Cherington's bad run

[johnnywayback]

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.

Doesn't matter, though. Cherington (unless, again, you think he just outright lied about this) called Beane and was told Donaldson wasn't available. Beane really loved Lawrie (and, if I recall correctly, he may have been the high man in baseball on Barreto, too). It's the same thing that happened in the Samardzija trade, where Beane really loved Marcus Semien.

If Cherington hadn't thought to check on Donaldson -- or if he'd been available for Middlebrooks, Ranaudo (or your favorite Graveman equivalent), Brian Johnson, and Tzu-Wei Lin and Cherington said no -- then this would indeed represent a massive failure and remove the major mitigating factor in the Sandoval mistake, the absence of other options. But that's not what happened. It was just Oakland being Oakland.

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

Doesn't fit the timeline, but to me, the Cherington era was best embodied the Melancon/Hanrahan swap - the centerpiece from the Sox' perspective was questionable from the start (I recall a lot of skeptics on this board, at least) but the minor-league throw-in turned out to be a hidden gem.

 

[Plympton91]

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.

Will Middlebrooks was traded for a backup catcher on a multi year contract. That pretty much tells you his value relative to Brett Lawrie.

It is still unclad whether any of the major league ready pitchers in the Red Sox organization at the end of 2014, other than Rodriguez, will be more than a #5 starter either, and don't have any upside beyond that.

So, if the Sox wanted Donaldson, I'd still say you have to start with Bogaerrs, add Rodriguez, and then add 2 more pieces.

 

[The Price Is Right 24]

Doesn't matter, though. Cherington (unless, again, you think he just outright lied about this) called Beane and was told Donaldson wasn't available. Beane really loved Lawrie (and, if I recall correctly, he may have been the high man in baseball on Barreto, too). It's the same thing that happened in the Samardzija trade, where Beane really loved Marcus Semien.

If Cherington hadn't thought to check on Donaldson -- or if he'd been available for Middlebrooks, Ranaudo (or your favorite Graveman equivalent), Brian Johnson, and Tzu-Wei Lin and Cherington said no -- then this would indeed represent a massive failure and remove the major mitigating factor in the Sandoval mistake, the absence of other options. But that's not what happened. It was just Oakland being Oakland.

Honestly, I don’t buy the “we called and billy said he wasn’t available” line that cherington came up with. Given that donaldson was moved shortly after the sox supposedly checked in and were turned away, I doubt beane would have told them he wasn’t available. If I’m shopping my highest value asset, I’m letting everyone know. And I’m certainly talking to anyone who wants to make a deal. What I think more likely happened was that ben called and billy said “ I want prospects x, y and z”. Now considering how insanely overprotective Ben was about his prized prospects, I’m willing to bet that probably made Beane a counter offer that include no top prospects. At that point I’m sure both side concluded a deal wasn’t going to happen. Just think about how few prospects Ben dealt during his time as GM and now imagine with him having to deal with the trauma of moving say 2 or 3 of his best ones.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Honestly, I don’t buy the “we called and billy said he wasn’t available” line that cherington came up with. Given that donaldson was moved shortly after the sox supposedly checked in and were turned away, I doubt beane would have told them he wasn’t available. If I’m shopping my highest value asset, I’m letting everyone know. And I’m certainly talking to anyone who wants to make a deal. What I think more likely happened was that ben called and billy said “ I want prospects x, y and z”. Now considering how insanely overprotective Ben was about his prized prospects, I’m willing to bet that probably made Beane a counter offer that include no top prospects. At that point I’m sure both side concluded a deal wasn’t going to happen. Just think about how few prospects Ben dealt during his time as GM and now imagine with him having to deal with the trauma of moving say 2 or 3 of his best ones.

So, your stance is:
- Beane traded Donaldson for a pile of crap
- BC had a chance to match or better said pile of crap and declined, then lied about it
- Donaldson being Beane's biggest asset, he shopped him around and no other team was willing to offer a better pile of crap
- So rather than hold onto him, with no need to trade him, Beane traded him to TOR for a pile of crap

Does this accurately summarize your stance?

 

[The Price Is Right 24]

Will Middlebrooks was traded for a backup catcher on a multi year contract. That pretty much tells you his value relative to Brett Lawrie.

It is still unclad whether any of the major league ready pitchers in the Red Sox organization at the end of 2014, other than Rodriguez, will be more than a #5 starter either, and don't have any upside beyond that.

So, if the Sox wanted Donaldson, I'd still say you have to start with Bogaerrs, add Rodriguez, and then add 2 more pieces.

Middlebrooks was traded for hanigan last offseason, at the time the donaldson trade went down middlebrooks was around the same age as lawrie and was coming off a less than stellar season. Comparing bogaerts to lawrie in terms of value is insane. Same with rodriguez to graveman. A sox equivalent would have been a brian johnson or matt barnes at best.

 

[johnnywayback]

You've changed my mind. Cherington's refusal to part with Middlebrooks and Barnes for Donaldson was indeed a black mark on his tenure.

 

[Plympton91]

You've changed my mind. Cherington's refusal to part with Middlebrooks and Barnes for Donaldson was indeed a black mark on his tenure.

Well, remember, there were more players in the deal, so Ben probably would have had to throw in Dan Butler to close the deal. Silly him.

 

[crystalline]

Doesn't matter, though. Cherington (unless, again, you think he just outright lied about this) called Beane and was told Donaldson wasn't available.

But this line from Cherington is just a red herring.

GMs are hired and paid to negoiatiate deals. If another GM can do the deal, Cherington should have been able to. If Beane told him Donaldson was not available on the phone, maybe Cherington should have sent Baird over for a meeting to ask him in person. Maybe that's what the Jays did. Or maybe the Jays GM had a better relationship with Beane than Cherington did. If so, tough nuts for Cherington - it's his job to have good enough relationships to do deals that help the Sox.

