further player moves will come. It's too early to tell whether this is a team built for the long term that is forfeiting the 2013 season (thought it cannot admit as much to the ticket-buying public), or is trying to build a contender for this coming season.
If Cherington signs Hamilton, that will be a good indication which direction the organization is taking. But there are trading chips that he has not yet used. I speak about Saltalamacchia (or Lavarnway, whoever brings back more), Ellsbury, relief pitching and some prospects.
I'm not satisfied with the product that BC has presented to us fans thusfar. Shane Victorino in RF doesn't excite me. I look at him as a part of the big puzzle which is yet to be assembled.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 10, 2012 20:04:29 GMT -5
Can someone explain this desire to tank the 2013 season to me? Why is being a true-talent 75-win team so much better than being a true-talent 85-win team with a decent shot of making the playoffs if things break right? What does "going young" really mean?
(a) None of the recent signings has blocked any notable prospects, unless you think Bryce Brentz is our next lord and savior. The impact prospects (Bogaerts, Bradley, De La Rosa, Webster, Barnes) all still need at least a half-season in the minors and none has a long-term commitment blocking him if he proves ready. I guess signing Ross semi-blocked Lavarnway, but he might start half the games anyways and I don't think he's the kind of player you tank a season to help develop.
(b) This isn't football or basketball where slight differences in draft position can make or break a franchise. The only reason the Red Sox were so bad last year was because they lost four of their best five offensive players for half the season, and with the Pedroia/Ortiz/Middlebrooks/Lester/Buchholz core in place, the 2013 Red Sox wouldn't have been able to threaten a bottom-10 record even if they had decided to "let the young guys play" and not made the string of recent signings. There just isn't really a huge difference between the 12th pick in the draft and the 20th, or not enough to make it worth giving up multiple seasons of potential contention. Once you get past the first few picks, the rest of the first round is generally pretty similar in talent, and it becomes more about how good your scouting department is than about how high you pick.
(c) The argument goes that if you "let the young guys play," you can trade Ellsbury and Saltalamacchia for prospects. Well, they just might trade them anyways and the signings of guys like Ross and Victorino has only made those trades more likely. I won't speculate on the state of Myers-for-Lester talks given the lack of concrete information we have available.
I just don't understand the consternation over being only a marginal contender. No prospects or draft picks have been given up and no long-term, potentially-crippling contracts have been given out. The FO clearly looked at the slate of "elite" FAs and decided neither Greinke nor Hamilton were worth the commitment (something I agree with), and this is the next-best option. The long-term prospect core of the team is still in place, but in the short-term the team is more competitive. What's the big deal?
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 10, 2012 20:30:39 GMT -5
It's funny, this team's talent level is always .500, unless they add Hamilton or Greinke, is which case they could actually contend. They could add 4-5 more quality but non-elite players, and the expectations will remain the same. It's like they can't possibly be good unless they fill the big name quota. I mean, where will all the RBI's come from?
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 10, 2012 20:32:38 GMT -5
So far he has been plodding, unimaginative and I haven't liked most of his moves. It's a subjective assessment so that's my opinion. We all play GM in our minds, and I've liked a very few of his moves so far. 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. . Ok, you're definitely entitled to your opinion of BC, but I think you're being more than a bit harsh and not giving him his fair due. Plodding and unimaginative? He made one of the biggest trades in baseball history, that's anything but plodding and unimaginative. And if you want to say it was a no brainer, that's not giving him any credit for putting it together and a trade that big is anything but a no brainer. He was very hamstrung last offseason from a budget perspective so he had very little wiggle room and had very little in the way of prospect ammo to make big trades. He didn't have much ability to be too creative. This year, he's in a tough spot because he has money to spend and very few options to spend it on and he has some prospects to trade, but not a ton. The ones he has are at key positions of need or is a borderline untouchable. JBjr is needed to replace Jacoby. Bogaerts, no one wants to trade and the arms (Barnes, Webster, De La Rosa) are at a weird value point that doesn't make them premium prospects so they are more valuable to the Sox for what they could be than what they could bring back. As for the moves that you said you would have made, not to be a dick, but it's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read in the context you wrote it. You made it seem like BC was to incompetant to make these things happen and you could have. First the David Price scenario is completely far fetch and insane to state it in a matter of fact sense. I won't go into all the reasons why it's insane, but major trades between division rivals very rarely happen regardless of all the other issues with it. The Tori Hunter suggestion, shows that you don't have much of a clue as to how free agency works. Listen, I get it, we are fans, our fun comes in playing GM and coming up with deals and moves so I dont so much have a problem with you playing this game. However when you are completely bashing a man while doing it, I'm going to take the opportunity to defend him and when doing so I need to point this out. A real GM doesn't have 20/20 hindsight