Epstein admits he screwed up

[Emmz]

God I can't wait for Crawford to come back and be the guy we thought we signed, and really boost this team to the PS.

 

Then everyone will absolutely love Crawford. Kind of like people who absolutely loved Gonzo now absolutely hate him.

 

Unfortunately, if he struggles for a couple of weeks, he will get s*** on. Because people are reactionary like that.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

That's not my point. Explain how Theo was supposed to predict that Lackey was going to be a bad signing? Or Crawford? Or Drew? What in the past indicated that any of these guys weren't going to be good?

a700hitter was begging for the Red Sox to sign Carl Crawford, and after they did he boasted about it for weeks. If that's not a death sentence for poor Carl, I don't know what is.

[example1]

I don't feel deserving to criticize his decision about Crawford because at the time I thought he would help win championships' date=' but the Lackey contract always dazzled me.[/quote']

 

If you look back he was one of the best SP on the market for that season and the following season. He had a track record and was coming off of a very impressive playoff run, including a good start or two against the Yankees.

 

In general, I think it is obvious that Theo's later signings turned away from his general philosophy to one of placating the rabid fanbase and an ownership group trying to answer "now what?" after winning two World Series.

 

Almost everyone here gives Theo substantial credit for 2004 and 2007. Those who don't are dilusional. He was the GM or chief personnel person during those years. The moves he made--the team he put on the field--won the World Series. Twice. He deserves credit. The list of players he added who actually won the World Series was substantial.

 

We're not talking about the addition of Pokey Reese or Mark Bellhorn here. We're talking about Schilling, Foulke, Ortiz, Millar, Mueller, Cabrera, Roberts, much of the bullpen, etc.,.

 

Theo will learn from his mistakes with the Cubs. Their fanbase is actually patient because they know how hard winning a WS is. Somehow, many Sox fans have become entitled over only 8 years to the point of thinking two WS is insignificant and his performance was only mediocre. If only most other teams could be so lucky. It's no wonder Red Sox fans re widely seen as the most obnoxious fans around. It's an arrogant and entitled lot to be sure.

[FredLynn]

That's not my point. Explain how Theo was supposed to predict that Lackey was going to be a bad signing? Or Crawford? Or Drew? What in the past indicated that any of these guys weren't going to be good?

 

Thats his JOB Youk. He isn't getting a pass on this one, not from me. Lets use some real life examples so that I can better get my point across.

When I attended UMass undergrad many years ago they built the library on campus. Shortly after it was built it was shut down. The reason given was that the engineers forgot to include the weight of the books in their calculations of how much stress would be put on the flooring. Does that engineer get off because, really, how was he supposed to know that the weight of the books needed to be taken into consideration?

When the Big Dig was constructed the contractor used substandard tiles and as a result some of them fell down, I believe killing some people. Does that contractor get off too because he thought the cheaper tiles would work?

In my own business there are decisions made about patient care that I have to live with. Do you think that the courts are going to accept from me "Well, how was I supposed to know that that baby would die if I didn't intubate him?" Or "How was I supposed to know that kid had appendicitis? I thought it was a stomach virus."

Similarly, Epstein is supposed to be a professional and be able to judge talent on the FA market better than you and me. He is allowed some mistakes, but the sheer number of errors in judgement that he has made over the years makes him a very mediocre GM. In the case of Lackey there was evidence that he would fail at Fenway: his ERA at that park was already horrendous. Why did Epstein expect that to change? And in the case of Crawford he could have noticed that while 2010, his contract year, his OPS was .851, his career OPS was just .773. Why hand out such a huge contract for that kind of hitter, one, I might add, with a weak arm in the OF.

The bottom line is that its HIS job to judge talent, and he didn't do a very good job at it at all.

[VA Sox Fan]

If you look back he was one of the best SP on the market for that season and the following season. He had a track record and was coming off of a very impressive playoff run, including a good start or two against the Yankees.

 

In general, I think it is obvious that Theo's later signings turned away from his general philosophy to one of placating the rabid fanbase and an ownership group trying to answer "now what?" after winning two World Series.

 

Almost everyone here gives Theo substantial credit for 2004 and 2007. Those who don't are dilusional. He was the GM or chief personnel person during those years. The moves he made--the team he put on the field--won the World Series. Twice. He deserves credit. The list of players he added who actually won the World Series was substantial.

