The real story of Theo Epstien

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

    Re: The real story of Theo Epstien

    In Response to Re: The real story of Theo Epstien:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The real story of Theo Epstien : I craft these at work.  I write that one while I was performing some rhinoplasty...
    Posted by notin[/QUOTE]

    I knew it, I knew it!  You DO go around with things stuck up the nose.

    Maybe not YOURS .... but ....

      
       :o)

    Cooler than snot, Notin!

      :o)

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

    Re: The real story of Theo Epstien

    In Response to Re: The real story of Theo Epstien:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The real story of Theo Epstien : Ok moon, then I apologize.  With harness its a different story because the guy has questioned my job and integrity since the day I joined the board because he can't handle the truth.  This is quite bizarre coming from a guy with no patience/respect for ones spelling errors or statements he may not agree with, so his response is to verbally bash their credibility.
    Posted by craze4sox[/QUOTE]


    Apology accepted, and I appreciate the way we can move on and get beyond the personal issues.

    I am not perfect. I have gotten too personal at times myself.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: The real story of Theo Epstien

    In Response to Re: The real story of Theo Epstien:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The real story of Theo Epstien : Apology accepted, and I appreciate the way we can move on and get beyond the personal issues. I am not perfect. I have gotten too personal at times myself.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

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

    Re: The real story of Theo Epstien

    In Response to Re: The real story of Theo Epstien:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The real story of Theo Epstien : Didn't know there was a third party. What's a Replican? Who is making generalized statements. You're the one who is making wild accusations and comments without any facts to back them up? I would ask you how I am circumventing facts, but since you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the azz, it would just be a waste of time. And I'm not stuck with any of those players. Just because you mention names, doesn't mean they were viable options or available as I pointed out, so no, there weren't numerous options.  Since you obviously don't like facts, I'll just leave you with this. You said Giles was availabe in 2006. Are talking before or after the 2006 season? But it really doesn't matter. The Sox were not in the market for a RF for the 2006 season. They were happy with Nixon, who was in the last year of his contract and were not looking to replace him with a higher-priced older player. They were not looking for a RF until after 2006, and by then, Giles was already locked up with a three-year deal with San Diego. And even if Giles was available, it's not a given that he would have wanted to go to Boston.
    Posted by royf19[/QUOTE]

    Calling out typos, always the sign of sound argument.  (Sarcasm)

    Fact- Jose Guillen was available in 2006 and 2007.  Fact- Mike Cameron was available in 2007.  Fact- prior to 2006 when the Red Sox were alledgedly not looking for a RF, they traded a starting pitcher for WMP, I wonder where WMP was going to play?  Again, all I'm saying is there were countless other options than JD Drew, one article about Giles doesn't disprove that.

    Fact- You have stated you didn't like the deals for Lackey, Crawford, Lugo, WMP.  No one could like Cameron, no one should like Drew, no one can honestly think that 100 million to Dice K couldn't have beeen better spent, so the only conclusion I can reach is that you have some seriously low expectations of the GM.

    Fact- Since 2004, Theo has had far more mistakes than successes. Aside from the obvious list of disasters that you agree were/are disasters, there are the things like lowballing Damon b/c of his age, yet here 6 years later Damon is still productive, yet despite his age Lowell got a 3 year deal of which he was useful for about 1 -1 1/2 years.  What about paying Schill 8 million to not throw a pitch in 2008?  Likely you will chalk this up to "how could Theo know these old men would get hurt" but in my mind that is precisely what a GM gets paid to do, make the tough decisions and do it well.  Not let the right guy walk and sign the wrong guy.  Giving Derek Lowe's money to Matt Clement?  SS 05, SS 06, SS 09,?  Name the best starting pitcher he has signed since Schilling?  Julien Tarvarez?  DiceK?

    You want to preach facts, name the good moves since 2004?  Honestly.  Oki, Aceves, Crisp was ok in my mind, Vmart was an decent trade but he is gone and Masterson is getting beter, Beltre for a year helped but was not bringing him back a mistake?  The jury is still out on the Agone deal.  Scutaro is servicable but certainly not a steal or long term solution.  Bedard?  Smoltz?  Penny?  And regarding the last 3, I don't care if they were "low risk" I care that they were unproductive.

