2011-2012 Offseason Thread

[jung]

Geez do we really care? Theo is gone.

 

Ya' want a measure of his tenure here that might work for ya'? Do you think anybody will be pining for Theo a couple years from now? The Sox have so much going on their FO and upper Management, so many guys with their fingers in everybody else's pies that Theo's tenure here should ultimately fall into its proper place....not quite as relevant as the guys Theo worked for and the guys on the other end of the spectrum that actually wear the uniforms on the field.

[Emmz]

So he's responsible for failure, but not success? Brilliant logic. I agree that the players on the field control what happens after Theo constructs the roster, but that's just it. Theo constructed a lot of really good teams.

[BSN07]

So he's responsible for failure' date=' but not success? Brilliant logic. I agree that the players on the field control what happens after Theo constructs the roster, but that's just it. Theo constructed a lot of really good teams.[/quote']

 

And the same people killing him for the bad contracts that he negotiated are the same people that were pining for him to spend money and "not be cheap."

[BSN07]

Completely irrelevant.

 

If irrelevant means completely killing your argumnet, then yes I agree.

 

Love him, like him, hate him, it doesn't matter. He was the most successful GM the Red Sox have had any anyones life time on this board. Stamp your feet and hold your breath all you want, it's not going to change anything.

[mvp 78]

So he's responsible for failure' date=' but not success? Brilliant logic. I agree that the players on the field control what happens after Theo constructs the roster, but that's just it. Theo constructed a lot of really good teams.[/quote']

 

If he doesn't make the Nomar trade and sign Schilling, they don't win in 04.

[example1]

So he's responsible for failure' date=' but not success? Brilliant logic. I agree that the players on the field control what happens after Theo constructs the roster, but that's just it. Theo constructed a lot of really good teams.[/quote']

 

And signed some great players in terms of player development, made some good moves letting go of FAs that previous GMs never would have let leave and was the GM for a few seasons where the Sox were widely regarded as the best team from top to bottom in the league.

 

That doesn't mean everything he did was perfect. It wasn't.

 

I'm just convinced that the people who treat him like he's the worst GM in team history and a pox on the organization have something personal against him.

 

As Jung says, he's gone, so it is water under the bridge.

[jung]

No that is not what I meant. Boston GM's have never gotten out from under LL's thumb. Sure Theo Phase 1 supposedly ended with Theo gaining some measure of freedom from LL but I never bought the idea that there was that much difference between Theo Phase 1 and Theo Phase 2. BC does not have that much freedom either. Boston GM's become scapegoats for FO failures and while the Sox PR machine made lots of noise about Boy Wonder they made all of that noise during Theo Phase 1 as well. The amount of freedom Theo had at that point has been pretty well documented around here. In my view the only difference between Theo Phase 1 and Phase 2 was the perception that anything had changed.

 

Crawford is a good example of the scapegoat end of the deal. JH neither stops the signing of Crawford when he could have as the principle owner of the team nor can he keep his mouth shut after the fact. Typical of the scapegoat end of the deal.

[example1]

Geez do we really care? Theo is gone.

 

Believe it or not, Jung, I understood what the rest of your post meant. I was responding to this. The very first line.

 

But to your point, I have no way of knowing whether Phase 1 or Phase 2 were very different. I suspect Theo's desire to leave was at least partially related to things not being exactly as he would have wanted them. Plus the higher salary. Plus an exciting opportunity. Plus the promotion.

 

However, I think there was a certain synergy between LL and Theo in that they agreed about the principles of running a baseball franchise, in terms of signing in-prime talent, and putting lots of money into international and player development strategies. It's not like they (or BC and LL) have fundamentally opposite worldviews when it comes to what makes a baseball team work.

[jung]

I don't know about the synergy thing. I think it will not be difficult to see how different their two "world views" actually are now that Theo has LL's job in a different city.

[FredLynn]

Your argument isn't going to have traction with me. I think Epstein was a very good GM. I think he will end up in the Hall of Fame some day if he sticks in the game.

 

The list of successes, slim huh? 2nd most wins during his tenure of any team in baseball? Tied for the most World Series during that time? 2nd in playoff appearances? That's a slim list of successes?