 

We're not talking about the addition of Pokey Reese or Mark Bellhorn here. We're talking about Schilling, Foulke, Ortiz, Millar, Mueller, Cabrera, Roberts, much of the bullpen, etc.,.

 

Theo will learn from his mistakes with the Cubs. Their fanbase is actually patient because they know how hard winning a WS is. Somehow, many Sox fans have become entitled over only 8 years to the point of thinking two WS is insignificant and his performance was only mediocre. If only most other teams could be so lucky. It's no wonder Red Sox fans re widely seen as the most obnoxious fans around. It's an arrogant and entitled lot to be sure.

 

Great post ex1!

[FredLynn]

Almost everyone here gives Theo substantial credit for 2004 and 2007. Those who don't are dilusional. He was the GM or chief personnel person during those years. The moves he made--the team he put on the field--won the World Series. Twice. He deserves credit. The list of players he added who actually won the World Series was substantial.

 

I don't know of anyone who won't give Epstein some credit for those rings. You are right: anyone who gives him NO credit is delusional. That said, there are those who give him too much credit, especially for the 04 ring, as much of that team was already assembled by Duquette, as I documented earlier. And there are also those who ignore the lengthy list of mistakes he made and anyone who puts Epstein on some sort of pedestal is just as delusional. IMO he was mediocre. Thanks for the rings; and screw him for hobbling this team for another 2-3 years as we try to undo the damage he did to the franchise before left town.

[Bellhorn04]

IRT Lackey, people often bring up his poor numbers at Fenway, but fail to note that his last 3 appearances at Fenway while with the Angels were all excellent.

 

July 29/08 9 IP 2 ER

Oct 6/08 (ALDS) 7 IP 2 ER

Sept 15/09 7.2 IP 2 ER

[FredLynn]

IRT to Lackey, people often bring up his poor numbers at Fenway, but fail to note that his last 3 appearances at Fenway while with the Angels were all excellent.

 

July 29/08 9 IP 2 ER

Oct 6/08 (ALDS) 7 IP 2 ER

Sept 15/09 7.2 IP 2 ER

 

Small sample size, and you know it.

What was his career ERA at Fenway before he got there?

Was it under 5?

If not, why pay him like a King?

[Bellhorn04]

Small sample size, and you know it.

What was his career ERA at Fenway before he got there?

Was it under 5?

If not, why pay him like a King?

 

Thr career ERA at Fenway before he got there was a small sample size.

[mvp 78]

It's no wonder Red Sox fans re widely seen as the most obnoxious fans around. It's an arrogant and entitled lot to be sure.

 

In the Mens Journal poll, they were 4th behind Philly, NY, and SF.

[FredLynn]

Thr career ERA at Fenway before he got there was a small sample size.

 

Larger than three games I would guess.

Here is the first response I got from one of the Sawxheads historians. Admittedly, it contains a lot of assumptions. I do believe the part about Lucchino not giving Epstein free hand in the Schilling signing because Epstein was still so new on the job-just like Cherington is being used as a marionette by LL now:

 

 

 

First thing you have to remember is that in 2003 when the Sox brass went to Schilling's house at Thanksgiving--Theo, despite the GM title, was still Larry's apprentice, with Larry still having total veto power over anything Theo wanted to do. So that's a huge point that's been forgotten in folklore.

 

Here's the main points:

 

1. Schilling and D'Backs owner Jerry Colangelo became very close during his stay in AZ. They won the WSC in 2001. In 2003 Colangelo decided to unload some contracts and asked Curt if he'd be willing to waive his no-trade. Curt told him two teams only--Yankees or Phillies. That went public with Curt publicly laughing off any Sox possibility, calling the Sox "A piece of ****, loser organization."

 

2. Colangelo began talks with Steinbrenner and the Yankees. Now, mind you, a year or so previous to that Colangelo had reached a handshake agreement with David Wells to pitch for the D'Backs, only to have Steinbrenner swoop in and take him away at the last minute. So there was bad blood between the two, but they initially tried to civilly reach an agreement for Schilling to head to NY (which was Curt's preference at that point). The Sox made overtures, but were told "No way," by Curt and Colangelo. Things quickly went sour again between Colangelo and Steinbrenner, becoming increasingly nasty to the point where Colangelo refused to deal Curt to NY. Not only did he cut off talks, he now wanted revenge.