To use a current example, that line is like the head of purchasing at McDonald's saying "I tried to close a deal with Staples but they said that deal wasn't available. So I paid a much higher price from Office Depot.". A person who said that might be fired. If your job is to negotiate deals you get evaluated on results, regardless of the personal communication issues you have or don't have with the other parties.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Honestly, I don’t buy the, “we called and bBilly said he wasn’t available” line that cCherington came up with. Given that dDonaldson was moved shortly after the sSox supposedly checked in and were turned away, I doubt bBeane would have told them he wasn’t available. If I’m shopping my highest value asset, I’m letting everyone know. Aand I’m certainly talking to anyone who wants to make a deal. What I think is more likely to have happened was that bBen called and bBilly said, “ I want prospects x, y and z”. Now considering how insanely overprotective Ben was about his prized prospects, I’m willing to bet that Ben probably made Beane a counter offer that included no top prospects. At that point I’m sure both sides concluded that a deal wasn’t going to happen. Just think about how few prospects Ben dealt during his time as GM and now imagine with him having to deal with the trauma of moving, say, 2 or 3 of his best ones.

FTFY.

Now the big problem is your logic.

Happy to help.

 

[Rovin Romine]

But this line from Cherington is just a red herring.

GMs are hired and paid to negoiatiate deals. If another GM can do the deal, Cherington should have been able to. If Beane told him Donaldson was not available on the phone, maybe Cherington should have sent Baird over for a meeting to ask him in person. Maybe that's what the Jays did. Or maybe the Jays GM had a better relationship with Beane than Cherington did. If so, tough nuts for Cherington - it's his job to have good enough relationships to do deals that help the Sox.

To use a current example, that line is like the head of purchasing at McDonald's saying "I tried to close a deal with Staples but they said that deal wasn't available. So I paid a much higher price from Office Depot.". A person who said that might be fired. If your job is to negotiate deals you get evaluated on results, regardless of the personal communication issues you have or don't have with the other parties.

I think this is a little unrealistic. Baseball isn't a market with perfect transparency conducted by robots. Things can change very quickly and I'm pretty sure there isn't an online commodities market where Beane posts up Donaldson and what he's seeking and every team in baseball offers their best package for him. With our GM being able to lurch in at the last moment with the tie-breaking
sweetener.

It's easy to say Ben should have gotten the job done - but wouldn't that criticism then apply to every single GM in baseball? I mean, shouldn't every single GM worth their salt have been in on Donaldson? By definition, 28 teams are not going to be in on any deal, no matter how much they'd like to be.

This is like people who criticize the FA market deals en masse by saying "Our GM should have gotten ALL of the sleepers, blind bids, and ex post successes, and avoided all the injuries," while ignoring the fact that there's not infinite fungibility, decisions are made in real time without the ability to perfectly predict what other FAs will do later on, and FA players (like other GMs) may have their very own subjective opinion of the Red Sox (or their prospects) and may prefer another option.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Look at all the teams that could have gotten Chapman for a bag of balls if they were willing to take the chance on a guy with extreme anger issues.

For a little perspective, let's look at some of the Cardinals' trades, acknowledging that they have a pretty good reputation. (Good summary of their trades here)

A summary of major trade-aways since 2008 shows what could be the following:

Scott Rolen: Cardinals win (Troy Glaus did miss one year to injury)
Brendan Ryan: Cardinals lose (Maikel Cleto...really?)
Ryan Ludwick: Cardinals win (Jake Westbrook)
Colby Rasmus: Cardinals win (major piece in trade for Octavio Dotel, Edwin Jackson, Corey Patterson & Marc Rzepczynski)
David Freese: Cardinals win (Peter Bourjos and Randal Grichuk)
Allen Craig: Cardinals win (John Lackey)
Chris Perez: wash (Mark DeRosa)
David Carpenter: Cardinals lose (Pedro Feliz)
Fernando Salas: Cardinals lose (part of Freese trade)
Marc Rzepczynski: Cardinals lose (Juan Herrera)
Joe Kelly: Cardinals win?? (part of Craig trade)

What teams have, in your opinion, nailed the trade market over the past 10 years?

 

[Adrian's Dome]

I think this is a little unrealistic. Baseball isn't a market with perfect transparency conducted by robots. Things can change very quickly and I'm pretty sure there isn't an online commodities market where Beane posts up Donaldson and what he's seeking and every team in baseball offers their best package for him. With our GM being able to lurch in at the last moment with the tie-breaking
sweetener.

It's easy to say Ben should have gotten the job done - but wouldn't that criticism then apply to every single GM in baseball? I mean, shouldn't every single GM worth their salt have been in on Donaldson? By definition, 28 teams are not going to be in on any deal, no matter how much they'd like to be.

I think this is a little unrealistic as well.

No, it doesn't apply to every GM, because not every team had a massive glaring hole at third with the necessary pieces to make a move, then proceeded after this trade went down to fill it with one of the worst FA signings in recent memory.

Secondly, a GM with that valuable of a piece absolutely does his due diligence with any and every team he believes he could flip said piece to. They'd be doing themselves a disservice by not, especially in terms of creating leverage. Boston needed a 3B as badly as anyone and I don't believe for a second that Beane didn't at the very least sniff around. Perhaps he was unreasonable with what he asked for, but given the package he settled on with Toronto, I doubt he was holding a hard line on Xander or Mookie. None of us know for sure, but Cherington would have incentive to stretch the truth a little in saying "I called and was told he wasn't available" in order to make himself look better and justify the Sandoval choice.

 

[Sampo Gida]

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.

