Garbage time again: what's the plan this time?

[BosRedSox5]

I agree that Ben has not been very effective as a GM... but who takes his place? We inexplicably blew up a great situation with arguably the most respected GM/Team President and manager in the game... who takes Ben's place?

Billy Beane is never leaving the Athletics. I think that should be clear now. He's a lifer. 

So who is there? Josh Byrnes? Paul DePodesta? Mike Port....?

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

I agree that Ben has not been very effective as a GM... but who takes his place? We inexplicably blew up a great situation with arguably the most respected GM/Team President and manager in the game... who takes Ben's place?

Billy Beane is never leaving the Athletics. I think that should be clear now. He's a lifer. 

So who is there? Josh Byrnes? Paul DePodesta? Mike Port....?

 
Jerry DiPoto is available. He worked for the Sox as a scout in 2004, has a WS ring and everything. How could he be worse? If he was hired and they finish in last place in only 2 of the next 4 years he'd still be better than Cherington.

 

[fineyoungarm]

FYA, Miller going to NYY is the least of this team's problems IMO. They could have signed him for whatever he wanted and it would not have made the slightest difference in the team's results, because he is not a starting pitcher.

I think of it as the perfect snapshot of ineptitude, regardless of  how many games he might have added to the win column. However, he would have added some, although probably not enought to put them into contention.

 

[DanoooME]

 
It's hard to figure out exactly what Baird does. But when he was promoted in 2011, the team announced that  "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, and his imprint has also been felt on anything from the Sox’ efforts to more aggressively scout and sign players from the independent leagues (such as Daniel Nava) to the teams’ discussions of players going in both directions in potential trade discussions."
 
More recently, Baird was also the point man in evaluating Rusney Castillo. 
 
"He has remained a key voice in the Sox front office and played a prominent role in the acquisition of Tampa Bay outfielder Carl Crawford, a signing that Cherington said he also championed while serving under Epstein."
 
Baird's been promoted twice since 2011, so he is obviously a voice that is being listened to. He has been an assistant GM here since 2008. In 2011 he was promoted to VP/Player Personnel and Professional Scouting for the Red Sox. Then in 2013, his title was changed to VP/Player Personnel. 
 
His track record as GM was unimpressive. The team's major league player evaluation has been terrible for at least a year and a half. Baird is a "key voice" by all accounts, who is focused on major league players, not the minors. 

 
Based on this SSS, he certainly deserves a lot of criticism when it comes to personnel decisions.  I think Baird needs to go before anyone else does.

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

I agree that Ben has not been very effective as a GM... but who takes his place? We inexplicably blew up a great situation with arguably the most respected GM/Team President and manager in the game... who takes Ben's place?

Billy Beane is never leaving the Athletics. I think that should be clear now. He's a lifer. 

So who is there? Josh Byrnes? Paul DePodesta? Mike Port....?

 
JP Ricciardi! [/cafardo]
 
Seriously, though, Dave Dombrowski is a pending free agent. Before you pan his moves, remember that it's been widely assumed that he's been working under orders to deliver one last championship to the old man.

 

[fineyoungarm]

 
So what specifically should they have done?  Napoli isn't defendable in the least.  If Hanley hit more like Manny, would we hear so much about his defense?  And they've tried just about everyone in RF, so what else could they have done?

As for RF, probably not have signed Castillo for 70+ million dollars through 2020.  (Your point above.)
 
When if comes to Ramirez, better hitting would temper the criticism, but he is so awful in LF he would still take a lot of flak.
 
In fact, the FO assembled a truly mediocre duo on the left side of the field, when it comes to defense. To the point of establishing Baird's incompetence.

 

[moondog80]

 
Jerry DiPoto is available. 

 
 
And you complain about the free agent moves the Red Sox make?

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

 
 
And you complain about the free agent moves the Red Sox make?

 
I think it's been pretty reliably reported that Moreno was personally in charge of the Pujols/Hamilton deals, which is one of the reasons DiPoto resigned.
 
Besides....don't look now, but Pujols is good this year (OPS+ of 148). The Sox would kill for that kind of production, well, anywhere in their lineup.

 

[Super Nomario]

Allen Craig and to a much lesser extent Joe Kelly is what was wrong.  That and you took the best starting pitcher on the market and turned him into 1.2 years of Cespedes which rather predictably nets you 1yr of Porcello. I would have rather they went the Cubs route and traded for 7yrs of cost control of the #3 prospect in baseball + or something to a similar effect.

They had / have plenty of prospects; what they didn't (and arguably still don't) have is quality talent in its prime. The only player between the ages of 25-28 to get even 250 PAs in 2014 was Brock Holt. Obviously, the specific prime talent they acquired (Porcello, Kelly, Castillo, Sandoval) have underperformed. Philosophically grabbing those kind of guys made sense, but whether it's a scouting failure or just bad luck, the results have been poor.

 

[soxhop411]

 
I think it's been pretty reliably reported that Moreno was personally in charge of the Pujols/Hamilton deals, which is one of the reasons DiPoto resigned.
 
