Re: Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good.....
posted at 5/21/2011 8:21 AM EDT
In Response to Re: Let us ADMIT it, our GM really is not all that good.....
[QUOTE]Carl was the best available on the market and not the best available for the team. Thus Theo signed him with complete disregard to what makes sense for the team, not only now but long-term. I think that sums it up, perfectly. Theo fails to anticipate on the issues of player value and movement, and reacts instead of shrewd planning in advance. He frequently sells low and buys high, in a year to year reactionary dance. With all the player development and scouts he has, it's pretty pitiful the way he does business. He also makes the mistake of being sentimental in constructing a roster, with a squat spot on the roster for cumbersome washed up profiles like Lowell, Wakefield and Varitek. His favorite term in writing off bad contracts is "sunk cost", yet he fails to apply that term to most fan favorite veteran profiles. Instead of going out and finding affordable improvement profiles in constructing the roster, he has frequently made the mistake of constructing the roster around old washed up veterans, effectively creating a 23 or 24 man unbalanced active roster. I think he fails to admit his mistakes and tries to spin them by using media access "lackeys" to advance silly themes like "speed ages more slowly than power", to defend his decision to pay a massive premium to sign Crawford into his mid 30's and pass on VMart. Even if those two players were not either or decisions, it's still a PR campaign that is childish and intellectually dishonest. The Braves are one of the best mid to large size models on competent upper management decison making, anticipating moves and market well and adjusting well by not repeating the few mistakes that are made. Renteria, Lugo, Scutaro and Crawford are value mistakes that are simply an escalation of the very same mistake of paying for a career high contract year on players that are not superstar profiles at the position. They are all reactionary moves that were not planned, despite the phony claims that the radar and study on Crawford had gone on for a long time. Bay non-serious-market tender was correct, but a lot of people on this board saw that coming because Bay was a poor fielder and could not consitently handly breaking balls well enough to get a huge multi-year contract. Bay, as an OF'er and RHB, was not a good enough overall hitter to be a frequent DH, so his age was too old unless he was truly a gifted hitter. He was a good slugging fastball hitter, but that was it, and made it clear that his performance decline with age would be steep. I gave Theo the benefit of the doubt for years, and still consider him to be better than the average GM. But that isn't saying much because the GM pool is mostly made up of political hires that aren't based upon merit. Theo has always been a bean counter guy who isn't a baseball genius. Given the pay, Red Sox ownership could and should do a lot better.
Posted by SoxSoldRed[/QUOTE]
I love how people post stuff as fact with absolutely nothing to back up the words on the page. Here is the example: "despite the phony claims that the radar and study on Crawford had gone on for a long time".
Why are these claims phony and who in the media or the organization told you that? YOU may not like Crawford but the Sox have for a long time. For you to just spout that anything said is Theo manipulating the media is you being intellectually dishonest. So if he makes the right decision on Bay, it was easy because everyone knew. But if he makes a mistake, HE should have known. First, don't judge Crawford by 44 games. That is foolish. Also, Renteria was good before Boston and after Boston. Your 20/20 hindsight logic says Theo should have known this. At some point you can blame the player. Was Renteria in his prime in St. Louis, over the hill in Boston and then in his prime again in San Fran?
You mention the Braves. What exactly have they done right and what have they won? One title and nothing else. You dismiss most GM's as political hires and not based on merit. What does that mean? Give us an example. In fact, give us ten examples. You can't just throw out statements and not support them. Who are the political hires? Amaro, Williams, Cashman? Was Andrew Friedman a political hire? He seems to be doing pretty well to me. Finally, your VMart argument holds no water. VMart can't catch, is horrible at 1B and won't age well. Theo correctly let him go because he did not want to be saddled with a long term deal for a player of that type. If you were going to commit big money Crawford made total sense in comparison. The early season struggles do not change that.