Cherington's bad run

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Yeah, Porcello's post rehab starts gave me hope for this season, but still that contract extension being based largely off one good season and the fact that it was agreed to BEFORE he ever threw a pitch in a Sox uniform sticks in my craw. Really this entire thread is born out of about an 8 month period of questionable signings. Late August of 2014 was the Castillo signing and in early April 2015 Porcello was extended. Between those bookends, 39 year old Koji was re-upped for 2 years at 9M per and Ramirez and Sandoval were brought in. The Sox find themselves in a similar situation to that before The Dodgers bailed them out with the Punto trade. Perhaps worse and it blows my mind that just two years after dodging that bullet (August 26th, 2012) they started down the same path again when they signed Castillo on August 23nd 2014.
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
Yeah, Porcello's post rehab starts gave me hope for this season, but still that contract extension being based largely off one good season and the fact that it was agreed to BEFORE he ever threw a pitch in a Sox uniform sticks in my craw. Really this entire thread is born out of about an 8 month period of questionable signings. Late August of 2014 was the Castillo signing and in early April 2015 Porcello was extended. Between those bookends, 39 year old Koji was re-upped for 2 years at 9M per and Ramirez and Sandoval were brought in. The Sox find themselves in a similar situation to that before The Dodgers bailed them out with the Punto trade. Perhaps worse and it blows my mind that just two years after dodging that bullet (August 26th, 2012) they started down the same path again when they signed Castillo on August 23nd 2014.
Expand that just a little, since the Sox roster problems now hinge on the 9-month period of questionable MLB evaluations starting with July 2014's fire-sale of Lester and Lackey, who were ultimately turned into Kelly, Craig, and Porcello instead of prospect packages. And which appear to have ended in the April 2015 extension of Porcello (Cherington's last major personnel move).
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
I split this from the trade thread.

The problem with the 9 month period is not just the straight evaluations. Those mistakes get made. I mean, there were a lot of them in a row I guess. But, it is more that, for all the criticism that Duquette and Theo took when they tried to play the roster like a fantasy roster, that seems to be what Cherington did. Stashing guys in the hopes you can flip for better value, etc. I guess my point is, why would you acquire Craig, Cespedes, *and* Castillo within a short period of time...and then turn around and sign Hanley Ramirez to a market (or over market given position change) contract? It requires too many things to go right to make these things happen. I mean in the context of everything else, the Porcello trade was brilliant.

I originally started this thought with thinking that the Castillo signing was a really minor mistake in the grand scheme, but when put in this context, one does wonder. Could that money have gone to something more productive, etc.?

As I have stated in the past, I think the main issue is that all of the issues that we thought might take down the 2013 team came to light in 2014, and the Red Sox overreacted in thinking they had a more solid foundation than they did. These 9 months show a stubborn insistence on thinking the organization was best served trying to put equal weight on the present and future, when all the signs said not to commit to too much.
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,421
I think you can interpret Cherington's bad run one of two ways.
A) He had the wrong strategy. The Lester and Lackey (and, later, Cespedes) trades prioritized present value instead of building for the future. He signed a bunch of expensive free agents when he should have saved the money for something else down the road.
B) He had the right strategy but executed it poorly by choosing the wrong players. We should have traded Lester/Lackey/Cespedes for different major league players who could help immediately. We should have signed different free agents.

If it's A), then it's really puzzling that the new regime immediately traded a huge prospect package for an elite player at a position with a very limited half-life, and committed $217 million to a free agent. So I think it's pretty clearly B). Which makes it important to suss out how much of that was his fault as opposed to the fault of the scouting department, and what (if any) better options existed.

In any case, I continue to think that it's all well and good for Cherington to have been pushed out in the name of accountability, but I think there's a difference between pointing out that this was a terrible run, which is obviously true, and arguing that said terrible run reveals something about the flaw in his ideological priors or the "right" way to build a winning team.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
It can still be A, A just happens to be shared by the ownership.

It's not like the Red Sox of 2014/15 are the only team to have ever made this kind of attempt and failed and I am extrapolating based on a single GM and single team. I mean, you don't even have to leave the Red Sox to argue it's the same mistake Theo made in 2011/12.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
I think you can interpret Cherington's bad run one of two ways.
A) He had the wrong strategy. The Lester and Lackey (and, later, Cespedes) trades prioritized present value instead of building for the future. He signed a bunch of expensive free agents when he should have saved the money for something else down the road.
B) He had the right strategy but executed it poorly by choosing the wrong players. We should have traded Lester/Lackey/Cespedes for different major league players who could help immediately. We should have signed different free agents.

If it's A), then it's really puzzling that the new regime immediately traded a huge prospect package for an elite player at a position with a very limited half-life, and committed $217 million to a free agent. So I think it's pretty clearly B). Which makes it important to suss out how much of that was his fault as opposed to the fault of the scouting department, and what (if any) better options existed.