 

3. Colangelo appealed to Curt, as a friend, to help him exact the ultimate revenge against Steinbrenner by considering Boston. There were unconfirmed reports that Colangelo paid Curt off to change his mind, but whether or not that's true it was only a matter of days until Curt acquiesced, agreed to at least listen to the Sox brass and allowed the Sox contingency to his home on Thanksgiving. Henry, Werner and Larry and Theo all went. Henry and Werner left Larry and Theo behind after a day and two days later Larry announced they had the deal done. The Sox had Curt and Colangelo had his revenge by trading Curt to Steinbrenner's hated rival. A few days later Curt was in Boston spewing, "I hate the Yankees. The Yankees suck." Go figure.

 

4. It's also important to remember that, at the time of the announcement, Larry was deeply committed to building up Theo's credibility after having taken some criticism for handing Theo the job at such a young age---so Larry, in essence, gave birth to all this Theo folklore by embellishing Theo's role in the Schilling trade. Larry really kind of purposely took a back seat and had Theo take the bows. That's how a lot of this crap got started.

 

 

In the end, Pumps---whether it was really Theo or Larry or Henry or whoever who people claim engineered the Curt deal is inconsequential. It's all moot. At least that's what I found when I researched it very thoroughly back in the day. The whole deal, and the Sox involvement, was conceived and consummated, not out of any mastery, sheer determination or professional artistry by the Sox brass, but due to Colangelo being consumed by hatred for Steinbrenner and being willing to take as little as a bag of balls in return if it meant he could screw Big George all the way with the red hot poker--which he did. This was purely payback, with both Schilling and the Sox being nothing more than pawns in a rich guys' ongoing spat. The Sox were merely the right team, in the right division, at the right time. Nothing more, nothing less. They could have sent Trot Nixon down to Schilling's with a six pack and the result would have in all probability been the same.

 

The rest of course is history, with Theo's role becoming increasingly embellished by the year. My guess is that the truth really won't come out until Larry writes his book at some point after he retires.

 

That's the basic summary. I hope this helps. PM me if you have any more Qs.

[jung]

Well I think Theo said it himself. It appeared to me that he was putting the Lackey signing in the category of things done because you "end up feeling like you have to do something". Clearly he is referring to the feeling that you have to sign somebody, get somebody, add to the roster in some way and how that ends up driving the decision making process.

 

I did not think Lackey would earn his keep in the AL East for one thing. Second they found out late in the process that his elbow was a problem and still went through with that deal.

 

So I don't think you need look farther than the comments from the guy that was intimately involved in that deal to determine whether it was right at the time or not. From what I can see, Theo is telling us that if he had it to do over again, he would not have done the Lackey deal.

 

I also did not like the CC deal from the very start. That does not make me prescient or a genius or anything like that. I did not like the CC deal because I did not see how he was a complimentary player to what we had on this team and because concerns over how he would fair in a big market environment were already all over the place and while my view was from afar, I thought I could see in him a player that would struggle in a big market. In addition that deal seemed to come to the Sox way late in the game as opposed to something that they thought through completely. Finally the price tag was outrageous, way beyond what any other GM was thinking of paying CC and the deal was over such an extended period of time for a player that makes money in part because of his legs. I don't believe you can just anoint a player as someone who will supplement his declining speed with power. You hire a power guy for power and a speed guy for speed and an all around ball player for his all around skills but the idea that a guy automatically will pick up power with age was born out of the steroid era when guys did pick up power but not as a natural consequence of growing older.

 

However I still think the Sox GM job is one of the toughest in baseball in large part because you have to work for LL and I believe that the pressure to make these "sizzle" signings comes directly from LL. I also believe it to be the straw that breaks the camel's back, making the kind of team profile we have today almost inevitable. As such I have a hard time blaming either Theo or BC entirely for their performance as GM's.

[SoxSport]

Epstein was OK thru 07. He just went sour after that. The whole organization went sour--and probably still is.

[Bellhorn04]

Larger than three games I would guess.