I seem to remember in 2012 JWH saying the team needed to listen to Bill James more. James has always been down on GB pitchers who don't get a lot of K's and claiming they don't last long (Lowe being an exception). With Porcello coming out using the 4 seamer more, it seems someone in the organization sold Ben on the idea that he can be converted to something else, and that did not pan out. If so, Bens fatal mistake was being so quick to hand out that extension before finding out if the experiment worked.

The pen really got exposed due to the SPing and lack of offense early on. You need 1-2 SP'ers to give you innings on a regular basis and a few laughers to give your better BP arms a breather, and both Tanaka and koji paid for that as the season progressed. More innings for the middle part of the pen is not a good thing for most teams. If the team had been able to compete up to the trading deadline, they likely bolster the bullpen with some trades, but falling on their face after the AS break as they did put an end to that

 

[Rovin Romine]

I think this is a little unrealistic as well.

No, it doesn't apply to every GM, because not every team had a massive glaring hole at third with the necessary pieces to make a move, then proceeded after this trade went down to fill it with one of the worst FA signings in recent memory.

Secondly, a GM with that valuable of a piece absolutely does his due diligence with any and every team he believes he could flip said piece to. They'd be doing themselves a disservice by not, especially in terms of creating leverage. Boston needed a 3B as badly as anyone and I don't believe for a second that Beane didn't at the very least sniff around. Perhaps he was unreasonable with what he asked for, but given the package he settled on with Toronto, I doubt he was holding a hard line on Xander or Mookie. None of us know for sure, but Cherington would have incentive to stretch the truth a little in saying "I called and was told he wasn't available" in order to make himself look better and justify the Sandoval choice.

My point was that we can't assume that Ben/the Sox were ever in the mix for Donaldson from Beane's perspective. Even if they were, in a vague hypothetical sense, Beane might have just preferred the Toronto package from the get go (http://www.athleticsnation.com/2015/6/29/8852771/in-defense-of-the-donaldson-trade) and didn't want to even kick the tires on any other offers because he thought it was perfect. It seems pretty clear what Beane wanted: a MLB ready 3B coming back, plus a MLB ready starter, plus a high minors pitcher, plus a top 100 blue chip prospect.

I mean, is the criticism in this thread really that Ben couldn't get Beene to the table? Like we had a obviously superior package of players to Toronto and those players were also redundant pieces on the Sox roster?

The only tradable MLB ready IF we had at the time was Xander, and there's a long drop off after him in terms of ready talent, plus it would have opened a hole at SS. In terms of the pitchers, if Beane snapped at De La Rosa/Webster, we'd have to find some other way to get a Miley type for the rotation, thinning our prospects further. I mean at that point our rotation was Clay, Kelly, and Ranaudo/Workman/DLR/Webster/Wright etc. Also, throw in that blue chipper. )

If you want to critique signing Sandoval, go right ahead, I'm there with you. But not forcing Beane to consider making a hypothetical trade that no one can define? That's excessively entitled, even for Sox fans.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I think this is a little unrealistic as well.

No, it doesn't apply to every GM, because not every team had a massive glaring hole at third with the necessary pieces to make a move, then proceeded after this trade went down to fill it with one of the worst FA signings in recent memory.

Secondly, a GM with that valuable of a piece absolutely does his due diligence with any and every team he believes he could flip said piece to. They'd be doing themselves a disservice by not, especially in terms of creating leverage. Boston needed a 3B as badly as anyone and I don't believe for a second that Beane didn't at the very least sniff around. Perhaps he was unreasonable with what he asked for, but given the package he settled on with Toronto, I doubt he was holding a hard line on Xander or Mookie. None of us know for sure, but Cherington would have incentive to stretch the truth a little in saying "I called and was told he wasn't available" in order to make himself look better and justify the Sandoval choice.

Why is it assumed that Beane "settled" for the package from Toronto? What if Beane valued Lawrie on the same level as, say, Betts or Bogaerts, and that's what it would have taken to match/beat the deal? Maybe Beane did shop around and because he valued Lawrie highly (or it was Barreto or Graveman that was his binky), no one would match the deal in his eyes.

Just because independent and objective analysis would call Beane wrong, that doesn't mean it couldn't have been the case. Wouldn't be the first time Beane locked sites on a player (or two) that he rated higher than anyone else in baseball...sometimes to his benefit, sometimes to his detriment.

 

[Adrian's Dome]

We can argue if and buts until we're all blue in the face, but given that none of us know for sure what went down, it's useless.

Point being, Ben deserves to be criticized for no reason other than his team desperately needed a 3B, one of the best ones in the majors was on the market, he claims he was told otherwise (which I find doubtful,) said player was traded for a reasonable package shortly after, then the Sox immediately handed out a terrible contract to a declining player.

Is not getting Donaldson a hands down, clear, straight fuck up from Cherington? No. Trades don't work out far more often than they do, I just don't find it reasonable to believe he played his hand well given what he said and how everything played out.

 

[crystalline]

It's easy to say Ben should have gotten the job done - but wouldn't that criticism then apply to every single GM in baseball?

What if Beane valued Lawrie on the same level as, say, Betts or Bogaerts, and that's what it would have taken to match/beat the deal? Maybe Beane did shop around and because he valued Lawrie highly (or it was Barreto or Graveman that was his binky), no one would match the deal in his eyes.

RR, I am on the same page as you. I'm not saying Cherington should be fired merely for losing out on one deal. But he is being evaluated on his ability to get deals done. Danny Ainge has a great rep in part because he closed a deal on Ray Allen and then used that to get Garnett. Those moves do a lot to define his legacy. Duquette's legacy rests heavily on Pedro.