Besides....don't look now, but Pujols is good this year (OPS+ of 148). The Sox would kill for that kind of production, well, anywhere in their lineup.

Your last point is exactly why it's way to early to call the deals this offseason a failure. Just last year he was playing like crap. And this year he is an All star

 

[JimD]

 
Seriously, though, Dave Dombrowski is a pending free agent. Before you pan his moves, remember that it's been widely assumed that he's been working under orders to deliver one last championship to the old man.

 
No thanks - we don't need another GM with a sub-.500 record.  At every stop.
 
And that Verlander extension - yeesh.  He should have know that his ace was about to fall off a cliff.  Because GM's are supposed to know this stuff.

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

 
No thanks - we don't need another GM with a sub-.500 record.  At every stop.
 
And that Verlander extension - yeesh.  He should have know that his ace was about to fall off a cliff.  Because GM's are supposed to know this stuff.

 
 But 80something Illitch was behind that extension, no? I guess what we're learning with this discussion is that GMs are only as good as the ownership groups they work for.

 

[fineyoungarm]

 
I think it's been pretty reliably reported that Moreno was personally in charge of the Pujols/Hamilton deals, which is one of the reasons DiPoto resigned.
 
Besides....don't look now, but Pujols is good this year (OPS+ of 148). The Sox would kill for that kind of production, well, anywhere in their lineup.

If the Red Sox had signed him to "that" contract, good chance he would be gone before the start of this season and in some federal protective custody program in Nevada.

 

[moondog80]

 
I think it's been pretty reliably reported that Moreno was personally in charge of the Pujols/Hamilton deals, which is one of the reasons DiPoto resigned.
 
Besides....don't look now, but Pujols is good this year (OPS+ of 148). The Sox would kill for that kind of production, well, anywhere in their lineup.

 
 
 
I'm not necessarily against firing Cherrington, but I would be very underwhelmed if DiPoto is the replacement.  And even if that's true about Hamilton and Pujols, you weren't nearly as forgiving to BC when the same theory was floated regarding Pablo/Hanley.

 

[Laser Show]

 
The failure of Ball as a 7 pick is just one of the many black marks against Cherington in his GM stewardship, that is what you should say. He vaunted farm system is lovely, I suppose, but Ben's major league team, the one that is supposed to matter, is about to finish last for the 3rd time in 4 years. The failure of Ball as a high pick is simply part of the overall portrait of failure Cherington has wrought, and it's another reason he should be fired.

Dismissing the farm system as simply "nice I guess" and then stating that a failed top ten pick is a black mark for the front office seems like cherry picking IMO. Drafting is fucking hard. Just because you're in the top 10 doesn't make it any easier.

Ball should not be part of this argument. Not when the rest of the minor league system is as healthy as it is. Hell I'm glad they took a swing at a guy with a high ceiling. Why not take a high risk/high reward guy when your system was and is still universally praised throughout baseball?

Amateur/minor league talent acquisition and development is the last thing that needs to be overhauled. I'm against firing Cherington (at this point, solely) because of that. What DOES need to be changed is major league talent acquisition and development. This has happened far too often recently, major league talent coming and falling on their faces, or young players not acclimating to MLB as quickly as you would expect. That falls on the major league staff, major league scouting and eval, and advance scouts. Cherington better be looking at overhauling that part of his FO (Baird) and the coaching staff.

 

[jscola85]

They had / have plenty of prospects; what they didn't (and arguably still don't) have is quality talent in its prime. The only player between the ages of 25-28 to get even 250 PAs in 2014 was Brock Holt. Obviously, the specific prime talent they acquired (Porcello, Kelly, Castillo, Sandoval) have underperformed. Philosophically grabbing those kind of guys made sense, but whether it's a scouting failure or just bad luck, the results have been poor.

 
Unfortunately they didn't get quality talent.  Craig had already fallen off a cliff and they basically hoped he'd be revived. Kelly had never actually proven himself in a full-time starting role, and his peripheral stats suggested his shiny career ERA was a mirage.  It's not like the Cardinals lacked other interesting arms with some MLB experience either, as we are all seeing in 2015.
 
Simply put, the pro scouting for this team has been an abject disaster.  Terrible evaluation of trade talent for guys like Porcello, Kelly and Craig, and very suspect evaluation of free agent talent, including the thought of playing Hanley in LF.  The one time they did find a guy who lived up to his rep (Cespedes) they shipped out after less than 3 months of play because apparently he wasn't willing to sign a deal, which you'd think they'd want to feel out before trading for him.

 

[moondog80]

 
Pujols OPS+ for the Angels is 138, 116, 127, and 148. 
 
By Comparison, Hanley Ramirez this year is 112.

 
 
No doubt, Pujols is and has been better.  Of course, Hanley was signed to a 4 year deal (through age 35), Pujols a 10 year deal (through age 41).
 
100% of teams would rather have Hanley's deal right now.

 

[jscola85]

Your last point is exactly why it's way to early to call the deals this offseason a failure. Just last year he was playing like crap. And this year he is an All star

 
At what Pujols makes, he's got to be an All Star / Silver Slugger every single season.  Just being a "good" hitter is not good enough when you're making what Pujols makes.

