PDA

View Full Version : Ben Cherington Red Sox



papipapsmanny
04-25-2017, 02:20 PM
Very much a moot point, but a curious one. I have always had the opinion that if a GM wins a championship they get a another 4-5 years of not really having to worry about their job.

Obviously BC didn't get that time and was fired two seasons after winning it all.

In hindsight his real awful moves were signing Sandoval, the Bailey Trade, and the Lackey trade (which in the grand scheme of things wasn't awful).. The Lester trade has turned out to be decent.

I wonder where we would be with him. I am not completely opposed to what DD has done, I just think he did it too early. If we had kept the farm together and kept refueling it, we could have gotten to a position, perhaps at the end of this season. Where we could have had Moncada/Benintendi playing and have other prospects to have gotten what are needs would have been.

Really the my question is where do you think we would be if BC was still the GM? Do you think he would have ever gotten to the point to pull the trigger on some trades?

AI
04-26-2017, 01:51 AM
I've already brought this up a million times and there's nothing anybody can do to change my mind. DD is the type of guy who lives in the now and gives zero ****s about the teams long-term outlook. I haven't been on board with many of the moves he's made because we were on our way to build a dynasty. I'll take sustained success over trying to maximize the "now" any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

I have zero problem with being opportunistic and trying to improve our odds if you feel like the team is missing a piece of the puzzle, but that's not what DD has done. He's made trades, only to then make other trades which have left me questioning whether he truly had a shopping list or if he just wanted to buy the flashy new item at the store.

A trade for Chris Sale is going to cost us, that I can understand... However, we were severely raped in both trades with the Padres and for what? A closer and a #4-5 SP? Sorry, but that's not the best way to maximize your assets. I said it as soon as he get on board, I feared for our farm. Ben's recent FA moves didn't work out and it likely cost him his job. But let's break it down...

1. He managed to rid ourselves of massive $ by shedding Crawford, Beckett and A-Gon
2. He hit on all the FA's he brought in when we won the World Series: Napoli, Victorino, Gomes, Ross, Koji, Drew.
3. He missed on Pablo and Hanley but that only cost us $, he didn't sacrifice the farm to try to win NOW. Hanley was healthy last year and was productive while Pablo looks done, it's w/e.
4. We had Moncada, Kopech, Espinoza, Margot, Allen and others in our system.
5. He traded away Miller and hit on E-Rod... He traded away Lester for Cespedes and flipped him for Porcello (who won the Cy-Young last year). Safe to say he hit on that too.

6. He missed on Rusney, didn't get much for Lackey and should have re-signed Lester and Miller after trading them away. But it is what it is.

I would have preferred if we allowed Ben to continue to build up the farm. He was easily on his way to build a dynasty and if we were patient and allowed the young players to develop, this team was going to be ridiculously good for a really long time. Sadly, we'll never know.

RedSoxtober
04-26-2017, 08:08 AM
My guess is that the closest we would have come to what we're seeing today is the Price signing. BC was strongly committed to farm system development and 'augmenting' through FA. We'd probably have someone like Colon or Dickey filling a backend SP role. Field positions would be pretty similar -- I could see him pulling off a Moreland type deal. The pitching staff would be radically different. No Pomeranz or Sale. Kimbrel might have gotten done. We'd be hoping for Espinoza for making a big leap this year and betting on Owens/Johnson/et al.

MG956
04-26-2017, 06:27 PM
I've already brought this up a million times and there's nothing anybody can do to change my mind. DD is the type of guy who lives in the now and gives zero ****s about the teams long-term outlook. I haven't been on board with many of the moves he's made because we were on our way to build a dynasty. I'll take sustained success over trying to maximize the "now" any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

I have zero problem with being opportunistic and trying to improve our odds if you feel like the team is missing a piece of the puzzle, but that's not what DD has done. He's made trades, only to then make other trades which have left me questioning whether he truly had a shopping list or if he just wanted to buy the flashy new item at the store.

A trade for Chris Sale is going to cost us, that I can understand... However, we were severely raped in both trades with the Padres and for what? A closer and a #4-5 SP? Sorry, but that's not the best way to maximize your assets. I said it as soon as he get on board, I feared for our farm. Ben's recent FA moves didn't work out and it likely cost him his job. But let's break it down...