Here is the first response I got from one of the Sawxheads historians. Admittedly, it contains a lot of assumptions. I do believe the part about Lucchino not giving Epstein free hand in the Schilling signing because Epstein was still so new on the job-just like Cherington is being used as a marionette by LL now:

 

 

 

First thing you have to remember is that in 2003 when the Sox brass went to Schilling's house at Thanksgiving--Theo, despite the GM title, was still Larry's apprentice, with Larry still having total veto power over anything Theo wanted to do. So that's a huge point that's been forgotten in folklore.

 

Here's the main points:

 

1. Schilling and D'Backs owner Jerry Colangelo became very close during his stay in AZ. They won the WSC in 2001. In 2003 Colangelo decided to unload some contracts and asked Curt if he'd be willing to waive his no-trade. Curt told him two teams only--Yankees or Phillies. That went public with Curt publicly laughing off any Sox possibility, calling the Sox "A piece of ****, loser organization."

 

2. Colangelo began talks with Steinbrenner and the Yankees. Now, mind you, a year or so previous to that Colangelo had reached a handshake agreement with David Wells to pitch for the D'Backs, only to have Steinbrenner swoop in and take him away at the last minute. So there was bad blood between the two, but they initially tried to civilly reach an agreement for Schilling to head to NY (which was Curt's preference at that point). The Sox made overtures, but were told "No way," by Curt and Colangelo. Things quickly went sour again between Colangelo and Steinbrenner, becoming increasingly nasty to the point where Colangelo refused to deal Curt to NY. Not only did he cut off talks, he now wanted revenge.

 

3. Colangelo appealed to Curt, as a friend, to help him exact the ultimate revenge against Steinbrenner by considering Boston. There were unconfirmed reports that Colangelo paid Curt off to change his mind, but whether or not that's true it was only a matter of days until Curt acquiesced, agreed to at least listen to the Sox brass and allowed the Sox contingency to his home on Thanksgiving. Henry, Werner and Larry and Theo all went. Henry and Werner left Larry and Theo behind after a day and two days later Larry announced they had the deal done. The Sox had Curt and Colangelo had his revenge by trading Curt to Steinbrenner's hated rival. A few days later Curt was in Boston spewing, "I hate the Yankees. The Yankees suck." Go figure.

 

4. It's also important to remember that, at the time of the announcement, Larry was deeply committed to building up Theo's credibility after having taken some criticism for handing Theo the job at such a young age---so Larry, in essence, gave birth to all this Theo folklore by embellishing Theo's role in the Schilling trade. Larry really kind of purposely took a back seat and had Theo take the bows. That's how a lot of this crap got started.

 

 

In the end, Pumps---whether it was really Theo or Larry or Henry or whoever who people claim engineered the Curt deal is inconsequential. It's all moot. At least that's what I found when I researched it very thoroughly back in the day. The whole deal, and the Sox involvement, was conceived and consummated, not out of any mastery, sheer determination or professional artistry by the Sox brass, but due to Colangelo being consumed by hatred for Steinbrenner and being willing to take as little as a bag of balls in return if it meant he could screw Big George all the way with the red hot poker--which he did. This was purely payback, with both Schilling and the Sox being nothing more than pawns in a rich guys' ongoing spat. The Sox were merely the right team, in the right division, at the right time. Nothing more, nothing less. They could have sent Trot Nixon down to Schilling's with a six pack and the result would have in all probability been the same.

 

The rest of course is history, with Theo's role becoming increasingly embellished by the year. My guess is that the truth really won't come out until Larry writes his book at some point after he retires.

 

That's the basic summary. I hope this helps. PM me if you have any more Qs.

 

There are a few details in there that I have to question. First of all I'd love to know where the quote came from that has Schilling calling the Sox "A piece of ****, loser organization." Pretty sure we would have heard that one before.

 

Secondly, the negotiations between Schilling and the Red Sox went on for a period of several days and almost fell through because of Schilling's asking price. Schilling had the final say on the deal, regardless of how his owner felt about it.

[VA Sox Fan]

There are a few details in there that I have to question. First of all I'd love to know where the quote came from that has Schilling calling the Sox "A piece of ****' date=' loser organization." Pretty sure we would have heard that one before.[/b']

 

Secondly, the negotiations between Schilling and the Red Sox went on for a period of several days and almost fell through because of Schilling's asking price. Schilling had the final say on the deal, regardless of how his owner felt about it.