    Drop some facts on me.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: The real story of Theo Epstien

    In Response to Re: The real story of Theo Epstien:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The real story of Theo Epstien : Calling out typos, always the sign of sound argument.  (Sarcasm) Fact- Jose Guillen was available in 2006 and 2007.  Fact- Mike Cameron was available in 2007.  Fact- prior to 2006 when the Red Sox were alledgedly not looking for a RF, they traded a starting pitcher for WMP, I wonder where WMP was going to play?  Again, all I'm saying is there were countless other options than JD Drew, one article about Giles doesn't disprove that. Fact- You have stated you didn't like the deals for Lackey, Crawford, Lugo, WMP.  No one could like Cameron, no one should like Drew, no one can honestly think that 100 million to Dice K couldn't have beeen better spent, so the only conclusion I can reach is that you have some seriously low expectations of the GM. Fact- Since 2004, Theo has had far more mistakes than successes. Aside from the obvious list of disasters that you agree were/are disasters, there are the things like lowballing Damon b/c of his age, yet here 6 years later Damon is still productive, yet despite his age Lowell got a 3 year deal of which he was useful for about 1 -1 1/2 years.  What about paying Schill 8 million to not throw a pitch in 2008?  Likely you will chalk this up to "how could Theo know these old men would get hurt" but in my mind that is precisely what a GM gets paid to do, make the tough decisions and do it well.  Not let the right guy walk and sign the wrong guy.  Giving Derek Lowe's money to Matt Clement?  SS 05, SS 06, SS 09,?  Name the best starting pitcher he has signed since Schilling?  Julien Tarvarez?  DiceK? You want to preach facts, name the good moves since 2004?  Honestly.  Oki, Aceves, Crisp was ok in my mind, Vmart was an decent trade but he is gone and Masterson is getting beter, Beltre for a year helped but was not bringing him back a mistake?  The jury is still out on the Agone deal.  Scutaro is servicable but certainly not a steal or long term solution.  Bedard?  Smoltz?  Penny?  And regarding the last 3, I don't care if they were "low risk" I care that they were unproductive. Drop some facts on me.
    Posted by Thesemenarecowards[/QUOTE]

    Geez, take your head out of the sand now and then so you can breathe.

    Yes, they traded for Wily Mo. But that was with the long term in mind because they Nixon was near the end. He wasn't expected to come in and start right away. And that is also why they weren't in the market for a RF before 2006.

    Guillen is one of those player who might look good in hindsight, but at the time, coming off a leg injury, he wasn't considered a better player than Drew.

    Cameron was older and not considered a RF. Like I said -- continue to ignore these small inconviences just because they don't fit in your reality. So continue to beat your head against the brick wall -- it explains a lot -- but no, there weren't countless options.

    I liked Damon and would have taken him as a short-term solution in LF. But where was he going to play back then. He was basically done as a CF. He played one year in CF with the Yankees, who could not wait to move him out of CF. Since then he's been a LF-DH. Back then, do you honestly think he was better than Manny/Bay in LF back then or Ortiz.

    Crisp wasn't better offensively, but he was younger and better at that point defensively. And the Sox won a W.S. w/o Damon.

    Just because a player fits for one team, it doesn't mean he's a fit for another. But that takes big-picture thinking and your blinders are so narrow you can barely see one figure in front of you. 

    I could care less about the Schilling money. He led the Sox to two W.S. title. With the payroll the Sox have, taking a gamble that he had something left was fine with me.

    As for Lowe, Clement and Masterson, this is how you know where people like you lose all credibility because your only defense is hindsight.

    Yes, Lowe pitched well in the postseason. But his ERA at age 30 in 2003 was 4.47 and his ERA at age 31 in 2004 was 5.42. Two years of pitching getting progressively worse, yet of course you knew that he'd pitch well going forward. I personally wanted Lowe back because I liked him, but I was baseing that on my heart, not my head. From a baseball perspective, I don't blame the Sox for being leary.

    Clement -- congrats on being consistent by showing absolutely no knowledge of reality. Clement made the All-Star team in 2005. He later got hit by a line drive and was never the same after that. Then he got hurt. But of course, you knew all that was going to happen. Silly me.

    And Masterson -- you do realize that for the first year and a half after the trade, he stunk. His ERA with Bston at the time of the trade was 4.50;  his ERA was 4.55 for the Indians the rest of the year and 4.70  the next. Again, he wasn't getting the job done with the Sox. The Indians were going nowhere and could afford to keep sending him out there and hope he turns things around.
    Progressively getting better? Are you sure? He was great for four months. Then his ERA was 4.00 for August and 5.65 for September. Looks like after a nice run, he might be progressively getting worse. We'll see.

