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 GM Search & Other Front Office Moves
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 26, 2019 7:48:17 GMT -5
I can't imagine with all the big decisions lying up ahead that the Red Sox go into that meeting without a POBO/GM or with one just newly hired - in other words I don't expect an 11/1 hire. I think they'll have their guy before the World Series starts, perhaps even sooner. And if I had to venture a guess, I'm still thinking it's Jed Hoyer (with part of the Red Sox motivation of bringing back Theo at some point whether it's this year or next.)
|
|
mobaz
Veteran
Posts: 3,014
|
Post by mobaz on Sept 26, 2019 10:24:24 GMT -5
Don't have a sub but not a good look based on the description! Anyone with the Athletic want to summarize?
|
|
|
Post by RedSoxStats on Sept 26, 2019 10:53:38 GMT -5
Talks about how the Sox are big game GM hunting but that doesn't seem likely. Maybe the Arizona underlings. Cherington is respected in the game by his peers and they didn't care for the handling of how he was replaced. Many of those peers have young families and don't see it as a stable job in Boston.
Goes on to talk about how one executive brought up the idea of trading Betts, Benintendi and Bogaerts before Bogaerts' no-trade kicks in next year. Paraphrasing, talks about how even if ownership okays some type of reboot the candidates don't think it will actually be acceptable.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 26, 2019 11:07:10 GMT -5
Don't have a sub but not a good look based on the description! Anyone with the Athletic want to summarize? Sox Stats is overselling a bit. The "trading all of Betts, Bogaerts and Benintendi" part is just this: Yeah, I also don't believe the Sox would do such a thing, because despite one unnamed MLB exec suggesting it, the plan makes no sense. It's weird that Rosenthal presents this "trade everyone who's good" strategy as though it's something that a reasonable GM might want to do.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Sept 26, 2019 11:09:07 GMT -5
Don't have a sub but not a good look based on the description! Anyone with the Athletic want to summarize? Sox Stats is overselling a bit. The "trading all of Betts, Bogaerts and Benintendi" part is just this: Yeah, I also don't believe the Sox would do such a thing, because despite one unnamed MLB exec suggesting it, the plan makes no sense. It's weird that Rosenthal presents this "trade everyone who's good" strategy as though it's something that a reasonable GM might want to do. “Rival executive”prob works for NYY or Rays. “Yeah, I think they should blow it up and tank for five years...”
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 26, 2019 11:33:07 GMT -5
“Rival executive”prob works for NYY or Rays. “Yeah, I think they should blow it up and tank for five years...” It's also kind of interesting how in an article that talks about how all these executives don't want to come to Boston because Cherington was treated so poorly, it is presented as totally reasonable that the hometown discount that Bogearts gave Boston should be immediately leveraged for prospect capital, before the no-trade kicks in. Rosenthal is pretty openly dissatisfied/uncomfortable/whatever with modern front offices that he seems to view as these bloodless, value-obsessed suits who just want to trade anyone who makes any money for prospects. Which is not totally untrue, but presenting a speculative Bogaerts trade as an obviously reasonable path for the next Sox GM makes me think he's wound a bit too tightly around that particular axle.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Sept 26, 2019 11:36:57 GMT -5
Sounds like a rival executive trying to talk something into happening. It makes no sense to trade Xander unless they can unload Price or Sale along with him. Xander's contract is one of the better contracts in the league. Also the ramifications of trading a guy who just signed a team friendly deal because he seemingly enjoys Boston and wants to remain there for a long time could go on for years.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 26, 2019 11:42:41 GMT -5
Sounds like a rival executive trying to talk something into happening. It makes no sense to trade Xander unless they can unload Price or Sale along with him. Xander's contract is one of the better contracts in the league. Also the ramifications of trading a guy who just signed a team friendly deal because he seemingly enjoys Boston and wants to remain there for a long time could go on for years. Yeah, that would make the Bronson Arroyo trade seem benign in comparison. Xander is the core center of this team. He's lined up to be a Red Sox for 14 seasons and still only be turning 33 years old. Xander is a guy who still has the possibility of being a 20 year lifelong Red Sox, and a guy who could surpass 300 hits, perhaps 400 HRs, has played a role in 2 Red Sox World Champions (and counting), and has a chance to wind up in the HOF - if he stays healthy and finds another position to be productive at beyond SS once he hits his 30s. Basically Xander is the opposite of a guy you trade.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 26, 2019 11:59:16 GMT -5
Being lucky enough to have had the ability to sorta get plugged into baseball circles through the site, you have no idea how much absolute f-ing nonsense gets thrown around by guys.
That said, I could definitely see many throughout the game looking at the Dombrowski firing and seeing only the "he got fired because they missed the playoffs the year after winning the world series the same way they got rid of Cherington 2 years after winning the WS" narrative. Remember, we follow one team passionately - across baseball, folks are plugged in, but maybe not to that level, so the nuance might not be there for everyone.