1. He managed to rid ourselves of massive $ by shedding Crawford, Beckett and A-Gon
2. He hit on all the FA's he brought in when we won the World Series: Napoli, Victorino, Gomes, Ross, Koji, Drew.
3. He missed on Pablo and Hanley but that only cost us $, he didn't sacrifice the farm to try to win NOW. Hanley was healthy last year and was productive while Pablo looks done, it's w/e.
4. We had Moncada, Kopech, Espinoza, Margot, Allen and others in our system.
5. He traded away Miller and hit on E-Rod... He traded away Lester for Cespedes and flipped him for Porcello (who won the Cy-Young last year). Safe to say he hit on that too.

6. He missed on Rusney, didn't get much for Lackey and should have re-signed Lester and Miller after trading them away. But it is what it is.

I would have preferred if we allowed Ben to continue to build up the farm. He was easily on his way to build a dynasty and if we were patient and allowed the young players to develop, this team was going to be ridiculously good for a really long time. Sadly, we'll never know.

DITTO!

I'll always be a Sox fan but I don't care if I watch the games anymore. It didn't matter if we won, but we had character. Now we are just a bunch of whores.

The Cubs are coming to town and I will watch those games. That is a team I can respect.

papipapsmanny
04-26-2017, 11:41 PM
My guess is that the closest we would have come to what we're seeing today is the Price signing. BC was strongly committed to farm system development and 'augmenting' through FA. We'd probably have someone like Colon or Dickey filling a backend SP role. Field positions would be pretty similar -- I could see him pulling off a Moreland type deal. The pitching staff would be radically different. No Pomeranz or Sale. Kimbrel might have gotten done. We'd be hoping for Espinoza for making a big leap this year and betting on Owens/Johnson/et al.

Do you think we would have ever turned a corner though. In my eyes with him we could have gotten to the point where he could have traded Kopech, Margot, and Espinoza for Sale. I think we very much could have had the same team if BC were to pull that type trigger on the Sale trade and still signed price, but While the Sale trade would still cost we would have Moncada at 3B, With Allen, Basabe and probably Shaw still here to trade for Bullpen help (we wouldn't have Pomeranze and Kimbrell).

I am thinking with him we could have gotten to the point where we relatively had the same team today, but everyone progressed enough to save us someone like Moncada, which value wise is huge.

Theo traded a lot of young talent away from the Cubs, but he did it after they already got over the final hurdle of being a very good team

RedSoxtober
04-27-2017, 10:18 PM
Yes, I think that BC's Sox would have turned the corner. I just don't think that we'd see THIS team. Something with similar success maybe. And I doubt that we would have landed Sale. BC's trades just don't show it.

bagwell368
04-30-2017, 07:13 PM
BC was a squib. He didn't really control things he was controlled by the evil LL.

I tried to defend DD, but, the DL arms and the overpay of specs is freaking scary.

The fate of this franchise was put onto a much lower trajectory the day JH chose LL over TE - which I marked in capital red letters then as a disaster.

'13 was a shot in the dark, and it was still more TE's team then BC's.

soxer04
05-08-2017, 11:11 PM
I thought the Sox/DD went slightly too quick but imo it was also the owner that lost patience. But I don’t agree with the “5 year rule” of keeping a GM after they win title. The team was awful 3 of 4 years. And they had a top-tier payroll. How many more years would the red Sox have had to wait under ben’s regime? What did he have coming up recently for starting pitching?

Anderson Espinoza for example isn’t coming back due to current injury until later in May. As result of if this year ultimately becomes a wash, he still needs time in AA / AAA ball I would think. Then the quicker he is pushed up- he’ll more than likely struggle his 1st year. Anyhow ETA for Espinoza was 2019 per BA– and unknown now due to his extended injury issue in which now he won’t come back until at least later in May.

As for Kopech – still unknown if he is a starter or closer.

So what else did the Red Sox have for pitching? And yet we hear that at some day in the future the Red Sox were going to be a dynasty? You need great pitching to be a dynasty. And for what Ben has shown regarding free agents and trades, how confident are we that he could have made the necessary moves to become a dynasty?

Therefore extremely doubtful we would have been a dynasty. I think that is just sox-fan-speak. Now we get to watch good quality baseball. Starting last year.