    Best starting pitcher signed since Schilling? Hmm -- how about Lester and Buchholz. Being a GM is more than signing FAs. It's the entire picture -- drafting, trading and FA. And Dice K was good for two years. Pitching is a crpshoot. In trying to assemble pitching staffs over a period of nine years, all GMs will have more acquistions that don't pan out than those that do.

    And you're remark about Scutaro shows how pathetic you are in this debate -- servicable but not a long term solution? Really? That's how you're judging deals on how long they last? He wasn't meant to be a long term solution.

    Bash all  you want, but it's obvious that you can't see the big picture, don't know or remember history and circumstances concerning specific deals and have no context on how to judge Theo with other GMs. Take off the blinders some day and take a look around. You'll be shocked at the number of bad trades and deals other GMs have made.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: The real story of Theo Epstien

    Hindsight is always 20-20 guys.

    DLowe was offered a 3 year - $27M deal before the 2004 season started. For all the buzz about beer and chicken now, DLowe it turns out had bigger issues. (and NO the RS never said a word, Derek's wife artted it out later in 2005 when she found out DLowe was having an affair.) Boras ended up getting DLowe on more year at $1M less per year.

    Clement had a great start in Boston but blew out his rotor cuff and labrum. That's the way it goes.

    Some of these arguments seem to want to have it both ways. They bash Theo for trying to find more economical solutions like Penny and groan like crazy about getting the best available like Drew.

    The Wily Mo Pena trade was a low point. No way to sugar coat it and Theo never did. He learned that he can never have to much starting pitching from that experience.

    Dice K for all the moaning was a better deal than Zito or Schmidt would have been, so what do you do if your the RS? Pass because there isn't a Sabathia on the board and take your lumps in in 2007?

    This can go on and on. The RS have been in the mix late every year but 2006 and 2010, as awful as 2011 turned out they were in it for 162 games.

    You can always find things that could have done better.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmitch. Show andrewmitch's posts

    Re: The real story of Theo Epstien

    90% of all atheletes cheat on their wives.  Unfortunately, it should be a non-issue.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Thesemenarecowards. Show Thesemenarecowards's posts

    Re: The real story of Theo Epstien

    In Response to Re: The real story of Theo Epstien:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The real story of Theo Epstien : Geez, take your head out of the sand now and then so you can breathe. Yes, they traded for Wily Mo. But that was with the long term in mind because they Nixon was near the end. He wasn't expected to come in and start right away. And that is also why they weren't in the market for a RF before 2006. Guillen is one of those player who might look good in hindsight, but at the time, coming off a leg injury, he wasn't considered a better player than Drew. Cameron was older and not considered a RF. Like I said -- continue to ignore these small inconviences just because they don't fit in your reality. So continue to beat your head against the brick wall -- it explains a lot -- but no, there weren't countless options. I liked Damon and would have taken him as a short-term solution in LF. But where was he going to play back then. He was basically done as a CF. He played one year in CF with the Yankees, who could not wait to move him out of CF. Since then he's been a LF-DH. Back then, do you honestly think he was better than Manny/Bay in LF back then or Ortiz. Crisp wasn't better offensively, but he was younger and better at that point defensively. And the Sox won a W.S. w/o Damon. Just because a player fits for one team, it doesn't mean he's a fit for another. But that takes big-picture thinking and your blinders are so narrow you can barely see one figure in front of you.  I could care less about the Schilling money. He led the Sox to two W.S. title. With the payroll the Sox have, taking a gamble that he had something left was fine with me. As for Lowe, Clement and Masterson, this is how you know where people like you lose all credibility because your only defense is hindsight. Yes, Lowe pitched well in the postseason. But his ERA at age 30 in 2003 was 4.47 and his ERA at age 31 in 2004 was 5.42. Two years of pitching getting progressively worse, yet of course you knew that he'd pitch well going forward. I personally wanted Lowe back because I liked him, but I was baseing that on my heart, not my head. From a baseball perspective, I don't blame the Sox for being leary. Clement -- congrats on being consistent by showing absolutely no knowledge of reality. Clement made the All-Star team in 2005. He later got hit by a line drive and was never the same after that. Then he got hurt. But of course, you knew all that was going to happen. Silly me. And Masterson -- you do realize that for the first year and a half after the trade, he stunk. His ERA with Bston at the time of the trade was 4.50;  his ERA was 4.55 for the Indians the rest of the year and 4.70  the next. Again, he wasn't getting the job done with the Sox. The Indians were going nowhere and could afford to keep sending him out there and hope he turns things around. Progressively getting better? Are you sure? He was great for four months. Then his ERA was 4.00 for August and 5.65 for September. Looks like after a nice run, he might be progressively getting worse. We'll see. Best starting pitcher signed since Schilling? Hmm -- how about Lester and Buchholz. Being a GM is more than signing FAs. It's the entire picture -- drafting, trading and FA. And Dice K was good for two years. Pitching is a crpshoot. In trying to assemble pitching staffs over a period of nine years, all GMs will have more acquistions that don't pan out than those that do. And you're remark about Scutaro shows how pathetic you are in this debate -- servicable but not a long term solution? Really? That's how you're judging deals on how long they last? He wasn't meant to be a long term solution. Bash all  you want, but it's obvious that you can't see the big picture, don't know or remember history and circumstances concerning specific deals and have no context on how to judge Theo with other GMs. Take off the blinders some day and take a look around. You'll be shocked at the number of bad trades and deals other GMs have made.
    Posted by royf19[/QUOTE]

