2016 Prospects Thread

[Kimmi]

Does he also say sorry for the payroll mess?

 

What payroll mess?

 

Pablo was definitely not his baby. Castillo was. Perhaps he wouldn't have to apologize for Castillo if Castillo were given more of a chance to prove himself at the big league level.

[a700hitter]

What payroll mess?

 

Pablo was definitely not his baby. Castillo was. Perhaps he wouldn't have to apologize for Castillo if Castillo were given more of a chance to prove himself at the big league level.

you have no knowledge that Pablo wasn't Ben's initiative. You keep saying this with no evidence to back it up except for your own assumption. Stop making up stuff.

[iortiz]

you have no knowledge that Pablo wasn't Ben's initiative. You keep saying this with no evidence to back it up except for your own assumption. Stop making up stuff.

Unless Ben was just a puppet, which is most likely IMO.

[iortiz]

On the other hand Ben took accountability for all the mess he left. That's the only fact we have.

[Spudboy]

Ben was the GM when Pablo was signed. While this signing reeks of Luchino et al, we have no way of knowing who made the call other than to assume that Henry approved.

 

At the same time, because Cherries was the man in charge of the roster at the time, the signing falls on him. If he wanted Pablo then it's on him. If he did not want Pablo, he should have been far more vociferous in his objection to the idea.

 

So f*** him and the horse that he rode out on.

 

In any case, Pablo has f***ed up at every turn while a Red Sox. It was a horrendous signing. It had failure written all over it before it happened. His declining stats the three previous years are evidence enough of that. Even if you ignore his obesity.

[iortiz]

Ben was the GM when Pablo was signed. While this signing reeks of Luchino et al, we have no way of knowing who made the call other than to assume that Henry approved.

 

At the same time, because Cherries was the man in charge of the roster at the time, the signing falls on him. If he wanted Pablo then it's on him. If he did not want Pablo, he should have been far more vociferous in his objection to the idea.

 

So f*** him and the horse that he rode out on.

 

In any case, Pablo has f***ed up at every turn while a Red Sox. It was a horrendous signing. It had failure written all over it before it happened. His declining stats the three previous years are evidence enough of that. Even if you ignore his obesity.

 

/Case closed.

[User Name]

Can't give Ben credit for all of the good moves (not trading Bogaerts or Mookie, Hanley who will end up being awesome, Koji, etc) while giving him a pass for all of the blunders (Panda,Castillo, etc). You can't have it both ways.

[iortiz]

The balance and the tendency in the last 2 years were way more bad than good reason why he had go.

 

On the other hand I still think that he was just a puppet, but that's me.

[User Name]

We are abundantly clear on what your position is.

[iortiz]

... and we abundantly clear on your love for Cherry.

[cp176]

Castillo will probably get his chance but if he does I am guessing that it will be with another team. Signing him to begin with was an extremely expensive risk. Not the type of risk that is going to happen going forward. Trade talks are going to start warming up. This team is to close to being real good to not go out and get that one more guy that we need.

[cp176]

... and we abundantly clear on your love for Cherry.

 

 

He sure looked good in a suit though didn't he. I prefer Dombrowski's rumpled look and common sense logical approach.

[Kimmi]

Unless Ben was just a puppet, which is most likely IMO.

 

Ben did not have the autonomy that Dombrowski now has. Neither did Theo. Puppet is a big stretch, but Ben's hands were tied when it came to making "splashy" moves.

[Kimmi]

Ben was the GM when Pablo was signed. While this signing reeks of Luchino et al, we have no way of knowing who made the call other than to assume that Henry approved.

 

At the same time, because Cherries was the man in charge of the roster at the time, the signing falls on him. If he wanted Pablo then it's on him. If he did not want Pablo, he should have been far more vociferous in his objection to the idea.

 

So f*** him and the horse that he rode out on.

 

In any case, Pablo has f***ed up at every turn while a Red Sox. It was a horrendous signing. It had failure written all over it before it happened. His declining stats the three previous years are evidence enough of that. Even if you ignore his obesity.

