Innovation in the front office?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Innovation in the front office?

    First off, this is not a thread to bash Theo, so if your whole purpose on this board is to bash Theo, please ignore this thread. Theo Epstein has done a remarkable job of rebuilding the Red Sox farm system, which Dan Duquette had left pretty barren. When you look at the players Theo has signed and developed the record is pretty remarkable. Pedroia, Ellsbury, Bard, Lester, Lavarnaway and Buchholz on the major league roster. Plus because of Theo we had the pieces to trade for Adrian Gonzalez, who, mark my words, is going to be an impact player for the Sox for a long time. He's also made some pretty good pickups from the baseball scrap heap like David Ortiz and Alfredo Aceves.
    His record with big time free agent signings is far less than stellar though, and I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that it is. Lugo, Drew, Matsuzaka, Lackey, Jenks, although I will give him a pass on Crawford because I think we'll see a lot better from him over the life of his contract than we've seen so far. Don't get me wrong, I liked a lot of these signings at the time they happened, but hey, I'm not a MLB GM, as much as I wish I were.
    So my question is this. Why not leave Theo in charge of building the farm system and scouring the scrap heap, but have someone like Allard Baird maybe, in charge of major free agent acquisitions?
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Innovation in the front office?

    I wonder if limiting payroll to $150 million and forbidding player contracts of more than 5 years would force Theo to be more wise. The open wallet and belief in only evaluating a player based on a multitude of stats has been a disaster.  


     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: Innovation in the front office?

    In Response to Re: Innovation in the front office?:
    [QUOTE]I wonder if limiting payroll to $150 million and forbidding player contracts of more than 5 years would force Theo to be more wise. The open wallet and belief in only evaluating a player based on a multitude of stats has been a disaster.  
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]5 years sounds like a reasonable max length contract, but Drew and Matsuzaka's contracts were 5 years and how did they work out? I think Theo has some problems evaluating established major league talent, and someone else needs to run that part of the operation. The thing is the Sox already have a guy in their front office who has a pretty good eye for older talent in Allard Baird. I don't think Theo is the guy you want on that no matter what constraints you place on him.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Innovation in the front office?

    Of course carnie many would still fail.... but it limits how many years we are handcuffed. I nearly said 4 max but that would probably hinder us from getting a lot of them.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Thesemenarecowards. Show Thesemenarecowards's posts

    Re: Innovation in the front office?

    To the OP, this has more or less been my Theo stance for years now.  Brilliant with the farm, failure with FA.  To so many posters it has to be love or hate, they can't see the good and the bad.  I say failure with FA and many will rush to name Papi, Schill, Millar, etc... Again, I'm not saying Theo hasn't made some shrewd moves in FA but the level of the misses are staggering. 

    I agree on Crawford as well, I think better days are ahead.  Maybe not 20 million a year days, but better.

    Clearly at this point Luchino and Henry need to reel in Theo a bit.  They have so many big contracts going forward for the next 3-6 years, they need to really think about who else they can at this point tie up money in long term.  Tough decisions are ahead with Papi and Paps and then with Youk and Ells next year so it would seem that there are not big FA moves in the budget for the next 2 offseasons, which maybe is saving Theo from himself.

    Right now they have too many guys who are paid like super stars who are not performing like super stars.  Unless they are going to eat 10's of millions of salary and go up over 200 million, something I don't think most fans want, there is going to come a point where they have to ride out the decisions they made.  
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: Innovation in the front office?

    Schilling was a trade, and Ortiz and Millar were scrap heap pickups. Theo's trades have largely worked, and his scrap heap pickups have been mostly brilliant. When it comes to big time big money free agents though, I can't think of a single one other than Johnny Damon that worked out for him. Maybe we could bring back the Duke to handle the FA side of things. Laughing
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Thesemenarecowards. Show Thesemenarecowards's posts

    Re: Innovation in the front office?

    In Response to Re: Innovation in the front office?:
    [QUOTE]Schilling was a trade, and Ortiz and Millar were scrap heap pickups. Theo's trades have largely worked, and his scrap heap pickups have been mostly brilliant. When it comes to big time big money free agents though, I can't think of a single one other than Johnny Damon that worked out for him. Maybe we could bring back the Duke to handle the FA side of things.
    Posted by carnie[/QUOTE]

    I'm pretty sure Damon was here before Theo.  I don't know that I'd agree that trades have largely worked.  Gagne was poor, WMP was poor, Vmart I'd call more or less a push. 

    The thing that really kills me, is it seems not only does he often get the wrong guy but he goes way beyond what he needed to spend to get them.  Was the competition really that heavy for Lugo or Drew?  Did Mike Cameron have a 16 million dollar/2 year offer from someone else that Theo had to top?  He does this while at the same time he has a history of lowballing the home town guy.  I've just never gotten it.

    I really do think bringing in someone else to over see FA side of things and letting Theo focus on development, where he excels, is a good idea and should be treated seriously.  
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Innovation in the front office?