    So you failed to answer my simple question, not suprisingly I might add, name the good deals since 2004?  Lester and Buchholz... too funny.  Firstly, all teams sign their home grown talent to logical, cost effective deals, too bad Theo did do this with Ellsbury. You accuse me of not reading your posts, well if you read mine you would have seen that I emphatically stated that Theo deserves absolute credit for the quality of the farm system, but signing our own guys isn't what we're talking about here. So again, best pitcher signed since Schilling? 

    Masterson was bad his first year and half in Cleveland, that is your argument?  Pretty weak.  The guy is 26, I'd say he might have brighter days ahead.  You can rationalize anything to yourself can't you?  Yet you say I don't think big picture, oh the irony. I'll prefer to take a big picture approach on a 26 year old who just finished his best season with 3.21 ERA, allowed only 11 HR in 216 IP and had a 2.43 K/BB ration.  You focus on a couple bad starts in September, how big picture of you.

    Oh the old standard Clement argument.  No actually you show yourself to be only surface level in your assessment.  Check out Clement's 5 starts previous to getting hit with the Crawford liner, 8 ER, 4 ER, 6, ER, 4 ER and 3 ER in the 2 innings before he got hit.  7 HR's mixed in there and a 4.43 ERA when he was hit.  He was a mediocre N.L. pitcher who had a good start in the A.L. but teams were figuring him out fast.  People make it out like he was Pedro until he got hit, when a quick look at his game logs shows just how ordinary he was and how his numbers after getting hit were roughly the same as before.  He was terrible in 2006 before getting hurt and missing all of 2007.  Durability and the AL east were never concerns for Lowe, but Theo liked Clement.

    I'm seriously destroying you on every point you try to make.  The more you write the more you expose your hypocrisy, double standards and lack of knowledge/factual basis.  You should really quit while you're only really, really, really far behind.

    In the classic apologist mold you say when things go bad it is "just a crapshhot", not all of us feel that powerless and unaccountable. 
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmitch. Show andrewmitch's posts

    Re: The real story of Theo Epstien

    nice post......this is too funny.....
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: The real story of Theo Epstien

    In Response to Re: The real story of Theo Epstien:
    [QUOTE]nice post......this is too funny.....
    Posted by andrewmitch[/QUOTE]

    Well whatever more comes of this thread I think there are plenty of great arguments on both sides as to how good or bad Theo was.  I guess katz hit it right on the nail when he stated - Theo could either be a genius or and idiot

    Six of one and have dozen of the other = AVERAGE

    Lets hope all this crap fades and we get back to proving how good we can be as a team with a GM and manager who keeps a close eye out and addresses issues when needed.  First we have to find that manager.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from OurMan. Show OurMan's posts

    Re: The real story of Theo Epstien

    In Response to Re: The real story of Theo Epstien:
    [QUOTE] I'm seriously destroying you on every point you try to make.  The more you write the more you expose your hypocrisy, double standards and lack of knowledge/factual basis.  You should really quit while you're only really, really, really far behind. In the classic apologist mold you say when things go bad it is "just a crapshhot", not all of us feel that powerless and unaccountable. 
    Posted by Thesemenarecowards[/QUOTE]

    I am thrilled to see the Theo Chick massacre on this board. Notice how this is the most popular thread? Its time for pink hatters like RoyF and Moonbeam to pack it up and move to Chicago.