 

Me too. I had always heard that he thought he would have trouble pitching in Fenway because of the Monster etc.

[redsoxbeatz]

Well I think Theo said it himself. It appeared to me that he was putting the Lackey signing in the category of things done because you "end up feeling like you have to do something". Clearly he is referring to the feeling that you have to sign somebody, get somebody, add to the roster in some way and how that ends up driving the decision making process.

 

I did not think Lackey would earn his keep in the AL East for one thing. Second they found out late in the process that his elbow was a problem and still went through with that deal.

 

So I don't think you need look farther than the comments from the guy that was intimately involved in that deal to determine whether it was right at the time or not. From what I can see, Theo is telling us that if he had it to do over again, he would not have done the Lackey deal.

 

I also did not like the CC deal from the very start. That does not make me prescient or a genius or anything like that. I did not like the CC deal because I did not see how he was a complimentary player to what we had on this team and because concerns over how he would fair in a big market environment were already all over the place and while my view was from afar, I thought I could see in him a player that would struggle in a big market. In addition that deal seemed to come to the Sox way late in the game as opposed to something that they thought through completely. Finally the price tag was outrageous, way beyond what any other GM was thinking of paying CC and the deal was over such an extended period of time for a player that makes money in part because of his legs. I don't believe you can just anoint a player as someone who will supplement his declining speed with power. You hire a power guy for power and a speed guy for speed and an all around ball player for his all around skills but the idea that a guy automatically will pick up power with age was born out of the steroid era when guys did pick up power but not as a natural consequence of growing older.

 

However I still think the Sox GM job is one of the toughest in baseball in large part because you have to work for LL and I believe that the pressure to make these "sizzle" signings comes directly from LL. I also believe it to be the straw that breaks the camel's back, making the kind of team profile we have today almost inevitable. As such I have a hard time blaming either Theo or BC entirely for their performance as GM's.

 

Larger than three games I would guess.

Here is the first response I got from one of the Sawxheads historians. Admittedly, it contains a lot of assumptions. I do believe the part about Lucchino not giving Epstein free hand in the Schilling signing because Epstein was still so new on the job-just like Cherington is being used as a marionette by LL now:

 

 

 

First thing you have to remember is that in 2003 when the Sox brass went to Schilling's house at Thanksgiving--Theo, despite the GM title, was still Larry's apprentice, with Larry still having total veto power over anything Theo wanted to do. So that's a huge point that's been forgotten in folklore.

 

Here's the main points:

 

1. Schilling and D'Backs owner Jerry Colangelo became very close during his stay in AZ. They won the WSC in 2001. In 2003 Colangelo decided to unload some contracts and asked Curt if he'd be willing to waive his no-trade. Curt told him two teams only--Yankees or Phillies. That went public with Curt publicly laughing off any Sox possibility, calling the Sox "A piece of ****, loser organization."

 

2. Colangelo began talks with Steinbrenner and the Yankees. Now, mind you, a year or so previous to that Colangelo had reached a handshake agreement with David Wells to pitch for the D'Backs, only to have Steinbrenner swoop in and take him away at the last minute. So there was bad blood between the two, but they initially tried to civilly reach an agreement for Schilling to head to NY (which was Curt's preference at that point). The Sox made overtures, but were told "No way," by Curt and Colangelo. Things quickly went sour again between Colangelo and Steinbrenner, becoming increasingly nasty to the point where Colangelo refused to deal Curt to NY. Not only did he cut off talks, he now wanted revenge.

 

3. Colangelo appealed to Curt, as a friend, to help him exact the ultimate revenge against Steinbrenner by considering Boston. There were unconfirmed reports that Colangelo paid Curt off to change his mind, but whether or not that's true it was only a matter of days until Curt acquiesced, agreed to at least listen to the Sox brass and allowed the Sox contingency to his home on Thanksgiving. Henry, Werner and Larry and Theo all went. Henry and Werner left Larry and Theo behind after a day and two days later Larry announced they had the deal done. The Sox had Curt and Colangelo had his revenge by trading Curt to Steinbrenner's hated rival. A few days later Curt was in Boston spewing, "I hate the Yankees. The Yankees suck." Go figure.

