Lucchino out as CEO?
- Thread starter TimScribble
- Start date
Cherington is quite possibly on track to become the new Dan Duquette - I can see him getting replaced and the next CEO and GM going on a sustained run with the foundation of players he put in place (and Ben getting little credit from the media and Johnny Burger King).
The opportunity to guide both the Red Sox and the Cubs to win to their first World Series in living memory (basically) would seem to me pretty enticing in itself... and would provide damn good press if Theo wanted to make a run at Commissioner after Manfred.Vegas Sox Fan said:
Which is why I think, with the current young Cubbies about to start knocking on the door of history, that breaking apart the Cubs management team would actually be as hard or harder than procuring anyone else in the game, even Cashman.
Regarding your last point, I would also add that his sabermetric advantage has come and gone as other organizations have gradually caught up. So the overcoming low payrolls with an analytical leg up mostly no longer exists and he's now left with the near impossible challenge of winning it all with one of the lowest payrolls. That has to wear on him year after yeartwibnotes said:
I'm just trying to get a deal done. Masterson got $10,000,000 for one year.Bob Montgomery's Helmet Hat said:
P'tucket said:
Not just an honest question, but a really good question. Even after many others apparently caught up with his approach, Beane put good teams on the field for far less money than the usual suspects. Raises this question P'tucket, does he have an especially goodeye for talent - in addition to a terrifc aptitude to analyze the endless number of "new" stats.
I'm going to shut down my Beaneisms with this - because they are premature, if not outright pipe dreams. Were he to come, I like Buzzkill's CEO idea.
And whatever happens, it starts and ends with John Henry, of course. If Henry has to have Beane (or anyone for that matter), there is a price that would achieve Henry's ends.
Me, I'll be happy with a new director of player personnel/chief scout. Although I am pretty darn sure that the whole house is going to be cleaned out.
Whoever accepts the position may have to do so knowing it will be expected of him to keep Farrell and Cherrington. Then the question becomes who would be willing to take this job knowing they can't hire their own GM and manager, at least not right away.
Yea, there hasn't been much to prefer about the Cherington era over the Theo era, but the difference in the international program has been astounding. We cant really judge any of these guys until they hit the majors, but under Eddie Romero they seem to have hit on one of the best value signings literally every year going back to 2012.OCD SS said:
If were assessing FO guys based on the success of their personal bailiwack, hes a guy who either needs to stay or be promoted under any possible future regime.
I don't see this at all.SemperFidelisSox said:
The fact that this news came out one day after the Sox let pass a basically silent trade deadline -- acquiring only one poor reliever for cash (with the Sox in last place but sitting on a top 3 farm system!), suggests to me that the team is under a lame duck administration.
Farrell has shown no success with his positional player core (now down to Pedroia and Ortiz from 2013's everyday lineup), and Cherington has shown no real ability to build up either a starting staff or a solid bullpen.
If a new CEO is hired from outside the organization, why do you think Henry insist these two guys be kept around?
My question is for those of you who watch the Sox organization closely, or at least a lot more closely than I do. In terms of player acquisition (FA, trades, draft, etc.) has it been Cherington or Lucchino who has had the largest role in decisions since Theo left? That is, if Lucchino is seen by Henry as being the architect of the recent last place finishes, then Cherington MAY not be axed IF he had argued against such acquistions, but been overruled.
Of course, other permutations exist (BOTH of them have done poorly, Cherington was responsible, etc.) But my question is, does anyone here know who has played the larger role in player acquisition lately?
Of course, other permutations exist (BOTH of them have done poorly, Cherington was responsible, etc.) But my question is, does anyone here know who has played the larger role in player acquisition lately?
oumbi said:
We don't really have any way of knowing. GMs are in charge of player transactions. Transactions the size of Hanley Ramirez, Pablo Sandoval, and the Porcello extension don't get done without ownership input. Does that mean Lucchino has the authority to make those deals even if Cherington thought they were a bad idea? We don't really have any way of knowing.
JimBoSox9 said:
Yeah, I agree there's no way Beane is coming to Boston. He's comfortable in the Bay Area, which has a lot to offer, and even a shot at the WS title makes that a hard sell.
I wonder what role the motorcycle accident had to play in Lucchino's decision. The guy is like 70 years old and it's not you just bounce back from broken ribs and a collarbone. Having friends who rehabbed from similar injuries, it affects everything you do for a long while.
Lucchino did do a lot for this team and it does make me sad to hear he's leaving on a down note.