In any case, I continue to think that it's all well and good for Cherington to have been pushed out in the name of accountability, but I think there's a difference between pointing out that this was a terrible run, which is obviously true, and arguing that said terrible run reveals something about the flaw in his ideological priors or the "right" way to build a winning team.[/QUOTE]
I think it runs a bit deeper. Substitute the highlighted word with "the organization's". Ben was definitely the guy out front on this, but young as he was (despite having won a World Series) I have trouble believing he was the final arbiter on all of these moves. Again, go back to the Punto trade in 2012. Huge bullet dodged, the Sox construct a MUCH different team and win it all in 2013. The following season was a big disappointment and John Henry counters by saying that The Red Sox will be active in the FA market and that (paraphrasing) money won't be an issue
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,421
All that makes sense. I'm just trying to square the conventional wisdom that Cherington screwed up by taking major leaguers instead of prospects in the Lester/Lackey/Cespedes trades, and signing top-of-the-market free agents in Sandoval and Ramirez (and Castillo, and extending Porcello) with the conventional wisdom that Dombrowski represented a welcome breath of fresh air when he came in and traded a bunch of prospects for a major leaguer and signed a top-of-the-market free agent. (And, I guess, trying to square the conventional wisdom that ownership overreacts to events by radically changing the plan rather than committing to a long-term strategy with the conventional wisdom that we should immediately divest ourselves of a bunch of contracts after a bad year and/or trade three elite prospects for Chris Sale.)
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
I think you can interpret Cherington's bad run one of two ways.
A) He had the wrong strategy. The Lester and Lackey (and, later, Cespedes) trades prioritized present value instead of building for the future. He signed a bunch of expensive free agents when he should have saved the money for something else down the road.
B) He had the right strategy but executed it poorly by choosing the wrong players. We should have traded Lester/Lackey/Cespedes for different major league players who could help immediately. We should have signed different free agents.

If it's A), then it's really puzzling that the new regime immediately traded a huge prospect package for an elite player at a position with a very limited half-life, and committed $217 million to a free agent. So I think it's pretty clearly B). Which makes it important to suss out how much of that was his fault as opposed to the fault of the scouting department, and what (if any) better options existed.

In any case, I continue to think that it's all well and good for Cherington to have been pushed out in the name of accountability, but I think there's a difference between pointing out that this was a terrible run, which is obviously true, and arguing that said terrible run reveals something about the flaw in his ideological priors or the "right" way to build a winning team.
If the prospect package is headlined by prospects in AA/AAA (such as Josh Bell or Joc Pederson, to name two options rumored available at the 2014 deadline), there's no significant difference between choices A and B.

Although these players can't be immediately added to the MLB "core" they should only be about 0-2 years away from solid complementary contribution. That's the point of getting an Eduardo Rodriguez, although there's obviously also the ever-present threat of getting an Edwin Escobar instead.

It's only when the team trades MLB talent for more highly-rated prospects in the A-ball minors that the distinction between a retool and a rebuild actually becomes important.

MLB Players acquired 7/2014 - 4/2015: total = 1.4 fWAR in 2015
7/2014 --- (Cespedes), Craig, Kelly
8/2014 --- Castillo
9/2014 --- none
10/2014 - Uehara
11/2014 - Sandoval, Ramirez
12/2014 - Porcello, Masterson, Miley, Hanigan
1/2015 --- Breslow (re-signed), Ross, Ogando
2/2015 --- Miley (extended)
3/2015 --- none
4/2015 --- Porcello (extended)

MLB Players traded away 7/2014 - 4/2015: total = 17.5 fWAR in 2015
7/2014 --- Peavy, Lackey, Lester, Gomes, Miller
8/2014 --- Johnson
12/2014 - Cespedes, Middlebrooks, Webster, de la Rosa, Wilson

If winning "now" was the goal, something went dreadfully wrong, no matter what the "right" way to build a winning team may have been.
 
Jun 27, 2006
66
This is just my opinion, but some of this could just be bad timing. If Mookie had been playing longer at the time, they probably do not sign Castillo. If Hanley had contacted them earlier, they may not of signed Sandoval.
 

Marbleheader

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2004
11,726
Trey Ball over Austin Meadows also looks like a poor choice that 90% of the board was scratching their heads over when the pick was made.
 

Philip Jeff Frye

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2001
10,229
If Mookie had been playing longer at the time, they probably do not sign Castillo.
Really? Mookie was an extremely highly thought of prospect with some major league experience under his belt. He had at least played a few games in the outfield when they signed Castillo, hadn't he? And he had held his own at the plate despite his youth. Mookie was certainly a much better bet to be a successful major leaguer than Castillo. Would they really spend $72 million on "Mookie can't make it as a major leaguer" insurance?
 

Corleone

Sleeps with the fishes
Jul 24, 2015
67
Win now attitude highlighted by an endless budget on player personnel has been and will always be the problem with big market clubs.
Cashman the prime example. He rode the coat-tails of Michael and Watson his first 3 seasons. Since 01, (15 years) only one Championship. Ben has one ring in 4 seasons, go figure?
 

