Wow! Middlebrooks Ties Ted in 1939 Record!

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

    Re: Wow! Middlebrooks Ties Ted in 1939 Record!

    In Response to Re: Wow! Middlebrooks Ties Ted in 1939 Record!:
    [QUOTE]Not much of a record to tie.  Ted was younger and infinitely better.  Youk had to go because he was not going to stand for being a backup, period.  He wanted to play every day at one position, which is what he is now doing in Chicago, where he is happy and productive.  He was never going to be happy and productive in Boston after it became clear it was time for Middlebrooks to take over at 3B.  AGon already had 1B covered, and Ortiz DH. 
    Posted by maxbialystock[/QUOTE]
     

    ......If you are just comparing him to Ted Williams, but I thought he was the fastest Sox player to reach that mark.  Meaning EVERY player that has started their career in Boston.  Now that is impressive.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Wow! Middlebrooks Ties Ted in 1939 Record!

    Moon, 

    Sometimes it's in the best interest of both parties to move on.  

    I have moved on. 

    You and I have nothing to do with it. 

    Of course we didn't and don't, but discussing the merits of a deal already made is part of what this site is all about.

    In the case of Youkilis it was clearly addition by subtraction. One can quible over his value to the team at the time of the trade. I tend to disagree that the Sox got "fleeced". Given his lackluster start to the season along with his second half of last year and the money's he was owned. His trade value on the open market was next to nil. The aquiring team had to weight the risk of his not regaining his form, along with his contract status and his propensity to spend time on the DL.  

    Your idea of clearness is as milky as it gets. Clearly, Youk filling in for the injured Middlebrooks, AGon, and now Papi would have been light years better than what we have had instead. 

    So if I'm reading the above correctly? You were an advocate to keep Youkilis. My point whether you want to agree with it or not had nothing to-do with whether or not Youkilis could have been useful member of the team. 

    That was my point. You ignored Youk's usefulness and possible recovery of form when evaluating the trade, when to me, it should be the most important part of any trade: weighing value or possible value (forseeing injury, potential for improvement, etc...) vs what we get in return.

    Entering the season. The hope was that Youk would regain his form, come back strong and be the righthanded middle of the order 900 OPS guy he was previous to last years All Star break...Unfortunately for him and the Sox, he never did. Had he, they don't trade him and Middlebrook's is still in AAA.  

    I know the history. Youk was coming off a difficult injury, and Ben jumped the gun. He gave up on a hitter with great recent history who was basicallystill  in ST. If we had gotten something good in return, or not had to pay almost all of his deal, then there could be an argument for tading him before the deadline, but neither were true. 

    Youk is a walking poster boy for the injury prone athlete. I've never questioned his ability when healthy. In the end, his struggles since last year to stay on the field due to not one, not two, not three, four different injuries were and are at the heart of why his value on the open market was next to nil. Oh by the way, what do you know he's currently day to day with a bum knee!  So if you scoring at home, make it 5 different injuries. 

    I am aware of the injury history and his subsequent injury while with the White Sox, and i weighed these facts against the value of Lillibridge and Stewart. If Stewart ends up helping us in the future, unlikely in my opinion, the deal may end up being a wash or a plus, but I wasn't expecting Youk to play everyday had we kept him. I figured maybe he'd playmaybe  every 10 days at 3B, 10 days at DH, and 3 to 4 of 10 days at 1B with AGon in RF at least until CC and Ellsbury returned. That's about 50-60% action, which could lessen the chance of future injury. 

    One main point about being against the trade was the timing. We could have at least waited until out OF was healthy. The trade was made before the deadline. I didn't see why we needed to rush, and as it turned out injuries to Midds, AGon, then later Papi did happen.

    Moon, we are not privy to the behind the scenes conversations that take place between the player & management. Ben Cherinton's no dummy, and niether is Valentine. I won't pretend that I know more or less than any other avid sox fans about the inner working of the team. 

    I never have pretended to knwo more than Ben or the media, but I tend to downgrade all the "cancer in the clubhouse" as a reason for a team's failure argument and always have. 
    1) The media often pumps up an issue to sell papers.
    2) Even if there is a clubhouse issue, it is usually between player-manager/GM and does not have the effect on other players that many feel it does.
    3) Teams often win championships with great clubhouse problems- in all sports. Examples abound.

