Here here.

The most interesting thing to me in that table is the RS and RA numbers of 2011 compared to 2009. They are virtually identical. And yet the team lost 5 more games. This goes along with what MCoA has been saying: this team had as much talent as any team in baseball, especially when you consider that on top of that, RS and RA both underperformed the numbers you'd expect given the underlying component numbers.

I think it's fair to say that the Front Office did a good job constructing this team, other than potentially creating a clubhouse with personality issues bad enough to derail the team. The poor FA performance was more than outweighed by good performance by the internally developed players and the players acquired via trade. Obviously the underperformance isn't entirely (and perhaps not even mostly) on Francona, but I don't think there's really significant cause here to call for Theo's head. I think it was time for a new voice in the clubhouse, but the Front Office should mostly be looking to stay the course. Obviously they can try to make smarter free agent signings, but they did pretty damn well to create a team with 95 pythagorean wins and 99 third order wins despite losing 2/5 of the opening day rotation for most of the season as well as having one of the starters go from league average or slightly above in 2010 to the worst starting pitcher in baseball, which I don't think anyone foresaw.

Wait. What happpned to blind rage?

I lost all my blind rage when they won the second championship in 2007. :-)

If I had asked you in 2003, if you’d be happy with this type of success over the next eight years, would you really have complained?

But you didn't ask me, nor tell me. Thus I have every right to complain. If you and your wife have a great run of 8 years, it doesn't make it ok that she ###### the HOA.

But I'll do you a favor. I'll tell you right now that this team will be lucky to catch the tail end of a wild-card play-in, if such a thing exists in 2012.

I always rage against blind people. Especially the ones that seem to populate the roads...

I can't imagine what some of you guys went through growing up with the Sox in the 70's, 80's and 90's , putting up with all the crap you had to. 2004 and 2007, were great - they really were. But this team had shocking amounts of potential and threw it all away - yeah maybe some of us need to take a deep breath but I need " a pot in which to piss " and I am still angry.

Not 2003 angry, but certainly the most I have been since then, maybe I don't have much of life out here anymore, maybe I take baseball too seriously, or maybe I just love seeing Boston do well.

In any case - can anyone explain why that stupid mutt at third base has not been let go while Davey Johnson has? I mean if you are firing everyone as they should be, doesn't Bogar come on the contacts list before Johnson?

What happpned to blind rage?

I got so drunk the night of blind rage that I bought a grill that I didn't remember buying until I was doing my bills several days later. I guess my blind rage was fixed by the temptation of tasty grilled steaks.

edit - idiotic

I did need a grill! And I got a good deal, too. So, it all works out.

Coke to Jim. The overreaction by many fans (including some on this site) is short-sighted to say the least. Theo has made many mistakes in nine years on the job. Look at anyone else active with 9+ years on the job, and I'll take his resume against anyone. If he's not #1, he's in the top few. To think he can be easily replaced, or even improved upon, is insane.

Here's the list of veteran (9+ years) GMs in the game:

Cashman
Alderson
Beane
Williams
Dombrowski
Towers
Jocketty
Sabean
O'Dowd
Wade
Melvin

Theo looks quite good on that list. And that ignores all the awful or mediocre GMs that get waded through every few years.

Look at anyone else active with 9+ years on the job, and I'll take his resume against anyone

Why that particular data point?

They just need to identify the problem and FIX IT!

Why that particular data point?

Theo's been on the job 9 years. If you want to catch some of the guys below him, let's say 6 years, it adds Colletti, Mozeliak, Friedman, and Daniels.

I ignored MacPahil in the first list, but he probably belongs too.

I think you can make arguments for Friedman, Beane, Alderson, Jocketty, and Sabean. The other 11 I would say are clearly inferior on balance.

I can't imagine what some of you guys went through growing up with the Sox in the 70's, 80's and 90's , putting up with all the crap you had to.

On its good days, it was merely soul-crushing.

maybe I take baseball too seriously,

That's unpossible!

I think you can make an argument for Cashman, too, Nate. But I agree with your point.

But I'll do you a favor. I'll tell you right now that this team will be lucky to catch the tail end of a wild-card play-in, if such a thing exists in 2012.

Why say a thing like this when you have no way of knowing anything about what next year will look like right now? And while we're at it, how is that a favor?

Can you imagine how an 11 year old Phil Coorey would have reacted to 1986?

Cashman I still think is a bit of an unknown. He's done at least an average job, but beyond that I'm not comfortable one way or the other.

