Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good.....

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

    Re: Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good.....

    In Response to Re: Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good.....:
    [QUOTE]WCPatsFan quintessential tool - The 1967-1978 Red Sox would school Theo all day long. If you want a true definition of successful Gm look up Dick O'Connell.  
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]


    How many championship rings do they have.... tool LOL
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Your-Echo. Show Your-Echo's posts

    Re: Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good.....

    Re: Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good.....

    posted at 5/20/2011 11:07 AM EDT
    www.boston.com/community/persona.html?UID=d122aefcdaf458362282bbfb1965bdee&plckUserId=d122aefcdaf458362282bbfb1965bdee">
    Posts: 3139
    First: 9/29/2009
    Last: 5/20/2011
    fivekatz your by far more thorough than I, and my purpose of this thread is to rile people who might give quality feedback (posts) such as yours..... I want to know what people really think about Theo.


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

    Re: Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good.....

    In Response to Re: Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good.....:
    [QUOTE]spaceman, based on your sentence structure, you should be posting in crayon.
    Posted by the-yazzer[/QUOTE]

    really?  break it down for me teach.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from the-yazzer. Show the-yazzer's posts

    Re: Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good.....

    too many errors to mention; just know that you failed.
    maybe hammah can help you with  your grammah.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good.....

    In Response to Re: Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good.....:
    [QUOTE]too many errors to mention; just know that you failed. maybe hammah can help you with  your grammah.
    Posted by the-yazzer[/QUOTE]

    right.  well thats an answer worthy of the  Bosox41 Win In Spite of Francona Explanation Award.  fix my grammah, please.  i am curious.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Calmy. Show Calmy's posts

    Re: Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good.....

    Yazzer, as long as you're playing grammar police, you might want to consider beginning a sentence with a capital letter and a proper name should like like Drew or Theo as opposed to your DREW/THEO.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from the-yazzer. Show the-yazzer's posts

    Re: Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good.....

    calmy, it's not worth putting in all that work for this board; be happy that, unlike most who post here, i am spelling my words correctly.
    and i'm only doing grammar policework against one certain individual.
    however, it's a hopeless cause; so i will cease and desist.

    FIRE THEO!
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from bbenton87. Show bbenton87's posts

    Re: Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good.....

    Lets admit that no matter what some may never be satisfied the Sox look good for a team with "no pitching" timely hitting and just enough pitching has gone a long ways 5 walk offs in 2 weeks is simply amazing.
     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good.....

    All good posts - the forum needed a little fire at the time I started this - the pro's and con's all mentioned are nearly all valid  - lots of food for thought.

    93 posts in 12 hours is good.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from zack5042. Show zack5042's posts

    Re: Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good.....

    In Response to Re: Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good.....:
    [QUOTE]THEO is a "back of the baseball card" GM. LUGO, CRAWFORD, LACKEY, DREW. prime examples of not improving the team, but being swayed by statistics. the SOX would be better served with THEO out of the loop when signing free agents. heck, give him the job of directing the minor league system.
    Posted by the-yazzer[/QUOTE]
    ....
    Do you even realize what you just said? Lugo, we needed a shortstop Lugo was a good shortstop before coming to the red sox. If Lugo would've played like he did for the Rays would you be saying the same thing? I don't think so. Lackey, we needed a starting pitcher didn't we? We tried to other options did you see how Smoltz and Penny turned out for us? Lackey was the only option so we signed him. You are judging Crawford before he can even prove himself? so lets see, hes walked off three times already this year. Everyone is complaining about Drew and Cameron but then you say we shouldn't have signed Crawford? Did you want an outfield of Dmac Ells and Kalish? Well i would rather have the outfield we have now... How do you judge a player other that stats? Drew has one of the best left handed swings but he didn't put it all together. He has a better eye than needed. He watches pitches that are a centimeter outside and then strikes out because he thinks its outside. Sorry we can't build our whole team on heart and determination... Not every player like that turns out to be good. We have Lester, Pedey, and Youk that are like that Pedey wasn't suppose to be good but he used his heart and determination to make it. Lester survived cancer to come back and Youk works hard everyday to make himself better he was never a highly touted player. Besides those 3 you don't see a lot of players like that. Nava may make it but i would much rather have Crawford than Nava. Also you are telling me if we had the money to sign  Pujols you wouldn't want to? I mean it wouldn't necessarily help our team since we already have a good 3rd basemen and first basemen. Our only option would to have those three split time in dh and at the positions but i would still take Pujols in a heartbeat. I really don't care if we don't have room for him he's is the best player so i would still take him and if you tell me you wouldn't you're crazy
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from majorleague. Show majorleague's posts

    Re: Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good.....