    Don't you find it a tad curious that he struggled to hit and then suddenly found his stroke just by changing the color of his Sox? 

    No, not one iota. Same way I don't believe in the argument that Jason bay would have continued greatness had he stayed here. Youk was recovering from an injury. He was, in a sense, in a second ST mode. I expected him to improve had he stayed with us, but I admit  not playing nearly everyday might have slowed this process.

    What can't be understated in this is that after getting called up. Middlebrook's outplayed and out hit Youk. In the end, trading Youkilis served to put end to the day to day speculation over who was our starting 3rd baseman. 

    1) Please stop implying I wanted Middlebrooks benched or platooned. I did not. 

    I was not and have not Implied that you wanted anything. Your position on this is just that yours. I repect that, I also have my own position and will debate the merits of my arguments as long as we can maintian civility. Unlike softy, I'm not keeping score...

    I know softy well, and believe me, thankfully you are no softy. There may have been 1 or 2 posters who were saying Youk should play over Midds at 3B, but I don't recall them. Maybe Youk was arguing with BV, and even if it was in front of the whole team, I seriously don't see thsi as an "issue" that needed to be solved by a radical solution like removing Youk or BV from the clubhouse. Yes, that is my opinion, and I repsecty yours, but I do not think removing Youk was the only solution to "ending the day-to-day speculation". Are we so sure that Middlebrooks
    1) Came to the park everyday wondering if he was in the line-up?
    2) If yes, are we sure this hurt his growth or progress?
    3) That there really was "day-to-day specualtion" in the clubhouse?

    2) There was no "day-to-day speculation", or at least didn't have to be if BV did the right thing- named Middlebrooks the FT 3Bman. 

    Fact is the media both local and national jumped on this train after Middlebrook's started tearing the cover off the ball. In the end, BV did make a choice, that's why Youk's wearing white sox now. 

    Bobby V made the choice long before the trade. Trading one player is a rash option to making a who plays a position decision. It is not a common choice, especially at that point in a season.

    3) Day-to-day speculation can be a motivating factor or a distraction. What makes you so sure it was the latter and not the former? Nobody knows, and that is why I am not using these sorts of arguments to make my point.

    I agree and if indeed having Youkilis on the team motivated young Middlebrook's to strive to play harder. I'm all in...if it was indeed a distraction? I'm Ok with his being moved. The Sox didn't have to trade him. They chose to...like it or not my guess is that Youkilis himself played in role in making it so...

    Making Youk happy might have played a role in the decision to trade him. Making BV's job easier might have played a role as well. My point is that the vastly most important part of any trade should be: does it help the team now and/or going forward? This should trump all other aspects of any trade, unless it is a Manny Ramirez type situation, and even in his case, we got a nice return (1.3 years of Jason Bay vs 0.3 years of a pouting Manny).

    synergy; when the results are greater than the sum of the parts...

    We can agree to disagree, but I think the part that Youk could have added to this team would have raised the sum of all parts value more than his pouting brought it down (if it did at all). The hindsight part of the equation certainly helps my position, as it was highly unlikely at the time of the trade that Middlebrooks, then AGon, then Papi would all miss games, but as it turned out, I have to think we'd be better off now had we kept Youk than we have done with Lillibridge. I guess if we would have missed the playoffs regardless of the Youk trade or not, then having Stewart going forward is better than having nothing after Youk walked this winter.

    To that end, I oversee a crew of more than 100 employess. In my more that 30 years of managing, over time I've concluded that there are basically three distinct classes of workers. Great employees, good workers and those needing improvement. Sometimes great employees are not your best workers and often your best workers are not the best employees. To me what separates the great employee from the good worker is the intagables of loyality, accountablility, responsibility, work ethic and how well they intergrate with thier fellow employees and management. A good worker, often is highly productive, but tends to be someone that rocks the boat and requires a higher level of supervision and when called upon to volunteer alway declines...

    I don't want to sit here and state that I know which class Youk falls into but his reputation precedes him...see Manny

    Good points. I've been in clubhouse that are harmonious and problematic. I've been a player who thought he should play more or bat 1st or 2nd not 8th. It's part of the game. IMO, this wasn't likely a freak case that needed immediate radical action.