 

If by that you mean he should have been more publicly open about his objection, I strongly disagree. If by that you mean he should have been able to convince the owners not to sign him, I think you're kidding yourself.

[Kimmi]

Can't give Ben credit for all of the good moves (not trading Bogaerts or Mookie, Hanley who will end up being awesome, Koji, etc) while giving him a pass for all of the blunders (Panda,Castillo, etc). You can't have it both ways.

 

I had just posted that Castillo was on Ben. Porcello is also on Ben, whether he ends up working out or not. The Lackey trade is on Ben. I've said that several times. I have never given Ben all the credit and none of the blame. However, Ben does deserve a lot more credit than he gets and a lot less blame than he gets.

[Bellhorn04]

Ben did not have the autonomy that Dombrowski now has. Neither did Theo. Puppet is a big stretch, but Ben's hands were tied when it came to making "splashy" moves.

 

It's quite possible, but you have to admit this is total speculation. We needed a third baseman and Panda was the top free agent third baseman - you have pointed out this yourself when defending the Panda signing.

[User Name]

It's not speculation. DD literally had a clause in his contract built in that gives him autonomy in regards to baseball ops, and it was very public and discussed in this very forum. They don't just make clauses like that up for no reason. DD was telling the owners he wouldn't take the job if he was going to be dealing with the same BS that Ben (and to a lesser extent, Epstein) was. If it quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck.....

[User Name]

... and we abundantly clear on your love for Cherry.

 

Unlike you, however, I can actually apply a modicum of objectivity to my arguments, and I can also avoid making stuff up, two traits you are invited to imitate.

[Bellhorn04]

It's not speculation. DD literally had a clause in his contract built in that gives him autonomy in regards to baseball ops, and it was very public and discussed in this very forum. They don't just make clauses like that up for no reason. DD was telling the owners he wouldn't take the job if he was going to be dealing with the same BS that Ben (and to a lesser extent, Epstein) was. If it quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck.....

 

Sorry, what I meant was that it's total speculation that Panda was not a Ben move.

[User Name]

I had just posted that Castillo was on Ben. Porcello is also on Ben, whether he ends up working out or not. The Lackey trade is on Ben. I've said that several times. I have never given Ben all the credit and none of the blame. However, Ben does deserve a lot more credit than he gets and a lot less blame than he gets.

 

But he can't be excused for the real blunder (Panda) since it happened under his watch. I understand and acknowledge that he lacked autonomy, as I pointed to iortiz, who is basking in his extremist glory, as usual. However, the buck has to stop somewhere. In a real life job, if I allow my boss to make an unsound investment, and don't make my voice hearrd on my disagreement, I will shoulder a big part of the blame. We all know Epstein did not want Crawford, but we can't say the same aboout Cherington and Panda, so for all intents and purposes, it's his signing.

 

The Lester trade was also flat-out terrible, in the end. Lowballing him afterwards was just a cherry in the stupid cake. I understand that they may not have wanted him back, but the handling of those negotiations was terrible.

[Spudboy]

If by that you mean he should have been more publicly open about his objection, I strongly disagree. If by that you mean he should have been able to convince the owners not to sign him, I think you're kidding yourself.

 

By that I meant that he should have done a better job at explaining his stance to his superiors. If then they decided to go against his advice then he should think about moving on. His job was to put together and maintain a winning program.

 

If for whatever reasons he failed at his job then another person should replace him.

 

Either way, the Sox have made many moves that have not worked out within the past few years. Which is not to say that they had not made such bad moves before Ben.

 

Pablo was the wrong guy and was brought in at unjustifiable money and contract terms. Now it has blown up and Dombrowski has to deal with it.

 

The Sox have no one to blame but themselves.

[Spudboy]

But he can't be excused for the real blunder (Panda) since it happened under his watch. I understand and acknowledge that he lacked autonomy, as I pointed to iortiz, who is basking in his extremist glory, as usual. However, the buck has to stop somewhere. In a real life job, if I allow my boss to make an unsound investment, and don't make my voice hearrd on my disagreement, I will shoulder a big part of the blame. We all know Epstein did not want Crawford, but we can't say the same aboout Cherington and Panda, so for all intents and purposes, it's his signing.