 

Then we will disagree about how good a GM Epstein was for this team. The fact of the matter is that he had relatively little to do with assembling the 04 championship team. He added a few key pieces; the rest were already there. His list of failures is extensive: Lugo, Renteria, Cameron, Clement, Smoltz, Penny, Gagne, Lackey, Matsusaka, Jenks, Pena, Kim, and so forth. He did well to get us Ortiz, Mueller, and Foulke, a trio who made 2004 possible. Thats just too many failures to be classified as a great GM-and it doesn't even count Crawford, who is being overpaid but may still perform decently one day. Look at the state he left us in: hamstrung by a series of long term contract in which we overpaid underperforming players and unable to spend the money on quality guys as he exited through the back door in shame. Instead we sign guys like Silva, Padilla, Germano, and Cooke to pitch for us because he bankrupted the budget.

No, Theo Epstein is no Hall of Fame GM. He was a mediocre GM for a high budget team, and he was very fortunate to have the amount of money he had to spend. He was able to make mistakes and still win games because of his large budget. Showalter was right: he would likely fail in a small market area.

[FredLynn]

All he said were facts' date=' Muggah.[/quote']

 

There are lots of facts. Lackey is a fact. So is Jenks. So is Matsusaka. So is Crawford.

Those are the current facts.

[FredLynn]

Wow. I'm guessing your grade school reportcards said "doesn't play well with others."

 

Just responding to this:

 

You're actually being an incredibly annoying idiot right now

 

Two can play the name-calling game, right? I NEVER start that game, but sometimes I play it when invited.

[example1]

I don't know about the synergy thing. I think it will not be difficult to see how different their two "world views" actually are now that Theo has LL's job in a different city.

 

It's actually going to be very difficult since the CBA fundamentally changed the rules for how teams can stockpile draftpicks and pay over slot for draftees. The same offseason that Theo left coincided with significant changes to the landscape for how to run a baseball team.

 

I'm not sure what other markers were distinctly "Theo" in my view.

 

I think it is fair to say that he was a key part of their organizational philosophy and that much of the orgaization was on board with that philosophy. The fact that we can be critical in retrospect is an indicator that they got to a very high level of success, where winning a WS was a reasonable and realistic goal each and every season. There were many seasons in my Sox fandom where they only had one or two noteworthy players. I'm sure you remember those years too.

[Muggah]

If he doesn't make the Nomar trade and sign Schilling' date=' they don't win in 04.[/quote']

 

Theo didn't sign Schilling. That's a myth.

[example1]

Then we will disagree about how good a GM Epstein was for this team. The fact of the matter is that he had relatively little to do with assembling the 04 championship team. He added a few key pieces; the rest were already there. His list of failures is extensive: Lugo, Renteria, Cameron, Clement, Smoltz, Penny, Gagne, Lackey, Matsusaka, Jenks, Pena, Kim, and so forth. He did well to get us Ortiz, Mueller, and Foulke, a trio who made 2004 possible. Thats just too many failures to be classified as a great GM-and it doesn't even count Crawford, who is being overpaid but may still perform decently one day. Look at the state he left us in: hamstrung by a series of long term contract in which we overpaid underperforming players and unable to spend the money on quality guys as he exited through the back door in shame. Instead we sign guys like Silva, Padilla, Germano, and Cooke to pitch for us because he bankrupted the budget.

No, Theo Epstein is no Hall of Fame GM. He was a mediocre GM for a high budget team, and he was very fortunate to have the amount of money he had to spend. He was able to make mistakes and still win games because of his large budget. Showalter was right: he would likely fail in a small market area.

 

To each their own. I notice you didn't mention any of the players he drafted, including the guy who won an MVP, the guy who just finished 2nd for MVP, the guy with the highest win % at this stage of his career of just about anyone in history, the closer everyone was weeping over losing earlier this offseason, etc., Convenient to forget that out of the entire possible universe of draft eligible players, he chose those guys who are now the centerpiece of the team.

 

Also, we disagree about the state of the current team.