    Carl was the best available on the market and not the best available for the team.  Thus Theo signed him with complete disregard to what makes sense for the team, not only now but long-term.

    I think that sums it up, perfectly.

    Theo fails to anticipate on the issues of player value and movement, and reacts instead of shrewd planning in advance. He frequently sells low and buys high, in a year to year reactionary dance. With all the player development and scouts he has, it's pretty pitiful the way he does business. He also makes the mistake of being sentimental in constructing a roster, with a squat spot on the roster for cumbersome washed up profiles like Lowell, Wakefield and Varitek. His favorite term in writing off bad contracts is "sunk cost", yet he fails to apply that term to most fan favorite veteran profiles. Instead of going out and finding affordable improvement profiles in constructing the roster, he has frequently made the mistake of constructing the roster around old washed up veterans, effectively creating a 23 or 24 man unbalanced active roster. 

    I think he fails to admit his mistakes and tries to spin them by using media access "lackeys" to advance silly themes like "speed ages more slowly than power", to defend his decision to pay a massive premium to sign Crawford into his mid 30's and pass on VMart. Even if those two players were not either or decisions, it's still a PR campaign that is childish and intellectually dishonest. 

    The Braves are one of the best mid to large size models on competent upper management decison making, anticipating moves and market well and adjusting well by not repeating the few mistakes that are made. 

    Renteria, Lugo, Scutaro and Crawford are value mistakes that are simply an escalation of the very same mistake of paying for a career high contract year on players that are not superstar profiles at the position. They are all reactionary moves that were not planned, despite the phony claims that the radar and study on Crawford had gone on for a long time. 

    Bay non-serious-market tender was correct, but a lot of people on this board saw that coming because Bay was a poor fielder and could not consitently handly breaking balls well enough to get a huge multi-year contract.  Bay, as an OF'er and RHB, was not a good enough overall hitter to be a frequent DH, so his age was too old unless he was truly a gifted hitter. He was a good slugging fastball hitter, but that was it, and made it clear that his performance decline with age would be steep.

    I gave Theo the benefit of the doubt for years, and still consider him to be better than the average GM. But that isn't saying much because the GM pool is mostly made up of political hires that aren't based upon merit. Theo has always been a bean counter guy who isn't a baseball genius. Given the pay, Red Sox ownership could and should do a lot better.  
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from SoxSoldRed. Show SoxSoldRed's posts

    Re: Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good.....

    Carl was the best available on the market and not the best available for the team.  Thus Theo signed him with complete disregard to what makes sense for the team, not only now but long-term.

    I think that sums it up, perfectly.

    Theo fails to anticipate on the issues of player value and movement, and reacts instead of shrewd planning in advance. He frequently sells low and buys high, in a year to year reactionary dance. With all the player development and scouts he has, it's pretty pitiful the way he does business. He also makes the mistake of being sentimental in constructing a roster, with a squat spot on the roster for cumbersome washed up profiles like Lowell, Wakefield and Varitek. His favorite term in writing off bad contracts is "sunk cost", yet he fails to apply that term to most fan favorite veteran profiles. Instead of going out and finding affordable improvement profiles in constructing the roster, he has frequently made the mistake of constructing the roster around old washed up veterans, effectively creating a 23 or 24 man unbalanced active roster. 

    I think he fails to admit his mistakes and tries to spin them by using media access "lackeys" to advance silly themes like "speed ages more slowly than power", to defend his decision to pay a massive premium to sign Crawford into his mid 30's and pass on VMart. Even if those two players were not either or decisions, it's still a PR campaign that is childish and intellectually dishonest. 

    The Braves are one of the best mid to large size models on competent upper management decison making, anticipating moves and market well and adjusting well by not repeating the few mistakes that are made. 