Evaluating a GM's ability to make deals is extraordinarily hard. It's very difficult to tell how much value-over-replacement-dealmaker any GM adds. Heck, it might be that most well-regarded GMs are just lucky.

But all that does not let Cherington off the hook for Donaldson. Cherington can't say "Oh well, Beane told me he was not available". If it takes showing up on Beane's doorstep on Thanksgiving, sometimes a good GM will do that. What Cherington can say is "I couldn't persuade Beane that our prospect package was worth Donaldson". Which is fine. But eventually if that happens enough times Cherington's bosses will start to wonder "Maybe a different GM could haver persuaded Beane. Or could have put together a prospect package that worked better for both sides".

 

[Rovin Romine]

FWIW, I don't disagree at all with your overall argument about deal-making; I just think it's a little odd to focus on the Donaldson-not-trade, as though Ben really dropped the ball.

***
While I'm not a defender of Ben's legacy, such as it is, I do think that the entire FO was in on the concept of trading the impending 2015 FAs, evaluating what came in, and turning over the roster in the offseason (to the extent they acquired their #2 and #3 starters and key bullpen pieces and half their catching platoon via trade.) Clearly, nearly all the individual moves failed. But Donaldson - eh. I can't find it in me to say they should have also traded for him amidst the chaos of the 2014 off season when the price would very likely have been Xander plus.

Ex Ante, I think only the Sandoval signing and the Porcello extension looked like they could be bad at the time. Hanley was very defensible, as were Porcello and Miley and Castillo.

One expects some bumps in the road, but the only positives were Swihart doing well when pressed into service, Pedroia, Xander, Betts, Shaw's and JBJ's late season surge and, of course, Ortiz. On the pitching side, E-Rod was the only guy to exceed expectations, although Kelly turned it on for the second half.

I'm surprised Ben gets more criticism than Farrell over the fact that almost all the players on the team stood still or regressed or under preformed. I mean, faced with the epic Meh, especially among pitchers, who can you really say that the managing/coaching helped? Kelly?

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

I'm far from a BC apologist but people are being completely irrational here. And yes, that's mostly aimed at the Donaldson discussion. Beane's predilections aside he couldn't match the offer. But we want him banging on his door? So basically every trade that goes down between other team is now the fault of the Sox GM for not getting in on? Come on.

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

But all that does not let Cherington off the hook for Donaldson. Cherington can't say "Oh well, Beane told me he was not available". If it takes showing up on Beane's doorstep on Thanksgiving, sometimes a good GM will do that. What Cherington can say is "I couldn't persuade Beane that our prospect package was worth Donaldson". Which is fine. But eventually if that happens enough times Cherington's bosses will start to wonder "Maybe a different GM could haver persuaded Beane. Or could have put together a prospect package that worked better for both sides".

I, too, am no fan of Cherington's. But it sounds like you're suggesting that he should have essentially stopped at nothing to get Donaldson as though he were the White Whale, and that seems like a bad way to operate to me. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point, but what you're saying sounds like a good way to wind up on Arizona's end of the Shelby Miller trade.

As others have said, there are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Cherington. Frankly, I've never bought most of the Board Wisdom surrounding the Sandoval deal because I don't think you give a guy that kind of money simply because there "weren't any other options." But maybe that's just me.

 

[Average Reds]

We can argue if and buts until we're all blue in the face, but given that none of us know for sure what went down, it's useless.

Point being, Ben deserves to be criticized for no reason other than his team desperately needed a 3B, one of the best ones in the majors was on the market, he claims he was told otherwise (which I find doubtful,) said player was traded for a reasonable package shortly after, then the Sox immediately handed out a terrible contract to a declining player.

Is not getting Donaldson a hands down, clear, straight fuck up from Cherington? No. Trades don't work out far more often than they do, I just don't find it reasonable to believe he played his hand well given what he said and how everything played out.

I am having a great deal of difficulty understanding what you are saying here, as you seem to be contradicting yourself over and over without making it clear WTF you are trying to get at.

Do we not have the right to criticize because we weren't there? Or do we have the right to criticize, but only for actions (or lack of action) that are obviously wrong in hindsight? Or are you then saying (again) that we don't even have the right in those cases because most trades don't work out? Or are you switching fields (again) and saying that it's not reasonable to assume that he did something right because ... Jesus, I just can't follow this.

Here's an alternative: GMs are judged not on their intentions, or on the process they went through before making a decision but on the outcome of their actions. That's unfair for any number of reasons, but it's reality. Trying to parse that ties us all in knots.

 

[Adrian's Dome]

I am having a great deal of difficulty understanding what you are saying here, as you seem to be contradicting yourself over and over without making it clear WTF you are trying to get at.

Do we not have the right to criticize because we weren't there? Or do we have the right to criticize, but only for actions (or lack of action) that are obviously wrong in hindsight? Or are you then saying (again) that we don't even have the right in those cases because most trades don't work out? Or are you switching fields (again) and saying that it's not reasonable to assume that he did something right because ... Jesus, I just can't follow this.

Here's an alternative: GMs are judged not on their intentions, or on the process they went through before making a decision but on the outcome of their actions. That's unfair for any number of reasons, but it's reality. Trying to parse that ties us all in knots.

Let me say it in clear, easy words: Cherington deserves criticism for both the moves he made and the ones he didn't, even though we don't know the exact details behind each and every possible transaction.

 

[Average Reds]

So next time, just say that instead of burying your message behind a wall of caveats and obfuscation.

That way, you won't have to play the condescending jackass when you explain yourself after the fact.

 

[Adrian's Dome]

So next time, just say that instead of burying your message behind a wall of caveats and obfuscation.

That way, you won't have to play the condescending jackass when you explain yourself after the fact.

Here's another simple idea you don't seem to understand: if you're an ass, people will be an ass back to you.