to help him construct a deal. BC doesn't know what the Tigers are offering. Even if an Agent happens to tell him what the offer is, BC has no way of knowing if that is a real offer or not. Mystery teams, mystery offers, real teams with fake offers or inflated offers make their way into negotiations all the time. It's impossible to know what is true and you can't develop a rep as a GM that believes everything an agent is telling you and jumping at it plus 2 million to get a guy you want. On top of that, Tori Hunter isn't at a point in his career where every last dollar matters so you have no clue as to whether he'd even choose the Sox plus 2M over the Tigers who were just in the WS and get Victor Martinez back. Hunter wants to win a WS. I'm not a big fan of the Victorino contract so this isn't a defense of it, but the Hunter deal was signed early; he was the first outfielder to sign and then other dominos started to fall. The market for OFers has surprised a lot of people. Doesn't make BC incompetant. McCarthy, I agree would have been a nice get, but again you can't just add dollars to a deal a guy signed like it's that easy. On top of that, he's coming off of a scary injury and incident. There are a lot of question marks there and it's questionable how good a pitcher he was regardless of that. One other thing I want to add is the Reddick trade. I don't doubt you didn't like it at the time and good for you for sticking with your opinion, but his year is being entirely over-rated. Not to cherry-pick stats, but he had a .305 OBP and his OPS second half was .647 on a line of .215/.256/.391; Bailey was awful here, but if Reddick is more second half Reddick than 1st half Reddick then he may not be a major league regular much longer.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 10, 2012 20:33:40 GMT -5
I just don't understand the consternation over being only a marginal contender. No prospects or draft picks have been given up and no long-term, potentially-crippling contracts have been given out. The FO clearly looked at the slate of "elite" FAs and decided neither Greinke nor Hamilton were worth the commitment (something I agree with), and this is the next-best option. The long-term prospect core of the team is still in place, but in the short-term the team is more competitive. What's the big deal? The 2011 Yankees were crushed by their fans for this. They only added Freddy Garcia and Bartolo Colon while the Red Sox became unbeatable. On paper. And to be fair the Yankees didn't win the WS, but trying to win can actually be good for a franchise. All those moves the Dodgers made in July couldn't win them their division. There is a difference between trying to win now, and trying to win now at all costs. Well said on all points Jmei.
|
|
|
Post by buffs4444 on Dec 10, 2012 23:30:00 GMT -5
Can someone explain this desire to tank the 2013 season to me? The long-term prospect core of the team is still in place, but in the short-term the team is more competitive. What's the big deal? It's tough to sell the most expensive tickets in the league for a team that most likely has 85-win (non-playoff) potential to a fanbase that has watched playoff- and championship-caliber teams for the past decade. The long term prospect core isn't outstanding, especially considering the top prospects beyond Xander, when compared with some of the talent that some other organizations boast. Not sure why you forgo the present, or even suffer mediocrity in the present, just to wait for a younger core of the same good-not-great talent to come along. My error, based on some of the criticism folks have had for my ideas, is that I think you make the moves that continue to shape the current team as a contender while detracting as little as possible from the continued acquisition of young talent. Preserve the minor league talent while exploiting major off season strength this team has: budget flexibility. Many of the potential moves now start to carry the cost of prospect or draft pick compensation, or likely involve minimized impact. So, kudos to the Rays for a great deal. They realized their situation and traded a guy I don't really care for to get a high end young talent. It probably weakens them somewhat next year but primes them down the road. Off topic, but why was the thread that generated the most hits on the site closed down 1/3 of the way into the offseason? Hoping it was just a mistake and/or the thread just needs to be reopened as a second iteration. Seems like the conversation from that thread is just bleeding over into other threads now.....
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Dec 11, 2012 0:27:22 GMT -5
The Rays are in a completely different situation than the Red Sox. While the Red Sox are in the need for pitching the Rays have a surplus of pitching. Pitching is also the hottest commodity on the market so the Red Sox were in no position to trade Lester for Myers straight up.
I've said this before already but I'll say it again. The Royals shopped Myers to different teams in 1-for-1 scenarios, there was even speculation of a Pitcher+a prospect for Myers. Its safe to assume they presented a similar deal to the Red Sox(1-for-1) and the Red Sox said no which in my opinion the right answer.
Shields has performed better than Lester for two years running so his trade value is much higher than Lester and perhaps rightly so. After initially being turned down in a 1 for 1 deal with the Rays they went back and expanded the deal. I don't know where do the Red Sox could potentially come in here because once it became apparent that they could land Shields, a better pitcher than anything the Red Sox could offer, there is no way for the Red Sox to beat that.
The Royals might have overpaid but they landed a better pitcher than what the Red Sox have which influences the deal.
Congrats for the Rays for cashing in on an strength but it really says nothing about the Red Sox. If there is anything to be mad about and learn from is the the Red Sox need to develop a pitching philosophy that enables them to develop pitching like the Rays.