 

[fineyoungarm]

 
 
No doubt, Pujols is and has been better.  Of course, Hanley was signed to a 4 year deal (through age 35), Pujols a 10 year deal (through age 41).
 
100% of teams would rather have Hanley's deal right now.

Especially when he moves to the DH slot.

 

[czar]

Re: Pujols
 

#5: Albert Pujols, 1B, Anaheim
Controlled Through: 2021
Guaranteed Dollars: $160 million
2016 ZIPS WAR: +2.8
Five year ZIPS WAR: +7.3
Estimated Market Value: $90 million
Dead Money: $70 million
At 35 years old, Pujols has rediscovered his power stroke, posting a .271 ISO that is exactly equal to his career average. With 26 home runs already this season, he’s only two more dingers from a season-high since joining the Angels, and he’s got a pretty decent chance at hitting 40 on the season. Clearly, if the Angels wanted to move him, there would be teams interested in the short-term production, assuming the Angels paid down his salary enough to make it interesting.

But even with Pujols hitting for power again, we’re still talking about a first baseman headed into his late-30s with a .320 OBP. This is as one dimensional as value gets, and teams aren’t going to just ignore the fact that he’s another power decline away from being a pretty average player. Victor Martinez and Nelson Cruz look like instructive comparisons in the most recent free agent market, and they pulled in between $17 million and $15 million per year for four years repsectively. You could point out that Pujols has more defensive value than either — and a very good health track record — so maybe he tops both, and pushes up towards $20 million per year over that same term.

But the problem is that he’s under control for six more years, not just four, and it’s hard to see many teams wanting to pay the freight for all six years. Even in the best case scenario, I can’t see anyone taking more than $90 million, which would leave the Angels with $70 million remaining. Given their status as contenders and their lack of a supporting cast around the game’s best player, there’s no reason for the Angels to make a move like this, so Pujols will very likely be around unless the Angels enter some kind of rebuilding process. His resurgence has definitely increased his value, but he’s worth more to the Angels as a player than a trade chip.
 

 

[dcmissle]

 
Unfortunately they didn't get quality talent.  Craig had already fallen off a cliff and they basically hoped he'd be revived. Kelly had never actually proven himself in a full-time starting role, and his peripheral stats suggested his shiny career ERA was a mirage.  It's not like the Cardinals lacked other interesting arms with some MLB experience either, as we are all seeing in 2015.
 
Simply put, the pro scouting for this team has been an abject disaster.  Terrible evaluation of trade talent for guys like Porcello, Kelly and Craig, and very suspect evaluation of free agent talent, including the thought of playing Hanley in LF.  The one time they did find a guy who lived up to his rep (Cespedes) they shipped out after less than 3 months of play because apparently he wasn't willing to sign a deal, which you'd think they'd want to feel out before trading for him.

Thank you.

 

[ivanvamp]

 
Pujols OPS+ for the Angels is 138, 116, 127, and 148. 
 
By Comparison, Hanley Ramirez this year is 112.

Well geez that's hardly fair. Pujols is one of the greatest players in the history of baseball. Even his decline phase is better than most players' peaks.

 

[ivanvamp]

 
I was responding to the claim that Pujols had "played like crap" last year, that's all.

Fair enough. Shows you how good he is that he could perform as he did and it be considered "playing like crap".

 

[Clears Cleaver]

The key question for me is, "What is the goal of the franchise?" It used to be to be competitive in the division four out of five years and hope you get lucky and win a title. The roster would be fueled with the $100M developmental machine"
 
Right now, there is no chance this team competes this year or next year with the players they have in Boston and Pawtucket and Portland. None. The goal should be to put together the best team that could compete in 2017. the players currently that would make up the 2017 roster are:
C - Swihart
1B -
2B - Pedroia
SS - Bogaerts
3B -
LF -
CF - Betts
RF -
DH - Hanley
SP -
SP -
SP -
SP - Miley
SP - Porcello
 
I am not sure Sandoval will still be here, Ortiz, Napoli, Vic, etc certainly won't. none of the relievers will be. the question is whether Owens, Johnson or Escobar will be good enough to be starters for Boston. Will Castillo? JBJ? The logical thing, that a couple of posters wrote earlier, is to use the rest of this year to find out if JBJ and Castillo can play. I am not sure where the young pitchers are, but Johnson deserves a shot until his innings are up. I don't know where Holt fits.
 
that's a lot of holes to fill. Doing it via free agency would cost minimum $110M and likely more. That excludes rebuilding a bullpen from scratch. Its imperative that some of these younger players work out

 

[Alcohol&Overcalls]

 
Stratton was picked 20th overall. Not 7th. I think that's a distinction well worth noting.
 
Also....Stratton's numbers (K rate, K/BB rate, WHIP) are much better than Ball's.
 
The Ball selection is reason enough IMO to fire some people. The Sox couldn't afford to miss on such a prime opportunity to get all-star level talent, and they did, badly.