    The nonsense is over.

    Army freaking strong!
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from OurMan. Show OurMan's posts

    Re: The real story of Theo Epstien

    In Response to Re: The real story of Theo Epstien:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The real story of Theo Epstien : Calling out typos, always the sign of sound argument.  (Sarcasm) Fact- Jose Guillen was available in 2006 and 2007.  Fact- Mike Cameron was available in 2007.  Fact- prior to 2006 when the Red Sox were alledgedly not looking for a RF, they traded a starting pitcher for WMP, I wonder where WMP was going to play?  Again, all I'm saying is there were countless other options than JD Drew, one article about Giles doesn't disprove that. Fact- You have stated you didn't like the deals for Lackey, Crawford, Lugo, WMP.  No one could like Cameron, no one should like Drew, no one can honestly think that 100 million to Dice K couldn't have beeen better spent, so the only conclusion I can reach is that you have some seriously low expectations of the GM. Fact- Since 2004, Theo has had far more mistakes than successes. Aside from the obvious list of disasters that you agree were/are disasters, there are the things like lowballing Damon b/c of his age, yet here 6 years later Damon is still productive, yet despite his age Lowell got a 3 year deal of which he was useful for about 1 -1 1/2 years.  What about paying Schill 8 million to not throw a pitch in 2008?  Likely you will chalk this up to "how could Theo know these old men would get hurt" but in my mind that is precisely what a GM gets paid to do, make the tough decisions and do it well.  Not let the right guy walk and sign the wrong guy.  Giving Derek Lowe's money to Matt Clement?  SS 05, SS 06, SS 09,?  Name the best starting pitcher he has signed since Schilling?  Julien Tarvarez?  DiceK? You want to preach facts, name the good moves since 2004?  Honestly.  Oki, Aceves, Crisp was ok in my mind, Vmart was an decent trade but he is gone and Masterson is getting beter, Beltre for a year helped but was not bringing him back a mistake?  The jury is still out on the Agone deal.  Scutaro is servicable but certainly not a steal or long term solution.  Bedard?  Smoltz?  Penny?  And regarding the last 3, I don't care if they were "low risk" I care that they were unproductive. Drop some facts on me.
    Posted by Thesemenarecowards[/QUOTE]
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: The real story of Theo Epstien

    In Response to Re: The real story of Theo Epstien:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The real story of Theo Epstien : Well whatever more comes of this thread I think there are plenty of great arguments on both sides as to how good or bad Theo was.  I guess katz hit it right on the nail when he stated - Theo could either be a genius or and idiot Six of one and have dozen of the other = AVERAGE Lets hope all this crap fades and we get back to proving how good we can be as a team with a GM and manager who keeps a close eye out and addresses issues when needed.  First we have to find that manager.
    Posted by craze4sox[/QUOTE]

    The big problem with this thread is that the critics count up all the good deals and all the bad deals and come to a conclusion -- like I've said before -- without taking time to put any deals in context of the times or the luck factor that comes into play.

    Take for instance Gagne and Wagner. Both deals were for former closers with injury history. Both were going to be nothing more than late-season rentals for bullpen depth. Gagne was pitching great all year for Texas while Wagner was coming off an injury and had just two innings of work all season at the time of the trade. Since coming off his injury season in 2006, Gagne had a 2.16 ERA for Texas in 2007 and was lights-out automatic. 

    Put them side by side in the same year and ask what player the Sox should acquire and I doubt either player would have a significant advantage over the other, and if Wagner did, it would be because he was a lefty.

    Yet the guy who had pitched great all year fails (yet the Sox win the W.S.) while the guy coming back from injury is lights out but the Sox fall in the playoffs. The Sox gave up an decent but average OF who had no role with the team for Gagne and the critics hold him up as some horrible deal that illustrates how bad a GM Theo is. Wagner was stolen for minor leaguers who have done nothing, yet that deal is ignored.