I do think DD has been reckless at times for example going for Thornburgh. But I don’t agree with those fans that are okay to continually wait for a dynasty that would probably never have come close. In addition, the prior GM had one of the top payrolls in baseball resulting in 3 last place finishes is a major flaw. Highlighted by his instance to tell Farrell which players to play because of salary. We weren’t going anywhere imo with Ben and it is teat for the summers to watch possible championship or at least very good baseball.

papipapsmanny
05-08-2017, 11:29 PM
I disagree Ben was just buying time for the prospects to be ready, he was waiting to get into a position to pounce.

If DD came two years earlier .... Where are Betts, Benintendi, E-Rod, JBJ, and Bogaerts..... No way they all would have been here still... Not a chance. Devers is the only one that has survived with DD.

BC brought balance, he was stubborn with prospects while the owners every now and then pushed for a FA splash. I don't think BC makes the Kimbrell Trade (especially after the Bailey fiasco), definitely not Pomeranz.

I think BC makes the Price signing with Ownership pressure (it made sense, it was needed). I do believe he makes the Sale trade with the other retained pieces. Something like Espinoza, Kopech, Margot, and Basabe (still a huge package, but we save Moncada and Allen)

I believe he does that because this year that would be a big piece that we need, and we would have Moncada to plug in at the hole of 3B. We don't have Pomeranz... I am okay with that. We have Allen, and Shaw (allen with higher value) available as ammo for a BP piece, and you have the piece of mind that he will replenish the system moving forward (With Devers out there as well, who would be much easier to stomach trading with Moncada)

You really can stomach any of DD's moves by themselves... but together they have been awful in terms of value and return..... I hope we see a WS out of it

DD Scares me now, if we don't win this year I can easily see him trading Devers to fix whatever was the apparent problem

RedSoxtober
05-09-2017, 09:44 AM
+1000, PPM. I am not quite as convinced about the big name acquisitions but I do believe that BC would have made some moves to augment the kids and put them in position to win.


I do think DD has been reckless at times for example going for Thornburgh. But I don’t agree with those fans that are okay to continually wait for a dynasty that would probably never have come close. In addition, the prior GM had one of the top payrolls in baseball resulting in 3 last place finishes is a major flaw. Highlighted by his instance to tell Farrell which players to play because of salary. We weren’t going anywhere imo with Ben and it is teat for the summers to watch possible championship or at least very good baseball.

There once was a guy who led the Red Sox FO. His premise was to build a "$100M player development machine" that was augmented through FA when necessary. The approach led to six playoff appearances in seven years, four of which advanced to the ALCS and two WS. Eventually the allure of bright shiny things for the marketing savvy President of the organization left to a right that ended the run both on the field and in the FO. The same guy, it turns out, went to Chicago and ended another historic "curse" with the same organizational philosophy.

I'm not so sure that his protege was inevitably going to fail or perpetually on the brink of collapse. This is particularly true when the majority of the movers and shakers to the current club were internally developed according to the principles that made him the right choice.

redsox12
05-09-2017, 04:31 PM
I disagree with all the love for BC and the hatred for DD.

The pitching staff would be a disaster without Sale, you have to trade talent to get someone like Sale, the nats would have Sale right now if we didn't make the deal we did. Plus he didn't have to give up Benny Baseball in the deal which the White Sox definitely could have demand and rightfully so.

Also the misconception that DD trades all the young talent away, when we have Bogaerts (24) Benintendi (22) Bradley (bad bat and all 27) Betts (24) Sale himself who's only 28 E-Rod (24)

Plus. he has kept a farm system of Devers, Groome, Travis, and with that young core, plenty of time to restock a farm system.

But yeah he trades away all the young players ..........

I don't have to go through the track record of BC, it's already been done in the thread, it's certainly enough to get him fired.

DD has maintained the core of the team while filling the most pressing need of the offseason, the starting staff, and went out and got the best one available minus the nats overpaying for Strasburg and giving him nearly 200 million. We will see how the rest of the year plays out but right now, he does not deserve torches and pitchforks.

RedSoxtober
05-09-2017, 05:57 PM
I disagree with all the love for BC and the hatred for DD.
Terrible mischaracterization of what's been said.


The pitching staff would be a disaster without Sale, you have to trade talent to get someone like Sale, the nats would have Sale right now if we didn't make the deal we did. Plus he didn't have to give up Benny Baseball in the deal which the White Sox definitely could have demand and rightfully so.
There's no doubt that we're fortunate to have Sale. It was a good trade. However, aside from Sale there are three other pitchers with ERA's at or below 4.00 (ERA+ 108 or better). They would not have been as good but they would hardly have been a disaster.


