David Price

[Palodios]

There are those who claim Cherrington deserves credit for building this great farm system. While the farm system has some quality prospects and the B boys, it hasn't produced any quality starters in over a decade. Except for the oft injured Buchholtz, all the current likely starters were developed elsewhere. I agree with you. I am not impressed with Owens.

 

Cherrington's draft class is still very young. Owens/Barnes/Ranaudo all came from Theo's work.

 

We need to see what happens with Brian Johnson, Espinoza, Trey Ball, Michael Kopech, Pat Light, Acosta and Teddy Stankiewicz, before you can blame Cherrington for developing pitching. Hell, he drafted the high floor low ceiling Brian Johnson in 2011 first round solely because the team needed pitching depth now instead of 8 years in the future, and he might end up being a starter here.

[Elktonnick]

Cherrington's draft class is still very young. Owens/Barnes/Ranaudo all came from Theo's work.

 

We need to see what happens with Brian Johnson, Espinoza, Trey Ball, Michael Kopech, Pat Light, Acosta and Teddy Stankiewicz, before you can blame Cherrington for developing pitching. Hell, he drafted the high floor low ceiling Brian Johnson in 2011 first round solely because the team needed pitching depth now instead of 8 years in the future, and he might end up being a starter here.

 

I guess that means that Cherrington really didn't accomplish anything.

[Palodios]

I guess that means that Cherrington really didn't accomplish anything.

 

Right, because when you draft a bunch of high schoolers they should become successful major leaguers by age 19.

[Elktonnick]

Right, because when you draft a bunch of high schoolers they should become successful major leaguers by age 19.

 

No but it means it is too early to give Cherrington credit for creating this wonderful farm system that some of his acolytes on this board are wont to do. In my book Cherrington was a factotum who was promoted far beyond his level of competence and only succeeded in finishing last more often than not.

[Palodios]

No but it means it is too early to give Cherrington credit for creating this wonderful farm system that some of his acolytes on this board are wont to do.

 

By that logic, wouldn't it also be too early to try to discredit the farm system?

[jacksonianmarch]

Those "top prospects" are basically Kopech and Espinosa plus Owens and Johnson. Owens and Johnson look like mid to back of the rotation guys. Kopech and Espinosa have much higher upsides but are a lot further away.

[Elktonnick]

By that logic, wouldn't it also be too early to try to discredit the farm system?

 

I think that's the meaning of what I said in the first sentence. Whatever Cherrington's contribution to the farm system turns out to be doesn't change the fact that his only real accomplishment to date is finishing last more often than not.

[Bellhorn04]

I think that's the meaning of what I said in the first sentence. Whatever Cherrington's contribution to the farm system turns out to be doesn't change the fact that his only real accomplishment to date is finishing last more often than not.

 

The last place finishes stunk, but winning a World Series was a real accomplishment.

[User Name]

The last place finishes stunk, but winning a World Series was a real accomplishment.

 

Some people seem to forget how goddamn hard it is to win a WS, considering the fact that this team lasted all of 86 years without winning a single one. A lot of people here flaunt their "intelligence" with big words, yet disregard some pretty basic logical concepts.

[Elktonnick]

The last place finishes stunk, but winning a World Series was a real accomplishment.

 

But can you really give Cherrington credit for that other than being there. Henry was so impressed with Cherrington's contribution that he basically s*** canned him.

[Palodios]

But can you really give Cherrington credit for that other than being there. Henry was so impressed with Cherrington's contribution that he basically s*** canned him.

 

Cherrington dumped Crawford. Cherrington built that bullpen. Cherrington signed 7 free agents that year which all provided key wins. Cherrington traded for Peavy.

 

Ben's biggest downfall was that Henry wouldn't let him do what Dumbo just did -- spend a brick ton of money on pitching.

[mvp 78]

@PeteAbe: Jim Rice on whether he would give up No. 14 to David Price: “No way … But every man has his price.”

[Elktonnick]

In any case, Cherrington's efforts didn't impress Henry enough to save his job. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Cherrington wanted to do what Dumbrowski did. Cherrington biggest flaw was he was promoted way beyond his level of competence. He was the embodiment of the Peter Principle.

[Kimmi]

Henry was outspoken about his opinion that spending big bucks for long term over 30 year old pitchers was a waste. Henry lost faith in Cherrington either because Cherrington believed in that philosophy also or he couldn't convince Henry it wasn't working and Cherrington demonstrated poor skills at constructing a competitive team. I said before and I say again that changing that approach was part of the deal in order to get Dumbrowski. Dumbrowski did something that your boy Cherrington couldn't do that's why he is here and Cherrington is off licking his wounds pouting someplace.

 

I think Ben believes in that philosphy about not signing older pitchers to big contracts also, to a certain extent. As I've said before, I think Ben's and Theo's philosophy in building francises is spot on. I have no doubt that Dombrowski was brought in with the idea of changing the approach. Henry was tired of finishing in last place, no doubt.