    The problem with the good-deal, bad-deal method of evaluating is that if you do that with all GMs who have been around for as long as Theo, the list of bad deals is always going to be longer. I guess by method of evaluationg, Bill Belichick is a horrible "GM." Look at all the draft choices and free agents he picked.

    With Theo, I'm not ignoring the bad signings or deals. But I look at the big picture -- how other GMs do, what's a realistic expectation, the needs at the time and the reason the deal didn't work out. And I don't automatically jump to the simplistic notion that just because a player does good whtn he leaves the Red Sox that it was a bad decision to no re-sign the player or trade the player.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from OurMan. Show OurMan's posts

    Re: The real story of Theo Epstien

    Everyone around MLB knew Eric Gagne was damaged goods.
    I was here saying it before Theo got Gagne.

    Again, Eric Gagne is just more proof of Theo's arrogance, incompetence and season-tanking GM moves.

    It is crystal clear now that Theo was the problem. I knew it all along and said so.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmitch. Show andrewmitch's posts

    Re: The real story of Theo Epstien

    Well, like I said for a while I had mixed feelings on Theo

    He had some great moves

    Ortiz, Mueller, the Nomar trade

    But as time went on there were less of those moves and more of the JD Drew ones

    And then the Crawford deal - his Waterloo deal.  That is what put me over the edge with him. 

    When Theo messes up his messes up BIG TIME. 

    If Gonzalez falls apart Theo may be remembered more for the bad that he did than the good.

    LOOK LIVE THE DUKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from OurMan. Show OurMan's posts

    Re: The real story of Theo Epstien

    In Response to Re: The real story of Theo Epstien:
    [QUOTE]Well, like I said for a while I had mixed feelings on Theo He had some great moves Ortiz, Mueller, the Nomar trade But as time went on there were less of those moves and more of the JD Drew ones And then the Crawford deal - his Waterloo deal.  That is what put me over the edge with him.  When Theo messes up his messes up BIG TIME.  If Gonzalez falls apart Theo may be remembered more for the bad that he did than the good. LOOK LIVE THE DUKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Posted by andrewmitch[/QUOTE]

    Law never had mixed feelings.
    Theo was a bum from day one and Law said so often.

    Vindication.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Flapjack07. Show Flapjack07's posts

    Re: The real story of Theo Epstien

    Theo made his share of mistakes (which caught up to him in the end, I think) - there's no denying that. He also presided over two world championships and the most successful stretch in the history of the team. That's simply a fact.

    Does he deserve 100% of the credit for all of that? Certainly not. That belongs also to the players, to Francona, to the owners, to Duquette for putting some of the pieces into place before Theo arrived, etc.; but the idea that after 86 years we suddenly stumbled onto two championships by accident, despite having "one of the most incompetent GMs in the history of the league" as one poster claimed, is just absurd. Sign me up for another horrible GM if it means two more World Series victories and a 93+ win average over the next 9 years - but somehow I doubt even the most die-hard Theo critics will take a bet that his successor can produce better.

    There are many legitimate reasons to criticize Theo, plenty of Renterias and Clements and Gagnes and Lugos in his portfolio to quibble over...but I've tried to give him the benefit of the doubt for those, because the BIG PICTURE of what the team did under his watch is impossible to deny (though some people still try) - and because years from now, when none of us care any more about Renteria or Clement or Gagne or Lugo, we'll still have 2004 and 2007. They will ultimately be Theo Epstein's legacy here.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Flapjack07. Show Flapjack07's posts

    Re: The real story of Theo Epstien

    By the way OurMan, if you are the original Law (a really big if), you have no credibility due to your silence all season long when the Sox were winning and only reappearing after things fell apart in the final month. Shows what kind of fan you are, if you're actually a Red Sox fan at all.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Thesemenarecowards. Show Thesemenarecowards's posts