 

[Average Reds]

Look, your initial post was confusing to the point where I honestly had no understanding of whether you were saying that Cherington was fair game for criticism or not.

You appear to be incapable of accepting constructive criticism from someone who was trying to understand your post. And that's fine. But if you are going to be a condescending ass about it, expect to be called out. And if you're not willing to either (1) take that heat, or (2) up your game in terms of posting, then go away.

 

[BaseballJones]

RR, I am on the same page as you. I'm not saying Cherington should be fired merely for losing out on one deal. But he is being evaluated on his ability to get deals done. Danny Ainge has a great rep in part because he closed a deal on Ray Allen and then used that to get Garnett. Those moves do a lot to define his legacy. Duquette's legacy rests heavily on Pedro.

Evaluating a GM's ability to make deals is extraordinarily hard. It's very difficult to tell how much value-over-replacement-dealmaker any GM adds. Heck, it might be that most well-regarded GMs are just lucky.

But all that does not let Cherington off the hook for Donaldson. Cherington can't say "Oh well, Beane told me he was not available". If it takes showing up on Beane's doorstep on Thanksgiving, sometimes a good GM will do that. What Cherington can say is "I couldn't persuade Beane that our prospect package was worth Donaldson". Which is fine. But eventually if that happens enough times Cherington's bosses will start to wonder "Maybe a different GM could haver persuaded Beane. Or could have put together a prospect package that worked better for both sides".

Donaldson was a terrific player the two years before getting traded, but his second one was a little worse, possibly suggesting that he wasn't going to be getting better. After all, he was a late bloomer.

2012 (Age 26): 274 ab, 9 hr, .241/.289/.398/.687, 89 ops+, 1.5 bWAR
2013 (Age 27): 579 ab, 24 hr, .301/.384/.499/.883, 148 ops+, 7.7 bWAR (so...pretty awesome, right?)
2014 (Age 28): 608 ab, 29 hr, .255/.342/.456/.798, 126 ops+, 7.3 bWAR (still really good, but a decline from the previous year)

So at this point, it was pretty clear that he was a really good player. Really good. But I don't know if too many people saw his MVP season coming, at age 29. Compare that to Sandoval's last two seasons in SF:

2013 (Age 26): 525 ab, 14 hr, .278/.341/.417/.758, 119 ops+, 2.3 bWAR
2014 (Age 27): 588 ab, 16 hr, .279/.324/.415/.739, 111 ops+, 3.4 bWAR

The cost of acquiring Donaldson was an already established and solid MLB 3b (which the Red Sox didn't have, or else they wouldn't have signed Sandoval), and three good, significant prospects. Sandoval had already proven himself over his career to be solid - not as good as Donaldson, but solid - and a really good postseason performer. The cost of acquiring Sandoval was only money, and the Sox had plenty of that.

There's no question Donaldson was a better player. But the acquisition cost was enormous, while all it cost the Sox to get Pablo was $$, something they had in adequate supply. Better to keep the prospects and get a really solid major league 3b to fill that hole than to deal them away.

That was the thinking, of course. Was it a mistake? I guess you have to say yes, because Donaldson was one of the best players in baseball last year and Pablo was the worst. Hard to get a greater disparity than that. But who knows what the prospects would have been in order to get Donaldson.

I know not everyone loved the Panda signing, but I don't think too many people thought he'd be as bad as he was. There was just no way to really predict that. He was fat in SF. Yet he was good. There was no reason to think he'd completely fall off a cliff. At least not right away, at age 28.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

But all that does not let Cherington off the hook for Donaldson. Cherington can't say "Oh well, Beane told me he was not available". If it takes showing up on Beane's doorstep on Thanksgiving, sometimes a good GM will do that. What Cherington can say is "I couldn't persuade Beane that our prospect package was worth Donaldson". Which is fine. But eventually if that happens enough times Cherington's bosses will start to wonder "Maybe a different GM could haver persuaded Beane. Or could have put together a prospect package that worked better for both sides".

This is ridiculous. You're saying that Billy Beane--Billy fucking Beane, who is so obsessively evidence-based in his approach to player evaluation and deal-making that somebody wrote a book about it--was totally ready to give Donaldson to Cherington for a price the Sox could have lived with, but it didn't happen because Cherington is an epically unpersuasive person?

There are probably several plausible answers to the question "why did Josh Donaldson end up in Toronto instead of Boston?". And presumably at least one of them is true. But this is not one of them.

 

[smastroyin]

I think there is a simple explanation that Beane really valued Lawrie highly.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

I think there is a simple explanation that Beane really valued Lawrie highly.

That, and the fact that the deal also included a shortstop who had just finished a .311/.384/.481 season as an 18-year-old in low-A and was a consensus top-100 prospect. That would be like us including Devers in a deal. Not a minor piece by any means.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

I think there is a simple explanation that Beane really valued Lawrie highly.

It all comes down to talent evaluation.

Cherington -- and whatever analytic tools were employed under his watch -- evaluated both players and prospects highly...too highly, perhaps. The idea that Porcello could project to replicate Lester's production for cheaper, and that Kelly could project to replicate Lackey's production for longer, doesn't come out of nowhere.

And, I am really surprised folks here would appear to rather have Bogaerts and Panda for five years, rather than Marrero and Donaldson. It seems at best a wash to me, and at worst, well, what we got.

Really, Cherington left the Sox with a great system, but a bad MLB club. But it seems to me the same issue of over-valuation of projected value applies to both the good and bad results of Cherington's run as GM.

 

[Plympton91]

RR, I am on the same page as you. I'm not saying Cherington should be fired merely for losing out on one deal. But he is being evaluated on his ability to get deals done. Danny Ainge has a great rep in part because he closed a deal on Ray Allen and then used that to get Garnett. Those moves do a lot to define his legacy. Duquette's legacy rests heavily on Pedro.