10% is about the ownership stake that Werner holds, per this 2013 article by Speier. Lucchino has a much smaller stake than him, states the same article. Henry is credited with holding 40%.fineyoungarm said:
If Lucchino is really entertaining going to another club he would obviously be selling his shares back to the remaining owners. I could see that being used as a bargaining chip, but we're probably talking more like 2-3% at best. Still a huge amount of money, and I'm sure holding any meaningful stake in a ML franchise is a huge status symbol throughout the game. If they want a baseball ops exec. over the GM a la Lucchino they can come up with some damn nice bait for the hook to be sure.
2 - 3% was ineffective tongue in cheek. Never again. (Although it probably would get Beane here - or even bring Branch Rickey back from the grave.)Drek717 said:
Well, here's an out of the box suggestion: Jed Hoyer. He's part of the family, was once co-GM with Cherington, etc.SemperFidelisSox said:
BTW, an article about Lucchino's departure made the front page of the Globe today, with a byline that almost made my head explode.
That is an unusual by-line, but this is the biggest news out of Yawkey Way since the 2004 title happened. It speaks well for Speier to be assigned this big a story with the paper's "big name" baseball reporter.Eddie Jurak said:
Successes (2007, 2013) and failures (2011, 2012, 2014) may be notable, but essentially they're par for the course in any given baseball season. That Lucchino will fall on his sword and go out with dignity, closing the book on a remarkable run as CEO, is truly big news.
And I saw in the article, that although Werner is mentioned briefly as having some interest, there's no detailed plan to install him as there is for Kennedy to take over as President.
Since this news could have been released at any time, to me that uncertainty should be read as a big tell that Henry's going to look outside the organization for baseball ops.
Rasputin said:
Well, Lucchino's Ben's boss. Of course he has the authority to make the deals, or at least to insist that Cherington make them. The question would be how often, as a matter of good management practice, he would be overriding Cherington's judgment to do that. That's the part that's impossible to be sure of, but FWIW there's this quote from Henry in an Edes story back in February:
http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/red-sox/post/_/id/41821/henry-lucchinos-sox-role-not-dimishing
derekson said:
Also serves as a neon sign to any of the those mentioned - interested in the Red Sox job? Have your agent call me. iirc the Cubs job opened up months before Theo moved. And Theo released a statement that he was focused on being GM of the Red Sox (subtitle - its gonna take a promotion and you better bring cubic cash). If I start hearing similar statements, well then......
CHB getting the scoop on LL leaving was ... unsurprising. In case you were wondering how the CHB and Dentist were going to try to save Cherington without completely throwing LL under the bus:
His clout appeared to wane just when things started going really poorly, but he still somehow manage to force Ben to hire Valentine and screw up the Lester negotiations. OK.
His clout appeared to wane just when things started going really poorly, but he still somehow manage to force Ben to hire Valentine and screw up the Lester negotiations. OK.
How about this for starters? Why does any major league team need (or want) a president AND a chief executive? Especially if they are different people. It's a baseball team - not a multinational corporation. (Unless, the CEO position will go to the person, who really will run baseball operations and be used to try and attract a "special talent".)timlinin8th said:
Agreed. Favorite thing number two for me is the notion that the Sox continually tar guys on the way out. A review of the what we heard following the departure of many guys over the last ten years would reveal the opposite. Tito was a notable and massive exception in my view. For example, they couldn't get Lester done but did we hear ONE bad thing about him? Maybe we did but I don't recall it.DrewDawg said:
I understand that Larry is the whipping boy for many but (1) look at the scoreboard -- 3 titles and of course the breakthrough on his watch -- on his watch; (2) those picking on certain individual decisions and attributing them all to LL are taking some liberties since we really don't know who is responsible for what and the most likely explanation is that most of the key decisions involved input and involvement of LL, the GM at the time, JH and TW, among others; (3) one thing we do know is that the pivotal deal for the 2007 champion was made when Theo was on hiatus; and (4) LL's pedigree strongly suggests a substantial amount of grey matter and it's often not a good thing when really smart people leave organizations.
Buckley mentioned something today that I totally omitted from my mind, and I have to imagine is somewhat true: Lucchino had a lot to do with the Fenway renovations. IIRC, it was Lucchino that was that most vocal of the new regime with respect to keeping Fenway, and brought Janet Marie Smith, formerly of Camden Yards fame, with one of the coolest gigs in sports -- overseeing the planning, development, and renovations of stadiums, now with the Dodgers -- over to Boston to oversee the multi-year project. I know lots of people hate the place for a variety of reasons, but I'd still take it over the once proposed alternative.
Actually, the Red Sox probably does qualify as a multinational corporation, since the Sox send players to the DSL and VWL every year, and appear to still be running their Dominican academy year-round.fineyoungarm said:
And now that the Boston Red Sox outright owns their AAA affiliate as well, there'll need to be oversight and management of the Paw Sox' operations, and that's another thing which quite frankly I don't want the head baseball guy to have to think about. Unless anyone seriously wants to argue that navigation through Rhode Island politics is likely to add value to the MLB club.