On another point. I seriously disagree that there is no "impact" prospects beyond Bogaerts. He has all the glitter but JBJ is an impact talent. A CF who gets on-base at an elite rate, has extra base pop and can play great defense is impact talent. Ranking are a great tool for writers and observers to debate but in reality they mean nothing. If you think I'm saying this because I'm a homer its not the 1st time I've express that opinion and it had nothing to do with a Red Sox prospect.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 11, 2012 0:57:49 GMT -5
It's tough to sell the most expensive tickets in the league for a team that most likely has 85-win (non-playoff) potential to a fanbase that has watched playoff- and championship-caliber teams for the past decade. The long term prospect core isn't outstanding, especially considering the top prospects beyond Xander, when compared with some of the talent that some other organizations boast. Not sure why you forgo the present, or even suffer mediocrity in the present, just to wait for a younger core of the same good-not-great talent to come along. My error, based on some of the criticism folks have had for my ideas, is that I think you make the moves that continue to shape the current team as a contender while detracting as little as possible from the continued acquisition of young talent. Preserve the minor league talent while exploiting major off season strength this team has: budget flexibility. Many of the potential moves now start to carry the cost of prospect or draft pick compensation, or likely involve minimized impact. Hypothetical: you are Ben Cherington. The ownership gives you free reign to do whatever you like with the one caveat that you cannot sign Greinke or Hamilton under any condition. Do you: (a) Blow it up completely: extend a QO to Ortiz but don't make an effort to re-sign him, trade Ellsbury and Saltalamacchia, explore trades for Lester/Pedroia and pull the trigger if you get enough value, only sign buy-low, cheap FAs (i.e. Scott Baker, Francisco Liriano, Brandon McCarthy, etc.), and let the kids play (Iglesias, Lavarnway, Kalish, Sands/Gomez, etc.) (b) Do what Cherington actually did: pursue veteran FAs on relatively short deals if they fill a hole on the major league roster, but no long commitments. Maybe you chase Torii Hunter or Angel Pagan instead of Victorino or Cody Ross instead of Gomes, but you follow the same general strategy. (c) Go all-out to win in the short-term: try to sign the best non-Greinke/Hamilton free agents, even if they're expensive/cost a lot (ex: Anibal Sanchez for five years, $75m, Nick Swisher for four years, $60m, same deal to Napoli/LaRoche, etc.), dangle your top-tier prospects for "impact" upgrades (ex: try and beat Toronto for Reyes/Johnson/Buehrle, go all-in on Justin Upton, etc.). (d) Something else.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Dec 11, 2012 1:47:09 GMT -5
Realistically we're waiting for the other shoe to drop, for the "something else" to happen. The Myers deal was a missed opportunity - or maybe not. Getting De La Rosa & Webster was a good start but I can't see grading Cherington as anything other than Incomplete so far. The impending Salty trade may be the next data point.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Dec 11, 2012 8:22:03 GMT -5
This thread sucks. Remember, his second season is yet to begin, he inherited a bad expensive roster (mostly because of Theo, whom everyone seems to love around here and has sucked at his job at least since 2008) and got rid of most of the dead weight. You dudes should wait a little longer before trying to evaluate Ben's work.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 11, 2012 8:56:14 GMT -5
So in his first off-season Cherrington did not make the team better than they were the year before (which in pro sports means you got worse).
2/3s of the way through that season he makes "The Deal" jettisoning huge amounts of salary. More is eliminated with the departure of DiceK and a few other sagging contracts.
Second off-season the team is not "finished" yet but payroll is already back up near $140M yet the team looks like it will finish between 4th and 5th in the AL East.
This is competence? Any of us perform like this in our jobs we get fired (unless we work for the federal government; then we're promoted to cabinet secretaries).