 

Dombrowski is only able to do what he has done because of the strong farm system and young cost-controlled players that Ben left him.

[Kimmi]

I think that's the meaning of what I said in the first sentence. Whatever Cherrington's contribution to the farm system turns out to be doesn't change the fact that his only real accomplishment to date is finishing last more often than not.

 

I can understand people being frustrated or angry about the last place finishes, but at least give credit where credit is due.

[Kimmi]

Cherrington dumped Crawford. Cherrington built that bullpen. Cherrington signed 7 free agents that year which all provided key wins. Cherrington traded for Peavy.

 

Ben's biggest downfall was that Henry wouldn't let him do what Dumbo just did -- spend a brick ton of money on pitching.

 

Thank you.

[User Name]

I can understand people being frustrated or angry about the last place finishes, but at least give credit where credit is due.

 

Nope, he just won't do that. He's also fond of overreaching in his interpretations. Cherington was not fired. He left of his own volition. Signing Dowmbrowski wasn't done with the idea to get rid of Cherington. If they wanted to be completely rid of BC's philosophy, they wouldn't have hired Hazen as GM.

[Elktonnick]

I think Ben believes in that philosphy about not signing older pitchers to big contracts also, to a certain extent. As I've said before, I think Ben's and Theo's philosophy in building francises is spot on. I have no doubt that Dombrowski was brought in with the idea of changing the approach. Henry was tired of finishing in last place, no doubt.

 

Dombrowski is only able to do what he has done because of the strong farm system and young cost-controlled players that Ben left him.

 

I think many rightly attribute the so called strong farm system to a product of Theo's doing rather than Cherrington's. The only thing we know for sure is that Cherrington is out of baseball.

 

It remains to be seen if and when he'll be able to get back in and at what level. That will say more about what the baseball professional really thinks about Cherrington's competency and effectiveness then the sycophants who sing his praises for his record of finishing last more often than not.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Elktonnick

[a700hitter]

In any case, Cherrington's efforts didn't impress Henry enough to save his job. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Cherrington wanted to do what Dumbrowski did. Cherrington biggest flaw was he was promoted way beyond his level of competence. He was the embodiment of the Peter Principle.

Some people have convinced themselves that all the smart moves were Ben's efforts and that the bad moves either showed the hand of Larry L or the faulty strategy of Henry. There is no evidence of any of this. They just blindly believe what they want to believe. I just assume that he was the GM with all the powers and duties that come along with that position. I don't attribute responsibility to him on a selective basis.

[Palodios]

Some people have convinced themselves that all the smart moves were Ben's efforts and that the bad moves either showed the hand of Larry L or the faulty strategy of Henry. There is no evidence of any of this. They just blindly believe what they want to believe. I just assume that he was the GM with all the powers and duties that come along with that position. I don't attribute responsibility to him on a selective basis.

 

Here's my question to you: Did John Henry trust Cherrington with the full finances of the Red Sox ? My impression is that Henry and Lucchino had a bigger involvement with the big money deals and allowed Ben to operate on the smaller deals. It seems logical, leaders in any business focus on the whales and leave the day-to-day to underlings.

 

Plenty of the mistakes can be attributed to Cherrington -- the Porcello, Melancon, and Bailey trades all follow his mindset. However, I think there were times Ben was backed into a corner. John Henry had been very clear about how he wanted to avoid long term contracts to pitchers, and it hurt us badly with Lester. So, Ben traded him and Lackey for the best pieces he could find, and ended up needing to bargain shop the next offseason.

 

I don't see what is so far-fetched about a billionaire who doesn't blindly give away 100 million dollar contracts without consulting his own judgement

[a700hitter]

Here's my question to you: Did John Henry trust Cherrington with the full finances of the Red Sox ? My impression is that Henry and Lucchino had a bigger involvement with the big money deals and allowed Ben to operate on the smaller deals. It seems logical, leaders in any business focus on the whales and leave the day-to-day to underlings.

 

Plenty of the mistakes can be attributed to Cherrington -- the Porcello, Melancon, and Bailey trades all follow his mindset. However, I think there were times Ben was backed into a corner. John Henry had been very clear about how he wanted to avoid long term contracts to pitchers, and it hurt us badly with Lester. So, Ben traded him and Lackey for the best pieces he could find, and ended up needing to bargain shop the next offseason.

 

I don't see what is so far-fetched about a billionaire who doesn't blindly give away 100 million dollar contracts without consulting his own judgement

Nor would the billionaire blindly give away $80 million to Porcello. I am sure that he had input on that contract extension. I am sure that he had input on Hanley, and Panda too. I would think that he always has a veto power. I would find it improbable that Henry picked up the phone to tell his GM to get Panda or Hanley. I see no reason to think that any of the big money moves were not recommendations by Ben.

