Should Ben go ?

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Should Ben go ?

    In response to pinstripezac's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    come on mr green

    while your points may have merit

    even you must agree a GM needs more than 1 yr

    B4 he can be judged

     

     

    that said I did post this on the home board last yr

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Sure, thats true. It takes more than one year to build a winning team. I would say 2-3 years is reasonable for a GM's trial period. It is discouraging, however, that during the first year of Cherington's administration the pitching did not improve; in fact, it further deteriorated. Had progress been made I would be singing a different song here. Lets see what happens next year. The pitching MUST improve every year until we are at least in the top 4 in the league in ERA. You gotta be able to limit the other teams' runs.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bisson1. Show Bisson1's posts

    Re: Should Ben go ?

    Most of the major decisions weren't even his.. and the little ones seemed pretty good to me. Brought in Ciriaco, Padilla, dumped a ton of salary... I see no reason as to why he should be fired.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Should Ben go ?

    In response to TrotterNixon's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You betcha. Will he go? Yes. Unfortunately, it will take more incompetence before that happens.

    [/QUOTE]

    I expected you to pull a Romeny: come and say that your idea has always been to keep Ben.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Should Ben go ?

    In response to Bisson1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Most of the major decisions weren't even his.. and the little ones seemed pretty good to me. Brought in Ciriaco, Padilla, dumped a ton of salary... I see no reason as to why he should be fired.

    [/QUOTE]


    Ciriaco had a great spring training but was then sent back to Pawtucket so that Nick Punto could stay on the roster. I don't understand what was so brilliant about that plan.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Should Ben go ?

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Bisson1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Most of the major decisions weren't even his.. and the little ones seemed pretty good to me. Brought in Ciriaco, Padilla, dumped a ton of salary... I see no reason as to why he should be fired.

    [/QUOTE]


    Ciriaco had a great spring training but was then sent back to Pawtucket so that Nick Punto could stay on the roster. I don't understand what was so brilliant about that plan.

    [/QUOTE]

    In hindsight, it looked horrible, but they were not going to cut Punto after just sigfning him for 2 years. A great ST does not always translate to a great season or start of a season either. I also wonder this: had Ciriaco been on the bench instead of punto when Youk went down, and did well replacing him, would we have missed a look at Middlebrooks? 

    Everything is not so black & white.

    The big Dodger trade will go down in history as one of the best trades in Red Sox history for a number of reasons, not least of which is the fact that we were able to break a century year paradigm of "you can' fire the players" mentality. I'd say that took guts by Ben, but the deal was a no-brainer, but fantastic none the less. Ben had a restricted budget last winter. He made some moves that look bad so far in hindsight, but he also made some nice ones (see drewski's list of "panned out" players).

    My opinion: short leash, but he deserves another year.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from slasher9. Show slasher9's posts

    Re: Should Ben go ?

    YES.

    BTW - FWIW - FYI - HELLO?

    Cherry had little to do with the mega deal.  that was all Dodgers and initiated with convo's with CMDR DATA.  to give BC credit for it is......dumb.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from antibody. Show antibody's posts

    Re: Should Ben go ?

    In response to tomjoad544's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Iceman4's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I vote yes. Almost none of his acquisitons panned out. Why is he getting a free ride? He was with the organization last year and the GM this year. I've seen all I need to see.

    [/QUOTE]


    NO-N0-NO-

     

    LARRY MUST GO!- Yes I know the caps is on  and I am shouting it.  What good has he done for this team?  Oh - those monster seats are nice!

    [/QUOTE]


    Exatly right! As long as Lucchino keeps sticking his nose into daily baseball operations nothing will change with this team. So you get rid of Cherrington and replace him with ____ (fill in the blank) and Lucchino still pulls the strings, does anyone honestly expect there will be any difference? Until John Henry grows a pair and tells Lucchino to stay the hell away from the baseball diamond, nothing, I repeat, nothing, Nothing, NOTHING will change.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from antibody. Show antibody's posts

    Re: Should Ben go ?

    In response to TrotterNixon's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I expected you to pull a Romeny: come and say that your idea has always been to keep Ben.

    I expected you to pull an Osama Obama: come and say that your idea has always been to cut the deficit in your second term and to take care of all American corpsemen.

    [/QUOTE]


    Lucchino, not Obama or Romney or Ben, is the problem here.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from slasher9. Show slasher9's posts

    Re: Should Ben go ?

    In response to TrotterNixon's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I expected you to pull an Osama Obama: come and say that your idea has always been to cut the deficit in your second term and to take care of all American corpsemen.

    [/QUOTE]

    why osama obama?  because kill?

    extreme right is so funny with how they try and paint.  so is our President a middle eastern terrorist?  is that what you are trying to imply?  is he in bed with saudi's?  fly the bin laden's back and forth from the US in private jets?  consider the bin laden's friends?  have them over to the ranch for dinner and hunting?