Also the misconception that DD trades all the young talent away, when we have Bogaerts (24) Benintendi (22) Bradley (bad bat and all 27) Betts (24) Sale himself who's only 28 E-Rod (24)
Yet another mischaracterization. The characterization of DD is that he trades the farm away, often in trades that are overvalued. Please demonstrate how that's not true when 4 of them currently reside among the top 50 prospects in MLB. As for the others, the problem has more to do with leveraging their value rather than keeping them in the system. I would venture a guess that we could have put together at least one "big name" trade at the deadline this year with players who were overpaid in DD's transactions to date.


Plus. he has kept a farm system of Devers, Groome, Travis, and with that young core, plenty of time to restock a farm system.

But yeah he trades away all the young players ..........
Let's wait and see if he actually rebuilds the farm. This is the classic assertion of most DD supporters and it's built on the premise that he will not CONTINUE to do what he has done for his entire FO career. It seems a silly proposition to make but we can only wait and see.

soxer04
05-09-2017, 09:40 PM
I disagree Ben was just buying time for the prospects to be ready, he was waiting to get into a position to pounce.

If DD came two years earlier .... Where are Betts, Benintendi, E-Rod, JBJ, and Bogaerts..... No way they all would have been here still... Not a chance. Devers is the only one that has survived with DD.

BC brought balance, he was stubborn with prospects while the owners every now and then pushed for a FA splash. I don't think BC makes the Kimbrell Trade (especially after the Bailey fiasco), definitely not Pomeranz.

I think BC makes the Price signing with Ownership pressure (it made sense, it was needed). I do believe he makes the Sale trade with the other retained pieces. Something like Espinoza, Kopech, Margot, and Basabe (still a huge package, but we save Moncada and Allen)

I believe he does that because this year that would be a big piece that we need, and we would have Moncada to plug in at the hole of 3B. We don't have Pomeranz... I am okay with that. We have Allen, and Shaw (allen with higher value) available as ammo for a BP piece, and you have the piece of mind that he will replenish the system moving forward (With Devers out there as well, who would be much easier to stomach trading with Moncada)

You really can stomach any of DD's moves by themselves... but together they have been awful in terms of value and return..... I hope we see a WS out of it

DD Scares me now, if we don't win this year I can easily see him trading Devers to fix whatever was the apparent problem

We'll just have to agree to disagree here. I think after 3 of 4 years of help driving the team to last place while having a high payroll - I had lost complete confidence in him - and I think he wasn't capable "to pounce" in a significant positive manner. The flaw is there for all of us to see- last place finishes with one title - but from what I have read the title was lucky. You want to believe it skill- I won't "scream" -- but I won't agree. I think Ben was incompetent which is why we were in last so often. Again-- there is a flaw when you stink so bad like the Sox did and yet we paid so much.

As far as your speculation of DD - about the last two years - I say if DD took the team over when Ben did, you wouldn't have had last place teams 3 of 4 years while having very high team salaries.

While you say Ben brought "balance" - I say Ben brought a lot of losses so bad I couldn't watch them most of the time they were so bad. If you enjoyed it- God Bless You. I wasn't about to waste beautiful Saturday and Sunday's for poor / awful baseball teams other than the one glorious year.

You say you think he makes the Price deal-- I don't. I think Ben would have gone after 2nd tier pitchers. Not the superstar. At the time Price and Greinke were "hot." Ben was never imo someone who would be "hot" for someone that coveted. There is an old post I have in which Buster Olney tweeted that the Red Sox separated themselves from the pack by the money they offered Price. Also, Price was not a fan of Boston. There was a certain aggression that imo would have ben needed to get Price / overpay too. There is no way I feel Ben was going to be this way.

I recall how the Sox wanted Donaldson and so did the Torornto GM. I understand the Torornto GM was very aggressive. And what did Tornrto give up? And the Red Sxo went away from analytiscs and settled on Panda. That's the type fo thing that would have happened with Price. Instead we would have wound up with sosmoen like Smardja.

SO while you're scared because of DD - I'm delighted last year I was able to watch quality baseball. DD may scare you and ofc no way I can change what scares you. What scared me was last place finishes from a high payroll team in which I lost all confidence in what I feel an incompetent GM. You asked on your initial post, right? And so I told you "from the other side." If I think the GM is incompetent, then ofc he would have to scare the hell out of me, right? And imo those fears are justified. And compounded by the fact the incompetent GM actually tried to influence the manager who to play because of salary. THAT in of itself is REALLY scary.