However, I don't think they're actually going to have issues filling the spot. People will take interviews, talk with the folks here, and they'll hear all good things. They only need to convince one person to take the job. Doesn't mean they will definitely get their first choice (see Beane, Billy), but I don't think they'll be slumming it either.
Part of me does wonder if, for the above reasons, it'll be easier to hire a Romero from within or a Hoyer/MacLeod who's been with the org than to go get a Chaim Bloom type.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Sept 26, 2019 11:59:23 GMT -5
I don't get the Cherington part frankly. Two last place finishes given the talent and resources he had were on him. He made a ton of questionable moves. It wasn't just some bad luck. If anything he was lucky in 2013. Not a good look to not give these guys longer, but DD firing was much worse. If everyone is so upset about Cherington why doesn't he have a new GM or President job by now? Maybe he can learn from his mistakes and in time become a good GM, yet his track record wasn't very good during his time in Boston.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 26, 2019 14:24:40 GMT -5
I don't get the Cherington part frankly. Two last place finishes given the talent and resources he had were on him. He made a ton of questionable moves. It wasn't just some bad luck. If anything he was lucky in 2013. Not a good look to not give these guys longer, but DD firing was much worse. If everyone is so upset about Cherington why doesn't he have a new GM or President job by now? Maybe he can learn from his mistakes and in time become a good GM, yet his track record wasn't very good during his time in Boston. I think it was more the way they treated him by bringing in Dombrowski, basically in the middle of the night, and then offering Cherington the opportunity to keep his title but work under him while losing his decision-making status. If they'd just canned him it would've been more honest.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 26, 2019 14:42:10 GMT -5
I don't get the Cherington part frankly. Two last place finishes given the talent and resources he had were on him. He made a ton of questionable moves. It wasn't just some bad luck. If anything he was lucky in 2013. Not a good look to not give these guys longer, but DD firing was much worse. If everyone is so upset about Cherington why doesn't he have a new GM or President job by now? Maybe he can learn from his mistakes and in time become a good GM, yet his track record wasn't very good during his time in Boston. I think it was more the way they treated him by bringing in Dombrowski, basically in the middle of the night, and then offering Cherington the opportunity to keep his title but work under him while losing his decision-making status. If they'd just canned him it would've been more honest. Yeah, they went behind Cherington's back basically. He was not part of the process of bringing in Dombrowski. I think if I remember correctly, from Speier's book, that Cherington was aware of the possibility of of POBO type of thing happening, but he thought he'd be part of that process and instead they did it without his knowledge and once that happened he saw the handwriting on the wall really quickly. A guess on my part would be that he probably knew that if he wasn't LaRussa or Wren, Dombrowski wasn't going to be leaning on him much for input, so there was no need to stick around for that.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Sept 26, 2019 15:52:15 GMT -5
I think that the ownerships' quick trigger with firing guys will definitely give some candidates pause, and for good reason, but after a certain point it boils down to the fact that it's the opportunity to build the Boston Red Sox. There will always be people who will jump at the opportunity to head up teams like the Sox, Yankees, or Dodgers. All we gotta do is find one person.
And something to keep in mind with these guys getting ousted so relatively early, especially with Cherington, is that he's still a high-ranking baseball executive. It's not like he's been run out of the game forever. While he may not have been a good fit for the Sox anymore, it's still easy to see the positive things he brought to the organization as an executive that would make him a legit candidate for future jobs. Dombrowski may choose to retire at this point but he'd for sure get another executive level job in baseball operations if he really wanted to. Being let go by the Red Sox is not a death knell, it's just a measure of a higher standard in a lot of cases.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Sept 27, 2019 8:09:14 GMT -5
Sounds like a rival executive trying to talk something into happening. It makes no sense to trade Xander unless they can unload Price or Sale along with him. Xander's contract is one of the better contracts in the league. Also the ramifications of trading a guy who just signed a team friendly deal because he seemingly enjoys Boston and wants to remain there for a long time could go on for years. Yeah, that would make the Bronson Arroyo trade seem benign in comparison. Xander is the core center of this team. He's lined up to be a Red Sox for 14 seasons and still only be turning 33 years old. Xander is a guy who still has the possibility of being a 20 year lifelong Red Sox, and a guy who could surpass 300 hits, perhaps 400 HRs, has played a role in 2 Red Sox World Champions (and counting), and has a chance to wind up in the HOF - if he stays healthy and finds another position to be productive at beyond SS once he hits his 30s. Basically Xander is the opposite of a guy you trade. Ironically, this is what he posted about King Felix staying in Seattle too.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Sept 27, 2019 19:22:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Sept 28, 2019 12:13:34 GMT -5
For any who've not read through it, Henry was very open about the hiring and firing. He really echoed a lot of what was said on this site when Dombrowski was first brought on board, that there would be costs down the road. Those costs got too high for them. Many here knew that he would trade off assets to get where they wanted to go - too many at one time for my taste. But the guy also iced much of the team's budget on older pitchers. That worked (last year) till it didn't (this one).