 

4. It's also important to remember that, at the time of the announcement, Larry was deeply committed to building up Theo's credibility after having taken some criticism for handing Theo the job at such a young age---so Larry, in essence, gave birth to all this Theo folklore by embellishing Theo's role in the Schilling trade. Larry really kind of purposely took a back seat and had Theo take the bows. That's how a lot of this crap got started.

 

 

In the end, Pumps---whether it was really Theo or Larry or Henry or whoever who people claim engineered the Curt deal is inconsequential. It's all moot. At least that's what I found when I researched it very thoroughly back in the day. The whole deal, and the Sox involvement, was conceived and consummated, not out of any mastery, sheer determination or professional artistry by the Sox brass, but due to Colangelo being consumed by hatred for Steinbrenner and being willing to take as little as a bag of balls in return if it meant he could screw Big George all the way with the red hot poker--which he did. This was purely payback, with both Schilling and the Sox being nothing more than pawns in a rich guys' ongoing spat. The Sox were merely the right team, in the right division, at the right time. Nothing more, nothing less. They could have sent Trot Nixon down to Schilling's with a six pack and the result would have in all probability been the same.

 

The rest of course is history, with Theo's role becoming increasingly embellished by the year. My guess is that the truth really won't come out until Larry writes his book at some point after he retires.

 

That's the basic summary. I hope this helps. PM me if you have any more Qs.

 

Thats his JOB Youk. He isn't getting a pass on this one, not from me. Lets use some real life examples so that I can better get my point across.

When I attended UMass undergrad many years ago they built the library on campus. Shortly after it was built it was shut down. The reason given was that the engineers forgot to include the weight of the books in their calculations of how much stress would be put on the flooring. Does that engineer get off because, really, how was he supposed to know that the weight of the books needed to be taken into consideration?

When the Big Dig was constructed the contractor used substandard tiles and as a result some of them fell down, I believe killing some people. Does that contractor get off too because he thought the cheaper tiles would work?

In my own business there are decisions made about patient care that I have to live with. Do you think that the courts are going to accept from me "Well, how was I supposed to know that that baby would die if I didn't intubate him?" Or "How was I supposed to know that kid had appendicitis? I thought it was a stomach virus."

Similarly, Epstein is supposed to be a professional and be able to judge talent on the FA market better than you and me. He is allowed some mistakes, but the sheer number of errors in judgement that he has made over the years makes him a very mediocre GM. In the case of Lackey there was evidence that he would fail at Fenway: his ERA at that park was already horrendous. Why did Epstein expect that to change? And in the case of Crawford he could have noticed that while 2010, his contract year, his OPS was .851, his career OPS was just .773. Why hand out such a huge contract for that kind of hitter, one, I might add, with a weak arm in the OF.

The bottom line is that its HIS job to judge talent, and he didn't do a very good job at it at all.

 

I can quote long posts too. Yeeeze

[SoxSport]

Epstein alluded to his problem in Boston with his prospect lineup. For example, if Hanley Ramirez hadn't been traded to the Marlins, chances are he would have still been in AAA his ROY year in Florida. Therein lies the problem in Boston: downside veterans under contract take preference over upside prospects, who must wait in the minors for an injury to happen. Or their own injury, in the case of Kalish--which cost him 2 years of his career. You could say the same for Iglesias, an all-star SS defensively who apparently has to show he can hit like Hanley before he can play in Boston. Hanley, by the way, never showed the offense in the minors he showed in Florida. That was a surprise. Lavarnway is another--a kid who may have more upside than Salty--though Salty has been looking good lately.

 

From what I can tell Epstein's problem is still a front office problem. Perhaps no surprise. The prospects are tearing up AAA, and it takes an injury to get them to Boston.

[mvp 78]

Hanley won an MVP? What year?

[SoxSport]

Hanley won an MVP? What year?

 

Not MVP. He was NL rookie of the year in 06, the first season after he got traded.

 

If he hadn't been traded, he would have still been in the minors. It was a good move for him.

[redsoxrules]

God I can't wait for Crawford to come back and be the guy we thought we signed, and really boost this team to the PS.

 

Then everyone will absolutely love Crawford. Kind of like people who absolutely loved Gonzo now absolutely hate him.

 

Carl Crawfords career OPS is 773 , he's not comparable to Gonzo and not even close.

 

CC is not going to all of a sudden play better than his career averages.