 
In the twenty #7 picks between 1991 and 2010 (excising the more recent to allow time to reach the majors), 7 out of 20 accumulated more than 10 bWAR for their career (that includes Matt Harvey, who is technically at 9 but will likely exceed 10 by the end of this season). Homer Bailey will eventually bump that number to 8. Alonso and Minor have a good chance to make that an even 10. Even projecting that, at #7, teams miss as often as they hit - that's the nature of prospects and the draft. And that's assuming Ball never figures it out, which is far from certain for a HS lefty learning his way through the minors. 
 
It was a coin flip, not a can't-miss referendum. 

 

[jtn46]

Ben gambles. Sometimes it works, but too often it doesn't and them's the breaks. It hasn't worked for Cherington 3 out of 4 years, so his job is in danger. Maybe it's just bad luck but if that's all the job is, if all Cherington brings to the table is that he's rolling the dice every time out, why is he special? If it's player development, ok, I can believe that, but this weakness of his is leading to some bad Red Sox rosters.

Look you know what stings? The Red Sox have adopted an approach that goes 100% against what the Yankees do, they don't do deals like A-Rod, Teixeira, Ellsbury, etc... and that team is in first place. They figure it out. What is the 8 year deal plaguing the Red Sox that makes this approach so definitely wrong? It's like the Sox FO jumps through hoops to avoid getting bad seasons out of old players and just get bad seasons out of young players instead. Year 1 of Porcello is as bad as year 7 of Sabathia. And what is the deal that burned the Sox so badly? Manny? That was a great contract. Crawford? Not great but they figured something out. Maybe they need to at some point suck it up and accept that to get elite talent they're going to have to endure a couple bad years?

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Right now, there is no chance this team competes this year or next year with the players they have in Boston and Pawtucket and Portland. None.

 
 
To me, this is the problem.  With as much emphasis as the Red Sox have put into developing their farm system over the last ten years, they have gotten (until this year) almost nothing from it, particularly in terms of pitching.  I don't know if because they are fixated on making guys start or it's because of a problem with development or because they can't scout very well, but a team has to be able to fill a few holes through player development, and right now - except for X and Betts and probably Swihart - they haven't been getting anything for years now.
 
I think 2013 masked a huge structural problem with the Red Sox and it's doubtful they are going to be go to that well again (even though Ben tried last year), particularly with the fact that teams are locking up their own premium talent.

 

[Drek717]

I thought the pick was fine at the time, so I can't kill them too much, but if they had just picked the obvious guy (Austin Meadows) they would have been far better off.
 
I think that's my ideological problem with this FO.  They seem to consciously go out of their way to be smarter than the crowd, but then get those decicions completely wrong.
 
(although maybe thats unfair in regards to amateur scouting.  They've been ok at the draft, and very good at international so far.)

Meadows is in A+ himself and currently owning a mid-700's OPS with very little power production, which was the eternal worry with Meadows - would he ever show ML worthy power or was he a speedy slap hitting CF?  His ceiling had questions in that everything could go right but just the biggest question mark and suddenly you spent a top 10 pick on a 4th OF/passable starting CF.
 
Ball meanwhile has made significant strides over the last year, especially the last few months.  He's improving and the entire concept of Ball was to coach him up and when the light comes on he skyrockets up the ranks.
 
All the problems are ML talent evaluation, and the failure to evaluate high level mL talent with respect to ML talent.  The club doesn't need to completely clean house, they just need to take a bunch off the top.  The primary decision maker on ML evaluations needs to get shown the door, be that Baird, Cherington, or some other man behind the curtain.  They need to really consider what John Farrell brings to the team.  When he first came here it was "Farrell will fix the pitching" and he did.  Lester was back on track, Buch was great for the half season he was healthy for, Lackey bounced back, and even Doubront wasn't too bad.  But ever since 2013 he has failed to produce similar results.  He isn't a good game manager, he has (in my opinion) done a poor job maximizing the talent on the roster via his lineup construction (poor platoon usage, poor rest patterns, etc.), he hasn't been good at bringing along young talent as the only guys to stick at the ML level from a stocked farm are the three very best, and whatever he's doing for the clubhouse might be keeping it free of waves but it sure as hell isn't producing a passion for winning.
 
We'll see though, this situation feels very much like an ownership driven mess and getting rid of people is ownership admitting failure, something they seem reticent to do.

 

[BosRedSox5]

Ben gambles. Sometimes it works, but too often it doesn't and them's the breaks. It hasn't worked for Cherington 3 out of 4 years, so his job is in danger. Maybe it's just bad luck but if that's all the job is, if all Cherington brings to the table is that he's rolling the dice every time out, why is he special? If it's player development, ok, I can believe that, but this weakness of his is leading to some bad Red Sox rosters.