Dewey'sCannon

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
869
Maryland
This is just my opinion, but some of this could just be bad timing. If Mookie had been playing longer at the time, they probably do not sign Castillo. If Hanley had contacted them earlier, they may not of signed Sandoval.
Really? Mookie was an extremely highly thought of prospect with some major league experience under his belt. He had at least played a few games in the outfield when they signed Castillo, hadn't he? And he had held his own at the plate despite his youth. Mookie was certainly a much better bet to be a successful major leaguer than Castillo. Would they really spend $72 million on "Mookie can't make it as a major leaguer" insurance?
I was thinking the same thing as Rusty when I started reading this read earlier today, but didn't have time to post. To elaborate somewhat, I think that Ben saw that RH power was (and still is) a market scarcity, so that's what he went for when trading Lester and Lackey, and was willing to take somewhat of a gamble on Castillo (and recognizing the Abreu fallout factor) and on the upside of both Craig and Kelly.

At the point these deals were made, although Mookie had made his initial appearance in late June, he hadn't shown much yet - thru July 31, he was 235/278/382. And given that he was still transitioning to the OF (though it seemed to be going well), the deals to acquire OFs with power seemed reasonable at the time. But given what he'd shown by the end of the season (and what they'd seen from Cespedes), they were able to flip Cespedes for Porcello, which again seemed reasonable and appropriate given their SP needs.

But 3B was still a huge hole, and it looked like the choice was between Panda and Headley. I don't know that they like Panda better, or whether they just were afraid of Headley going to NY and Panda staying in SF and them being left empty handed (note - Headley didn't exactly set the world on fire last year either). But whether it was simply a lack of due diligence, or really a true surprise, it seemed like Hanley just sort of fell into their laps shortly after Panda signed, and that Ben thought that his RH power (again, scarce commodity) was too good an offer to refuse. So they signed him too and tried to force-fit him into LF. I agree with Rusty - I think that if Hanley had come to them sooner, they would have just signed him to play 3B, and Panda would still be in SF. And much of the current messiness could have been avoided. Que sera, sera.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,111
Santa Monica
Yep, Ben completely blundered and rightfully caught the axe.

Just be prepared for a revisionist rant by one of Ben's fanboys, along with a delusional rationale for each and every move made at the time.
 

crystalline

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 12, 2009
5,771
JP
given what he'd shown by the end of the season (and what they'd seen from Cespedes), they were able to flip Cespedes for Porcello, which again seemed reasonable and appropriate given their SP needs.
This post is a good analysis.

The stream of decisions you describe makes total sense. But the obvious criticism is that Ben was being too short-termist. A GM has to look 3-5 years out at the FA market, not just a year at a time. If Panda was not rated highly by scouts, then Ben should have tried to fill 3B with a stopgap and look to get a FA in the next year or two.

Finding good deals on the FA market is just hard, as every player that hits FA is way overpriced by definition. One deal in particular I regret - it's too bad they couldn't keep and extend Lackey. Despite his past struggles and bad body language.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,533
I think that determining whether Ben Cherington had a successful tenure here ultimately breaks down to two pros and two cons:

PRO:
- He won a World Series as the Red Sox GM. (That's a pretty great feet, no matter what you think of the guy.)
- He is/was a good evaluator of young talent. (At least we think he is, the Sox have one of the best minor league systems in baseball, but let's see how that translates.)

CON:
- He wasn't very good when it came to trading players. (He had a couple of wins, but overall he was dreadful.)
- He wasn't very good when it came to signing free agents. (His 2012-13 offseason is one for the ages, but most everything else was pretty terrible.)

So in the end it comes down to how you value a GM: is his biggest responsibilities are building up the farm system and winning a World Series? If that's the bottom line, then he did his job and he wasn't bad. If you think it's more than that, that a GM needs to not get screwed over a majority of the times he goes to the negotiating table with an agent or another GM*, then Cherington was not good at his job.

* And I know that no GM is going to have a spotless record, but Ben really got taken for a ride a lot.

One of the things that I liked about Epstein is that for the most part he knew what he was doing. Yes, the Crawford deal and some other transactions weren't the greatest use of money, but I think by and large, I had trust in his skills. Cherington seemed like a good guy and said the right things, but his actions never seemed that he was sure of his plan. Like he knew he had a ton of money, but spent it on the wrong things. He knew that he had a bunch of players that people wanted, but traded them for the wrong magic beans. I don't whether he was unlucky or just in over his head. I tend to think it was the latter.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,667
It's not like the Red Sox of 2014/15 are the only team to have ever made this kind of attempt and failed and I am extrapolating based on a single GM and single team. I mean, you don't even have to leave the Red Sox to argue it's the same mistake Theo made in 2011/12.


I do think the 2014 Red Sox are probably the only team that were sellers at the deadline and headed for last place but took on $100,000,000 in salary in July/August (Craig/Rusney).
I believe that like Theo 2011/2012 it looked to me (and I could very well be wrong) that their analytical thinking got overwhemed by some sort of psychological pressure to win now. I think that Ben/Red Sox totally overreacted to the crappy 2014 outfield, finishing last and, moreso, the Jon Lester situation. They overspent and went for it in 2015 in a sort of scattershot manner. Porcello in particular seemed like a total overreaction: he was kind of the anti-Lester...fewer good years...instead of being a playoff hero he was buried by the Tigers in the post-season....but younger (!!!) and possibly with his best years ahead of him*...and signable for a bit less money. As with Crawford, some of these moves didn't seem to reflect the discipline and thought we knew they were capable of.