 

I also think that a good GM could have convinced Henry that a "no-ace" strategy was not a god formula for winning. Neither of us know whether Ben was in agreement with this strategy. I find nothing in the record to believe that Ben disagreed with this strategy.

Edited December 4, 2015 by a700hitter

[Palodios]

Nor would the billionaire blindly give away $80 million to Porcello. I am sure that he had input on that contract extension. I am sure that he had input on Hanley, and Panda too. I would think that he always has a veto power. I would find it improbable that Henry picked up the phone to tell his GM to get Panda or Hanley. I see no reason to think that any of the big money moves were not recommendations by Ben.

 

I also think that a good GM could have convinced Henry that a "no-ace" strategy was not a god formula for winning. Neither of us know whether Ben was in agreement with this strategy. I find nothing in the record to believe that Ben disagreed with this strategy.

 

Ben bears much of the blame for 2015's rotation. He either failed to build a quality rotation, or he failed to convince Henry to pay for a quality rotation. The rotation took a big hit from losing both of its starting catchers early, but it was not a competitive group. The only thing more insane than spending 10 million on Masterson without seeing him pitch.... is to spend 10 million on Masterson after seeing him pitch.

 

After Ben left the Red Sox he basically said that his struggle was that he rushed too many decisions. Many of the Red Sox's biggest mistakes were clumped together. I see many many good things that he did for the Red Sox, but the Lester/Lackey trades were complete disasters.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Palodios

[User Name]

In the end, these aren't the Boston Cherington Sox. He's gone, and things seem to be trending up. Let it the f*** go people.

[a700hitter]

Ben bears much of the blame for 2015's rotation. He either failed to build a quality rotation, or he failed to convince Henry to pay for a quality rotation. The rotation took a big hit from losing both of its starting catchers early, but it was not a competitive group. The only thing more insane than spending 10 million on Masterson without seeing him pitch.... is to spend 10 million on Masterson after seeing him pitch.

 

After Ben left the Red Sox he basically said that his struggle was that he rushed too many decisions. Many of the Red Sox's biggest mistakes were clumped together. I see many many good things that he did for the Red Sox, but the Lester/Lackey trades were complete disasters.

If he felt rushed, he must have time management issues, because he was never the first GM out of the blocks in the off season. He routinely waited around until all the good pitchers came off the board. Also, what was his rush in extending Porcello. There was no rush to do that. Anyway, he is gone and yesterday's news. I will say this about him. He always seemed to be an upstanding guy and a straight shooter. Unfortunately, things didn't work out for him. The team is off on a new exciting direction. Edited December 4, 2015 by a700hitter

[cp176]

Give Ben Cherington the credit he deserves what ever you think that it might be. I like the direction that we are heading in. We have needed the ace now we have one. We signed one of the best bullpen options that we could get. 3 of our top 10 prospects are starting pitchers. If Cherington deserves credit for that, I think that that is just wonderful. What DD has done is not quite as simple as it might look. Regardless of the money he had, he still had some selling to do. i like his aggressiveness and I like what he sees as our needs. I hope that he is not done. Still got some issues to resolve. I like championships but I can tell you I like the hunt maybe even more than the kill. I want us to compete year in and year out. Finishing last 3 out of 4 years sucked and screwed up my summer.

[Hitch]

I'll never get my head around people's need to deny Cherington credit.

 

He made some costly errors last year, which led to the Dombruski move, but he also did a hell of a lot of good and also delivered that small matter of a championship as well.

 

I swear, a few people will argue relentlessly because of the person they are replying too, rather than belief in their own logic.

[cp176]

I'll never get my head around people's need to deny Cherington credit.

 

He made some costly errors last year, which led to the Dombruski move, but he also did a hell of a lot of good and also delivered that small matter of a championship as well.

 

I swear, a few people will argue relentlessly because of the person they are replying too, rather than belief in their own logic.

 

Very true. In the end we all have our own opinions. Most of us are proud and stubborn. It has become a bit like a political debate. In the end, it really doesn't matter. No one person gets the blame or the credit. I just really like the direction that we are going in. the one thing that I will say about Ben Cherington is that everyone seems to be in agreement that he is a pretty good guy who worked hard and had the club's best interests in mind. All good stuff.

[Elktonnick]

Winiston Churchill once said of Anthony Eden he was a great foreign minister but a terrible prime minister. That's my view of Cherrington. He was a good number 2 or 3 but a lousy nbr 1. When Theo left, Henry and Lucchino made the mistake of promoting Cherrington to a position for which he was ill suited.

[BSN07]

Glad to see some things don't change here haha

 

Theo exits- "he was a baboons ass he deserves no credit for those WS titles!"

 

Cherington exits- "he was a baboons ass, Theo deserves credit for the '13 WS title"

 

Lol I have missed this place more than I thought. Where the hell is Fred btw?

[User Name]

Banned. Also, no one here actually cares about other people's opinions on Ben Cherington. He's gone. Let it go.