By the way, did you say earlier that you didn't think the Cardinal tarde in which we sent Lackey packing wasn't too bad? I think if DD was GM he wouldn't have alienated Lester and Lackey. He would have tried to get back Miller instead of Koji. He gets Price while I feel Ben would have gone after a 2nd tier guy. DD would have traded and gotten Donaldson. If Billy B wanted a 3rd baseman in return DD would have worked something up to get him a 3b in order to secure Josh. It's how he operates. Ben operated much less aggressively. No way he would have sniffed Price imo.

soxer04
05-09-2017, 09:51 PM
+1000, PPM. I am not quite as convinced about the big name acquisitions but I do believe that BC would have made some moves to augment the kids and put them in position to win.



There once was a guy who led the Red Sox FO. His premise was to build a "$100M player development machine" that was augmented through FA when necessary. The approach led to six playoff appearances in seven years, four of which advanced to the ALCS and two WS. Eventually the allure of bright shiny things for the marketing savvy President of the organization left to a right that ended the run both on the field and in the FO. The same guy, it turns out, went to Chicago and ended another historic "curse" with the same organizational philosophy.

I'm not so sure that his protege was inevitably going to fail or perpetually on the brink of collapse. This is particularly true when the majority of the movers and shakers to the current club were internally developed according to the principles that made him the right choice.

You have a comfort zone with Ben. I don't share your comfort. We are never going to change each other's minds on this. I hope we won't got to war again like last year.

We're riding the same points as we did last year. For example your last sentences of "movers and shakers." As I stated last year the minute DD said "players are going to have to earn their positions" it turned it to DD's team especially when he followed up allowing Farrell to give the starting job to Shaw instead of Panda. And as I stated last year Farrell said during a preseason interview how refreshing it was that was able to make decisions.

And then we could go on for example with JBJ. Whose guy is this? Ben's? Or is DD "stuck with an under .200 hitter? If he fails to hit .200 or just .220 with not much power, will that be a DD failure or a Ben failure?

And far as protege's. Bill Belchick has had many who failed. As I have mentioned -- 3 last place finishes in 4 seasons in which the GM is trying to tell the manager which players to play says a lot.

RedSoxtober
05-10-2017, 11:13 AM
Re: Shaw vs Panda, not really as big a deal as you suggest. Panda was one of the five worst hitters in MLB the previous season (along with Hanley). Lighting a fire under his butt to earn his spot through competition was hardly rocket science. Panda requiring surgery a few days into the season made any switch pretty easy.

I don't get the criticism of JBJ here. YOU held him up as one of the great young core guys that DD brilliantly hung onto. It's nothing like that at all -- DD simply has a different MO that what you tried to suggest. He does not "trade all the young talent" but overpays with prospects in many/most deals. To that end even the suggestion that "Benny Baseball" represents an exception is wrong -- Benintendi were pushed into MLB when the team was in need of help and he was close to expiring his rookie status (130PA) as a result. Simply put, he was only a prospect based on a technicality of MLB's service time rules... and not the type of player that DD is generally sends away in trades.

I think you're overplaying the "GM told the manager who to play" thing. DD making it explicit that performance (not contract) dictates playing time is not the same thing as saying BC chose the lineup.

soxer04
05-10-2017, 09:57 PM
Re: Shaw vs Panda, not really as big a deal as you suggest. Panda was one of the five worst hitters in MLB the previous season (along with Hanley). Lighting a fire under his butt to earn his spot through competition was hardly rocket science. Panda requiring surgery a few days into the season made any switch pretty easy.

I don't get the criticism of JBJ here. YOU held him up as one of the great young core guys that DD brilliantly hung onto. It's nothing like that at all -- DD simply has a different MO that what you tried to suggest. He does not "trade all the young talent" but overpays with prospects in many/most deals. To that end even the suggestion that "Benny Baseball" represents an exception is wrong -- Benintendi were pushed into MLB when the team was in need of help and he was close to expiring his rookie status (130PA) as a result. Simply put, he was only a prospect based on a technicality of MLB's service time rules... and not the type of player that DD is generally sends away in trades.

I think you're overplaying the "GM told the manager who to play" thing. DD making it explicit that performance (not contract) dictates playing time is not the same thing as saying BC chose the lineup.