 

Crawford got his deal based on his best year .

Crawford will not re-peat his 2010 year , Theo gave him the money based on that last season .

Crawford is turning 31 in August , 1-2 prime years left and its downhill from there .

 

With that being said , that was the only deal that I never liked from him .

At the time of all the other deals I liked the moves he made.

 

Unfortunately the CC one will hurt the most as its for a long time and at 20 MIL Anually.

[jung]

Could almost see the devil whispering in Theo's ear. "Take Carl Crawford Theo....take him, he is just sitting right there for the taking....take a bite of that apple....I mean take Carl Crawford.....if you don't the Yankees surely will".

[mvp 78]

Larry Luchino is the devil?

[VA Sox Fan]

On Theo Epstein's legacy

 

June 16, 2012 10:00 AM

By Peter Abraham, Globe Staff

 

CHICAGO — Theo Epstein has been gone from Boston for eight months now. But it seems so much longer. The Sox have a new GM, a new manager and have already used nearly a dozen players that he had nothing to do with acquiring.

 

Watching Epstein walk around Wrigley Field Friday afternoon left me wondering what people will remember about him in Boston 10, 20 or 50 years from now.

 

It will be nothing like it is now. Epstein left the Sox with a year remaining on his deal following the historic September collapse of a team he assembled and the firing of a well-liked manager. That he bailed out two weeks after Terry Francona was let go amid reports of player insurrection looked terrible.

 

Had the Red Sox, say, made the ALCS and Epstein announced he wanted a new challenge and was going to the Cubs, people would have applauded. We all have a right to choose our path in life, after all. Who among us hasn't changed jobs?

 

But because he ducked out in a time of crisis, Epstein set himself up for criticism in his hometown. He was an easy target and everybody took swipes, myself included. You mean you're leaving the party and we have to clean up? Thanks a bunch.

 

Even now, mentioning Epstein in a blog post or on Twitter generates negative comments. Everybody wants to bring up his showering money on John Lackey, not finding David Ortiz for $1.2 million or luring Curt Schilling to Boston.

 

(Sorry, Rhode Island taxpayers. But you get the point.)

 

In their heads, smart fans know and probably appreciate what Epstein did. But in their hearts, his departure still stings.

 

None of that will matter in 2022, 2032 or 2062. Baseball historians will see Epstein as Boston's Branch Rickey, an executive ahead of his time who did what had to be done to turn a long-suffering franchise into a winner. He manipulated the draft to a point where MLB changed the rules. He turned the non-tender market from a salvage yard into a resource and helped further the advancement of statistical analysis.

 

He didn't dump the Red Sox for a cushy gig with a ready-to-win team. He took on the woebegone Cubs, a team with a lousy roster and a farm system largely bereft of talent. If they win a Series, Epstein will be in the Hall of Fame.

 

Epstein also is changing how baseball values executives. He has a deal for five years and $18.5 million. That's considered extravagant in the game right now but that will change over time if Epstein turns the Cubs into winner.

 

Look at this way: $3.7 million a year can get a team a backup outfielder or an executive who will make dozens of decisions a week that influence the future of the organization. What's more valuable?

 

Apple didn't pay the guy running the store at South Shore Plaza more than Steve Jobs. But most baseball teams hire decision-makers on the cheap.

 

Anyway, Boston doesn't owe Epstein a statue. But the statute of limitations on complaints has expired. Wish him well in Chicago.

[VA Sox Fan]

On Theo Epstein's legacy

 

June 16, 2012 10:00 AM

By Peter Abraham, Globe Staff

 

CHICAGO — Theo Epstein has been gone from Boston for eight months now. But it seems so much longer. The Sox have a new GM, a new manager and have already used nearly a dozen players that he had nothing to do with acquiring.

 

Watching Epstein walk around Wrigley Field Friday afternoon left me wondering what people will remember about him in Boston 10, 20 or 50 years from now.

 

It will be nothing like it is now. Epstein left the Sox with a year remaining on his deal following the historic September collapse of a team he assembled and the firing of a well-liked manager. That he bailed out two weeks after Terry Francona was let go amid reports of player insurrection looked terrible.

 

Had the Red Sox, say, made the ALCS and Epstein announced he wanted a new challenge and was going to the Cubs, people would have applauded. We all have a right to choose our path in life, after all. Who among us hasn't changed jobs?

