Let's Grade the GM on the Off-Season

[jacksonianmarch]

Ok, I gotcha

[a700hitter]

How am I "losing it?" Don't put a different meaning on the word than it actually has. I simply said Melancon and Bailey are going to replace Bard and Papelbon at a much cheaper price. That does not mean I am saying they are going to be as good as Bard and Papelbon have been for us in the past. I think Melancon and Bailey will be a good combo' date=' but not as effective as Bard and Papelbon, especially not in the first year. I could see them being very good for us, especially with the more experience they get. I hope they are both in Boston for years to come.[/quote']I expect a big drop in effectiveness in the end of the bullpen. BArd and Papelbon have been somewhat replaced on paper, but doing it n the field is something else. I remember when we thought we had replaced Johnny Damon with Coco Crisp. Crisp never came close to replacing Damon.

[Muggah]

I expect a big drop in effectiveness in the end of the bullpen. BArd and Papelbon have been somewhat replaced on paper' date=' but doing it n the field is something else. I remember when we thought we had replaced Johnny Damon with Coco Crisp. Crisp never came close to replacing Damon.[/quote']

 

Never stopped Blunder from giving Crisp that nice extension, though, did it.

[a700hitter]

Never stopped Blunder from giving Crisp that nice extension' date=' though, did it.[/quote']Locking up an inferior player for a long term contract never makes sense.

[BSN07]

C- to a C for the impact grade on the roster for the off season. Nothing major good or bad. B+ for performance within the perimeters he had. Overall I gave it a C+.

[a700hitter]

C- to a C for the impact grade on the roster for the off season. Nothing major good or bad. B+ for performance within the perimeters he had. Overall I gave it a C+.

Based on the votes, that seems to be the average grade.

[mvp 78]

I just don't see how he could get a D considering the Bailey trade. They weren't going to sign Paps (not Ben's decision anyway) and traded garbage for a solid closer with 3 years left before FA. I fell thos grades are either shortsighted or disingenuous.

 

Frankly, I give Ben a much higher grade than ownership.

[a700hitter]

I just don't see how he could get a D considering the Bailey trade. They weren't going to sign Paps (not Ben's decision anyway) and traded garbage for a solid closer with 3 years left before FA. I fell thos grades are either shortsighted or disingenuous.

 

Frankly, I give Ben a much higher grade than ownership.

I gave him a B+ for the bullpen moves, but they were overshadowed by a huge bungle with the arbitration offer to Ortiz and not filling the team's primary need -- a reliable starting pitcher. Also, he gets a downgrade for salary dumping Scutaro. It doesn't matter if Iglesias makes the team, which it is sounding like he will not, because Scutaro would have been a better utility guy than Punto. Getting a closer was not that hard. There were plenty available, and the one he got has a history of elbow problems.

 

If the Sox hadn't crumbled so badly last year, I would have grade him a C, but in the wake of that collapse, I felt there was a need to taker bolder action. They need to rebound from last season. My D was not disingenuous at all. I am surprised that no one gave him an F based solely on the fact that he didn't address the team's primary need. The so-called negative contingent showed fairness and restraint. The grade that is disingenuous are the A's. He missed an A solely on the Ortiz bungle. The people who voted an A know they have nothing to back it up, so they didn't even bother to try.

[Bellhorn04]

If the Sox hadn't crumbled so badly last year' date=' I would have grade him a C, but in the wake of that collapse, I felt there was a need to taker bolder action. They need to rebound from last season. My D was not disingenuous at all. I am surprised that no one gave him an F based solely on the fact that he didn't address the team's primary need. The so-called negative contingent showed fairness and restraint. The grade that is disingenuous are the A's. He missed an A solely on the Ortiz bungle. The people who voted an A know they have nothing to back it up, so they didn't even bother to try.[/quote']

 

I can't see giving him an F for not getting a name starter, when it seems clear the money to do that through free agency wasn't given to him. The only route may have been a trade. Maybe he tried to work out a trade somewhere and the asking price was way too much.

[User Name]

I can't see giving him an F for not getting a name starter' date=' when it seems clear the money to do that through free agency wasn't given to him. The only route may have been a trade. Maybe he tried to work out a trade somewhere and the asking price was way too much.[/quote']

 

Weren't they rumored to have tried for Garza and Floyd numerous times?

[Muggah]

I gave him a B+ for the bullpen moves, but they were overshadowed by a huge bungle with the arbitration offer to Ortiz and not filling the team's primary need -- a reliable starting pitcher. Also, he gets a downgrade for salary dumping Scutaro. It doesn't matter if Iglesias makes the team, which it is sounding like he will not, because Scutaro would have been a better utility guy than Punto. Getting a closer was not that hard. There were plenty available, and the one he got has a history of elbow problems.

 

If the Sox hadn't crumbled so badly last year, I would have grade him a C, but in the wake of that collapse, I felt there was a need to taker bolder action. They need to rebound from last season. My D was not disingenuous at all. I am surprised that no one gave him an F based solely on the fact that he didn't address the team's primary need. The so-called negative contingent showed fairness and restraint. The grade that is disingenuous are the A's. He missed an A solely on the Ortiz bungle. The people who voted an A know they have nothing to back it up, so they didn't even bother to try.