    Renteria, Lugo, Scutaro and Crawford are value mistakes that are simply an escalation of the very same mistake of paying for a career high contract year on players that are not superstar profiles at the position. They are all reactionary moves that were not planned, despite the phony claims that the radar and study on Crawford had gone on for a long time. 

    Bay non-serious-market tender was correct, but a lot of people on this board saw that coming because Bay was a poor fielder and could not consitently handly breaking balls well enough to get a huge multi-year contract.  Bay, as an OF'er and RHB, was not a good enough overall hitter to be a frequent DH, so his age was too old unless he was truly a gifted hitter. He was a good slugging fastball hitter, but that was it, and made it clear that his performance decline with age would be steep.

    I gave Theo the benefit of the doubt for years, and still consider him to be better than the average GM. But that isn't saying much because the GM pool is mostly made up of political hires that aren't based upon merit. Theo has always been a bean counter guy who isn't a baseball genius. Given the pay, Red Sox ownership could and should do a lot better.  
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxpride34. Show redsoxpride34's posts

    Re: Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good.....

    i will admit theo is not as good as everyone seems to think he is. I mean he has number a poor signings and rarely makes a good signing. He has been a bit more successful in the trade department but has still struggled. lugo, renteria, drew(not terrible but not worth 15 mill per), cameron, clement, smoltz, penny,dice k, lackey are all theo's blunders. Crawford i am going to give more time though as i hope he will improve but he was never worth what the sox paid him nor was he a good fit for this team(should have signed matt holliday instead as he is a better fit and would have been cheaper). As far as trades go, the gagne trade(lost david murphy and prospects), the vmart trade(lost masterson,hagadone and prospects), david wells trade, the bronson arroyo trade( for willy mo pena) are amongt theo's worst. He has made some good moves here and there but those have been few and far between. Theo has been an average gm at best. 
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good.....

    CC should produce just fine, but I fear it will be a year from now before he gets going....  his contract aside, it is clear he came here as an upgrade and eventual replacement for Elles at the top of the order.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good.....

    In Response to Re: Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good.....:
    [QUOTE]Carl was the best available on the market and not the best available for the team.  Thus Theo signed him with complete disregard to what makes sense for the team, not only now but long-term. I think that sums it up, perfectly. Theo fails to anticipate on the issues of player value and movement, and reacts instead of shrewd planning in advance. He frequently sells low and buys high, in a year to year reactionary dance. With all the player development and scouts he has, it's pretty pitiful the way he does business. He also makes the mistake of being sentimental in constructing a roster, with a squat spot on the roster for cumbersome washed up profiles like Lowell, Wakefield and Varitek. His favorite term in writing off bad contracts is "sunk cost", yet he fails to apply that term to most fan favorite veteran profiles. Instead of going out and finding affordable improvement profiles in constructing the roster, he has frequently made the mistake of constructing the roster around old washed up veterans, effectively creating a 23 or 24 man unbalanced active roster.  I think he fails to admit his mistakes and tries to spin them by using media access "lackeys" to advance silly themes like "speed ages more slowly than power", to defend his decision to pay a massive premium to sign Crawford into his mid 30's and pass on VMart. Even if those two players were not either or decisions, it's still a PR campaign that is childish and intellectually dishonest.  The Braves are one of the best mid to large size models on competent upper management decison making, anticipating moves and market well and adjusting well by not repeating the few mistakes that are made.  Renteria, Lugo, Scutaro and Crawford are value mistakes that are simply an escalation of the very same mistake of paying for a career high contract year on players that are not superstar profiles at the position. They are all reactionary moves that were not planned, despite the phony claims that the radar and study on Crawford had gone on for a long time.  Bay non-serious-market tender was correct, but a lot of people on this board saw that coming because Bay was a poor fielder and could not consitently handly breaking balls well enough to get a huge multi-year contract.  Bay, as an OF'er and RHB, was not a good enough overall hitter to be a frequent DH, so his age was too old unless he was truly a gifted hitter. He was a good slugging fastball hitter, but that was it, and made it clear that his performance decline with age would be steep. I gave Theo the benefit of the doubt for years, and still consider him to be better than the average GM. But that isn't saying much because the GM pool is mostly made up of political hires that aren't based upon merit. Theo has always been a bean counter guy who isn't a baseball genius. Given the pay, Red Sox ownership could and should do a lot better.  
    Posted by SoxSoldRed[/QUOTE]

    Yes, Theo and his Ivy League education is NOT thourough...Im glad your here to tell us that. It all makes sense now..THANK YOU!!!
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Wolfpack13. Show Wolfpack13's posts

    Re: Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good.....