But still, so maybe six you'd consider. And I'd throw out Cashman, Alderson (too removed from success, too many bad years), and Beane (he can't even say he beats Theo at player development in the last six or so years) relatively easily. So you've got a 75% percentile GM at worst, and that's with a data set that inherently favors good GMs. Yep, let's get rid of him.

Cashman I still think is a bit of an unknown. He's done at least an average job

I think the Yanks have an outstanding Org. As we know, A payroll doesn't guarantee anything. It's an advantage to be sure, but the Sox can tell a few stories about 'teams on paper.'.

Why say a thing like this when you have no way of knowing anything about what next year will look like right now? And while we're at it, how is that a favor?

Because you can continue to bask in the glow of 2004/2007 without worrying about silly things like 2012.

I can't imagine what some of you guys went through growing up with the Sox in the 70's, 80's and 90's , putting up with all the crap you had to.

I was born in April 1967. From that point through 2003, the Sox were non-competitive for only a handful of seasons, and only once won fewer than 75 games in a full season (and never less than 70). They went to three WS (I remember two), won two other East titles and could be expected to be in pennant contention at the outset of just about every season*.

Anybody who thought life as a Red Sox fan was some particularly arduous task before the World Series titles had a serious problem with perspective.

* The Hobson years excepted, of course.

Can you imagine how an 11 year old Phil Coorey would have reacted to 1986?

Unfortunately I can. Won't somebody think of the baby kangaroos?!

my summary:
Theo's been very good overall.
He deserves some small level of blame for 2011; lack of SP depth.
More blame should be on manager for stratch run tomfoolery (defense, baserunning, clutch gagging).

curious info from stats shown above: how mnay Sawx fans would guess that the 2004 team allowed more runs than the 2011 team? Context changed pretty fast, didn't it?

But you didn't ask me, nor tell me. Thus I have every right to complain. If you and your wife have a great run of 8 years, it doesn't make it ok that she ###### the HOA.

But I'll do you a favor. I'll tell you right now that this team will be lucky to catch the tail end of a wild-card play-in, if such a thing exists in 2012

You can complain all you like. Make sure you keep a little perspective though. The Sox aren't the Pirates. If the team was your wife, they didn't just sleep with anyone. Instead they planned a 40th birthday party, invited all your family and friends, picked out a great caterer, but forgot to book the venue, so the party had to be canceled at the last minute.

As for the team in 2012, I disagree with you completely, provided the team doesn't panic and rashly overreact by blowing this team up.

Not 2003 angry, but certainly the most I have been since then, maybe I don't have much of life out here anymore, maybe I take baseball too seriously, or maybe I just love seeing Boston do well.

In any case - can anyone explain why that stupid mutt at third base has not been let go while Davey Johnson has? I mean if you are firing everyone as they should be, doesn't Bogar come on the contacts list before Johnson?

I was just as disappointed with the end of this season as anyone. I wasn't 1978 or 2003 disappointed, but I was let down. In dealing with that emotion it's important not to overreact, though. As fans, luckily, we don't directly control the fortunes of the team. What we do, however, is exert pressure on the Red Sox ownership. If we collectively demand radical changes to the team, we can push them into rash action that hurts the team going forward.

Was firing Terry Francona rash? I don't believe it was. Every manager has a shelf life. From what I've noticed, it seems like Terry's expiration date was reached. The fact that Francona's option for 2012 wasn't picked up before the 2011 season suggests to me that ownership/Theo had some questions about Terry's effectiveness before the season. Their historic collapse, in my mind, was proof their concerns were valid.

Which players *need* to be expelled? It's a little difficult to say, not being in the clubhouse. I really don't know who are the true bad guys on the team? By performance alone, the Lackey situation clearly needs to be addressed. Most likely they will do so by having more depth for the starting rotation. With the money invested and his track record before joining the team, I can't see them giving up on him this early, unless his elbow problem or personal issues are far worse than have been made public.

The 2007 Mets were an incredibly talented bunch. That everything went wrong all at once for this team in September is a major disappointment to me. Having said that, if this season could be magically played over a hundred times, this team would win a lot of games and make the playoffs most of the time.

Fixed that for you...

rashly overreact by blowing this team up.

I've seen suggestions including ALL THREE of the following, trade Youk cause he's old, fragile and can't last at 3B, don't resign Ortiz cause no one wants him to be around at the end of a 3 year contract, trade Ellsbury while his value is at its highest. Ladies and gentlemen, your 77-85 Red Sox.

I've seen suggestions including ALL THREE of the following, trade Youk cause he's old, fragile and can't last at 3B, don't resign Ortiz cause no one wants him to be around at the end of a 3 year contract, trade Ellsbury while his value is at its highest. Ladies and gentlemen, your 77-85 Red Sox.