Evaluating a GM's ability to make deals is extraordinarily hard. It's very difficult to tell how much value-over-replacement-dealmaker any GM adds. Heck, it might be that most well-regarded GMs are just lucky.

But all that does not let Cherington off the hook for Donaldson. Cherington can't say "Oh well, Beane told me he was not available". If it takes showing up on Beane's doorstep on Thanksgiving, sometimes a good GM will do that. What Cherington can say is "I couldn't persuade Beane that our prospect package was worth Donaldson". Which is fine. But eventually if that happens enough times Cherington's bosses will start to wonder "Maybe a different GM could haver persuaded Beane. Or could have put together a prospect package that worked better for both sides".

You think it would be better for the Red Sox GM to say publicly that, "Billy Beane doesn't value our prospects as highly as those just traded to Toronto," or maybe, "Well we were willing to trade Owens, but not Rodriguez, in the deal" instead of just saying, "We were told Donaldson wasn't available." I think Ben's statement is perfect for public consumption. If I'm his boss I want more info, but I don't necessarily want that info given to the press.

 

[Fireball Fred]

2013 was great, but ... the Red Sox position under this ownership has been that the GM's job is to put together a team that gets to the postseason; after that it's a crapshoot from the FO perspective, up to the players and manager. By that standard, Cherington was not a success. Blowing $400m (well, half is utterly blown, while something may be salvaged from the rest) gets you fired, and should. Note, by the way, that while the Punto trade worked as a salary dump, the Sox got no positive value in return - Loney was the best of the lot, and he was never going to make our team. Dombrowski was in the opposite position in Detroit - he put together good teams, but his assignment was to win the World Series. He's a better fit here.

 

[Plympton91]

I was waiting for someone else to break out the idea that the "Punto Trade" ain't all it's cracked up to be. Obviously, the payroll flexibility and signings that allowed were proximate causes of the 2013 Postseason Tournament Championship, which means you'd never say you wanted to undo it. But, if you just go by WAR/$ since the trade, I wonder how much ahead the Red Sox come out? $65 million on Gonzalez was replaced by $45 million on Napoli for 1 good season. Similarly, you got only one good season out of Victorino for $39 million. Beckett vs Dempster/Masterson? How much did you really "save?" I'm sure they come out ahead, but the trade was not this lopsided boon in terms of net WAR/$ it's made out to be. That Napoli and Victorino concentrated all the net value of the replacements in 2013 while Lester and Papi singlehandedly delivered the postseason is what makes it a great trade.

 

[Laser Show]

Wait, what?

http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/red-sox/post/_/id/48234/on-eve-of-season-red-sox-demonstrate-urgency-to-stop-the-losing

“I told John the same thing I’ve told (former Detroit Tigers manager) Jim Leyland for years and other managers I’ve worked with: ‘Play the lineup that gives us the best chance to win,’” Dombrowski said. “Sometimes I don’t think, because it was new for John, that he really believed it in the beginning.”

So playing the best team, regardless of salary, is a change from the way this team has been run in previous years? Yikes. More at the link.

 

[crystalline]

What about getting out from under Crawford's contract? He's put up around 2.0 fWAR/year and negligible bWAR, at a cost of $21M per year for three years since the trade.

 

[williams_482]

I was waiting for someone else to break out the idea that the "Punto Trade" ain't all it's cracked up to be. Obviously, the payroll flexibility and signings that allowed were proximate causes of the 2013 Postseason Tournament Championship, which means you'd never say you wanted to undo it. But, if you just go by WAR/$ since the trade, I wonder how much ahead the Red Sox come out? $65 million on Gonzalez was replaced by $45 million on Napoli for 1 good season. Similarly, you got only one good season out of Victorino for $39 million. Beckett vs Dempster/Masterson? How much did you really "save?" I'm sure they come out ahead, but the trade was not this lopsided boon in terms of net WAR/$ it's made out to be. That Napoli and Victorino concentrated all the net value of the replacements in 2013 while Lester and Papi singlehandedly delivered the postseason is what makes it a great trade.

Ignoring any production/salary from 2012, the team traded:
- Carl Crawford, paid $60.7M for 5.8 fWAR (worth $43.4M) thru 2015, plus $41.8M for (projected) ~1.5 WAR (worth $12M) 2016-17. Net value of -$17.3M thru 2015, -$47.1M total.
- Adrian Gonzalez, paid $63M for 9.4 WAR (worth $72.8M) thru 2015, plus $64M for (projected) ~6.5 WAR (worth ~$54M) in 2016-18. Net value of +$9.8M thru 2015, total net value of zero.
- Josh Beckett, paid $31.6M for 0.6 WAR (worth $4.6M) thru 2014. Net value of -$27M.
- Nick Punto, paid $1.5M for 1.9 WAR (worth $14.3M) in 2013. Net value of $12.8M.

Together, the players traded were paid $156.8M from 2013 to 2015, and produced 17.7 WAR. They will continue to be paid $105.8M from 2016 onward, and are projected to produce ~8 WAR. That's a net "value" of -$21.7M from 2013 to 2015, plus a projected -$39.8M down the road. Yes, the most valuable player+contract the Red Sox gave up was Nick Punto.

In that trade, we acquired RDLR and Allen Webster, who were paid a combined $2M for $1.1M of production in 2013 and 2014. They were traded for Wade Miley, who was paid $3.5M for 2.6 WAR (worth $20.6M) in 2015, and subsequently traded for five years of Carson Smith. Net value of +$16.2M from 2013 to 2015, plus whatever Carson Smith does down the road.