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Dec 11, 2012 9:34:27 GMT -5
So in his first off-season Cherrington did not make the team better than they were the year before (which in pro sports means you got worse). What was he supposed to do? The Red Sox wanted to get themselves under the luxury cap threshold (something the Yankees are also trying to do). He was saddled with a roster of expensive veterans.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 11, 2012 9:36:21 GMT -5
So in his first off-season Cherrington did not make the team better than they were the year before (which in pro sports means you got worse). 2/3s of the way through that season he makes "The Deal" jettisoning huge amounts of salary. More is eliminated with the departure of DiceK and a few other sagging contracts. Second off-season the team is not "finished" yet but payroll is already back up near $140M yet the team looks like it will finish between 4th and 5th in the AL East. This is competence? Any of us perform like this in our jobs we get fired (unless we work for the federal government; then we're promoted to cabinet secretaries). Unfortunately, Ben Cherrington doesn't operate in your fantasy world where a team can realistically get 25 wins better in a single offseason. He's improved the roster, he's kept the financial commitments to a minimum (yeah, 140m next year, but next year isn't what matters-- long term, the team still has plenty of financial flexibility), and he's protected both the farm system as well as next year's draft picks. In other words he's building for the long haul, not some kamikaze run in 2013. I'd say that's almost the definition of competency.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 11, 2012 9:41:54 GMT -5
The long term prospect core isn't outstanding, especially considering the top prospects beyond Xander, when compared with some of the talent that some other organizations boast. All the more reason to hold on to what they have. You're not building a long-term contender without SOME good young talent. And you're not building a long-term contender with old Jose Reyes or old James Shields either.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Dec 11, 2012 10:01:07 GMT -5
Realistically we're waiting for the other shoe to drop, for the "something else" to happen. The Myers deal was a missed opportunity - or maybe not. Getting De La Rosa & Webster was a good start but I can't see grading Cherington as anything other than Incomplete so far. The impending Salty trade may be the next data point. If you're going to choose D, then you should explain what that 'something else' may be. I personally would go with B. It might not be the sexiest offseason but I think the current set of moves puts in the best position to A) compete next year, B) maximize this team's potential in a 5 year plan. We can debate all day about the impact of Napoli and Victorino, but honestly try and find another offense in baseball that is significantly better than a healthy Ellsbury-Pedroia-Victorino-Ortiz-Napoli-Middlebrooks. This offense is clearly above average and I think we should stop worrying there. The biggest concern is obviously the starting pitching. There is both considerable upside and downside to the rotation. I don't think the downside is worth committing to Greinke or trading away top prospects. I think we add one SP, roll the dice on the others, and hope that we receive contributions out of Webster, De La Rosa, Barnes in 2014. I like the position that Cherington has put us in for 2013, and more importantly, I love the position he has put us in for 2014 and beyond when I anticipate the next wave of our farm system starts to make an impact.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Dec 11, 2012 10:17:29 GMT -5
If you're going to choose D, then you should explain what that 'something else' may be. I thought we all knew what that is. * Trade Salty for [good value] * Trade Ellsbury for [good value] * Sign [X starter] at [manageable contract] and the kicker: * Package [x] and [y] in a trade for [z], flip [z] and [m] and [n] to yield impact player [q] Who the hell knows? We can speculate wildly in the trade forum but Cherington's job is to answer the door when opportunity knocks and to do a lot of knocking of his own until he finds the right opportunity. All of the above may yet come to pass. Probably some of it. Or something else. And by the result we will be able to judge Cherington's performance.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 11, 2012 10:37:23 GMT -5
If/when Salty does get traded, you're going to be furious with the return.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Dec 11, 2012 10:39:23 GMT -5
If/when Salty does get traded, you're going to be furious with the return. Can you be more condescending?
|
|
|
Post by buffs4444 on Dec 11, 2012 10:40:13 GMT -5
Hypothetical: you are Ben Cherington. The ownership gives you free reign to do whatever you like with the one caveat that you cannot sign Greinke or Hamilton under any condition. Do you: (a) Blow it up completely: extend a QO to Ortiz but don't make an effort to re-sign him, trade Ellsbury and Saltalamacchia, explore trades for Lester/Pedroia and pull the trigger if you get enough value, only sign buy-low, cheap FAs (i.e. Scott Baker, Francisco Liriano, Brandon McCarthy, etc.), and let the kids play (Iglesias, Lavarnway, Kalish, Sands/Gomez, etc.) (b) Do what Cherington actually did: pursue veteran FAs on relatively short deals if they fill a hole on the major league roster, but no long commitments. Maybe you chase Torii Hunter or Angel Pagan instead of Victorino or Cody Ross instead of Gomes, but you follow the same general strategy. (c) Go all-out to win in the short-term: try to sign the best non-Greinke/Hamilton free agents, even if they're expensive/cost a lot (ex: Anibal Sanchez for five years, $75m, Nick Swisher for four years, $60m, same deal to Napoli/LaRoche, etc.), dangle your top-tier prospects for "impact" upgrades (ex: try and beat Toronto for Reyes/Johnson/Buehrle, go all-in on Justin Upton, etc.). (d) Something else. D - They could win now with Greinke/Hamilton, have a $150M payroll with flexibility of expiring contracts in future years, and only surrender a second round pick . If "no Greinke / Hamilton" is the restriction, I'd look around for new employment because ownership and I are on different wavelengths. Then again, I would have also made sure to be on the same wavelength before the LAD trade as well. Don't get me wrong, I believe in the kids coming up through the system. But their pipeline is set to produce Noah style; two (possibly three) at a time for the next x number of years. There is no bubble coming in 2-/3-years of great players. As such, there's no benefit to waiting, other than wasting the present and possibly harming the future.
|
|
|