Have you seen anyone who has so much as a sliver of actual knowledge of what the actual front office might do make these suggestions?
Do you think they would trade Youkilis, trade Ellsbury, let Ortiz go, and not get anything back in the trades of any use or sign anyone else?

I've seen suggestions including ALL THREE of the following, trade Youk cause he's old, fragile and can't last at 3B, don't resign Ortiz cause no one wants him to be around at the end of a 3 year contract, trade Ellsbury while his value is at its highest. Ladies and gentlemen, your 77-85 Red Sox.

I've also seen suggestions of trading Beckett and filler for King Felix and for trading Gonzalez for a stud pitcher then signing Albert Pujols. Ladies and gentlemen your 105-67 Red Sox.

Seriously, this is a 95 win team on talent. 90 should be an absolute bare minimum and unless they really mess up the off-season that will be true in 2012.

The AL should be pretty competitive at the top next year. NY, Tampa, Boston, Detroit, LA and Texas all look like potential 90+ game winners. Someone's going to be left out in the cold and someone else will probably jump in.

Have you seen anyone who has so much as a sliver of actual knowledge of what the actual front office might do make these suggestions(1)?
Do you think they would trade Youkilis, trade Ellsbury, let Ortiz go, and not get anything back in the trades of any use or sign anyone else?(2)

(1) Oh God, no.

(2) You're not getting back anything that replaces even 2011 120 game sub-Youk, there's no one to sign that can replace 2011 Ortiz, except Pujols or Fielder and that's not happening. And no one is going to trade a 9 WAR player for Ellsbury....I'm jus sayin, I don't think those players are gone, unless they are massive cancers I don't know about.

I'm not so sure about bringing Ortiz back. It all depends on what he's asking for. If he wants a multi-year contract based solely on his stats last year, I can't see bringing him back. It may be worthwhile to let him test the market and try to sign him to a 1+option contract.

Can you imagine how an 11 year old Phil Coorey would have reacted to 1986?

I would have done the daily double Puke + Cry

So here's another way to look at it that's been bouncing around my head over the weekend: The Sox seem to have plenty of players people would like to see moved (due to either suckage or collapse related crimes against chemestry), but no flexibility to do so (i.e. who's going to be an improvement on Youks or Beckett, and who would take Lackey?)... so "trading" Theo to the cubs in theory brings back on-field talent that perhaps allows the team to make the necessary changes.

I have no problem with Theo staying, but is what he brings anything that Cherrington can't duplicate? The whole point to the FO and the analysis is that it should not be completely dependent on a single person, and I thought the Sox FO had done a lot more in terms of putting systems and tools in place that don't rely on a single, glorious leader. Theo's worth shouldn't be measured in terms of what he has done, but the difference he provides going forward as compared to someone who would have the same resources to work with.

Well, first of all, there's the (simultaneously stupid and intriguing) question of who exactly would negotiate the terms of a trade involving a general manager.

Even if that's straightened out, do you think the Cubs would give up meaningful on-field talent in exchange for Epstein? I don't think a GM has been traded for players before, so all we have to go by are manager-for-player trades; the two I'm aware of are Randy Winn for Lou Piniella, and mediocre minor leaguers for Ozzie Guillen. Even if you would get more for Epstein, I don't think it'd be enough more to significantly affect the future of the organization.

@34--if you're the Cubs, don't you simply, gladly offer your top prospect for Epstein, if not more? Given who the Cubs will likely wind up with otherwise, given their ownership's track record, how could you not?

The 2007 Mets were an incredibly talented bunch. That everything went wrong all at once for this team in September is a major disappointment to me. Having said that, if this season could be magically played over a hundred times, this team would win a lot of games and make the playoffs most of the time.

Fixed that for you...

Funny thing about the 2007 Mets. They were a remarkably lucky team that managed to get the only good full season John Maine ever had, and the only good, full season Oliver Perez had had since 2004, and which was, to be sure, his last good season ever. Their core position players were healthy. They got the last good season Tom Glavine would ever have. They got the last season Orlando Hernandez would ever play, and it was a good one. They even got half a brilliant season from 90 year old Moises Alou. A few things went wrong, but not much. They were remarkably fortunate to be in any kind of position to lose the division in the first place.

Even if that's straightened out, do you think the Cubs would give up meaningful on-field talent in exchange for Epstein?

I'm not sure. It seems like there is no question that there will be some compensation, and it seems like a few of the Chicago outlets seem to have Theo as the apple of the Cubs' eye. The fact that there's no precedent and what appears to be a motivated buyer make it an interesting (test) case.