    It also allowed Gonzalez to move back to first and ended the log jam where Valentine had to juggle the lineup to get everyone the requist at bats.  

    This is a valid point. Hindisght shows AGon has begun to hit better. It may not be related to not playing RF anymore, but some of our OF numbers after Youk was dealt and CC & Ells returned were pretty pathetic as well.

    Line-ups have been just as jumbled since the trade. Our RF has been a revolving door complete with several failed experiments (Kalish). Ben shoud have at least waited until CC & Ells came back or the deadline. He couldn't have done much worse in trade return then. 

    Not sure that the OF has anything to do with my point...

    vs my point, it should, since keeping Youk and playing him 50-60% of the games, would have meant playing AGon in RF 30% of the games, unless someone got injured.

    Since the trade Gonzalez hasn't had to play RF and with Youk gone, Young Middlebrooks has been in the lineup everyday. Which meant that every day when he awoke and took his morning shower, before heading to the park he did so knowing that his name was on the lineup card and he'd be starting at 3rd...Better yet, he do so knowing that earned it by outplaying Youkilis! 

    Thus In the best interest of the kid's development.  

    Again, I never saw Youk wanting to play as hurting Middlebrooks development, in fact, it could be argued that Middlebrooks played a little worse after Youk was traded.

    Again, a  totally unfounded psoition. History is full of examples where rookies did well and won the job with the vet breathing down his neck. 

    Apparently Middlebrooks got that memo too...My reference to "In the best interest of his development" was is code for the kid has to play everyday and by annointing him the starter. a desination he earned on the field. Sent him the message that the organization trusted that he was the best man for the job! No small issue for a young ball player to know that the manger of the team see you as the best man for the job! 

    I think telling Middlebrooks "you are the man now" was over-rated. besides, he went 5 for 37 right after the trade, so where's the evidence it helped or hurt?

    His monthly OPS has declined every month since the "vote of confidence".

    .836> .785> .719

    Youkilis had to go even if it meant for pennies on the dollar... 

    I respect your opinion, but I can enver see it that way. We paid the White Sox to get better, and we got worse, all to help pump up the ego of a rookie in hopes that it might help. It hasn't as far as the numbers show. What I mostly heard at the time of the trade was "what's the chance our 3Bman, DH or 1Bman will get hurt?", and "you don't make trades based on projecting injuries", but that is exactly what happened.
    In hinsight, I don't see how the deal can be defended.

    The media invented the "have to go" hype story, and you bought it. I didn't.

    Again, since I have not nor do I for one moment question how you arrive at your conclusions, when making an argument. I would appreciate your not making assumptions on how I reach mine. Each of us are influenced by what we read in the papers and see on TV. I din't buy into the he has to go hype...my conclusion is based purely on the fact that he did go. 

    FYI I have not read 1 single word written by Mazzarotti since moving to the globe or Shaunsessey for more that a decade now. Because I see both them as the president and vice president of the doom and gloomers club. A club of which I don't want a membership card to. 

    Fair enough, but you did think there was a big clubhous issue. I was not so sure. I'm still not sure the actual deal proves it was all about Youk's attitude or a cancerous clubhouse. Maybe it was just about getting AGon our of RF, increased flexibilty with Lillibridge over Youk, and Ben's thought that Stewart is a viable prospect.

    In closing, Moon you're one of my favorites on this forum and often we don't see thing's the same way. I would also like to add that when I read your post's along with many others on this board. Not unlike the articles written by the baseball writers and the many of the pudits that are paid to give us insights in to the inner workings of the game. Each has a role in shaping my opinions, however, I am not a Lemmings and do not follow anyone over a cliff.

    Bean, you are by far one of my favorite posters here. True, we don't always agree, but what would be the point of this site if we all did. I look forward to many more thought-provoking discussions in the future.

    I hope Stewart forces me to admit I was wrong about this trade, and as time has gone by, I am doubting that Youk would have helped enough to squeek us into the playoffs anyway, so it's not such a big issue with me anymore.

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

    Re: Wow! Middlebrooks Ties Ted in 1939 Record!