    Re: The real story of Theo Epstien

    In Response to Re: The real story of Theo Epstien:
    [QUOTE]Theo made his share of mistakes (which caught up to him in the end, I think) - there's no denying that. He also presided over two world championships and the most successful stretch in the history of the team. That's simply a fact. Does he deserve 100% of the credit for all of that? Certainly not. That belongs also to the players, to Francona, to the owners, to Duquette for putting some of the pieces into place before Theo arrived, etc.; but the idea that after 86 years we suddenly stumbled onto two championships by accident, despite having "one of the most incompetent GMs in the history of the league" as one poster claimed, is just absurd. Sign me up for another horrible GM if it means two more World Series victories and a 93+ win average over the next 9 years - but somehow I doubt even the most die-hard Theo critics will take a bet that his successor can produce better. There are many legitimate reasons to criticize Theo, plenty of Renterias and Clements and Gagnes and Lugos in his portfolio to quibble over...but I've tried to give him the benefit of the doubt for those, because the BIG PICTURE of what the team did under his watch is impossible to deny (though some people still try) - and because years from now, when none of us care any more about Renteria or Clement or Gagne or Lugo, we'll still have 2004 and 2007. They will ultimately be Theo Epstein's legacy here.
    Posted by Flapjack07[/QUOTE]

    The next GM has contracts, some good mostly not,  totaling 102 million to only 7 players in the year 2014, so while Theo is gone the Theo Epstein era is far from over. 

    What I really can't wait for is when the Red Sox win in 2012 or 2013 all the Theo lovers who dismissed the Manny, Pedro, Damon, Tek, Lowe, Nixon, Nomar etc.... that Theo inherited, will in classic hypocrisy credit Theo for the championship caliber team he built before he left.


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

    Re: The real story of Theo Epstien

    In Response to Re: The real story of Theo Epstien:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The real story of Theo Epstien : The next GM has contracts, some good mostly not,  totaling 102 million to only 7 players in the year 2014, so while Theo is gone the Theo Epstein era is far from over.  What I really can't wait for is when the Red Sox win in 2012 or 2013 all the Theo lovers who dismissed the Manny, Pedro, Damon, Tek, Lowe, Nixon, Nomar etc.... that Theo inherited, will in classic hypocrisy credit Theo for the championship caliber team he built before he left.
    Posted by Thesemenarecowards[/QUOTE]

    Come on now, nobody dismisses the contributions of the players you named.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Thesemenarecowards. Show Thesemenarecowards's posts

    Re: The real story of Theo Epstien

    In Response to Re: The real story of Theo Epstien:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The real story of Theo Epstien : Come on now, nobody dismisses the contributions of the players you named.
    Posted by Hfxsoxnut[/QUOTE]

    Not the contributions of the players, the fact that Theo inherited that much talent, a 93 win team and that 2004 wasn't simply a Theo product.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from OurMan. Show OurMan's posts

    Re: The real story of Theo Epstien

    In Response to Re: The real story of Theo Epstien:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The real story of Theo Epstien : Come on now, nobody dismisses the contributions of the players you named.
    Posted by Hfxsoxnut[/QUOTE]

    Theo Chicks CONSTANTLY tried to downplay the 2004 World Series champions because the Sox won because of players Theo DIDN'T bring here.

    Stop lyin.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from OurMan. Show OurMan's posts

    Re: The real story of Theo Epstien

    In Response to Re: The real story of Theo Epstien:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The real story of Theo Epstien : Not the contributions of the players, the fact that Theo inherited that much talent, a 93 win team and that 2004 wasn't simply a Theo product.
    Posted by Thesemenarecowards[/QUOTE]

    Army strong.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Flapjack07. Show Flapjack07's posts

    Re: The real story of Theo Epstien

    In Response to Re: The real story of Theo Epstien:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The real story of Theo Epstien : Not the contributions of the players, the fact that Theo inherited that much talent, a 93 win team and that 2004 wasn't simply a Theo product.
    Posted by Thesemenarecowards[/QUOTE]

    I don't know why credit for the championship has to be an all-or-nothing proposition for some people. It would be as wrong to pretend that Theo didn't inherit the players you named as it would be to ignore the fact that we don't win in 04 without Ortiz, Schilling, Foulke, Millar, Mueller, and others Theo added.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Thesemenarecowards. Show Thesemenarecowards's posts

    Re: The real story of Theo Epstien

    In Response to Re: The real story of Theo Epstien:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The real story of Theo Epstien : I don't know why credit for the championship has to be an all-or-nothing proposition for some people. It would be as wrong to pretend that Theo didn't inherit the players you named as it would be to ignore the fact that we don't win in 04 without Ortiz, Schilling, Foulke, Millar, Mueller, and others Theo added.
    Posted by Flapjack07[/QUOTE]

    I agree.  I just guarantee you those who solely credit Theo for 2004 will pull a 180 and credit Theo if the Theoless Red Sox win in 2013.
     

Share