 

The Lester trade was also flat-out terrible, in the end. Lowballing him afterwards was just a cherry in the stupid cake. I understand that they may not have wanted him back, but the handling of those negotiations was terrible.

 

^

This.

[a700hitter]

By that I meant that he should have done a better job at explaining his stance to his superiors. If then they decided to go against his advice then he should think about moving on. His job was to put together and maintain a winning program.

 

If for whatever reasons he failed at his job then another person should replace him.

 

Either way, the Sox have made many moves that have not worked out within the past few years. Which is not to say that they had not made such bad moves before Ben.

 

Pablo was the wrong guy and was brought in at unjustifiable money and contract terms. Now it has blown up and Dombrowski has to deal with it.

 

The Sox have no one to blame but themselves.

If Ben had taken a stance against all the bad moves but was overruled by LL and Henry, Henry would have fired only LL as it would have been clear to him that Ben had the better baseball head. Henry fired both of them which indicates to me that Ben was complicit to a high degree in the bad moves.

[iortiz]

Unlike you, however, I can actually apply a modicum of objectivity to my arguments, and I can also avoid making stuff up, two traits you are invited to imitate.

 

Nobody is making stuff, and you are not by any means objective. Stop pretending you know who made the calls and how they were deployed, cause you don't know. Nobody knows.

[User Name]

Nobody is making stuff, and you are not by any means objective. Stop pretending you know who made the calls and how they were deployed, cause you don't know. Nobody knows.

 

Are you actually reading what I'm posting? This is literally why I'm calling you out on making stuff up. You are assigning a position to my argument that I didn't make. I am also in full agreement that Ben shares a lot of the blame for a lot of these signings, but you're either not reading my posts, or can't read, period. Read what I'm saying, then answer.

[iortiz]

It's quite possible, but you have to admit this is total speculation. We needed a third baseman and Panda was the top free agent third baseman - you have pointed out this yourself when defending the Panda signing.

 

yup.

 

LL vs Theo. Ben vs LL. Panda, Hanley, Porcello, etc. signing it's all speculation.

[User Name]

But he can't be excused for the real blunder (Panda) since it happened under his watch. I understand and acknowledge that he lacked autonomy, as I pointed to iortiz, who is basking in his extremist glory, as usual. However, the buck has to stop somewhere. In a real life job, if I allow my boss to make an unsound investment, and don't make my voice hearrd on my disagreement, I will shoulder a big part of the blame. We all know Epstein did not want Crawford, but we can't say the same aboout Cherington and Panda, so for all intents and purposes, it's his signing.

 

The Lester trade was also flat-out terrible, in the end. Lowballing him afterwards was just a cherry in the stupid cake. I understand that they may not have wanted him back, but the handling of those negotiations was terrible.

 

Where in this post am I pretending to know who made the calls? I am making an assessment based on the reality of the situation. Your boss f***s up and you didn't warn him, it's your fault. That's real life.

[Bellhorn04]

So much for prospects LOL

[iortiz]

Are you actually reading what I'm posting? This is literally why I'm calling you out on making stuff up. You are assigning a position to my argument that I didn't make. I am also in full agreement that Ben shares a lot of the blame for a lot of these signings, but you're either not reading my posts, or can't read, period. Read what I'm saying, then answer.

 

1. Again, I'm not making stuff. I'm just making an opinion -just like you-, thing that somehow you find hard to understand, when people disagrees with you.

 

2. You are an hypocrite (not meant as an insult). You have supported Ben to the point that you have excused most of his moves in the recent past. Now, when it's evident that the last two years have been a mess (a reality), you try to leave Ben's bandwagon.

 

3. As several posters have said, it's all speculation. Nobody knows how they make the calls. Yo do not know either.

 

4. I suggest you to be prudent. Read first and answer then. Stop bullying people. Let people make their opinions, probably you will learn something, otherwise ignore them. It's not that difficult.

Edited April 17, 2016 by iortiz

[mvp 78]

Maricon ^