    Moon,

    Bean, you are by far one of my favorite posters here. True, we don't always agree, but what would be the point of this site if we all did. I look forward to many more thought-provoking discussions in the future.

    Thank's for the kind words. I concur that part of what makes coming to this site enjoyable is that there are so many differing view and opinions.

    I hope Stewart forces me to admit I was wrong about this trade, and as time has gone by, I am doubting that Youk would have helped enough to squeek us into the playoffs anyway, so it's not such a big issue with me anymore.

    Time will tell if the kid can put it all together and realize his full potentail. Not sure that your assesment of the trade hinders on whether the kid makes it or not. You've made a strong argument with some very saliant points. All of which I'm certain were weigh heavily by Cherington before coming to the conclusion that trading Youkilis was in the best interest of the team. His relantionship with Bobby Valentine may have been among them. My guess is that if Youk were healthy and productive. That Cherington would have made Bobby V figure out how to make it work. Not unlike when Manny was Manny and Francona's was at his wits end.

    On to another topic...What's wrong with the Boston Red Sox? A team that on paper should be playing better baseball. I get that injuries have played a large role. The conclusion that I've reached is that the this team lacks synergy and sum of the parts has now for an entire calendar year under-performed. While we may have a roster full of very impressive resumes and a payroll that's among the highest in the game. Due to a myriad of issue the results have been under whelming to say the least. The organizational drama real or percieved is the crumbs that will lead us to the cookie...

    Moon, while I will forever be thankful to John Henry for his role in helping to end an 86 year drought. My intuition suggest that there's a systemic problem that eminates down from the top (which lend credence to your critical views on many of the roster decisons in the last 3 or 4 years). So if one looks back on the dynamics that were at play when he bought the club vs those at play today. Therein lyes the answer to how to fix what is clearly broken. So while the two world championships trophies are proudly on display in the team offices on Yawkey way. I can't help but come to the conclusion that in the process of siding with Epstein over Luccino during the power struggle in the offseason of 2006. That irreprable damage was done to the foundation of the teams leadership group. In 2002 Larry was the boss and it was he that brought Epstein with him along with a core group of very talented assistants. All of whom played key roles in decimanating information and helping to rebuild the organization. The goods news is that they delivered...the bad news is that when you hire upward mobile professionals. they have thier eyes on the the next step on the ladder of success. So once they prove themselves worthy, if a promotion doesn't present itself in thier present organization within a timeline that they see as attainable, will look to move on. Which is why Epstein is now working for the Cub's and many of the original memebers of the front office now have position with other teams...

    We need look no further than Foxboro to see evidence that continuity in ownership and operational leadership bares fruit. THe Patriots are and organization that Henry himself used as a model for the current Red Sox team. Where Robert Kraft has allowed Belicheck the autonomy to make all football related decesions. With the caviat of "As long as it is within the reason of budget and that the players, coaches & trainers all support "the Patriots Way". Almost as important is that each of them are seen as having the morale standards, worthy of wearing a Patriot uniform.

    With that said, I'm hopeful that with Luccino now back in control of baseball operations with the support of Henry & Werner. Will begin to right, what is wrong, within the inner circles of the management team. That he with Cherington as the leader of his support team. Go about the buisness of fixing what is a flawed roster and from the outside an organization that appears to have some fractures in the foundation. A fix that won't come without some pain. It starts with defining the core values of the organizational phylosophies and or agreeing that the ones already defined in 2002 are still worthy of sustaining moving forwrad. Then he and his charges must go about the buisness of hiring coaches and recruiting players that fit the model. Not unlike what they did begining in 2002. Which culmanated in them playing in 5 ALCS and winning 2 World Tittles from 2003 to 2008. The devils in the details....



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

    Re: Wow! Middlebrooks Ties Ted in 1939 Record!

    Excellent post, bean and this part below is worthy of being put in print, though the Glode would never run it....


    On to another topic...
    What's wrong with the Boston Red Sox? A team that on paper should be playing better baseball. I get that injuries have played a large role. The conclusion that I've reached is that the this team lacks synergy and sum of the parts has now for an entire calendar year under-performed. While we may have a roster full of very impressive resumes and a payroll that's among the highest in the game. Due to a myriad of issue the results have been under whelming to say the least. The organizational drama real or percieved is the crumbs that will lead us to the cookie...