[FredLynn]

So he's responsible for failure' date=' but not success? Brilliant logic. I agree that the players on the field control what happens after Theo constructs the roster, but that's just it. Theo constructed a lot of really good teams.[/quote']

 

He gets partial credit for 04 and 07. No one is denying him that. He did play a role in constructing those teams, though much of the 04 team was already here when he arrived in 02. He also deserves BLAME for all the lemons he saddled us with. I believe he was better at fortifying our minor league system than acquiring players who were FAs, where he routinely failed more often than he succeeded. His trades were somewhat better, but not off the charts by any means.

[FredLynn]

To each their own. I notice you didn't mention any of the players he drafted, including the guy who won an MVP, the guy who just finished 2nd for MVP, the guy with the highest win % at this stage of his career of just about anyone in history, the closer everyone was weeping over losing earlier this offseason, etc., Convenient to forget that out of the entire possible universe of draft eligible players, he chose those guys who are now the centerpiece of the team.

 

Also, we disagree about the state of the current team.

 

I presented the data to support my opinion. I realize that others think he was better than I think he was here.

I posted my next post (above) before I read yours. I admit that he was much better at drafting good players than most GMs. On another board I did an extensive review of how his draft picks did relative to other GMs, and his track record was pretty good in that regard. Only Friedman of Tampa Bay is superior to him (that I could find) in terms of the percentage of draft picks that made it to the majors. But there is more to being a GM than drafting well, and in the other areas he fell down. I would grade him a B+ for drafting, but a D for getting good FAs and a C for trades. So overall in my opinion he did C+ work for us. Not horrible, but not up to snuff either.

[SoxFanForsyth]

There are lots of facts. Lackey is a fact. So is Jenks. So is Matsusaka. So is Crawford.

Those are the current facts.

 

Ellsbury. Pedroia. Youkilis. Papelbon. Bard. Buchholz. Gonzalez. Beckett. Drafting developing and trading we're 3 things that Theo was excellent at. His drafting and trades completely outweighs his FA busts. But you fail to realize this because you're making a completely biased comment.

 

And in terms of Iglesias, the mere fact that you believe you are talented enough to be a talent evaluator and that the evaluators are just guessing just proves your ignorance abou prospects. Nobody was trying to put him in the hall of fame, it was a comparison based on his talent level and how he projects as a player. But you always take things to the extreme. Will he be as good as Ozzie Smith? Maybe. What we do know is that his defense is elite elite, and it will make up for the lack of offense. Just like Ozzie Smith had a .573 OPS in his first four combined seasons and in those seasons, was an All Star, won 2 gold gloves, and came in 2nd in the Rookie of the Year.

 

I know this is going to make your head spin but just try to keep up. A defensive wizard playing up the middle can affect the game just as much with his glove as he can with his bat. Making big plays not only keeps baserunners down, it keeps pitch counts down, and preserves the bullpen.

[mvp 78]

Just responding to this:

 

You're actually being an incredibly annoying idiot right now

 

Two can play the name-calling game, right? I NEVER start that game, but sometimes I play it when invited.

 

I saw that too, but my post was about you, not SFF.

 

As a parent, would you be ok with "but Jimmy threw sand first?" No, it doesn't excuse bad behavior.

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

I don't know why you guys even bother with Pumpsie. He sees the bad in everything. He calls himself a realist and he's a pessimist in denial. His post f***ing suck to read.

[example1]

He gets partial credit for 04 and 07. No one is denying him that. He did play a role in constructing those teams' date=' though much of the 04 team was already here when he arrived in 02. He also deserves BLAME for all the lemons he saddled us with. I believe he was better at fortifying our minor league system than acquiring players who were FAs, where he routinely failed more often than he succeeded. His trades were somewhat better, but not off the charts by any means.[/quote']

 

You are denying him that. Or, more precisely, you are lumping "winning World Series" in with a bunch of other attributes, thus limiting the importance of that achievement. It is the accomplishment and it happened twice under his watch. To say that his tenure was anything other than successful, based on those two facts alone, is absurd in my opinion.

 

That 04 team doesn't win without his additions. They just don't. Yes, they had a nice base to build around.. namely, Manny, Damon, Pedro, Lowe, etc. People act like that ownership group walked into a World Series caliber team. Why then did the 2002 team not make the playoffs? They went from not making the playoffs in 02 to being a run away from going to the WS in 2003 and winning it all in 2004. The correlation is irrefutable.