* (in some thread Rasputin and I argued about who was likely to be the better pitcher in 2019....I'd still bet on Lester).
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
Making good trades is hard too. Every type of player acquisition is hard. We remember FA more because it tends to be bigger names and contracts that stick in our memories.

Part of the problem with the "acquire RH power" strategy is that everyone he got was expensive. I mean, not expensive compared to their price if they were at 75% of their peak expectation, but expensive compared to their probably value vs downside risk.

Put another way. I can't fault the Cespedes acquisition necessarily. I can't fault the Craig gamble necessarily. And I wouldn't fault the Castillo signing other than the rumors they were bidding against themselves and overpaid just to close it during a horrible season. And, the Hanley contract may still be not that bad. But when you combine all 4 of these? On top of already having the JBJ question unanswered (I guess maybe Ben thought it was answered that JBJ couldn't be a major league outfielder?)

Yes yes I know, "Craig was the cost of acquiring the immortal Joe Kelly" "there were no other offers for Lester/Lackey" etc. Great, but the whole point of stockpiling players at a position is typically you are hoping for someone to emerge from a bunch of fungible guys, not you pay near market price for a bunch of guys and then figure it out. Nevermind the actual performance of the players involved. I am sympathetic to the idea that there was a method to the madness I just don't think it was a particularly effective plan from the beginning. I realize in hindsight, everything went just about as wrong as it could, so it is easy to say it was just bad luck/scouting/whatever. But outside of best case scenarios, I have trouble seeing how the Sox weren't at the very least going to be well overpaying a couple of bench players.
 

DombHChrist

New Member
Mar 31, 2016
1
Cherrington might have done more damage than any GM in an abstract, but luckily for him the Red Sox owners can burn money.

I mean, holy crap. Craig is done, Castillo is the 5th OF, Porcello is a #4 with little room for error, Sandoval is a backup 3B that isn't a net zero or plus in any phase of his game, and Hanley ... well, only god knows.



Basically, Cherrington is Ned Colletti. But worse.
 

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
16,720
Speaking of Allard Baird, he was directly in charge of evaluating Rusney Castillo.
"Baird was primary person charged with the responsibility of identifying if Castillo would be worth the investment, having led the charge when it came to analyzing the outfielder's potential and worth to the organization."

We don't often hear about which front office person is directly in charge of evaluating a specific player-- it usually only happens when a sportswriter wants to make their buddy look good, or if the team makes a big deal of it when announcing a promotion: "Allard Baird, previously the Assistant to GM Theo Epstein, was named Vice President of Player Personnel and Professional Scouting. Baird, formerly the Royals GM, is involved in most player personnel decisions already. He was the one in charge of the Sox’ efforts to scout Carl Crawford..."

Nobody knows who was directly in charge of evaluating Sandoval, Craig, Grady Sizemore, Bobby Jenks, or Mike Cameron. Or any of the good ones. But Crawford and Castillo are both directly attributed to Baird.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,667
Pardon me if he was already mentioned and I just couldn't find it, but the one positive in the spending spree could be (MiLB) Moncada. I'll give Cherington that one since, even if he never pans out, he has high value.
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
Pardon me if he was already mentioned and I just couldn't find it, but the one positive in the spending spree could be (MiLB) Moncada. I'll give Cherington that one since, even if he never pans out, he has high value.
Moncada's got high value right now, before he's been tested in AA. But Lars Anderson and Garin Cecchini have me well-warned against the hype.

Hopefully, DDski will be able to figure out if Moncada's more Miguel Cabrera or more Cameron Maybin, before too long.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,672
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Well, the outcomes sucked, but these decisions weren't made in a vacuum. Everyone was hoping for a repeat of 2013, but the wheels pretty much came off. The big changes from 2013 to 2014 were letting Elsbury go (JBJ), letting S.Drew go (Xander/S.Drew), and letting Salty go (AJP/Vazquez). Nothing major, nothing shocking, decent chance for things to go well.

When the 2014 team wasn't viable, the Sox traded away all the FAs they thought they weren't going to re-sign for various reasons, including the rotation, basically. They got what they could, and some of the pieces looked promising. Since they had a pathetic OF, they signed Castillo. Betts emerged as a possibility late in the year. They then reevaluated and retooled going into the 2015 season.

The individual decisions can fairly critiqued Sandoval, H-Ram to the OF, Porcello's extension, etc., but I think people forget how completely Meh the 2014 team was at the trading deadline; after May 15, they went below .500 to stay.
 

crystalline

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 12, 2009
5,771
JP
"Allard Baird, previously the Assistant to GM Theo Epstein, was named Vice President of Player Personnel and Professional Scouting. Baird, formerly the Royals GM, is involved in most player personnel decisions already. He was the one in charge of the Sox’ efforts to scout Carl Crawford..."
We've been over this before, but signing Crawford was straight riverboat gambling. The guy had one good year -- his contract year -- was average the rest of the time, had never played in a big market, and depended on athleticism. And he got a monstrous commitment.

