Re: Will Theo assemble a winner in Chicago?
posted at 4/27/2012 2:11 PM EDT
In Response to Re: Will Theo assemble a winner in Chicago?
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Will Theo assemble a winner in Chicago? : I didn't forget, although most of Theo's good moves were so long ago, you could hardly blame me if I did. Ortiz, Mueller, Millar, Schilling, etc.... this is a what have you done for me lately business. I've always said Theo deserves tremendous credit for transforming the farm system, although I think listing Ellsbury twice is a bit excessive. You can list away, it isn't going to change the fact that Theo's big money misses are precisely what has let this team down in the past few seasons. Be it
Cameron or Jenks or Lackey or Drew
or Crawford or Dice-K or Lowell
or Schilling (08) etc.
... I'm not going to be impressed by a GM who is right some of the time. Anyone can be right some of the time. And I'm definitely not going to be impressed by a GM, who due to financial resources, has a huge advantage over a majority of the league yet places 3rd in the division in consecutive seasons.
But mom Billy's dad let him pay Lackey 80 million dollars.....
Posted by Thesemenarecowards[/QUOTE]
The bold is exactly what I'm saying about exxagerating, overlooking the luck factor. The jury still is out for Lackey, but while I didn't like the years on the contract, Lackey was considered a good pitcher and was paid market value. He was better than given credit for in 2010 and might still contribute in the next couple of years. And if I'm correct, wasn't the concern with him his shoulder, not elbow.
People bash Drew but for the first four years, there are many metics that show he wasn't overpaid. You might not agree and I never liked the contract, but all that shows is people have different opinions of market value.
Cameron was short-term and was in great shape. That he had the oblique injury was bad luck. It's ridiculous to expect GMs to predict that injury. Just like the various injuries in 2010, all of which had nothing to do with being in shape (except Beckett), were the reason for the third-place finish that year.
DiceK -- it wasn't like the Sox were the only ones bidding. He was highly thought of throughout the league, and the only teams that didn't bid for him were teams that simply didn't have the money. It doesn't make a small-market GM a genius for not signing DiceK simply because he didn't have the resources.
Lowell -- he was productive for the first two years of that three-year deal, and the injury that slowed him was something you couldn't predict. He wasn't that old when he signed that thee-year deal and was a player who stayed in shape and didn't have an injury history.
By your standards, there isn't a good GM in baseball. The only reason some GMs don't have high-priced failures is because they don't have the money to begin with. Name me a GM who isn't right some of the time and never misses.
And the third-place finish last year had less to do with overall talent and more to do with injuries (Buch and Youk) that can't be predicted and intangibles (clubhouse) which again can't be predicted by a GM.
The attitude that simply because a GM has a big budget means he's never going to miss is ludicrous. Again, name me a big-market GM who doesn't have embarrassing failures. Because they have the budget, they're expected to be aggressive going after proven veterans.
Big-market GMs are dmned if they do and dmned if they don't. Fans will rip them for not spending but when they do and the player doesn't pan out, they get ripped.
Picking players isn't an exact science, regardless of your budget.