 

But because he ducked out in a time of crisis, Epstein set himself up for criticism in his hometown. He was an easy target and everybody took swipes, myself included. You mean you're leaving the party and we have to clean up? Thanks a bunch.

 

Even now, mentioning Epstein in a blog post or on Twitter generates negative comments. Everybody wants to bring up his showering money on John Lackey, not finding David Ortiz for $1.2 million or luring Curt Schilling to Boston.

 

(Sorry, Rhode Island taxpayers. But you get the point.)

 

In their heads, smart fans know and probably appreciate what Epstein did. But in their hearts, his departure still stings.

 

None of that will matter in 2022, 2032 or 2062. Baseball historians will see Epstein as Boston's Branch Rickey, an executive ahead of his time who did what had to be done to turn a long-suffering franchise into a winner. He manipulated the draft to a point where MLB changed the rules. He turned the non-tender market from a salvage yard into a resource and helped further the advancement of statistical analysis.

 

He didn't dump the Red Sox for a cushy gig with a ready-to-win team. He took on the woebegone Cubs, a team with a lousy roster and a farm system largely bereft of talent. If they win a Series, Epstein will be in the Hall of Fame.

 

Epstein also is changing how baseball values executives. He has a deal for five years and $18.5 million. That's considered extravagant in the game right now but that will change over time if Epstein turns the Cubs into winner.

 

Look at this way: $3.7 million a year can get a team a backup outfielder or an executive who will make dozens of decisions a week that influence the future of the organization. What's more valuable?

 

Apple didn't pay the guy running the store at South Shore Plaza more than Steve Jobs. But most baseball teams hire decision-makers on the cheap.

 

Anyway, Boston doesn't owe Epstein a statue. But the statute of limitations on complaints has expired. Wish him well in Chicago.

[a700hitter]

Anyway, Boston doesn't owe Epstein a statue. But the statute of limitations on complaints has expired. Wish him well in Chicago.

Speaking of statues, when are the Red Sox going to put up a statue of Yaz? He did revive the franchise and set it on a competitive and profitable course starting 45 years ago. He's played more games in a Red Sox uniform, had the most hits, RBI, Runs etc, etc. We will never see a star in a Red Sox uni for 23 years, never again. He is Mr. Red Sox. There really isn't a close second. Yes, Williams was an iconic hitter and an American Hero and he deserves his statue, and he has two of them. Yaz deserves his. He should get it while he is still alive.

 

I realize that this is off thread, but the statue remark set off one of my pet peeves.

[FredLynn]

Speaking of statues, when are the Red Sox going to put up a statue of Yaz? He did revive the franchise and set it on a competitive and profitable course starting 45 years ago. He's played more games in a Red Sox uniform, had the most hits, RBI, Runs etc, etc. We will never see a star in a Red Sox uni for 23 years, never again. He is Mr. Red Sox. There really isn't a close second. Yes, Williams was an iconic hitter and an American Hero and he deserves his statue, and he has two of them. Yaz deserves his. He should get it while he is still alive.

 

I realize that this is off thread, but the statue remark set off one of my pet peeves.

 

The statute of limitations on complaining about Epstein will expire when the team fully extricates itself from the mess he left it in, and that will be defined as after we win the next World Series. Until then, Epstein is fair game.

[SCM33]

Epstein's admissions pretty much solidify that much of the Redsox 2003 and 2004 teams were built by Dan Duquette.

[Bellhorn04]

Epstein's admissions pretty much solidify that much of the Redsox 2003 and 2004 teams were built by Dan Duquette.

 

Sure they were. But again, the 2002 Red Sox missed the playoffs for the third year in a row, and we all know what the 2003 and 2004 teams did.

 

In 8 years Duquette's Red Sox teams won a total of one postseason series and five postseason games.

[mvp 78]

Sure they were. But again, the 2002 Red Sox missed the playoffs for the third year in a row, and we all know what the 2003 and 2004 teams did.

 

In 8 years Duquette's Red Sox teams won a total of one postseason series and five postseason games.

 

That Guardians series was awesome.

[mvp 78]

Also, the players involved with winning game 4 against the Yanks in 04 were post 2002 guys (Millar, Roberts, Meuller, Ortiz).