Well I disagree with everything you’ve said here and you disagree with me. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

1--- The move of giving the job to Shaw over Panda is exactly a big deal as I’ve said. You bring up an irrelevant point of Panda and miss my point. Panda was the lousy player as you suggest but it was a GM like Ben forcing Farrell to play guys like Panda in 2015. It wasn’t rocket science to bench him far more than what he should have been that prior year but as we heard from Farrell – he used the words “it is refreshing” . . . clearly implying Ben was forcing the issue with salary rather than performance.

2--- As far as JBJ – you are missing my point. Often when we have argued on this subject or similar you tend to want to break up the team as “Ben guys” vs “Dave’s guys.” I don’t agree with your philosophy or anyone else who does similar of breaking up players and assigning it to Ben or DD. They are all DD’s guys now. SO I used Bradley “as an example.” And I used the word IF – therefore- I did not “criticize” as you suggested of Bradley in the context you speak of. I merely gave an example by saying IF IF IF he was to keep hitting lousy - how do you or anyone else categorize him? As a “Ben player or a “DD player?”

As a result when you try to make it a point to say – “This is particularly true when the majority of the movers and shakers to the current club were internally developed . . .”

So I ask --- with Bradley being "the internal guy" --- IF IF IF someone like Bradley were to fail AS THE INTERNAL GUY initially brought up under BC's regime, was it last year and this year “DD’s guy” or “BC’s guy?”

3— While you think I’m over playing the “GM told the manager who to play thing,” I think you are underplaying it. It is exactly how I speak of it.

4—A further point – though I’m not sure if is a big deal and it could be off-topic. But YOU just posted to me the following: “YOU held him up as one of the great young core guys that DD brilliantly hung onto.”

I’m not doubting you on this – yet. But do you have the link of the post that I said this with? Somehow I don’t think you are taking a prior post I made probably last year in the right context in which I made it. But maybe you are. You got the link? This is off-topic anyways. As stated if Bradley fails- then who gets the blame? I am not criticizing Bradley.

RedSoxtober
05-11-2017, 04:36 PM
1--- The move of giving the job to Shaw over Panda is exactly a big deal as I’ve said. You bring up an irrelevant point of Panda and miss my point. Panda was the lousy player as you suggest but it was a GM like Ben forcing Farrell to play guys like Panda in 2015. It wasn’t rocket science to bench him far more than what he should have been that prior year
Can you explain when, specifically you would have benched him? I think that the actual decision was more difficult to make than what you are projecting backwards. As is often the case with rate stats, HOW you got them is often important.

Here's a quick review. He hit .312/.398/.442 in April and was looking solid at the plate, albeit with less than anticipated power, through the first six weeks of the season. His .811 OPS on May 10 was pretty respectable for a guy changing teams and leagues. That's when he started a slide.

Maybe you would have been prescient enough to pull him... or maybe you would have given him a bit of a longer leash seeing that he is a notoriously streaky hitter even prior to his arrival in Boston. If you'd been patient then you would have been rewarded; he hit .303/.306/.440 in the month leading up to the all star break. With that kind of a run up, would you have pulled him from the lineup?

HISTORICALLY, you should have. He was appropriately benched when he had the social media gaffe and, looking back, that was probably the breaking point for him. He was relatively garbage after that. Do you pull him two weeks after the break? Maybe, but maybe not. He hit only .224/.296/.327 over that span BUT his season line didn't budge much... and you were patient enough to watch him turn it around earlier.

Do you pull him two weeks after that? Doubtful -- your patience was rewarded again. He hit .251/.351/.563; it's not matching the all-world money he was signed for but the .914 OPS over that span was solid for a 3B and the power was back.

Okay, so FINALLY you pull him out of the lineup at the non-waiver trade deadline on Aug 31. Those last two weeks of August were BRUTAL (.179/.209/.286). Or did you pull him then. Looking back you might say, "of course I would" but at the time? Maybe, maybe not. The season itself had long since been a lost cause and Sandoval had been going through ups and downs. It's not unreasonable to think that you let him just ride it out and see if he can develop comfort for next year.

If you pulled him at this point, then congratulations. You managed to avoid three weeks of epic failure (.205/.234/.227). You also outguessed Dave Dombrowski who shut down Hanley but not Panda. Speaking of which, did DD force Farrell to play Panda during these six weeks of epic failure?