    Awesome comparison with Omar Minaya and John Hart. Way to compare someone who has won 2 WS with two GMs that haven't won any.

    "It's very easy to do what the Beatles have done just look at the Monkees and Herman's Hermits." - Burrito T
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from jimdavis. Show jimdavis's posts

    Re: Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good.....

    In Response to Re: Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good.....:
    [QUOTE]Carl was the best available on the market and not the best available for the team.  Thus Theo signed him with complete disregard to what makes sense for the team, not only now but long-term. I think that sums it up, perfectly. Theo fails to anticipate on the issues of player value and movement, and reacts instead of shrewd planning in advance. He frequently sells low and buys high, in a year to year reactionary dance. With all the player development and scouts he has, it's pretty pitiful the way he does business. He also makes the mistake of being sentimental in constructing a roster, with a squat spot on the roster for cumbersome washed up profiles like Lowell, Wakefield and Varitek. His favorite term in writing off bad contracts is "sunk cost", yet he fails to apply that term to most fan favorite veteran profiles. Instead of going out and finding affordable improvement profiles in constructing the roster, he has frequently made the mistake of constructing the roster around old washed up veterans, effectively creating a 23 or 24 man unbalanced active roster.  I think he fails to admit his mistakes and tries to spin them by using media access "lackeys" to advance silly themes like "speed ages more slowly than power", to defend his decision to pay a massive premium to sign Crawford into his mid 30's and pass on VMart. Even if those two players were not either or decisions, it's still a PR campaign that is childish and intellectually dishonest.  The Braves are one of the best mid to large size models on competent upper management decison making, anticipating moves and market well and adjusting well by not repeating the few mistakes that are made.  Renteria, Lugo, Scutaro and Crawford are value mistakes that are simply an escalation of the very same mistake of paying for a career high contract year on players that are not superstar profiles at the position. They are all reactionary moves that were not planned, despite the phony claims that the radar and study on Crawford had gone on for a long time.  Bay non-serious-market tender was correct, but a lot of people on this board saw that coming because Bay was a poor fielder and could not consitently handly breaking balls well enough to get a huge multi-year contract.  Bay, as an OF'er and RHB, was not a good enough overall hitter to be a frequent DH, so his age was too old unless he was truly a gifted hitter. He was a good slugging fastball hitter, but that was it, and made it clear that his performance decline with age would be steep. I gave Theo the benefit of the doubt for years, and still consider him to be better than the average GM. But that isn't saying much because the GM pool is mostly made up of political hires that aren't based upon merit. Theo has always been a bean counter guy who isn't a baseball genius. Given the pay, Red Sox ownership could and should do a lot better.  
    Posted by SoxSoldRed[/QUOTE]

    I love how people post stuff as fact with absolutely nothing to back up the words on the page. Here is the example: "despite the phony claims that the radar and study on Crawford had gone on for a long time".  Why are these claims phony and who in the media or the organization told you that?  YOU may not like Crawford but the Sox have for a long time.  For you to just spout that anything said is Theo manipulating the media is you being intellectually dishonest.  So if he makes the right decision on Bay, it was easy because everyone knew.  But if he makes a mistake, HE should have known.  First, don't judge Crawford by 44 games.  That is foolish.  Also, Renteria was good before Boston and after Boston.  Your  20/20 hindsight logic says Theo should have known this.  At some point you can blame the player.  Was Renteria in his prime in St. Louis, over the hill in Boston and then in his prime again in San Fran?

    You mention the Braves.  What exactly have they done right and what have they won?  One title and nothing else.  You dismiss most GM's as political hires and not based on merit.  What does that mean? Give us an example.  In fact, give us ten examples. You can't just throw out statements and not support them.  Who are the political hires?  Amaro, Williams, Cashman?  Was Andrew Friedman a political hire?  He seems to be doing pretty well to me.  Finally, your VMart argument holds no water.  VMart can't catch, is horrible at 1B and won't age well.  Theo correctly let him go because he did not want to be saddled with a long term deal for a player of that type.  If you were going to commit big money Crawford made total sense in comparison.  The early season struggles do not change that.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good.....