The contract went about as badly as could be imagined barring career-ending injury, as Crawford got injured, and when he played he was below average. Presumably the Sox were betting that at least his past durability would hold. But that contract stunk from day one even considering he was signed on the FA market.

GMs take risks and sometimes the injury bug hits. Crawford wasn't Mike Hampton or Vernon Wells. But geez, if you're going to spend big dollars on free agents, at least sign your own, and fill in with JD Drew level deals, not bid Carl Crawford up to one of the 30 biggest contracts in history.
 

PapaSox

New Member
Dec 26, 2015
230
MA
I'd say the trouble started with the Lester trade. I could understand Lackey for Kelly and Craig but letting Lester go was the beginning of the end. The Sox couldn't come up with a 5yr/$110million while Lester was with them. What were they thinking? Castillo seemed like a valid possibility and he still may be. I guess time will tell. I'm not ready to dump him yet. The Sandoval & Hanley signings seemed to make sense. I had trouble with Hanley in LF. I thought that's why they got Castillo. I figured they would trade Napoli and Hanley would settle at 1B. Sandoval looked promising, especially after his time in SF and his play in the playoffs. I don't think anyone had Travis Shaw on their radar. I'd have been satisfied with Chase Headley. I'm still a little confused about the Porcello extension.

Cherington made a mess of his opportunity, especially in light of 2013.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Most of the moves Cherington made were critiqued ex ante by very knowledgable SoSHers. I was positive on the Lester to Porcello chain, including the contract to Porcello. I was happy with the Hanley signing and optimistic on Castillo, but with no basis for that one except "In Ben we trust". Unless Craig was the cost of getting Kelly and Kelly continues to pitch like a #3 as he has since the middle of last season, that decision was putrid. Sandoval was a disaster before the ink was dry and the idea that they only choice was to overpay one of Pablo or Headley is moronic. There we at least half dozen 3B that changed teams via trade that winter.

So I feel perfectly justified hammering Ben for Castillo and Sandoval. It looks like Hanley and Kelly may turn out ok still. Porcello should still be a good #4, and that's potentially an overpay but shouldn't be a disaster.

This thread reminded me of the AJP misfire as well. That was also universally panned on SoSH.
 

Hee Sox Choi

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 27, 2006
6,133
I'm still mad that BenC kept Breslow on the roster over Dailer Hinojosa, whom we lost on waivers to the Phillies, proceeded to have a good year and is now the closer (or top set-up man) in Philly. I thought he looked pretty good and it made no sense to keep an awful Breslow on the roster. Some of the above signings could be argued for to some degree, but Breslow over Hinojosa (and his 6 years control) made 0% sense.
 

In my lifetime

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
959
Connecticut
It is easy to pile on, and maybe my glasses are too rose colored but

Panda - at this point is a complete almost Crawford-like disaster. The problem is that the RS don't have a great replacement ready this year. I am not thrilled with the prospect of Shaw as a starting third baseman. Panda will certainly never be worth his contract, but unfortunately every other team knows this as well. So sure explore dumping him, but at a certain subsidy level it is worth keeping him around to play 3B until Moncada is ready.

Craig - a gamble that flopped. This seems to me to be a scouting issue, but Ben as GM has responsibility for that.

Castillo - see Craig's comments.

Porcello - it seems very premature to put this in the disaster pile. I think he still has a decent chance to earn his contract especially with the recent pitcher contracts handed out.

Kelly - if it was just Kelly in the trade, it would have been absolutely fine. He has a very team favorable contract and is still learning his craft. So I am very hopeful that Kelly will gain the necessary consistency this year.

HRAM - last year whoever was responsible for running him out day after day in LF should be fired. He was so obviously lost and it was just a matter of time until he got hurt out there. As with most free agents, the contract is unlikely ever to be a good one, but the bigger mistake was not pulling the plug on the OF experiment when it was obvious he was a fish out of water. I think it is very possible that we view this contract much differently in a few months.

Moncada - is a top 5 overall prospect. What more could you expect? At this point, the signing would rate an A and just about every team would gladly spend the money. That may change in the future, but it is not fair to state that this move is not a success. The RS could certainly trade him for a significant cost controlled player if they so desired.

So certainly plenty of bad moves, but there is still a realistic hope that at half the moves will turn out okay. Granted 3 are likely to never earn their paycheck or have any trade value. 2 (HRAM and Porcello) in my opinion contracts could look much better after this season (certainly not bargains). 2 - Kelly and especially Moncada were good moves. So overall a C- so far, but the final grade is not in yet.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,482
The stream of decisions you describe makes total sense. But the obvious criticism is that Ben was being too short-termist. A GM has to look 3-5 years out at the FA market, not just a year at a time. If Panda was not rated highly by scouts, then Ben should have tried to fill 3B with a stopgap and look to get a FA in the next year or two.
I recall a thread from that time that looked at the 3B FA market a few years out and it was pretty barren. Ben overpaid to get the top FA available (like David Price) and unfortunately, it backfired.