In hindsight, we can look back and see that he could/should have lost his job any time after Aug 15 and the Sox would have been better for it. During the run of play, however, it was hard to know if/when he might turn the ship again. We can only say that he didn't, that the final results were among the worst in MLB for that season, and that the manager made the same decision under two different GMs.


but as we heard from Farrell – he used the words “it is refreshing” . . . clearly implying Ben was forcing the issue with salary rather than performance.
Are you aware that it is common practice across the league for high salaried players to retain their position despite slumps and poor production? Check out, for example, Melvin Upton who was an MLB regular for four years over which he posted a cumulative OPS+ of 78. It happens all the time and it's not because the GM is requiring it. There are other factors not the least of which are an assumption that a player with a history of success can turn his slump around and the large contract limiting alternatives. In the context of the 2015 Red Sox, the latter was definitely an issue -- the closest alternative was Shaw whose .249/.318/.356 slash in Pawtucket was remarkably similar to the final horrific line that Panda put up that year (.245/.292/.366)

What you have in this "he made me do it" story is nothing more than an assertion based on an inference. DD's approach is different and refreshing... in the context of MLB, not simply the Red Sox or BC.


I don’t agree with your philosophy or anyone else who does similar of breaking up players and assigning it to Ben or DD.
If you don't understand the importance of recognizing the role of the GM in the acquisition of a player for the MLB roster then fine, we disagree.


4—A further point – though I’m not sure if is a big deal and it could be off-topic. But YOU just posted to me the following: “YOU held him up as one of the great young core guys that DD brilliantly hung onto.”
I apologize. I assigned ownership of a comment above to you that was from another poster.

soxer04
05-11-2017, 11:33 PM
This continued talking down to me just isn't cool. I wrote up a similar talk-down you had done to me- then I peaked at your last sentence. Very classy of you. Thank you. I mean that. No sarcasm in that. Subsequently I decided to delete my aggressive counter post. We just look at things so differently.

However, there is no point going on any further. I'm going to put you on ignore if the system allows. No animosity here. Just feel it is best.

Good luck to you and our Red Sox my fellow Red Sox friend. I just don't want to get into mega-posts in which we take potshots at each other- and we're going down that path again like we did last year. Let's call it a day - and you can rip away at my future posts - I won't respond. You give more to the board and I'm only coming on here for fun, and I'm on another board or two.

soxer04
05-11-2017, 11:37 PM
Well I see I can't. You've chased me off the board.

That's okay. Good luck!

RedSoxtober
05-12-2017, 11:24 AM
To put someone on ignore:
Click on their name next to their post.
Click 'View Profile'
When the profile displays, there is an 'Ignore' link just under the user's gravatar.

papipapsmanny
05-12-2017, 02:14 PM
My Argument is that BC is part of the Theo line... very much so alike.

Theo was selfish and stubborn with the Cubs young talent, they sucked for a bit, got better. He made free agent moves when he recognized they were getting close, yet he still did not trade away all the young talent. The Cubs youth and talent when the signed Lester was much like ours when we signed Price. Yet Theo still did not trade the young talent, he was patient enough to get the point where he saw the future of each position filled, and then had the luxury of trading young talent to get the pieces he neede (and he was right) to win a World Series.... and be good for a while.

DD just is way too impatient. I have no problem with the Price signing. DD just had to wait one year. No Kimbrell Trade, no Pomeranz.

You still make the Miley Trade, anyone can see that was a good trade at the time (still could be)

You come into this offseason with a more valuable Margot, Allen, have Espinoza. What does this do.....

Well if he then Pursues the Sale trade Something Like Margot, Espinoza, Kopech and Basabe (again I mentioned still a huge, very fair package) to land Sale

Sale
Porcello
Price
E-Rod

Benintendi
Pedroia
Betts
Ramirez
Bogaerts
JBJ
Moncada
Moreland
Vazquez/Leon

Easy to find a 5th starter here (Wright, Owens, Johnson, low cost FA)

There have been closers in the last two FAs, you have the Likes of Allen, and Shaw to trade for a bullpen piece who are each much more expendable

bagwell368
05-17-2017, 10:53 AM
BC may have been like Theo, but he wasn't allowed to be his own.

As I've said for over 10 years, Theo is the real thing and LL was the anti real thing. Too bad Henry didn't see his trust in Theo through.