 

For reference, here's their 2002 positional lineup:

 

C: Jason Varitek

1B: Tony Clark

2B: Rey Sanchez

3B: Shea Hillenbrand

SS: Nomar

LF: Manny

CF: Damon

RF: Trot Nixon

DH: Brian Daubach

 

Here's their 2003 positional lineup:

 

C: Jason Varitek

1B: Kevin Millar*

2B: Todd Walker*

3B: Bill Mueller*

SS: Nomar

LF: Manny

CF: Damon

RF: Nixon

DH: Ortiz*

 

He took the good players from the 2002 team, and supplemented them with some very good pickups in all the other key positions... players nobody had ever heard of in Boston.

 

Let's stop pretending that any GM would have turned the 2002 team into the team the Sox had in 2003 and 2004. That's just silly.

[FredLynn]

Ellsbury. Pedroia. Youkilis. Papelbon. Bard. Buchholz. Gonzalez. Beckett. Drafting developing and trading we're 3 things that Theo was excellent at. His drafting and trades completely outweighs his FA busts. But you fail to realize this because you're making a completely biased comment.

 

And in terms of Iglesias, the mere fact that you believe you are talented enough to be a talent evaluator and that the evaluators are just guessing just proves your ignorance abou prospects. Nobody was trying to put him in the hall of fame, it was a comparison based on his talent level and how he projects as a player. But you always take things to the extreme. Will he be as good as Ozzie Smith? Maybe. What we do know is that his defense is elite elite, and it will make up for the lack of offense. Just like Ozzie Smith had a .573 OPS in his first four combined seasons and in those seasons, was an All Star, won 2 gold gloves, and came in 2nd in the Rookie of the Year.

 

I know this is going to make your head spin but just try to keep up. A defensive wizard playing up the middle can affect the game just as much with his glove as he can with his bat. Making big plays not only keeps baserunners down, it keeps pitch counts down, and preserves the bullpen.

 

Ah...the old "run prevention" theory again. How did that work out a couple of years ago for us when Theo signed Mike Cameron to defend against runs? Nonsense. Ever read "Moneyball"? The data Billy Beane used to create all those winning teams disregarded "run prevention" and still managed to win 95+ games a year until everyone else caught on to those theories too. Jose Iglesias has played 10 games for the Red Sox and in your mind he is already Ozzie Smith. Talk about rose colored glasses....

I realize this is way over your head to comprehend, but at least I am making an effort to explain it to you, right?

As for being a talent evaluator, yes, I do think I could do it with the proper training and access to data. Its largely an educated guess anyway, a calculated crapshoot. Professionals can be wrong, and frequently are wrong. If your doctor tells you to drink a glass of hemlock to cure your acne, are you going to do it or are you going to question him? How about if he tells you to take echinacea for your cold?

Learn to think for yourself. It will be a very liberating feeling for you.

[FredLynn]

I don't know why you guys even bother with Pumpsie. He sees the bad in everything. He calls himself a realist and he's a pessimist in denial. His post f***ing suck to read.

 

Then put me on ignore. Both of us will feel better.

[FredLynn]

I saw that too, but my post was about you, not SFF.

 

As a parent, would you be ok with "but Jimmy threw sand first?" No, it doesn't excuse bad behavior.

 

Sorry. I reserve the right to defend myself here.

If SFF can't stand the heat, he shouldn't have started the fire.

[FredLynn]

You are denying him that. Or' date=' more precisely, you are lumping "winning World Series" in with a bunch of other attributes, thus limiting the importance of that achievement. It is [u']the[/u] accomplishment and it happened twice under his watch. To say that his tenure was anything other than successful, based on those two facts alone, is absurd in my opinion.

 

That 04 team doesn't win without his additions. They just don't. Yes, they had a nice base to build around.. namely, Manny, Damon, Pedro, Lowe, etc. People act like that ownership group walked into a World Series caliber team. Why then did the 2002 team not make the playoffs? They went from not making the playoffs in 02 to being a run away from going to the WS in 2003 and winning it all in 2004. The correlation is irrefutable.