    One age old debate is whether the dysfunction causes losses, or losses causes dysfunction. I'm not a big believer that dysfunction in the clubhouse is always a danger to team success, but dysfunction at the top (owner-President-GM-manager, etc...) can be destructive.

    Moon, while I will forever be thankful to John Henry for his role in helping to end an 86 year drought. My intuition suggest that there's a systemic problem that eminates down from the top (which lend credence to your critical views on many of the roster decisons in the last 3 or 4 years). So if one looks back on the dynamics that were at play when he bought the club vs those at play today. Therein lyes the answer to how to fix what is clearly broken. So while the two world championships trophies are proudly on display in the team offices on Yawkey way. I can't help but come to the conclusion that in the process of siding with Epstein over Luccino during the power struggle in the offseason of 2006. That irreprable damage was done to the foundation of the teams leadership group. In 2002 Larry was the boss and it was he that brought Epstein with him along with a core group of very talented assistants. All of whom played key roles in decimanating information and helping to rebuild the organization. The goods news is that they delivered...the bad news is that when you hire upward mobile professionals. they have thier eyes on the the next step on the ladder of success. So once they prove themselves worthy, if a promotion doesn't present itself in thier present organization within a timeline that they see as attainable, will look to move on. Which is why Epstein is now working for the Cub's and many of the original memebers of the front office now have position with other teams...

    This is "gold". People like to blame Theo, but maybe the real issue was as simple as lessening Larry's influence. Now, we have a manager our GM did not want, and finger pointing here and there, and lack of support shown in the traditional sense.

    We need look no further than Foxboro to see evidence that continuity in ownership and operational leadership bares fruit. THe Patriots are and organization that Henry himself used as a model for the current Red Sox team. Where Robert Kraft has allowed Belicheck the autonomy to make all football related decesions. With the caviat of "As long as it is within the reason of budget and that the players, coaches & trainers all support "the Patriots Way". Almost as important is that each of them are seen as having the morale standards, worthy of wearing a Patriot uniform. 

    With that said, I'm hopeful that with Luccino now back in control of baseball operations with the support of Henry & Werner. Will begin to right, what is wrong, within the inner circles of the management team. That he with Cherington as the leader of his support team. Go about the buisness of fixing what is a flawed roster and from the outside an organization that appears to have some fractures in the foundation. A fix that won't come without some pain. It starts with defining the core values of the organizational phylosophies and or agreeing that the ones already defined in 2002 are still worthy of sustaining moving forwrad. Then he and his charges must go about the buisness of hiring coaches and recruiting players that fit the model. Not unlike what they did begining in 2002. Which culmanated in them playing in 5 ALCS and winning 2 World Tittles from 2003 to 2008. The devils in the details....

    I think we will see many "details" attended to this winter. I see some major overhauls all over the map.


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

    Re: Wow! Middlebrooks Ties Ted in 1939 Record!

    One age old debate is whether the dysfunction causes losses, or losses causes dysfunction. I'm not a big believer that dysfunction in the clubhouse is always a danger to team success, but dysfunction at the top (owner-President-GM-manager, etc...) can be destructive.

    Dysfunction has many different looks depending on which prism one uses to view it. However when a company or a business begins to show erosion or less than results, it's almost alway due to poor management. In all cases the guy that signs the check (the owner) is the one that is responsible for identifing where the breakdown occured and then finding a solution. If indeed the problem is the owner, then there is no fix...

    In the case of our Boston Red Sox it feels as though they started throwing money at the problem instead of fixing it. In sport there are many examples of owners who have tried to play GM and "buy a ring". Without having a solid operational structure in place, instead of hiring qualified professionals and giving them the autonomy to oversee thier areas of expertise. They chose to take on a role in player personnal decisions, only to fall short. In almost every case where that dynamic exist they surround themselves with yes men. Who are willing to do their bidding and don't challenge his authority. I don't get the sense that Henry is among that group nor is he a micro-manager. I think where he has erred, was not in the building of his management team. Of which the results of the team both on and off the field as well as the work he accomplished in redefining the brand and increasing shareholder value begining in 2002 through 2008 are note worthy.