    (just a hint - that was the previous president and his father (the other former president))

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

    Re: Should Ben go ?

    In response to southpaw777's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Alibiike's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to carnie's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I am trying to figure out which of his acquisitions, besides Melancon (who might pan out in the long run, if September is any indication), didn't pan out?  Someone panning out implies them not living up to a level of expectation.  So, who didn't pan out?  Aaron Cook?  He had zero expectation.  It was a flyer and he was only pressed into action because the rest of the staff was either hurt, terrible, or terrible and hurt.  He made small moves, which were all he could do, and made them pretty judiciously in my estimation.

    The only real mistake he made was caving on valentine, but, then, i think Lucchino made him an offer he couldn't refuse.

    And then, he pulled off an absolute coup in the Dodger trade.  Shrewd and gutsy move.  

    The verdict is still out on young Ben.  this off season is the true test.  his hands were tied by bloated payroll and the 2011 debacle.  No, no more hands tied.  Lets see what he can pull off. And try him at the Sox-gallows next year this time.

    [/QUOTE]


    +1

    [/QUOTE]

    Blame Bush is getting old. Forget the "hands were tied" excuse as well. Ben had the ability to make trades even if he couldn't spend money. He knew we needed starting pitching going in but gambled with Bard and tried to get reclamation projects for the 5th spot. Championship teams don't do that. 

    He acquired Marlon Byrd when Ellsbury went down, and Jim Edmonds was available. Then he got shafted when he traded Youk to the WS. The biggest blunder, which most on here still seem to think was brilliant, is trading away Agon, and I still think Crawford woul have come around, he started to before deciding to have surgery.

    But, this is what the RS do......give up on players too soon, or trade players that they think will cost them too much money, even though they produce (Beltre, Vmart). He traded Scutaro for I believe, Mortensen, and even though Mortensen pitched pretty well, Scutaro had twice the year Aviles did.

    Ben Cherington is as clueless at being a GM, as Obama is at being president.

    [/QUOTE]


    Jim Edmonds? o.O  You mean the 42yr old Edmonds that last played in 2010? Your kidding, right? Tell me your kidding...CC was about to turn things around and earn that 21mm per for the next 5 years? Wow...Just....WOW

    [/QUOTE]

    For all intents and purposes, Padilla last pitched in 2010, and I like how you and so many other posters get so wrapped around the salary axle. Who cares what these guys make as long as they are productive? You'd think you were paying his salary!

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BosoxJoe5. Show BosoxJoe5's posts

    Re: Should Ben go ?

    In response to TrotterNixon's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You betcha. Will he go? Yes. Unfortunately, it will take more incompetence before that happens.

    [/QUOTE]

    You won't answer what moves did he do that you don't you like and why. You have gone on the record you didn't want him to bring in a pitcher and you don't want him to even add a pitcher next year. Also Upton is not realistic, so realisticly what would you have done?

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: Should Ben go ?

    Padilla had a few nice outings when brought in with runners on, but overall his ERA was 4.5 , and opposing batters hit .298 off of him.  Has the bar been lowered so far that this constitutes a good signing ?

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Iceman4. Show Iceman4's posts

    Re: Should Ben go ?

    Is Ben getting credit for that big Dodger trade??...I find it hard to believe that was something he did on his own.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from user_3982921. Show user_3982921's posts

    Re: Should Ben go ?

    Let's look at Ben work so far and judge. 1 Theo comp not good 2 Reddick242-32-85 for IR Bailey 1-1 6sv and 3bs 7.04era and Sweeney 260-0-16, 3 Lowrie 244-16-42 for Melancon 0-2 1sv and 1bs 6.20era. and remember we also gave up prospects. 4 Scutaro 306-7-74 for Mortensen 1-1 no sv and era 3.21 up and down all year. 5 Youk 235-19-60 for Stewart 0-2 era 22.24.6 BV hire he didn't have a say, but he is the GM. 7. The big trade with LA, didn.t Henry and Lucchino get the trade talks started at owners meeting. 8 Ross and Padilla good signings but what other teams offered them contracts. Every team signs a bunch of players for AAA teams we got luckly with a couple but he missed on alot (Silva). 9. Forget Bard waste of a year.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Should Ben go ?

    In response to southpaw777's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Alibiike's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to carnie's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I am trying to figure out which of his acquisitions, besides Melancon (who might pan out in the long run, if September is any indication), didn't pan out?  Someone panning out implies them not living up to a level of expectation.  So, who didn't pan out?  Aaron Cook?  He had zero expectation.  It was a flyer and he was only pressed into action because the rest of the staff was either hurt, terrible, or terrible and hurt.  He made small moves, which were all he could do, and made them pretty judiciously in my estimation.

    The only real mistake he made was caving on valentine, but, then, i think Lucchino made him an offer he couldn't refuse.