Look you know what stings? The Red Sox have adopted an approach that goes 100% against what the Yankees do, they don't do deals like A-Rod, Teixeira, Ellsbury, etc... and that team is in first place. They figure it out. What is the 8 year deal plaguing the Red Sox that makes this approach so definitely wrong? It's like the Sox FO jumps through hoops to avoid getting bad seasons out of old players and just get bad seasons out of young players instead. Year 1 of Porcello is as bad as year 7 of Sabathia. And what is the deal that burned the Sox so badly? Manny? That was a great contract. Crawford? Not great but they figured something out. Maybe they need to at some point suck it up and accept that to get elite talent they're going to have to endure a couple bad years?

 
This. All this. 

I mean, look at the Texeira deal for the Yankees. He was a paid a ton of money over a lot of years. Yeah, he was injured and had a couple down years, but I'd say that contract paid off for them. The Crawford contract was terrible but they were able to move him... because they had signed a really good long term contract for Gonzalez. 

The Manny deal worked out extremely well for them and I can't remember them making a bad deal that hamgstrung them and left them with down years for aging talent. If anything, when you make a 7-10 year commitment you're getting great value 4-5 years down the line. Manny was making 18.9 million in 2008 and he was crushing the ball. Any big market team would have loved him at that price. Look at what the Cards paid Matt Holliday in his last contract. He's been a bona fide stud and helped them win a ring. Are they going to really care if he has a bad year in 2016? 

When you want to compete and use your market size as a weapon you need to spend money and make big commitments. Sure we kept Napoli and Victorino on short term deals, but what tangible value did that really provide us with? 

Sure, you might end up like the Nats paying 20+ mil for Jayson Werth for 2.5 more years, but that's rare and the contract was almost universally panned when it happened. 

 

[Philip Jeff Frye]

Ben gambles. Sometimes it works, but too often it doesn't and them's the breaks. It hasn't worked for Cherington 3 out of 4 years, so his job is in danger. Maybe it's just bad luck but if that's all the job is, if all Cherington brings to the table is that he's rolling the dice every time out, why is he special? If it's player development, ok, I can believe that, but this weakness of his is leading to some bad Red Sox rosters.
 

I think Ben (or whoever is calling the shots) outsmarts himself.  Whether its bypassing the traditional deadline deal for prospects in favor of finding "major league" ready players (Lester/Lackey), locking up the young Porcello with a long-term deal, seeing if there's anything left in the tank on reclamation projects like Masterson, Sizemore and Craig, finally deciding to pony up for a Cuban, or saying "Hey, let's see if this shortstop who can no longer field the position can play outfield!", he's attracted to deals that allow him to say "See how clever we are!  We got this talent at a discount!"
 
They got their fingers burned with Crawford in 2012 and then drew the inside straight with Victorio, Napoli and Uehara in 2013.  They were smarter than everybody else, with ability to find misvalued talent, avoid dangerous long-term commitments, turn unhealthy players into healthy players, and produce young talent from their development machine, all while avoiding the hated luxury tax.
 
Instead, they're actually spending money like drunken sailors, stuck with injury-plagued guys, and failing to develop a lot of our young talent (Middlebrooks, JBJ, Castillo, the various AAA pitchers who've come through in the last two years).  Something needs to change.  I just hope the problem is somebody fireable, and not Henry himself.

 

[KillerBs]

I disagree about writing off 2016. You just cant predict much that far out especially with all the kids. If Hanley could cover 1b while hitting and Bradley and/or Castillo are league average or plus at one or 2 OF spots and Panda returns to form and Swihart/Hanigan/Vazquez are league average... I know that is alot of "ifs" but there always are. Who are Mookie Betts and Xander B a year from now?
 
4 months ago most everyone thought signing Porcello to a 4/82.5 deal made a lot of sense, now it looks like a clear disaster. I am more concerned about the apparent philosophy of giving innings and ABs to veteran long shots (like Masterson, Breslow, Pierzsynski, Sizemore etc) and not pulling the plug soon enough on them and others at the back end (eg Victorino and Napoli) until too late.
 
Re 2016, the team needs a 1b and 2 OFers and a bunch of pitchers. There are a multitude of internal options which offer more than a hope and a prayer. it is imperative that we give these internal options the very best chance environment to succeed in starting now for the rest of 2015. This is an obvious decision, not tricky one like the Sandoval and Porcello deals. If they cant get the obvious stuff right, then we do have a real FO problem.   

 

[OCD SS]

 
So they went outside the box with a high draft pick because of his stuff and said draft pick has promptly struggled badly as a professional and we're just supposed to shrug and say shit happens?
 
No. And your very statement shows there are problems in their process, not to mention the results.

 
No, they went outside the box to look for upside in a very weak draft where the sort of talent you seem to think grows on trees simply wasn't available at pick #7. As a point of reference a comparison to Clint Frazier (who the Sox seemed to really want and who went at # 5) in the following draft is Michael Chavis who they took at the back end of the draft the next year. The only way they were going to get the kind of player you expect from that draft was to try and shoot the moon on a high ceiling HS player (again, unless you happen to be able to point to another player they should've taken).
 
My point about critiquing the decision making process is primarily that it can't really just be done just by pointing at the results, especially by assessing a single draft pick of a high-school player a little more than  2 years from the draft. If you want to use current results as a springboard to critique the process, the draft in general, and picking Ball at #7 in particular, is not the place to do it.