    Where I think he erred was in laying out a longerterm accention and manpower plan with clear and concise roles, goals and objectives for top level management. To insure continuity of the company's mission statement. In 2002 Larry was the man behind the curtian. Epstein reported to Larry who reported to Henry. For all intents Larry was his Director of Baseball Operations with Epstein as GM, reporting to Larry. Esptein was then charged with carrying forth the plan and overseeing his direct reports each of whom has specific duties with a clearly defined objectives.


    This is "gold". People like to blame Theo, but maybe the real issue was as simple as lessening Larry's influence. Now, we have a manager our GM did not want, and finger pointing here and there, and lack of support shown in the traditional sense.

    In 2006 the report order changed and the exodus of all of the top assitants began in earnst. Since the offseason of 2007 when Esptein took control of baseball operations. The results have been less than and the roster today is flawed. While Epstein doesn't derserve to be singled out as the problem. In hindsight given the results, he was clearly, part of the problem. Make no mistake about the product on the field today is representive of his vision. He was the man behind the curtain leading baseball operations. It was he that was at the helm when Francona aluded to losing the clubhouse in 2011. It was he that allowed John Farrel to leave and it was he that championed the signing of Carl Crawford & John Lackey. Both of whom for differing reasons are examples of roster decisions that in hindsight are also crumbs that will lead us to the cookie.

    His signing of Lackey to long term deal, a pitcher that was on the other side of his prime, with an existing elbow condition flew in the face of what was SOP for him and the Sox. Who in previuos years when negotiating with free agent pitchers (see Pedro). Where the risk of signing pitchers to longterm contracts outweighed the reward all but elimanted any from consideration. He then compounded the problem by throwing a ton of dough at Beckett, signing him to a 17M per extension, for a pitcher who had not finished a season strong since 2007. One who also had history of a chronic back problem. In the case of Crawford, he signed a player that at no point in his career ever displayed the plate disiplines outlined by the team as the ideal Red Sox hitter nor given the roster construction was he a player that complimented what we already had in place. A player that was signed to a contract that today is seen as an albatros.

    To me the Crawford signing, along with Lackey. Then soon therafter the Beckett exetension, are all examples of Esptein and the Ownership group losing sight of the teams values and disiplines.

    All three given thier current contract terms respresent about 30% of the teams payroll. While Crawford likely will never be a 20M outfielder, he can be a player that once healthy can contribute. Lackey and Beckett, on the other hand are two that must contribute and pitch to expectations, if the Sox are to turn it around and compete next year...



    I think we will see many "details" attended to this winter. I see some major overhauls all over the map.

    My hope is that with the chain of command in the front office now re-established with Larry at the lead and Cherington in a support role. They can and will begin to make the moves nessasary to retool the roster and get back to the buisness of winning some baseball games. So in my mind if we look at the makeup of the team today vs the one inherated by this group in 2002. Once could argue that we have just as strong a nucleaus as the 2001 roster. Thus the fix while it might be expensive in the short term, could well be as rewarding...
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Wow! Middlebrooks Ties Ted in 1939 Record!

    One age old debate is whether the dysfunction causes losses, or losses causes dysfunction. I'm not a big believer that dysfunction in the clubhouse is always a danger to team success, but dysfunction at the top (owner-President-GM-manager, etc...) can be destructive.

    Dysfunction has many different looks depending on which prism one uses to view it. However when a company or a business begins to show erosion or less than results, it's almost alway due to poor management. In all cases the guy that signs the check (the owner) is the one that is responsible for identifing where the breakdown occured and then finding a solution. If indeed the problem is the owner, then there is no fix...

    Well put, and I couldn't have said it better myself.

    In the case of our Boston Red Sox it feels as though they started throwing money at the problem instead of fixing it. In sport there are many examples of owners who have tried to play GM and "buy a ring". Without having a solid operational structure in place, instead of hiring qualified professionals and giving them the autonomy to oversee thier areas of expertise. They chose to take on a role in player personnal decisions, only to fall short. In almost every case where that dynamic exist they surround themselves with yes men. Who are willing to do their bidding and don't challenge his authority. I don't get the sense that Henry is among that group nor is he a micro-manager. I think where he has erred, was not in the building of his management team. Of which the results of the team both on and off the field as well as the work he accomplished in redefining the brand and increasing shareholder value begining in 2002 through 2008 are note worthy. 