    Some say threads like this are just to antagonize and bash - but that simply is not true.  There are many many strong posts for and against qualifying Theo as a good GM, and the Red Sox brass in general.  If you look at each page of this thread you will see posters like fivekatz, SpacemanEephus, soxsoldred, and jimdavis making some great cases.

    Looking at the entire first page of On The Front Burner I would say this thread served to benefit the forum - 100+ posts in 24 hours, and with quality. It normally takes days for any thread to reach 100+ posts.

    "I will give you a tip of the hat on one thing BT, you freely admit you started this thread to stir a beehive, something that authors of a lot of these kind of threads would never do and you have managed to do it without any "dark" posts on your part, something else that does not often happen when folks try to manufacture controversy." fivekatz


    Go Sox, only .05 games out of 1st!
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from jimdavis. Show jimdavis's posts

    Re: Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good.....

    In Response to Re: Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good.....:
    [QUOTE]Some say threads like this are just to antagonize and bash - but that simply is not true.  There are many many strong posts for and against qualifying Theo as a good GM, and the Red Sox brass in general.  If you look at each page of this thread you will see posters like fivekatz ,  SpacemanEephus , soxsoldred ,   and jimdavis making some great cases. Looking at the entire first page of On The Front Burner I would say this thread served to benefit the forum - 100+ posts in 24 hours , and with quality. It normally takes days for any thread to reach 100+ posts. "I will give you a tip of the hat on one thing BT, you freely admit you started this thread to stir a beehive, something that authors of a lot of these kind of threads would never do and you have managed to do it without any "dark" posts on your part, something else that does not often happen when folks try to manufacture controversy." fivekatz Go Sox, only .05 games out of 1st!
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]

    Thanks, Burrito.  We differ on alot of stuff.  If arguments differ from mine, I'm always willing to have that discussion based on merits.  When others just come in with "Coma" and "Fire Theo" with nothing to back it up, i'll always push back.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from CORRADJ. Show CORRADJ's posts

    Re: Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good.....

    In Response to Re: Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good.....:
    [QUOTE]THEO would have failed miserably as the GM for the RAYS. NO QUESTION!
    Posted by the-yazzer[/QUOTE]

    Really? Seems to me Theo has done quite well for himself in the draft. Would love to see what he could do with the #1 overall pick for a decade or so!
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from jimdavis. Show jimdavis's posts

    Re: Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good.....

    In Response to Re: Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good.....:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good..... : Really? Seems to me Theo has done quite well for himself in the draft. Would love to see what he could do with the #1 overall pick for a decade or so!
    Posted by CORRADJ[/QUOTE]

    Right on the money.  The Rays were so bad that they always were at the top of the draft.  Theo and Co. had to really work to find their gems.  And while always remaining in contention The Sox still reload the farm system.  That system enabled them to trade for one of the best hitters in the game.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonTrollSpanker. Show BostonTrollSpanker's posts

    Re: Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good.....

    Where did this troll Yazzer come from? Another to my lengthy ignore list it seems.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from SoxSoldRed. Show SoxSoldRed's posts

    Re: Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good.....

    VMart can't catch, is horrible at 1B and won't age well

    This statement is the very essence of reactionary nonsense. VMart just caught a shutout and was Buch's favorite catcher. "Won't age well", he's hitting like the normal gifted hitter numbers he always has, which leaves just 3 more years on his contract. Contrast that to Crawford, who has been nothing short of pitiful. Even assuming he returns somewhere near his career averages, only a fool would attempt to apologize and defend what amounts to an absurd contract offer that has 6 more years to go after this year.

    Give me 10 examples of career .300 hitters who fall apart at age 34. No, give me 100 examples.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good.....

    In Response to Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good.....:
    [QUOTE]...Theo inEpstein is flawed and flawed as much as any GM in the history of baseball.   Feedback welcomed.
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]

    Until you are able to present an alternative who would not have flaws, every post like his is flawed by itself. The fact is that despite some bad pick ups, the results indicate that the sox achieved much more under him than  86 years worth of managers combined. So unless you can name names to replace him then your just being  a whiner.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share