 

[MikeM]

I think the biggest issue pushing me towards the Ben Needs To Go camp is the rapid fire manner in which this is all playing out. Now maybe time has warped my memory some, but for all the criticism i had regarding some of the decisions Theo made over the years (which was plenty), there was really only 2 absolute WTF moments i recall that left me screaming bloody murder from the get go (Lugo, Crawford). With both those coming fairly spaced out. 
 
For me there is missing, and then there is "you can't be the GM reckless enough to do really stupid shit like that". The Craig flyer, Castillo/Panda signings, and Porcello extension have pretty much covered every base of the cardinal sins making up the latter imo. All within a year. 
 
Simply too much bad in too short a time to warrant the risk it continues going forward. The Sox can absorb these types of failures better then most...but we are not bulletproof. So going against the popular "2013 makes everything worth it" notioni'll say this as well. If I spend the better part of the next decade watching a fairly shitty team, who beyond a few individual player bright spots never really leaves me feeling confident in contention, then no....2013 wouldn't have been worth it imo. 
 
 

 

[ehaz]

 
Stratton was picked 20th overall. Not 7th. I think that's a distinction well worth noting.
 
Also....Stratton's numbers (K rate, K/BB rate, WHIP) are much better than Ball's.
 
The Ball selection is reason enough IMO to fire some people. The Sox couldn't afford to miss on such a prime opportunity to get all-star level talent, and they did, badly.

 
2007: Josh Vitters (#3), Daniel Moskos (#4), Matt LaPorta (#7), Casey Weathers (#8), Phillippe Aumont (#11)
2008: Tim Beckham (#1), Kyle Skipworth (#5), Brett Wallace (#13)
2009: Dustin Ackley (#2), Donovan Tate (#3), Tony Sanchez (#4), Matt Hobgood (#5), 
2010: Christian Colon (#4), Delino DeShields (#8), Deck McGuire (#11),  Hayden Simpson (#16, for the lulz)
2011: Danny Hultzen (#2), Bubba Starling (#5), Brandon Nimmo (#13)
 
And these are only the really shitty ones.

 

[Snoop Soxy Dogg]

 
Jerry DiPoto is available. He worked for the Sox as a scout in 2004, has a WS ring and everything. How could he be worse? If he was hired and they finish in last place in only 2 of the next 4 years he'd still be better than Cherington.

 
Gammons just tweeted that Jason McLeod is a favorite for the Mariners job. (Sorry, problem with links - where's soxhop?)
 
Didn't know the Mariners job was open..Anyway, I think McLeod would look good here. His time has come. 

 

[8slim]

Ben gambles. Sometimes it works, but too often it doesn't and them's the breaks. It hasn't worked for Cherington 3 out of 4 years, so his job is in danger. Maybe it's just bad luck but if that's all the job is, if all Cherington brings to the table is that he's rolling the dice every time out, why is he special? If it's player development, ok, I can believe that, but this weakness of his is leading to some bad Red Sox rosters.

Look you know what stings? The Red Sox have adopted an approach that goes 100% against what the Yankees do, they don't do deals like A-Rod, Teixeira, Ellsbury, etc... and that team is in first place. They figure it out. What is the 8 year deal plaguing the Red Sox that makes this approach so definitely wrong? It's like the Sox FO jumps through hoops to avoid getting bad seasons out of old players and just get bad seasons out of young players instead. Year 1 of Porcello is as bad as year 7 of Sabathia. And what is the deal that burned the Sox so badly? Manny? That was a great contract. Crawford? Not great but they figured something out. Maybe they need to at some point suck it up and accept that to get elite talent they're going to have to endure a couple bad years?

 
Yes.  The Sox seem to be petrified of getting caught in a "bad deal", which by their definition seems to mean ever paying a 33+ year old something higher than "market value".  Honestly it's like that one Carl Crawford deal scared the bejesus out of them so much that it led to them implementing an "organizational philosophy" to avoid that at all costs.
 
I won't relitigate the Lester situation, and others, but I do hope they are learning that sometimes it's worth paying good players lots of money to continue to be good players for you, even if it means in year 5 of a deal they're not HOF caliber (but probably still productive).

 

[BosRedSox5]

I still think the Dodgers trade was inspired. It was a huge feather in BC's cap and allowed him to hit the re-set button on the team and start fresh. It was a big coup and we even managed to get two new pitching prospects who seemed pretty good. 

He signed a couple role players like Jonny Gomes, Stephen Drew... he got Koji and Victorino and Napoli... they won the World Series. 
 
There were some cracks here and there... He traded away Melancon who became a star reliever, for Joel Hanrahan but at least we got Holt out of the bargain. 

He traded away Jose Iglesias who seems to be able to hit all of a sudden for Peavy which may have made the difference in our WS run so that's a wash (even if it made some people so angry they quit the board forever in disgust.)