I think Ben was most hamstrung by his extremely deep farm system and the "no long-term FA contracts to players over 30" mandate. It was pretty amazing if you think about it - he had a great farm system, some real chips, a ton of money to burn, but nowhere to get value. So went out and got as much RH power as he could find hoping one of them would pan out - and no one did.

Still, if X and Mookie and Kellly and JBJ and Shaw (etc.) had performed in May (yes I know Shaw wasn't with the club in May but just trying to make a point), Ben still might be in charge.

And when X/Mookie/JBJ/ERod etc. win a world series, we should give Ben a big round of thanks (and a few drinks) for keeping the pieces together and not trading them off for Cliff Lee or what not.
 

In my lifetime

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
959
Connecticut
I will add one decision over the time frame that I believe was completely indefensible at the time (IMO more so than any of the moves mentioned):

The decision to not to sign a 29 year old Andrew Miller (coming off a healthy 2014) for 4 for 36 (AAV of 9M) and instead sign
a 39 yr. old Uehara, coming off a hamstring issues, a fractured wrist and "little lower back issue" in 2014 for 2 yrs and 18 M.

The same annual salary for a pitcher 29-32 as 40-41. The argument of a shorter contract and less risk seems overwhelmed by the 10 yr age difference of the pitchers. It is probably not the best time to make this point with Miller's injury (non throwing wrist chip fracture) earlier this week. However, it seems that common sense was ignored in favor of the fear of longer term contracts. Although a 4 year contract to a 29 year old hardly seems extraordinarily risky.

Of course getting ERod for a couple of months of Andrew Miller is certainly an A+, and maybe that is why the front office gets a pass on this move. Yet after the RS resurrecting his career, I don't find it plausible, nor did I ever read that Miller would not have come back to the RS for similar money as he signed with the Yankees.
 

PapaSox

New Member
Dec 26, 2015
230
MA
I will add one decision over the time frame that I believe was completely indefensible at the time (IMO more so than any of the moves mentioned):

The decision to not to sign a 29 year old Andrew Miller (coming off a healthy 2014) for 4 for 36 (AAV of 9M) and instead sign
a 39 yr. old Uehara, coming off a hamstring issues, a fractured wrist and "little lower back issue" in 2014 for 2 yrs and 18 M.

The same annual salary for a pitcher 29-32 as 40-41. The argument of a shorter contract and less risk seems overwhelmed by the 10 yr age difference of the pitchers. It is probably not the best time to make this point with Miller's injury (non throwing wrist chip fracture) earlier this week. However, it seems that common sense was ignored in favor of the fear of longer term contracts. Although a 4 year contract to a 29 year old hardly seems extraordinarily risky.

Of course getting ERod for a couple of months of Andrew Miller is certainly an A+, and maybe that is why the front office gets a pass on this move. Yet after the RS resurrecting his career, I don't find it plausible, nor did I ever read that Miller would not have come back to the RS for similar money as he signed with the Yankees.
I was think about this last night. It was most definitely one of Ben's better moves. I feel ERod will be our future Ace and will likely achieve that status at just about the time Price goes into decline. If it feels like an ace and it looks like an ace, it probably is an ace.
 

Dewey'sCannon

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
869
Maryland
Of all Ben's moves, the biggest mistake (no pun intended) was clearly Panda, and not just in hindsight. 3B was clearly a hole that needed to be plugged because of Middlebrook's failure, and the pickings were slim on the FA market, but the Panda signing looked even at the time as excessive and an overreaction. And even more so even shortly after, when it was clear they could have just put Hanley at 3B after signing him, or had a shot at trading for Donaldson. The other moves I thought were defensible, and still have some hope of working out at least ok (Hanley, Porcello, Kelly), but that string of events was the point that really started to shake my faith in Ben.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
I don't feel like working.

Here's the timeline:

July 1: Sold Rich Hill for nothing. Meh. Who cares.
July 16: Released AJP. Hooray! but, man. Why was he here in the first place. In 3 months he went to zero value.
July 26: Jake Peavy for Edwin Escobar and Heath Hembree. Another meh. We can assume there wasn't a lot of demand for Peavy, and these guys seem like decent flyers. In July of 14 I don't think Edrod was a gigantic step ahead of Escobar, for instance.
July 30: Felix Doubront for Marco Hernandez. Another meh.
July 31: Stephen Drew for Kelly Johnson. Another trade where the Red Sox seemed to place too much value on a guy in April of 2014 and his value evaporated by July of 2014. Can't blame Ben alone, but there is some organizational failure here.
July 31: Lackey for Craig and Kelly. Just bad. I know there are Kelly fans, but there are other semi-promising guys out in the world that don't require you to give up a pitcher of Lackey's caliber AND take on an albatross.
July 31: Lester and Gomes for Cespedes and a pick. Analyzed to death. Two months of Lester for 8 months of Cespedes isn't bad in a vacuum, on the other hand, it also wasn't good. obviously GMs fall in love with guys, but Shark and Hammel for Russel is highway robbery compared to Lester for Cespedes. Did Ben wait too long? I guess you can't blame him if he did. Also, see my comments above. It wasn't in a vacuum.
July 31: Miller for EdRod. Great one. I'm not as big on EdRod the ace as others, but he seems like he will be useful for a while, which is a huge get for 2 months of a reliever.
August 3: Released Carp. Notable again just to point out how much value the Red Sox saw evaporate in the first half of 2014. Not assigning blame.
August 23: Signed Castillo. Not a bad risk, again, in a vacuum, but why do this after moving Mookie to the OF and after trading for Cespedes and Craig? It's not like Castillo is 23. This was essentially a major league signing.
November 25: Signed Ramirez and Sandoval. Well debated. Terrible first year, all fingers crossed for later years.
December 11: Signed Justin Masterson. I don't think anyone thought this was a very good idea.
December 11: Traded Cespedes (among others) for Porcello. Not bad until signing Porcello to the huge extension.
December 12: Traded RDLR and Webster for Miley. Solid trade. Speaks again to the decay in value of Red Sox properties though.
December 19: Traded WMB for Hanigan. Solid trade, something for nothing.
January 27: Traded Ranaudo for Ross. Meh.
January 30: Signed Ogando. I like this at the time. Worked out terribly.