They also used that money on the following players before the 2013 season:
- Shane Victorino, paid $39M for 6.3 WAR, worth $46.8M, from 2013 to 2015. Net value of +$7.8M.
- Mike Napoli, paid $37M for 3.3 WAR, worth $25.2M, from 2013 to 2015. Net value of -$11.8M
- Steven Drew, paid $19.6M for 3.6 WAR, worth $26.8, from 2013 to 2014. Net value of +$7.2M
- Ryan Dempster, paid $26.5M for 0.5 WAR, worth $3.9M, from 2013 to 2014. Net value -$22.6M
- Koji Uehara, paid $17.4M for 5.6 WAR, worth $42.1M, from 2013 to 2015, plus $9M for (projected) 1.1 WAR worth ~$8M in 2016. Net value +$23.7M
- Jonny Gomes, paid $10M for 1.2 WAR, worth $9M, from 2013 to 2014. Net value -$1M

Note that extensions and second FA contracts are included. If the player was dealt in midseason, his full salary for that season is still counted but his production with the new team is not.

Together, these FA acquisitions were paid $149.5M between 2013 and 2015, and produced 20.5 WAR. That is a net value of +$4.3M over that period. The only player still on the books is Koji, who projects to basically break even on his contract.

If we only look at 2013-2015, the Red Sox went from paying $156.8M for 17.7 WAR to paying $155M for 23.3 WAR. If we add in 2016 and onward, they went from paying $262.8M for ~26 WAR to paying $164M for 24.4 WAR, plus whatever salary/production we expect out of Carson Smith.

Alternately, they gave up assets with a net value of -$61.5M and gained assets with a net value of +$20.5M (plus Carson Smith).

In conclusion, It seem clear that the Punto trade was indeed a very good deal for the Red Sox, and they followed it up with a reasonably efficient (if massively frontloaded) free agency period before the 2013 season. I'm not sure if this meets expectations for lopsidedness or not, but I'm still impressed and thankful that Cherington pulled it off.

 

[Rovin Romine]

Nice analysis.

I think that ideally one would break it down year by year, in the sense that there is different value to peak years v. bust years. I don't know if having a Dodgers type team (in the hunt every year) or a Red Sox (winning it all then cellar-dwelling) is more valuable in terms of revenue, loyalty of the fan base, organizational reputation, etc. etc. (Also, this is all ex post. If Gonzalez tweaked his shoulder again, this becomes a radically different analysis.)

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Wait, what?

http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/red-sox/post/_/id/48234/on-eve-of-season-red-sox-demonstrate-urgency-to-stop-the-losing


So playing the best team, regardless of salary, is a change from the way this team has been run in previous years? Yikes. More at the link.

I am surprised not so much by the fact that playing time used to be dished out according to $ rather than performance, as by the fact that Dombrowski and Farrell are now talking about it so frankly. To me this suggests that the driving force behind that mentality may no longer be with the team--i.e., Lucchino, who seems like exactly the kind of old-school guy one could imagine saying "we're not paying so-and-so $20 million to sit on the bench."

 

[Plympton91]

@williams_482, nice analysis and thanks for doing it. No doubt the Red Sox got insane value in 2013 from their 2013 signings.

 

[Sprowl]

One quibble:

- Ryan Dempster, paid $26.5M for 0.5 WAR, worth $3.9M, from 2013 to 2014. Net value -$22.6M

Ryan Dempster of Gibsons, British Columbia, went out on a high note. He retired at the end of 2013, after going 8-9, 4.57 as #5 starter and earning his World Series ring, to spend more time with his family inc handicapped child. He didn't collect on his contract's second year salary. I think he managed to survive, because of Canadian health care.

That's a good way to go out, as far as happily ever after goes for a baseball player.

 

[Flunky]

and he plunked one on Arod but good.

 

[cromulence]

and he plunked one on Arod but good.

And then A-Rod launched one to CF. I liked that game.

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

@williams_482, nice analysis and thanks for doing it. No doubt the Red Sox got insane value in 2013 from their 2013 signings.

Agreed. This is the kind of thoughtful work that makes SOSH great. Thanks.

A couple of quibbles/thoughts: The after-story on the Punto deal indicated that its origins came from the Dodgers reaching out to ownership/management above Cherington - Ben's actual role was never precisely described. I'm guessing his contribution was to make the money work and ID the bodies coming back. For all we really know, he might have added in Punto and picked RDLR and Webster. I'm not sure that really added much to the trade, though he deserves credit for turning those two into Miley.

Ben also deserves credit for taking the money saved and building the 2013 team. Yes, it DOES make a difference if you can win it all, and we should all appreciate Ben's getting Vic, Nap, Koji and Gomes to be key contributors in 2013, even if his subsequent moves were largely (and large) busts.

As for the Donaldson discussion, I'm reminded of Bean's Youkilis fetish. Beane's a different cat, playing in a difficult market. I think far more than other GMs, he identifies and tries to acquire specific players he likes and who fill specific needs in a cost effective way. And he reaches out. He doesn't just hang out a Trade Proposals Wanted sign. So while Ben could have pushed to get in on the Donaldson action, it's possible if not likely that by the time he knew Donaldson was really being shopped, Beane already had the deal he wanted in place.

Do I know that's what happened? No. Just a guess, based on the Moneyball stories and Beane's trading history.

 

[lexrageorge]

I can understand blaming a GM for not picking up a player to address a position of need. But it's a bit of a stretch to blame a GM for a trade not made, or for not acquiring a specific player. As several have noted, we don't know what it actually would have taken to get the player in question, or even if the other team would want to even trade said player to Boston. It's not a matter of "the GM just needs to make the deal happen regardless", as the presumption of there being a deal to be had could be completely invalid. We do know that GM's get contacted with trade proposals all the time, and that many more trades are discussed than actually happen. Once in a while we hear about a few proposals that leak out, but we often have no idea of the context.