When the Red Sox were trying to get Beane way back before the 2003 season, the report I remember is that Beane authorized DePo to negotiate with the Red Sox to determine compensation. The A's wanted Youk.

I think it's a given that Theo cannot be a part of any negotiations due to conflict of interest; I'd expect it to be Cherrington/ JWH and the Cubs ownership...

I don't even remember where Youk's stock was at that time; it was certainly very different from his post-Moneyball rep, which has since been eclipsed by his on-field play. The flipside to that is that both the Sox and A's probably valued him similarly enough that they were looking past things like the BA ranking.

Here's the list of veteran (9+ years) GMs in the game:

Cashman
Alderson
Beane
Williams
Dombrowski
Towers
Jocketty
Sabean
O'Dowd
Wade


Pat Gillick says "hi". His record is better than any of the guys listed.....think Toronto Blue Jays, Baltimore Orioles, Seattle Mariners, and Philadelphia Phillies. He actually has a great case as the best GM of all time.

Here's the list of veteran (9+ years) GMs in the game:

Cashman
Alderson
Beane
Williams
Dombrowski
Towers
Jocketty
Sabean
O'Dowd
Wade
Melvin





Pat Gillick says "hi". His record is better than any of the guys listed.....think Toronto Blue Jays, Baltimore Orioles, Seattle Mariners, and Philadelphia Phillies. He actually has a great case as the best GM of all time.

Pat Gillick says "hi"...He actually has a great case as the best GM of all time.

Gillick is a good GM, but not a truly great one IMO, because of his tendency to bail on teams right when they were ready to fall apart.

I'm assuming that he was left off the list because he's not currently a GM, though of course he could be again in the future if he wanted. Gerry Hunsicker would be another guy in that same category.

@34--if you're the Cubs, don't you simply, gladly offer your top prospect for Epstein, if not more? Given who the Cubs will likely wind up with otherwise, given their ownership's track record, how could you not?

Tom Ricketts has a track record at hiring GMs?

Who the Cubs would likely wind up with if not Epstein would be Hahn, Cherington, or Coppolella. (With longshot chances at Cashman or Friedman) It's not like we're down to Theo or Bowden here.

You guys are going to be very disappointed if you're expecting a top prospect in return.

Pat Gillick says "hi". His record is better than any of the guys listed.....think Toronto Blue Jays, Baltimore Orioles, Seattle Mariners, and Philadelphia Phillies. He actually has a great case as the best GM of all time.

I agree 100%.

Tom Ricketts has a track record at hiring GMs?

Sure--every year you stick with a GM you're in effect "hiring" him for that year, just as every day you keep a stock you're in effect choosing to buy that stock at that day's price.

So I guess Epstein's a bad idea judging by Ricketts's history.

Pete A says Clemens is interviewing for manager. Don't know if he's joking or just wrong...but that would be hilarious.

Looks like a single first place finish in nine seasons, with three third-places thrown in there.

But a GM of a single organization must be judged in context, and with reasonable expectations. Dave Donbrowski can out-GM Brian Cashman by a wide margin and his team won't be as good on the field.

As an observer, I'd love to see what Theo does in a different setting. But I think it would be a pretty poor move by the Sox to let that happen at this time.

That sounded far more negative than I wanted it to. I think that in the context of the organization and the era, Epstein did a very good - maybe great - job.

That said, if the team doesn't win a playoff game next year, I think he should go.

Sure--every year you stick with a GM you're in effect "hiring" him for that year, just as every day you keep a stock you're in effect choosing to buy that stock at that day's price.

Which of course is totally incorrect given taxes, and diversification strategy.

As an individual, about the only thing you can do to make a diversified portfolio deviate from market avg. performance in the long run in to trade frequently. That will lower your return markedly.

As for the GM, guaranteed contracts have the same effect.

Once you're locked into a GM (or a manager) for several million dollars p.a., the replacement has to be clearly better by that amount of guaranteed money before a change is warranted.

A team that churns GMs and managers will likely just waste the money eaten, without improving performance at all.

Pat Gillick says "hi". His record is better than any of the guys listed.....think Toronto Blue Jays, Baltimore Orioles, Seattle Mariners, and Philadelphia Phillies. He actually has a great case as the best GM of all time.

I obviously meant active GMs. Yes, Gillick would well belong on that list. And of course one ommission doesn't change the point.

Cherington is the only choice: graymatter123.blogspot.com

Cherington is the only choice, says Gray Matter: Gray Matter

Maritime lawyer GMs are the new market inefficiency.