I'm not one to just blame or credit scouting. There is also luck involved. I think EdRod is a good example of why we may have wanted Ben to go fishing for prospects instead of major leaguers with Lester/Lackey. Accumulate some guys and hope to end up with a couple of gems.

I also want to note, that it is easy to deflect any criticism by saying it takes two teams to make a trade. I know this well.

Last, the most important point, no matter whether it is bad luck, bad management, whatever, the Red Sox had a 2008 housing collapse level of value erosion for about half of their roster between April and July of 2014.
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,421
I would just add that getting Marco Hernandez -- who looks like he will be at least a solid bench player, and possibly a second-division starter -- for Felix Doubront is way better than "meh." If we'd been on the other end of that trade, we'd be furious.
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
Again, like Rodriguez, Hernandez was a minor leaguer who was evaluated as a trade target by the minor-league scouting staff.

Your point just confirms how outrageous it was, that the Sox two most valuable trade assets -- Lester and Lackey -- were dumped for MLB veterans evaluated by the same major-league scouting staff who recommended reloading your 2013 World Champion Boston Red Sox by signing Chris Capuano, Grady Sizemore, and AJ Pierzynski.

It's like the Sox had loaded Carmine with the most cutting-edge scouting information Baird had received before leaving KC in 2006...coincidentally the very same year those three "value" pickups made the All-Star team together.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
I would just add that getting Marco Hernandez -- who looks like he will be at least a solid bench player, and possibly a second-division starter -- for Felix Doubront is way better than "meh." If we'd been on the other end of that trade, we'd be furious.
I guess it depends. He was pretty bad for the two years leading into being named PTBNL and not particularly young as far as prospects go. Nothing in his record indicated he would blow up in AA. He did have a great year last year, perhaps the best of any Sox property in terms of performance:expectation ratio. Let's hope he keeps it up.

But you're right, he's the kind of guy you want to accumulate during a fire sale. I don't really mind the Peavy trade either. Those guys haven't looked great to this point, but at least they have something that might develop.
 
Last edited:

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
July 31: Stephen Drew for Kelly Johnson. Another trade where the Red Sox seemed to place too much value on a guy in April of 2014 and his value evaporated by July of 2014. Can't blame Ben alone, but there is some organizational failure here.
I thought the moving on from Drew part was one of one of Ben's better moves.

Drew had signed for $10.2 million, was hitting anemically (.176/.255/.328 with four home runs and 11 RBI) and the Yankees absorbed what was left on his salary with a $500k contribution from the Sox. And Drew's presence had lead to the dreadful shift of Boegarts off SS.

I understand that your point is more focused on the original signing than the correction. But they are linked and I viewed the correction as a demonstration of organizational maturity; quickly recognizing a mistake and moving on from it is a very good thing. Sopping the Yankees with most of the economic pain was almost too good to be true.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,111
Santa Monica
I don't feel like working.

Here's the timeline:

November 25: Signed Ramirez and Sandoval. Well debated. Terrible first year, all fingers crossed for later years.
December 11: Signed Justin Masterson. I don't think anyone thought this was a very good idea.

Last, the most important point, no matter whether it is bad luck, bad management, whatever, the Red Sox had a 2008 housing collapse level of value erosion for about half of their roster between April and July of 2014.
Thank you for this detailed work Smas.

Small quibble, but roughly 90% of SoSH (I've gone back and read the PABLO thread at the time of the signing) was against the Pablo signing. So I'd say it wasn't debated at the time of signing.

I know its fashionable to go against the collective wisdom, BUT SoSH, by and large, got this one right. Ben clearly got it wrong.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
I had forgotten all about Masterson. That was another big flush of money down the drain that way more than half of SoSH thought was ridiculous ex ante.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
I'd add the decision to rely on ground ball, low k rate pitchers last year really backfired big time too. Especially since the infield defense was top notch aside from Sandoval.
The overall strategy failed, and I think that is more damning than whiffing on any single one transaction.