Stop making sense. (I was sort of figuring that out as I was writing - another bad sign. Whichever title he has, there is an enormous amount of non-pure baseball work to do.)Buzzkill Pauley said:
(Also, it might be "easier" for the non-pure baseball guy to fire Allard Baird.)
Quite possible. However, given the fact that LL is taking the fall for recent failings doesnt that at least somewhat imply hes got a lot of responsibility here? We are aware of some bad calls hes made (Bobby V) and his involvement with Lester. Its very plausible to me that hes led the push at the ML level on larger decisions.John Marzano Olympic Hero said:
Lucchino is the best CEO this team has ever had and it's not even close. He also gave Epstein his start and his first GM job. There are three rings during his tenure with the Sox. He's been involved in major sporting events for close to 50 years. He helped build or refurbish three great ballparks. Fans can't really complain too much about his tenure in Boston. The guy has had a pretty impressive career.
3 out of the last 4 years have been poor, including the last two, during which the team has not competed for the division title or wild card. The fish rots from the head and he's the head. That's why he's going.
3 out of the last 4 years have been poor, including the last two, during which the team has not competed for the division title or wild card. The fish rots from the head and he's the head. That's why he's going.
TheoShmeo said:
(1): This correlation supports any interpretation from "without LL we don't win a single one of them" to "without LL we win twice as many". I think it's a pretty good bet that neither of those is true, and I'll even concede that the former is more plausible than the latter. But no reading of that track record more positive than "he wasn't bad enough to keep them from winning three times" can be safely counted on.
(2): Is anybody positively "attributing" recent bad moves to LL, as opposed to pointing out that he certainly played some kind of role in them and it's entirely possible that he may have been the driver behind them?
(3): This is pretty reductionist. The 2007 team included a long list of key contributors, only two of whom were acquired while Theo was on hiatus. (It also glosses over the question of whether having Hanley and Anibal on the roster might not have helped us win a title or two in the 2008-2012 stretch.)
(4): Fair point, but it can also be a good thing when very smart people leave organizations if they've been deploying their intelligence in a way that disrupts rather than facilitates good team decision-making. Whether this is true of LL or not is another question; I'm just saying that the value of intelligence in promoting organizational goals can depend a lot on the personality of its possessor.
1. I don't see why. We don't know the level of his contribution but going to the least positive way to explain things seems unfair to me. We don't know how to assign credit or blame but I generally think that it's safe to credit the CEO for his role in success. He usually plays a role in putting people in place, creating an overall culture and driving things in the direction chosen.Savin Hillbilly said:
2. It seems as if there are some here and elsewhere who assume that anything bad is on Larry and all things good are in spite of him. Not that anyone expresses it in such absolute terms.
3. Beckett was a beast in 2007. Few pitchers ever have combined regular seasons and playoff runs with a WS title on the level that Beckett did in 2007. I think it's safe to say that Beckett was the MVP of the team overall and that Lowell was in the running. Theo clearly played a substantial role in other important aspects of that team. But two of the most important pieces were ones that he did not share in.
4. Fair point back at ya.
"That's sort of why I am ready to step back." Lucchino yesterday. Now, there's a crystal clear quote for you.
Tomclash said:
What other CEO's have the Red Sox had? John Harrington? It's only in the past 40 years that the Sox have had a CEO that was not the principal owner.
Yes, Lucchino was better than Harrington. He brought in great people to the organization. He also had the benefit of John Henry's vast resources, so that when it came time to throw nearly $300 million at restoring a 90+ year old ball park, there was no financial hurdle.
The problem with LL, was that since he was there from the beginning of the new regime, he was able to be involved in too many aspects of the team. Because he had influence in both the business aspects AND the on-the-field interests, it became impossible for Lucchino to look at either with an isolated, objective perspective. The Red Sox sorely need a new organizational alignment. It will lead to better execution and, most important, clearer accountability. In short, we won't have "Larry Lucchino to kick around any more," and to blame for everything and anything that goes wrong.
WenZink said:
Do you have first-hand knowledge of this statement or is it just your opinion?
I get that Lucchino is a lightning rod on this board but people behaving as if they understand the Sox front-office dynamics well is laughable. As is often noted here and in the media sub-forum, virtually every take we get about how the Sox (and all other sports teams) operate comes with a fair degree of spin. All we know is that the Sox have had an unprecedented degree of success since Lucchino, Henry and Werner et all arrived.