 

For reference, here's their 2002 positional lineup:

 

C: Jason Varitek

1B: Tony Clark

2B: Rey Sanchez

3B: Shea Hillenbrand

SS: Nomar

LF: Manny

CF: Damon

RF: Trot Nixon

DH: Brian Daubach

 

Here's their 2003 positional lineup:

 

C: Jason Varitek

1B: Kevin Millar*

2B: Todd Walker*

3B: Bill Mueller*

SS: Nomar

LF: Manny

CF: Damon

RF: Nixon

DH: Ortiz*

 

He took the good players from the 2002 team, and supplemented them with some very good pickups in all the other key positions... players nobody had ever heard of in Boston.

 

Let's stop pretending that any GM would have turned the 2002 team into the team the Sox had in 2003 and 2004. That's just silly.

 

Like I said, he gets partial credit for the 2004 team. Not full credit; partial credit.

He also gets full credit for everyone on the list of failed FA acquisitions I presented. I expect better from our GM.

[example1]

I presented the data to support my opinion. I realize that others think he was better than I think he was here.

I posted my next post (above) before I read yours. I admit that he was much better at drafting good players than most GMs. On another board I did an extensive review of how his draft picks did relative to other GMs, and his track record was pretty good in that regard. Only Friedman of Tampa Bay is superior to him (that I could find) in terms of the percentage of draft picks that made it to the majors. But there is more to being a GM than drafting well, and in the other areas he fell down. I would grade him a B+ for drafting, but a D for getting good FAs and a C for trades. So overall in my opinion he did C+ work for us. Not horrible, but not up to snuff either.

 

Drafting well is the single most important thing a GM can do. There is no doubt about that. It is the most cost effective way to get talent. Being superior in that area should be weighted more heavily than other areas, particularly when the product are guys who are annually worth 15-20m but who get paid 6 figures for their services. Theo put his efforts there because it was a competitive advantage a team like the Sox had, being able to let so many type-A FAs go and getting draft picks in return.

 

Also, part of drafting well is not signing washed up has beens that fans are very attached to. He didn't just happen to land Ellsbury and Buchholz and Bard, etc.,. He let Pedro and Lowe and Damon go and turned those seeming losses into gains by getting superior talent.

 

I suspect we will be seeing the fruits of this strategy for another 4-5 years.

[jung]

I think the best way to read the difference in the LL world view and the Theo world view will be to recognize that they now hold the same positions in different cities and function under the same rules. If Theo gives his GM more rope than LL gives his GM than it might be more difficult to view those two GM's objectively. However it should be easier to discern how the two Presidents view things functioning under the same rules for two big market teams.

[FredLynn]

Drafting well is the single most important thing a GM can do. There is no doubt about that. It is the most cost effective way to get talent. Being superior in that area should be weighted more heavily than other areas, particularly when the product are guys who are annually worth 15-20m but who get paid 6 figures for their services. Theo put his efforts there because it was a competitive advantage a team like the Sox had, being able to let so many type-A FAs go and getting draft picks in return.

 

Also, part of drafting well is not signing washed up has beens that fans are very attached to. He didn't just happen to land Ellsbury and Buchholz and Bard, etc.,. He let Pedro and Lowe and Damon go and turned those seeming losses into gains by getting superior talent.

 

I suspect we will be seeing the fruits of this strategy for another 4-5 years.

 

Right now our minor league system does not contain the kind of talent that will produce impact players in the majors. Who is really down there that will make the same impact as Ellsbury and Youkilis and Bard right now? When Theo left he left us a minor league system that is severely lacking.

[a700hitter]

I remember people comparing Ells to ted after 07.

I don't remember that at all. If they did, it was moronic. Even after Ells breakout season it would still be moronic to make that comparison.

[FredLynn]

I don't remember that at all. If they did' date=' it was moronic. Even after Ells breakout season it would still be moronic to make that comparison.[/quote']

 

Come on 700...by the logic some use here, Ellsbury=Ted Williams and Jose Iglesias=Ozzie Smith.

Thats because they play for the RED SOX!