    And then, he pulled off an absolute coup in the Dodger trade.  Shrewd and gutsy move.  

    The verdict is still out on young Ben.  this off season is the true test.  his hands were tied by bloated payroll and the 2011 debacle.  No, no more hands tied.  Lets see what he can pull off. And try him at the Sox-gallows next year this time.

    [/QUOTE]


    +1

    [/QUOTE]

    Blame Bush is getting old. Forget the "hands were tied" excuse as well. Ben had the ability to make trades even if he couldn't spend money. He knew we needed starting pitching going in but gambled with Bard and tried to get reclamation projects for the 5th spot. Championship teams don't do that. 

    He acquired Marlon Byrd when Ellsbury went down, and Jim Edmonds was available. Then he got shafted when he traded Youk to the WS. The biggest blunder, which most on here still seem to think was brilliant, is trading away Agon, and I still think Crawford woul have come around, he started to before deciding to have surgery.

    But, this is what the RS do......give up on players too soon, or trade players that they think will cost them too much money, even though they produce (Beltre, Vmart). He traded Scutaro for I believe, Mortensen, and even though Mortensen pitched pretty well, Scutaro had twice the year Aviles did.

    Ben Cherington is as clueless at being a GM, as Obama is at being president.

    [/QUOTE]


    Jim Edmonds? o.O  You mean the 42yr old Edmonds that last played in 2010? Your kidding, right? Tell me your kidding...CC was about to turn things around and earn that 21mm per for the next 5 years? Wow...Just....WOW

    [/QUOTE]

    It's worse than that.  they could've signed me as well, I'm only in my early 50s.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Should Ben go ?

    There is no reason to expect that Cherington's style will be much different than that of Epstein, and thats not good news since Epstein is a bottom 5 GM nowadays. 

    And refresh my memory, who is the highest paid executive in BB?

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Should Ben go ?

    In response to Iceman4's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Is Ben getting credit for that big Dodger trade??...I find it hard to believe that was something he did on his own.

    [/QUOTE]

    If we're going to discuss whether or not he will make a good GM, we have to consider all the decisions his, or none of the decisions his.  Otherwise we go down the Theo and Tito road.  The critics of Theo would attribute all the good decisions to LL and all the bad decisions to Theo.  And the critics would say any play that Tito called that worked, was an obvious move, and if the identical play didn't work, it was a stupid move,

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Should Ben go ?

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    There is no reason to expect that Cherington's style will be much different than that of Epstein, and thats not good news since Epstein is a bottom 5 GM nowadays. 

    And refresh my memory, who is the highest paid executive in BB?

    [/QUOTE]

    Are you equating a high salary with competence?

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Should Ben go ?

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    There is no reason to expect that Cherington's style will be much different than that of Epstein, and thats not good news since Epstein is a bottom 5 GM nowadays. 

    And refresh my memory, who is the highest paid executive in BB?

    [/QUOTE]

    Are you equating a high salary with competence?

    [/QUOTE]

    That's typically the way it works, right?

    When LA signed Pujols, and Detroit signed Fielder, I assume they paid them a whole lot based on the talent they were getting.  Not to say it always works in the end, but when a team decides to pay you more than anyone else, it ain't because you're no good.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Should Ben go ?

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    There is no reason to expect that Cherington's style will be much different than that of Epstein, and thats not good news since Epstein is a bottom 5 GM nowadays. 

    And refresh my memory, who is the highest paid executive in BB?

    [/QUOTE]

    Are you equating a high salary with competence?

    [/QUOTE]

    That's typically the way it works, right?

    When LA signed Pujols, and Detroit signed Fielder, I assume they paid them a whole lot based on the talent they were getting.  Not to say it always works in the end, but when a team decides to pay you more than anyone else, it ain't because you're no good.

    [/QUOTE]


    Its because someone BELIEVES you are good. Examples of that gone wrong are plentiful right in our back yard: Lackey, DiceK, Beckett, Crawford....and Epstein is another example IMO.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from seabeachfred. Show seabeachfred's posts

    Re: Should Ben go ?

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    There is no reason to expect that Cherington's style will be much different than that of Epstein, and thats not good news since Epstein is a bottom 5 GM nowadays. 

    And refresh my memory, who is the highest paid executive in BB?

    [/QUOTE]

    Are you equating a high salary with competence?

    [/QUOTE]


    Remember when Cherington said he wanted to hit the ground running and name a new manager as soon as possible?  Huh?????  Well I said hit the ground crawling and now we see once again meddler Lucchino butting in and upstaging Cherington and showing once and for all that he is nothing more than Larry's errand boy.  Larry the lizard said today there is no rush to name a manager.  Well I guess we might have been right that Cherries is exactly what many of us thought he was----a flunkie.  Things aren't going to change that way.

     

     

Share