    Hey carnie rather that start a thread about it I'll just ask it here: this really is the year of the WC isn't it? Atlanta just coughed up its lead tonight - this is really more than MLB ever could have hoped for when it came to the WC.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: Innovation in the front office?

    In Response to Re: Innovation in the front office?:
    [QUOTE]Hey carnie rather that start a thread about it I'll just ask it here: this really is the year of the WC isn't it? Atlanta just coughed up its lead tonight - this is really more than MLB ever could have hoped for when it came to the WC.
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]It should push the ratings higher. I'd rather have seen a tight race to the finish for the ALE of course. LOL
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Innovation in the front office?

    Carnie, don't take this as a slight, but threads involving GM past performance  will always be limited in vision unless they have an accurate analogy.

    For example, all other GM activity needs to be clearly stated and scrutinized before drawing any conclusions as to the performance level of the Boston FO.

    In addition, what needs to be taken into consideration when judging FO decision-making is who the team drafts when they don't re-sign a given FA. Otherwise, the chain is not in motion.

    I am not knocking this thread, just that many like this one are started and it ends up in the same venting arena, with limited expansion.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: Innovation in the front office?

    In Response to Re: Innovation in the front office?:
    [QUOTE]Carnie , don't take this as a slight, but threads involving GM past performance  will always be limited in vision unless they have an accurate analogy. For example, all other GM activity needs to be clearly stated and scrutinized before drawing any conclusions as to the performance level of the Boston FO. In addition, what needs to be taken into consideration when judging FO decision-making is who the team drafts when they don't re-sign a given FA. Otherwise, the chain is not in motion. I am not knocking this thread, just that many like this one are started and it ends up in the same venting arena, with limited expansion.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]I've loved the drafts under the current FO, the players the the Sox have drafted and developed have been remarkable IMO. The level of skill exhibited in drafting and player development is beginning to remind me of the 70's Sox, and that is high praise indeed. Remember the '70s gave us Fred Lynn, Jim Rice, Cecil Cooper, Rick Miller, Bob Stanley, Carlton Fisk, Dewey Evans and I think Rick Burleson, not to mention Butch Hobson all off the farm. I think the current FO right now rivals that output in player development. I do think we're a bit lacking in how we're evaluating our high dollar FA acquisitions, that's all I'm really saying.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Innovation in the front office?

    In Response to Re: Innovation in the front office?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Innovation in the front office? : I've loved the drafts under the current FO, the players the the Sox have drafted and developed have been remarkable IMO. The level of skill exhibited in drafting and player development is beginning to remind me of the 70's Sox, and that is high praise indeed. Remember the '70s gave us Fred Lynn, Jim Rice, Cecil Cooper, Rick Miller, Bob Stanley, Carlton Fisk, Dewey Evans and I think Rick Burleson, not to mention Butch Hobson all off the farm. I think the current FO right now rivals that output in player development. I do think we're a bit lacking in how we're evaluating our high dollar FA acquisitions, that's all I'm really saying.
    Posted by carnie[/QUOTE]

    Well, I'm sure many would agree. But I think some of the decisions stemmed from lack of FA availability when filling team perceived voids.
    I think it came down to the fact that the team is committed to a limited window (prime years and contractual tenure) with current personal, and to compete in this division, they have to anti-up...or risk the consequences.

    With all the guff about Lackey and Crawford, had they not been signed, the revenue would have gone south after 2010 regression in ticket sales/TV, and let's face it, who would have been more productive? Would Cam or Nava or Mac replaced CC?, who hit .285 since April. Was Werth a better option?
    Would Weiland or Douby or Miller replaced Lackey? who has won more games than Beckett since his signing.

    Easy for fans to point fingers in hindsight, (not referring to you) but what's constantly missed is the fact that the FO has the leverage to over-pay because they have produced many talents who, relatively speaking, are under-paid.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: Innovation in the front office?

    In Response to Re: Innovation in the front office?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Innovation in the front office? : Well, I'm sure many would agree. But I think some of the decisions stemmed from lack of FA availability when filling team perceived voids. I think it came down to the fact that the team is committed to a limited window (prime years and contractual tenure) with current personal, and to compete in this division, they have to anti-up...or risk the consequences. With all the guff about Lackey and Crawford, had they not been signed, the revenue would have gone south after 2010 regression in ticket sales/TV, and let's face it, who would have been more productive? Would Cam or Nava or Mac replaced CC?, who hit .285 since April. Was Werth a better option? Would Weiland or Douby or Miller replaced Lackey? who has won more games than Beckett since his signing. Easy for fans to point fingers in hindsight, (not referring to you) but what's constantly missed is the fact that the FO has the leverage to over-pay because they have produced many talents who, relatively speaking, are under-paid.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]That's a fair point. And I am fully on the Carl Crawford bandwagon. I think we are going to see a lot more out of this guy than we've seen so far, especially if he can hit behind Ellsbury for more than a couple of games. I do think the Sox need to look at their free agent signing process a little critically going forward, and I think they will.
     

Share