The lack of a pen drove me nuts too. I didn't like the Ogando move at the time because they didn't treat it as a back up plan, but handed him the job hoping he would be a fireman. And the Miller thing drove me bonkers.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
4,711
I think that ground ball plan could have looked very different if Vazquez hadn't gone down. At the time everyone was excited about how well it was going to leverage his framing ability.

Though I doubt even his powers could have saved Masterson.
 
Apr 1, 2016
9
Cheringtons biggest downfall was that he simply went after the wrong guys time and time again. Not bidding more on jose abreu was the start of the downward spiral. Considering the teams need at the time for a longterm 1B with power, its quite baffling the sox didn’t offer more. From there we had the lester and lackey trades at the deadline. The lackey trade was horrendous, kelly could be good, but having allen craig on the books for the next two years negates that. The lester trade wasn’t as bad and I actually quite liked the acquisition of cespedes. Heading into the offseason, thing got even worse. Even though cespedes looked good in his short time with the team, they decided to trade him for porcello and sign rusney castillo. This to me never made any sense. We had an outfield that featured to of the strongest arms in the mlb (cespedes and bradley) and cespedes gave us a much needed middle of the order bat going forward. Trading him for a backend starter in porcello made zero sense when we could have easily acquired of pitcher of porcello’s ability for a much lower cost. Then there was the signings of pablo and hanley that followed that horrid decision. Perhaps Ben’s biggest failure was his inability to acquire josh donaldson from the A’s. Not only did the division rival jays get him for peanuts, but us not getting him lead to the signing of sandoval. Had we simply kept cespedes, signed abreu for what we gave rusney, and dealt for donaldson, we would be looking at the best line up in the game. Also, by keeping cespedes and trading for donaldson we would not have signed hanley or pablo. Also, by signing abreu to such a reasonable contract and acquiring donaldson who came with 2 years team control at a very low salary, we would have had money to sign lester or scherzer since we would not be paying sandoval 18 mill. And of course to top off that amazing offseason, we saw the great signing of justin masterson for 9 mill i believe and the trade for miley. Ben clearly had no idea what he was doing and just made one bad decision after another. Its amazing how people who get paid so much money to do a job thats not that difficult can be so bad at it.
 
Last edited:

Sprowl

mikey lowell of the sandbox
Dope
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
34,437
Haiku
tl;dr

Capitalization, paragraphs and complete words are wonderfully conducive to effective communication. Try them.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
It's not true that Donaldson was traded for peanuts. Brett Lawrie was someone with the potential to become Josh Donaldson. An equivalent piece from the Red SOX WOULD HAVE BEEN Bogaerrs or Betts. Lawrie didn't break out like Beane hoped, but that shouldn't be confused with the idea that Beane would have taken someons with half the upside or much further away from the majors in a package from the Red Sox. The key pitcher in that deal ,,(drawing a blank) also had way more upside than anyone the Sox were going to be able to include. I don't blame Cherington for losing out on Donaldson, the Jays package was superiors to what we'd have wanted to be in the deal. Especially given the hysttionics that ensued after they got Kimbrell.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
Which is to say nothing of the fact that unless you think BC was flat out lying, he said he called on Donaldson and was told he wasn't available.

As the to Abreu situation, if they had dropped that money on a Cuban that didn't get exactly rave reviews - literally during a World Series where Napoli was cementing his foothold with the fanbase - people would have flipped their shit. That he slid quickly after doesn't change the circumstances at the time.
 
Apr 1, 2016
9
It's not true that Donaldson was traded for peanuts. Brett Lawrie was someone with the potential to become Josh Donaldson. An equivalent piece from the Red SOX WOULD HAVE BEEN Bogaerrs or Betts. Lawrie didn't break out like Beane hoped, but that shouldn't be confused with the idea that Beane would have taken someons with half the upside or much further away from the majors in a package from the Red Sox. The key pitcher in that deal ,,(drawing a blank) also had way more upside than anyone the Sox were going to be able to include. I don't blame Cherington for losing out on Donaldson, the Jays package was superiors to what we'd have wanted to be in the deal. Especially given the hysttionics that ensued after they got Kimbrell.
Brett Lawrie at that point had closer value to Will Middlebrooks than either of Betts or Bogaerts. Lawrie (age 25) was coming off of a season which he hit .247 with a .722 ops and missed a lot of games yet again. (only played in 70 games) He also saw a significant drop off in defensive ability as well which lead to him being moved from 3B to 2B. The pitcher the jays got was Kendall Graveman who is nothing more than a 4/5 starter. Considering that donaldson came with 2 years of team control, that was a very weak package. The jays didnt have to give up any top prospects in the deal.
 

twibnotes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
20,232
Been some interesting posts about Ben's moves being motivated by themes or overarching strategies (power right handed bats, ground ball pitching, for instance). I wonder if these guidelines caused the FO to overlook the deficiencies of the specific players being scouted. If you are hellbent on finding a power right handed bat, maybe you are less prone to realize that Hanley Ramirez isn't a left fielder and Castillo isn't worth $70MM+. Strikes me as being a little too clever. In the end, even if guided by an overall strategy, it seems you have to do a ton of diligence and foster a lot of internal debate before committing to big contracts (not saying that didn't happen but the evidence does make you wonder).