The FO and ownership were trying to steer Dombrowski in a different direction after the WS, but that didn't happen. Most revealing was that they want to get under the first of the cap penalties. That is going to engender some pain. Werner has some Athletics and Brewers envy also! It's not been lost on them that they are being outflanked by low budget teams. They're going to reel in the spending so that the penalties don't kill their draft board, that much is clear. I have a feeling they appreciate the players they have been able to sign and the scouting and international side of the organization that did that, probably with little input from Dombrowski
I'm in agreement with Hatfield and Fenway. You'll want to ignore a lot of the media noise. Given the success the team has had in the last sixteen years - dragging away a quarter of the WS trophies - it's no surprise that a few knives are out. A lot of the chatter, such as getting rid of the bulk of their assets including Bogaerts(!), are completely laughable. So laugh and ignore it.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 28, 2019 15:39:03 GMT -5
One thing I'm concerned about is what did Cherington in. You cannot do a mini re-build with shedding lots of salary and insist on getting major league talent back. If a team has decent inexpensive major league or near major league talent, they aren't trading it for much more expensive major league talent. No team is going to give you anything of value. You either rebuild for a year or you don't. And yes that is a bridge year.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Sept 28, 2019 15:45:27 GMT -5
I thought it’s been mentioned Cherrington was told to get MLB guys back and ownership didn’t want prospects? At the time I think Bundy was in play In Baltimore and Josh Bell In Pittsburgh.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 28, 2019 16:29:27 GMT -5
I thought it’s been mentioned Cherrington was told to get MLB guys back and ownership didn’t want prospects? At the time I think Bundy was in play In Baltimore and Josh Bell In Pittsburgh. Right, and this is the same potential problem. If they trade guys, they absolutely have to get the best value back no matter what form it's in. They cannot limit themselves which limits the returns. This should be the case every single time they make a trade regardless of the circumstances. We don't need another Allen Craig.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Sept 28, 2019 17:30:43 GMT -5
I thought it’s been mentioned Cherrington was told to get MLB guys back and ownership didn’t want prospects? At the time I think Bundy was in play In Baltimore and Josh Bell In Pittsburgh. Anyone have proof of this?
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 28, 2019 18:48:24 GMT -5
This is the first I'd ever heard Bundy was a possibility, and I'm pretty sure if it were true we'd have heard it A LOT over the years. The decision to get MLB-ready talent in return at that '14 deadline has been mostly reported as Cherington's, but it's hard to know for sure.
The only name I remember hearing specifically that they turned down because they wanted MLB talent was Stephen Piscotty.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 28, 2019 18:56:01 GMT -5
My recollection is the same as James'. That decision as well as the Panda and Hanley deals were what did Cherington in.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 28, 2019 19:02:16 GMT -5
This is the first I'd ever heard Bundy was a possibility, and I'm pretty sure if it were true we'd have heard it A LOT over the years. The decision to get MLB-ready talent in return at that '14 deadline has been mostly reported as Cherington's, but it's hard to know for sure. The only name I remember hearing specifically that they turned down because they wanted MLB talent was Stephen Piscotty. For a guy who clearly understood the value of prospects, Cherington's sudden revelation that trading for MLB was the new market inefficiency (narrator: it was not) always smelled a little fishy to me. My own feeling was that it probably wasn't something he was specifically ordered to do, but that there was an implicit pressure to win right away or lose his job (which of course is exactly what happened).
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 28, 2019 19:17:33 GMT -5
For a guy who clearly understood the value of prospects, Cherington's sudden revelation that trading for MLB was the new market inefficiency (narrator: it was not) always smelled a little fishy to me. My own feeling was that it probably wasn't something he was specifically ordered to do, but that there was an implicit pressure to win right away or lose his job (which of course is exactly what happened). This sounds exactly right to me. I don't think he was MANDATED to sell for MLB-talent explicitly, but he quite clearly felt pressure to do so, and that probably wasn't just paranoia. Even so, he didn't do a good job on a talent evaluation level either. The Lackey trade has been discussed, they didn't trade Uehara before free agency, he spent too much money on Hanley and Sandoval, and--for a guy with a win-now mandate--he didn't seem to have much sense of what minor league talent he should be selling high on. He did an outstanding job building a system, but really struggled to turn that system into MLB wins. So yeah, I think ownership had a hand in some of the problems in the decision-making process. But the fact that Cherington hasn't gotten a top job kind of indicates to me the level at which the rest of the league thinks the poor decisions themselves were Cherington's. If that makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Sept 28, 2019 21:35:38 GMT -5
If they trade Mookie, I will cry. Legit.
|
|
|