 

 

He no doubt deserves and F, 700. But I'm feeling generous so I went with the D just because Lackey's not here.

[Elktonnick]

He no doubt deserves and F' date=' 700. But I'm feeling generous so I went with the D just because Lackey's not here.[/quote']

 

First of overall for me the issueis a simple one. Is this team better than the one that ended the year. No, it is not. Have their main competitors improved more than Boston? Yes they have have. So it has to be less than a C. Regarding the money issue, remember we only have Ben's word about the money being a consideration. I don't recall any statements from Lucchino or Henry that indicated money kept them from making moves.

 

This is a pre season grade. His overall grade will depend on whether the Sox make the playoffs, a B. If they make ti to the ALCS, a B+ . If they win the ALCS an A-. If they win the World Series, an A. It is all about outcomes. Where I am sitting they aren't a playoff team at this moment in time.

[Bellhorn04]

First of overall for me the issueis a simple one. Is this team better than the one that ended the year. No' date=' it is not. Have their main competitors improved more than Boston? Yes they have have. So it has to be less than a C. [b']Regarding the money issue, remember we only have Ben's word about the money being a consideration. I don't recall any statements from Lucchino or Henry that indicated money kept them from making moves.[/b]

 

Are you serious? You really think Cherington was the one who decided to pinch pennies this year?

[MANNYHOF24]

D.

 

Worse today than they were at the end of last season.

 

Hmm, you can't possibly judge "where they were at the end of last season" and where they are today objectively. They had a lot of injuries and players performing well bellow career averages. I feel with a new work ethic and something to prove this team easily has a better talent level than what ended the 2011 season. (Also we don't have the worst statistical pitcher of all time logging 160 innings.) That should help immensely.

[Elktonnick]

Are you serious? You really think Cherington was the one who decided to pinch pennies this year?

 

No proof that it was anyone else. It is just conjecture ( as some here like to say) that it wasn't. Don't we have ownership's statements that the Lux tax wasn't an issue. Regardless it is still all about outcomes. This team now on paper is worse than the team that ended the season. Their main competitors are better or at least no worse.

 

All I can say is for those who gave him top grades, I wish I had you giving me grades in my school days, I'd have graduated SCL.

[FredLynn]

Ortiz is being overpaid this season by $4-5 million. If they didn't offer arbitration' date=' they could have signed him for 2/18 or 2/20 at the most. That would make the second year a bargain.[/quote']

 

I don't want Ortiz on the team for any reason next year. Its time to move on. Our DH should be someone who can also contribute in other ways. That increases the flexibility of that roster spot. This is his last year, hopefully.

[Bellhorn04]

No proof that it was anyone else. It is just conjecture ( as some here like to say) that it wasn't. Don't we have ownership's statements that the Lux tax wasn't an issue. Regardless it is still all about outcomes. This team now on paper is worse than the team that ended the season. Their main competitors are better or at least no worse.

 

No you don't have them. Nobody said the Lux tax wasn't an issue, and nobody gave any indication what the actual budget was. Lucchino pointed out the payroll was going to be high and that lux tax was going to be incurred. Big difference.

[Elktonnick]

No you don't have them. Nobody said the Lux tax wasn't an issue' date=' and nobody gave any indication what the actual budget was. Lucchino pointed out the payroll was going to be high and that lux tax was going to be incurred. Big difference.[/quote']

 

Not true here is what LL actually said,

 

Lucchino: Sox will 'fly by' luxury tax mark

 

 

Red Sox president and CEO Larry Lucchino told Evan Drellich of MLB.com (via twitter) that his team's 2012 budget "will be the highest budget in Red Sox history," and said that the team was committed to spending well beyond the 2012 luxury tax threshold of $178 million.

"I suspect you're going to see that we're going to fly by the luxury tax," Lucchino said.

 

Lucchino also said that "there has not been a situation" where the financial commitments of the Fenway Sports Group to the Liverpool Football Club has ever impacted the available resources to the Red Sox.

 

WEEI 2/10/12

 

That is consistent to what I posted. Moreover, it gives Ben the latitude and resources to do better then what he did. The fact that he didn't falls on his head.

 

Solid D in performance and an F in comportment for not accepting responsibility.

[User Name]

If the budget of 190 million reported by some media outlets is true, they already flew by the luxury tax threshold. That doesn't erase the possibility that they closed the purse on Cherington.

 

It's not "consistent" with what you're saying at all. You interpret it that way because of convenience.

[Bellhorn04]

Not true here is what LL actually said,

 

Lucchino: Sox will 'fly by' luxury tax mark

 

 

Red Sox president and CEO Larry Lucchino told Evan Drellich of MLB.com (via twitter) that his team's 2012 budget "will be the highest budget in Red Sox history," and said that the team was committed to spending well beyond the 2012 luxury tax threshold of $178 million.

"I suspect you're going to see that we're going to fly by the luxury tax," Lucchino said.

 

Lucchino also said that "there has not been a situation" where the financial commitments of the Fenway Sports Group to the Liverpool Football Club has ever impacted the available resources to the Red Sox.