Cherington indeed had a bad run after 2013. It's likely that Lucchino was involved in at least some of those broken trades and acquisitions as well. Either way, it was a bad enough of a run to make Henry say "enough"

 

[IpswichSox]

Alex Speier has a story up today talking with Ben about his teaching at Columbia this spring and some of Ben's internal process of analyzing his role in the FO during the two last-place finishes. As usual, Alex does a good job. I do wish though there had been some examples of "wish I had done that differently" or details about internal decision making, like how he managed his Henry and Warner relationships (there were stories last summer about how much of Ben's time was spent managing up). That's probably too much info -- and too soon -- to talk about publicly though. Still, worthy of a read.

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

I feel- without any actual proof here...- that Ben was a victim of his success. He picked up the reigns coming off a collapse in which the long term outlook did not look too good. Lackey was crap, Lester wasn't consistent enough to be an ace and Clay was Clay. In the bullpen there was zip... The offense was still anchored around an aging slugger and the promise of Adrian Gonzalez....long term future didn't look promising.
The philosophy at the time was to emphasize small ball since the juiced HR era was over and power was vanishing. He spent '12 hoping for the best but successfully maneuvered out of some albatross contracts then went about constructing a long term team- adding short term boosts to make the team more competitive in '13. Nobody expected the starting pitching performances out of that rotation, nor Our bullpen, nor for the lineup to do what it did.
After the WS victory it seemed Ben backtracked on the long-term plan and tried to recapture the prior years temporary fix as a strategic formula, abandoning the long term goals.
Without any proof- I wonder if they had finished in 3rd in '13- I think they make different offseason signings and structure all those trades in '14 differently... And we don't end up with Pablo and Hanley

 

[JimD]

Alex Speier has a story up today talking with Ben about his teaching at Columbia this spring and some of Ben's internal process of analyzing his role in the FO during the two last-place finishes. As usual, Alex does a good job. I do wish though there had been some examples of "wish I had done that differently" or details about internal decision making, like how he managed his Henry and Warner relationships (there were stories last summer about how much of Ben's time was spent managing up). That's probably too much info -- and too soon -- to talk about publicly though. Still, worthy of a read.

Really great piece by Speier (as usual). Cherington definitely comes across as guarded, which is not surprising given that he may still want a career in baseball at some future date, but his lack of defensiveness is refreshing.

 

[RetractableRoof]

I feel- without any actual proof here...- that Ben was a victim of his success. He picked up the reigns coming off a collapse in which the long term outlook did not look too good. Lackey was crap, Lester wasn't consistent enough to be an ace and Clay was Clay. In the bullpen there was zip... The offense was still anchored around an aging slugger and the promise of Adrian Gonzalez....long term future didn't look promising.
The philosophy at the time was to emphasize small ball since the juiced HR era was over and power was vanishing. He spent '12 hoping for the best but successfully maneuvered out of some albatross contracts then went about constructing a long term team- adding short term boosts to make the team more competitive in '13. Nobody expected the starting pitching performances out of that rotation, nor Our bullpen, nor for the lineup to do what it did.
After the WS victory it seemed Ben backtracked on the long-term plan and tried to recapture the prior years temporary fix as a strategic formula, abandoning the long term goals.
Without any proof- I wonder if they had finished in 3rd in '13- I think they make different offseason signings and structure all those trades in '14 differently... And we don't end up with Pablo and Hanley

I disagree that Ben changed his plan. When I read the piece posted above it confirmed that he thought he was safe in the eyes of Henry et al from the short term bridge years.

Knowing that financial advantages in the international signing arena were going away, they made the last big splash there. He zealously built up and guarded the prospect pipeline. He spent on the free agent market to backfill untill the pipeline was ready.

While 2013 was an unexpected surge to the top, it was just that. Unexpected. The unfortunate thing for Ben were the next two cellar finishes. With the players on the roster and the money spent (poorly perhaps) it should have reasonably kept them in the middle of the pack until this year or next.

That piece indicated long term planning for the organization... including succession planning. I'm betting he feels like they yanked the rug out from under him when he was following the plan they signed off on.

 

[Sampo Gida]

Ben has been sentenced and punished, but how bad will the crime look to us in the future.

I'd personally like to know more about the medical evaluations that Ben relied on. We know now that many or at least some of the guys he brought on board like Joe Kelley, Alan Craig, Pablo had prior issues that may have had a role in their performance slide or have recently cropped up again. Was that Bens miss or the medical team? Signing a player at Pablos weight and not insuring the deal is a head scratcher, but that might have been a decision made by higher ups

Ben had to be relying mainly on his scouts for the Castillo signing, so I am not sure he is totally responsible for that miss, or even if it will be a miss after some time has passed.

Hanley we might look upon more as a flaw in the sabermetric theory that a SS can play pretty much anywhere lower in the defensive spectrum. Also, his offensive issues might have had more to do with injury. The verdict is still out on how this turns out. If Hanley get regain that power he once had, shoulder permitting, this may turn out well

Porcello of course has 2 steps to evaluate. The trade, which seems defensible. A SP'er off a good year with 1 year remaining for an OF'er who didn't seem to fit if all else worked out in his walk year . The extension, before he had pitched a single game in a Boston uniform and despite doubts cast by Bill James on sinkerballers durability is perhaps the biggest negative. The jury is still out on this if Porcellos comeback is real. It may be that someone in the organization on the analytic side sold him on the idea Porcello could be converted to a high K guy due to the spin rate on his four seamer FB, which may indeed be the case after a bit of an adjustment.

Like so much in history, what is apparent early on could be looked on much differently in the future