It is clear he has had some missteps by such as reportedly pushing for Valentine after Francona appeared to lose the team (if most reports are to be believed - it was not Lucchino who doomed Francona but the team itself who reportedly tuned him out down the stretch) and he was clearly part of the decision making process when the Sox signed Crawford etc. However its hard to know what his true flaws are because it seems as if nobody here has a true idea of how the Sox front-office operates on a day-to-day basis. Forgive me if that isn't the case.
DeJesus Built My Hotrod said:
That is really a stupid question. I've never been in the same room with LL, so unless he tapes his conversations, ala Nixon, I'll never have first hand knowledge. But it is more than my opinion. There's a clear consensus that Luchhino was a factor in Theo's Gorilla Suit escape in 2005, his involvement in selection of Valentine, (as you, yourself, acknowledge, without first-hand knowledge, I assume) and his botched negotiations with Jon Lester.
So I consider your question laughable. I will never know the extent of Lucchino's involvement in any particular thing, but only a naif would deny that he had no involvement in baseball ops. It was part of his job! I just think it's better if the Admin side is separated from the Baseball OPS at a high level, so there will be better accountability. Ben Cherington may either be given a free pass for certain decisions or he is being blamed unfairly. Such has been the case with LL's role in the club.
WenZink said:
I don't know the nature of the relationship between Theo and Lucchino but the evidence suggests that it was pretty strained at the very end. While I am reasonably certain Theo is a bright guy and he clearly had a hand in the Sox successes of the early aughts, he also had some missteps along the way. The fact that Epstein clashed with the guy who gave him his first chance and then paved the way for a job with the team he grew up rooting for says things about both men, not just Lucchino.
Finally, I acknowledged that he reportedly pushed for Valentine - I have no evidence that he actually did. However I doubt that he alone was the deciding factor so Henry and Werner deserve some blame there too. The fact is, everything you've posted about Lucchino is largely based on the media reports and from where I sit, the guy has been portrayed, fairly or not, as the heavy in the Sox organization. That role is not one that typically leads to favorable press so forgive me if I am not celebrating the departure of one of the main architects of the Sox recent success.
For me, at least, him leaving may not be a positive for the future of the Red Sox.
DeJesus Built My Hotrod said:
In my original post, I stated that Lucchino was a catch-all for "everything and anything" that has gone wrong. So we are in agreement.
Lucchino was a huge positive for the Henry & Co ownership, especially at the beginning. But his time has passed. I 'd like to see a clearer delineation between the business interests and baseball operations. Give the baseball ops a budget and, barring complete mis-execution, give them a few years to demonstrate their value. For example, If there is a dictate such as "No long-term contracts to pitchers over 30," I want to know that it comes from the baseball ops, and not from the business side. As it stands today, I don't know where it comes from.
WenZink said:
Accountability to whom? You? Fans in general? HA!
As long as the people within the organization know what's what, that should be the end of it. They're not accountable to you or anyone else outside of the organization when it comes to contract philosophies and policies.
It isn't really accountability that makes the structure with independent business and baseball operations presidents a better organizational setup; it's the fact that you're giving full baseball decision authority to someone whose career has been evaluating baseball players rather than a career business executive. Plus being able to offer that type of autonomy is going to make the job far more attractive to potential hires, and will give a team a better shot at getting the best front office talent in the game.
Setting Kennedy up as the club president but without oversight on baseball operations is the first step in reorganizing the front office structure to be more like what the Cubs and Dodgers are currently doing with Theo and Friedman, respectively, as presidents of baseball operations.
Setting Kennedy up as the club president but without oversight on baseball operations is the first step in reorganizing the front office structure to be more like what the Cubs and Dodgers are currently doing with Theo and Friedman, respectively, as presidents of baseball operations.
The Beane debate probably belongs in its own thread (or not on SoSH at all from some comments) but it's possibly worth pointing out an important difference in the family situation: Last time, moving across country would also have meant either he or his ex would be across the country from their daughter. This time, Tara and the twins would presumably stay with him if he made the move.Bob Montgomery's Helmet Hat said:
j-man said:
I agree with the bolded part. Two years, anyway. The Sox should not worry about 2016. That doesn't mean write it off, but don't worry about it, and certainly don't make any gamble moves or give up future value to try to win next year. Hopefully whatever FO shakeup this is the beginning of will buy the team that one year to solidify and be strategic rather than reactive.
This organization for quite a while has been on a course at the end of which is a potential late teens-early 20s juggernaut. They should stay that course. That doesn't mean we need to "sell in 2016"; it doesn't even mean we need to flat-out refuse to go after FA or trade opportunities next winter or trade deadline. It just means that any such opportunities should not sacrifice 2017 and beyond. We need to keep our eyes on that medium-term prize, and set the bar for short-term moves high.