    Agreed, although some mistakes were made in this time period, that is to be expected even among the greatest of management teams.

    Where I think he erred was in laying out a longerterm accention and manpower plan with clear and concise roles, goals and objectives for top level management. To insure continuity of the company's mission statement. In 2002 Larry was the man behind the curtian. Epstein reported to Larry who reported to Henry. For all intents Larry was his Director of Baseball Operations with Epstein as GM, reporting to Larry. Esptein was then charged with carrying forth the plan and overseeing his direct reports each of whom has specific duties with a clearly defined objectives. 

    Agreed, and when that changed, we decline.


    This is "gold". People like to blame Theo, but maybe the real issue was as simple as lessening Larry's influence. Now, we have a manager our GM did not want, and finger pointing here and there, and lack of support shown in the traditional sense.

    In 2006 the report order changed and the exodus of all of the top assitants began in earnst. Since the offseason of 2007 when Esptein took control of baseball operations. The results have been less than and the roster today is flawed. While Epstein doesn't derserve to be singled out as the problem. In hindsight given the results, he was clearly, part of the problem. Make no mistake about the product on the field today is representive of his vision. He was the man behind the curtain leading baseball operations. It was he that was at the helm when Francona aluded to losing the clubhouse in 2011. It was he that allowed John Farrel to leave and it was he that championed the signing of Carl Crawford & John Lackey. Both of whom for differing reasons are examples of roster decisions that in hindsight are also crumbs that will lead us to the cookie.

    His signing of Lackey to long term deal, a pitcher that was on the other side of his prime, with an existing elbow condition flew in the face of what was SOP for him and the Sox. Who in previuos years when negotiating with free agent pitchers (see Pedro). Where the risk of signing pitchers to longterm contracts outweighed the reward all but elimanted any from consideration. He then compounded the problem by throwing a ton of dough at Beckett, signing him to a 17M per extension, for a pitcher who had not finished a season strong since 2007. One who also had history of a chronic back problem. In the case of Crawford, he signed a player that at no point in his career ever displayed the plate disiplines outlined by the team as the ideal Red Sox hitter nor given the roster construction was he a player that complimented what we already had in place. A player that was signed to a contract that today is seen as an albatros.

    If we had just made one less of these major mistakes, we'd be much better off today, but the combination of 3 (CC, Lackey & Beckett) has just proved to be too overwhelming to overcome without going even deeper into relying on big FAs to solve the problems and further compounding the problem.

    To me the Crawford signing, along with Lackey. Then soon therafter the Beckett exetension, are all examples of Esptein and the Ownership group losing sight of the teams values and disiplines. 

    Theo all but admitted this much.

    All three given thier current contract terms respresent about 30% of the teams payroll. While Crawford likely will never be a 20M outfielder, he can be a player that once healthy can contribute. Lackey and Beckett, on the other hand are two that must contribute and pitch to expectations, if the Sox are to turn it around and compete next year...

    IMO, CC can at best play like a $12M OF'er, Beckett maybe a $10M pitcher, and Lackey maybe a $8M pitcher here on out. This is "at best". So, even if they all perform near "at best" numbers, we're still down about $20M a year in performance vs budget cost. Being #2 in league budget, we can absorb $20M and still be highly cometitive, but when these 3 are not playing or playing like barely better than replacement players, it's near impossible to compete.

    I think we will see many "details" attended to this winter. I see some major overhauls all over the map.

    My hope is that with the chain of command in the front office now re-established with Larry at the lead and Cherington in a support role. They can and will begin to make the moves nessasary to retool the roster and get back to the buisness of winning some baseball games. So in my mind if we look at the makeup of the team today vs the one inherated by this group in 2002. Once could argue that we have just as strong a nucleaus as the 2001 roster. Thus the fix while it might be expensive in the short term, could well be as rewarding...

    I do think our core now is comparable to 2002's. Let the moves begin.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Wow! Middlebrooks Ties Ted in 1939 Record!

    The Curse of the Splendid Splinter's Cryogenicaly Preserved Head?
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Wow! Middlebrooks Ties Ted in 1939 Record!

    What was the exact date of freezing?
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share