 

WEEI 2/10/12

 

That is consistent to what I posted. Moreover, it gives Ben the latitude and resources to do better then what he did. The fact that he didn't falls on his head.

 

Solid D in performance and an F in comportment for not accepting responsibility.

 

So how much more money did Cherington have to spend that he didn't spend, nick? Do you have the answer to that? It doesn't have to be exact, just an estimate within a few million would be fine. I'm sure you can derive that from what Lucchino said, your interpretive skills are remarkable.

[mvp 78]

"F for not accepting responsibilty."

 

You guys are out of control.

[Muggah]

No proof that it was anyone else. It is just conjecture ( as some here like to say) that it wasn't. Don't we have ownership's statements that the Lux tax wasn't an issue. Regardless it is still all about outcomes. This team now on paper is worse than the team that ended the season. Their main competitors are better or at least no worse.

 

All I can say is for those who gave him top grades, I wish I had you giving me grades in my school days, I'd have graduated SCL.

 

Oh ya. There's some real patsies here, no question about it.

[Bellhorn04]

Oh ya. There's some real patsies here' date=' no question about it.[/quote']

 

That really adds to the discussion.

[mvp 78]

Oh ya. There's some real patsies here' date=' no question about it.[/quote']

 

The door is right over there.

[Elktonnick]

So how much more money did Cherington have to spend that he didn't spend' date=' nick? Do you have the answer to that? It doesn't have to be exact, just an estimate within a few million would be fine. I'm sure you can derive that from what Lucchino said, your interpretive skills are remarkable.[/quote']

 

More than he did. Whatever he had spent,i t wasn't enough and it was poorly allocated because we aren't objectively better than we were we when the season ended. BTW other clubs did more with less.

 

As I said ownership never said money was the issue, Larry statement proved it, only Ben did. I think I proved my point. Anything you say is only conjecture.

 

As I said solid D for performance F for comportment for failure to take responsibility.

[Elktonnick]

"F for not accepting responsibilty."

 

You guys are out of control.

 

What the heck does that mean. Don't make this personal, it is inappropriate.

[seabeachfred]

I expect a big drop in effectiveness in the end of the bullpen. BArd and Papelbon have been somewhat replaced on paper' date=' but doing it n the field is something else. I remember when we thought we had replaced Johnny Damon with Coco Crisp. Crisp never came close to replacing Damon.[/quote']

 

No Ted, you never believed that Crisp would replace Damon. I can't believe you thought that....if you did. I n ever did and said so from the start and he was one guy I was right on about from the get-go. His one for 19 in that Fenway five game massacre in August of 2006 soured me on him from that point on while Damon had a terrific series. As for the present Bailey and Melancon could form a good one-two in the eighth and ninth inning but we won't know for sure until the real games start taking place. Keep in mind that Bard was pretty terrible in April and September, two critical months. Nine times he either was tied or took a lead into the eighth inning and wound up losing the game for us. I don't think Mel will do that poorly. True, though, from May through August Bard was outstanding.

[Bellhorn04]

More than he did. Whatever he had spent,i t wasn't enough and it was poorly allocated because we aren't objectively better than we were we when the season ended. BTW other clubs did more with less.

 

As I said ownership never said money was the issue, Larry statement proved it, only Ben did. I think I proved my point. Anything you say is only conjecture.

 

As I said solid D for performance F for comportment for failure to take responsibility.

 

I think your opinion that Cherington had lots more money to play with is in the extreme minority. Even Pumpsie, on the other thread, is talking about how Cherington's hands were tied financially.

[Elktonnick]

I think your opinion that Cherington had lots more money to play with is in the extreme minority. Even Pumpsie' date=' on the other thread, is talking about how Cherington's hands were tied financially.[/quote']

 

I never said lots more you did. I happen to disagree with Pumpsie. He had more but he also made poor choices and was indecisive leting others out manuever him as evidenced by his mishandling the Scuturo deal and the Epstein compensation issue..

[a700hitter]

No Ted' date=' you never believed that Crisp would replace Damon. I can't believe you thought that....if you did. I n ever did and said so from the start and he was one guy I was right on about from the get-go. His one for 19 in that Fenway five game massacre in August of 2006 soured me on him from that point on while Damon had a terrific series. As for the present Bailey and Melancon could form a good one-two in the eighth and ninth inning but we won't know for sure until the real games start taking place. Keep in mind that Bard was pretty terrible in April and September, two critical months. Nine times he either was tied or took a lead into the eighth inning and wound up losing the game for us. I don't think Mel will do that poorly. True, though, from May through August Bard was outstanding.[/quote']I didn't think he would replace Damon, but he was worse than i had expected. He had shown some promise with the bat in Cleveland and he ripped the cover off the ball when I saw him in his first spring training with the Sox. He came out of the gate fast in the regular season and then he broke his finger sliding into a base in Baltimore. I was at that game. He hit like crap the rest of the way. Surprisingly, his throwing arm may have been weaker than Damon's, and during Spring Training, I noticed that he had a lot of trouble with fly balls during day games.