Ben then went on to bungle the Lester negotiations, sign AJP, sign Edward Mujica, create a situation where Grady Sizemore got 205 PAs, traded a year and a half of a resurgent Lackey (at an amazing price) for Craig and Kelly, traded Lester for pennies on the dollar, traded for Porcello, signed him to a huge contract, signed Hanley and Panda, signed Masterson, traded RDLR and Webster for Miley, and traded Ranaudo for Ross...
 
Looking through it all, it's worse than I thought. His last home run move was that Dodgers trade, and that seems as much a function of incredible luck than it does his prowess as a negotiator. 

 

[grimshaw]

 
At the rate Ball is going he's going to get the Dean Wormer for career WAR: 0.0.
 
It's a bad miss and it's unacceptable for a team that never gets to pick that high. Although I suppose if they keep Cherington around like you want them to they'll have plenty more chances to pick in the top 10.....

Trey Ball is 21 years old in Salem, so basically 1-2 years younger than a typical prospect.  He's also only been pitching since his junior year in high school.  It's way, way early to be writing him off as a bust. Especially since he is finally showing signs of life after getting his brains beaten in for a year+.  I don't know how you can write him off at this point in his career.  He was also a two way player.  If everything stays in the shitter for two years, he can take a shot as an everyday player at a relatively young age.

 

[absintheofmalaise]

Trey Ball is 21 years old in Salem, so basically 2 years younger than a typical prospect.  He's also only been pitching since his junior year in high school.  It's way, way early to be writing him off as a bust. Especially since he is finally showing signs of life.  I don't know how you can write him off at this point in his career.

Thank you. I was just looking Stratton up to compare him to Ball. Stratton was drafted out of MS State as a 21 year old. It's very unfair to Ball to compare him to a pitcher who was two years older when he was drafted and who had been pitching against some of the best amateur competion in the SEC. The development curve is very different.

 

[Toe Nash]

Not to run around in circles but Ball's "signs of life" aren't much -- he had a 15.1 K% and a 8.7 BB% last year and this year they are 13.5% and 10.8%. He's also allowing more HR. His improvement is in a lower BABIP and a better strand rate which are probably luck and maybe even just a better defense behind him.
 
Tougher league, and he's still young so great, but he's a long, long ways away from being at all projectable. I doubt there are very many pitchers who make the majors with periphs so poor in A-ball regardless of their age (and it's not like he's 19 -- he should be physically developed at least).

 

[Philip Jeff Frye]

Looking through it all, it's worse than I thought. His last home run move was that Dodgers trade, and that seems as much a function of incredible luck than it does his prowess as a negotiator. 

He was certainly lucky with his timing in that the Dodgers had new ownership with big bucks but smaller brains.  Hard to think who else might have been his partner for a trade like that.

 

[smastroyin]

I don't think Ball is a reason to fire anyone, but I also don't think it's worth projecting him as anything quite yet.  He could make it, he probably won't.  That's typical of most prospects so it's an easy thing for me to say.  I just don't think he's shown anything in 2+ years to suggest that he is capable of stepping up to a level where he is someone you expect something out of.  Right now his only "skill" is a low hit rate.  It will be curious to see how that goes as he climbs.  His command might get better, but for many many guys it never does.
 
Even if he is a bust though, guys bust all the time and I'm not sure there were really good picks around anyway.  But 2013 is looking like a pretty terrible draft for them, unless Ball and Stankiewicz find some magic or a guy like Dubon takes another step or two forward like he did in Greenville this year.  

 

[JimD]

If I spend the better part of the next decade watching a fairly shitty team, who beyond a few individual player bright spots never really leaves me feeling confident in contention, then no....2013 wouldn't have been worth it imo. 
 
 

 
Not to pick on you, but my God - what an entitled fanbase we've become. 
 
Winning championships is really, really hard.  Strong organizations with good GM's underperform (Braves - 2nd highest win total over last 20 years with one WS title to show for it; Indians - averaged 93 wins 1995-2001, zero titles; Tigers - averaged 91.5 wins 2011-14, zero titles).  Strong organizations with good GM's go through rebuilding phases (Brian Sabean's Giants averaged 73.5 wins from 2005-08). 
 
By all means, fans are certainly within their rights to be disappointed in this team and organization (I certainly am) and to demand better, especially given the prices we are expected to pay to watch and attend games, but let's not become the type of fanbase that we used to despise.

 

[smastroyin]

I agree with JimD's sentiment, but this kind of goes to my point on deciding what they want to do.  I will watch some crappy teams happily if I think there is purpose to what is going on.  It's this whole throwing everything against the wall approach ending in everyone's floor covered in shit that will get tiresome.
 
that said, nothing takes away 2013 and I'll watch a crappy team for years in exchange for the last 20.

 

[moondog80]

Even if Ball is a bust, saying its a firable offense, or even just a log on the fire, it's kind of like saying Brady stinks because of that time he threw an interception.

 

[dcmissle]

I still think the Dodgers trade was inspired. It was a huge feather in BC's cap and allowed him to hit the re-set button on the team and start fresh. It was a big coup and we even managed to get two new pitching prospects who seemed pretty good. 

He signed a couple role players like Jonny Gomes, Stephen Drew... he got Koji and Victorino and Napoli... they won the World Series. 
 
There were some cracks here and there... He traded away Melancon who became a star reliever, for Joel Hanrahan but at least we got Holt out of the bargain. 

He traded away Jose Iglesias who seems to be able to hit all of a sudden for Peavy which may have made the difference in our WS run so that's a wash (even if it made some people so angry they quit the board forever in disgust.)

Ben then went on to bungle the Lester negotiations, sign AJP, sign Edward Mujica, create a situation where Grady Sizemore got 205 PAs, traded a year and a half of a resurgent Lackey (at an amazing price) for Craig and Kelly, traded Lester for pennies on the dollar, traded for Porcello, signed him to a huge contract, signed Hanley and Panda, signed Masterson, traded RDLR and Webster for Miley, and traded Ranaudo for Ross...
 
Looking through it all, it's worse than I thought. His last home run move was that Dodgers trade, and that seems as much a function of incredible luck than it does his prowess as a negotiator. 

Your next to last paragraph is more than enough to get someone clipped -- even if the responsibility for Lester resides elsewhere. The title in 13 probably saves him.

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

 
Not to pick on you, but my God - what an entitled fanbase we've become. 
 
Winning championships is really, really hard.  Strong organizations with good GM's underperform (Braves - 2nd highest win total over last 20 years with one WS title to show for it; Indians - averaged 93 wins 1995-2001, zero titles; Tigers - averaged 91.5 wins 2011-14, zero titles).  Strong organizations with good GM's go through rebuilding phases (Brian Sabean's Giants averaged 73.5 wins from 2005-08). 
 
By all means, fans are certainly within their rights to be disappointed in this team and organization (I certainly am) and to demand better, especially given the prices we are expected to pay to watch and attend games, but let's not become the type of fanbase that we used to despise.

 
Sitting through a 2011-2015 rebuilding phase would have been a lot more palatable if at the end of it we got to watch Jose Iglesias at SS, Bogaerts at 3rd, Josh Reddick in LF and Anthony Rizzo at 1st. Instead they've been caught in the middle trying to rebuild without actually focusing exclusively on young talent, and thus we find ourselves (as mentioned upthread) with nobody of any value between the ages of 24 and 30. They are simultaneously too old and too young. And all the money is going to the players who are too old. Rebuild - great, I'd love to watch a couple of last place teams full of young emerging talent. Watching Pablo Sandoval and Hanley Ramirez provide replacement level value for 10% of payroll is not fun.

 

[chrisfont9]

 
The 2013 World Champion year stands out as a tremendously enjoyable, totally fluke season.
 
The other 3 years Ben has been the GM have resulted in last-place finishes. You do the math.

"The math" includes a lot of players who are underperforming their recent or career norm production. How is that the GM's fault?

 

[plucy]

The front office and ownership need to rethink their approach to the five year plan concept. The last two have failed (need to give this one another year to be truthful). I thought the Punto trade and low cost restock signaled a departure from the boondoggle, but another massive spending spree on FAs and extensions beginning with the Craig acquisition has squandered the flexibility to respond to team needs. That's why I can't completely blame Ben. It happened under Theo's watch with the Lackey signing, Beckett extension, Gonzalez deal and Crawford's signing. Twice they have failed to build off payroll room by committing $400-500 million to stock the team for a long run rather than shorter term success.
Prior to the '14 season the only guaranteed contract for '16 was Pedroia. Now it's about $106 million. If Buchholz and Ortiz return on options (most likely), and the arb guys are kept, that's $145 MM. 40 man and benefits, you have about $163MM. So unless Henry green lights another foray into tax land ( which they will have trouble leaving unless Uehara or Buch are dealt since the expiring deals belong to underperfomers), the Sox will be relying on better performance from the existing team to become a contender in 16.

 

[Super Nomario]

Dismissing the farm system as simply "nice I guess" and then stating that a failed top ten pick is a black mark for the front office seems like cherry picking IMO. Drafting is fucking hard. Just because you're in the top 10 doesn't make it any easier.

Ball should not be part of this argument. Not when the rest of the minor league system is as healthy as it is. Hell I'm glad they took a swing at a guy with a high ceiling. Why not take a high risk/high reward guy when your system was and is still universally praised throughout baseball?

Amateur/minor league talent acquisition and development is the last thing that needs to be overhauled. I'm against firing Cherington (at this point, solely) because of that. What DOES need to be changed is major league talent acquisition and development. This has happened far too often recently, major league talent coming and falling on their faces, or young players not acclimating to MLB as quickly as you would expect. That falls on the major league staff, major league scouting and eval, and advance scouts. Cherington better be looking at overhauling that part of his FO (Baird) and the coaching staff.

The idea that Cherington is strong at building the farm system depends on assigning him credit for some of the moves before he took over as GM, right?  Xander, Mookie, Swihart, and Margot all joined in the Theo era. Trading for Rodriguez looks great, and Devers and Moncada are making prospect waves, but it seems most of what he's done (and he does deserve credit for this) is not panic-trade prospects for vets.