Q&A with JohnWHenry Options

[Who The Hell is ...]

"if you were a tree, how the hell could you let this happen?!"

[pk1627]

Honestly, I hope that JWH answers none of these (except for mine about the waiting list) and lets the hysteria die down. It's time for everyone to take a chill pill and let these guys right the FO.

[Eddie Jurak]

Agreed, wishful thinking on my part when I started the thread, but I have a feeling he's checking.

Can we pin it for a day or two and suggest fo further questions be posted?

SoSH's 12 questions for JohnWHenry:

I'd be shocked of JWH showed up and answered these questions here, but I think this was a terrific idea for a thread. Whether he answers or not, he ought to know what the diehard fans think of all of this, and this thread ought to accomplish that much.

I think SGs question is the one I'd like to see answered. My gut feeling is this: JWH owns a team because he loves the game, but he is not all that interested in the day to day running of a baseball team, and not stupid enough to be a Steinbrenner type who constantly interferes with his key people. So Lucchino is almost a perfect fit because he takes care of all the crap that JWH would have to do if Lucchino were gone. I say "almost" because it seems clear Lucchino's abrasive style of doing business has hurt the team on more than one occasion, incluign the loss of Theo. I'd say that what needed to happen, and didn't, was for JWH to tell Lucchino in no uncertain terms that the Theo extension needed to be done before the end of spring training. Anyway, that's all conjecture but that is how I see it.

[Harry Hooper]

things eventually became so acrimonious between the two of them that you ended up pulling Lucchino off the negotiations and turning them over to Tom Werner. That was the single biggest reason why the A-Rod trade never happened, because the amount of bad blood between Boston and Texas prevented them from finding a middle ground after Orza's ruling.

BSG, you're assuming there was a middle ground to find for a mutually-agreeable deal post-Orza. It is quite likely there wasn't one, short of the Sox laying out more cash than they were willing to spend.


Question for JWH: can you get Tek to bat RH exclusively in 2006?

[Pearl Wilson]

If he didn't offer any substance in his answers at either the press conference on Wednesday or in his appearance on WEEI yesterday, why would he offer any more information in response to questions asked by SOSH?

I agree it is a longshot, but it seems to me he is not someone who enjoys shooting from the hip, i.e. on camera or live on the radio. He may prefer to respond in writing (and I think many here can identify with that). This would give him a chance to think before responding and perhaps better express himself. That is, if he chooses to do so.

[behindthepen]

-Do you pay any attention to what is being said in the press in Boston?

-What is the strategic baseball direction of the team?

[Maalox]

Are you familiar with the term "gladhander"? And, do you think Larry Lucchino is one?

[SoxFanSince57]

I tell ya, what got me was the “fall on the sword” line. When CHB reported that Theo asked LL to do that for him my immediate reaction was there was no way Theo would run for cover like that. It seemed so out of character. The request didn’t ring even remotely close to being true. LL did go in and kill the deal for sure, but he did not fall on his sword for Theo. What he did was to throw Byrnes under the proverbial bus instead.

Now we are almost a week into our post-Theo era and LL has yet to say he is accountable for the failed negotiations. Funny isn’t it that LL is quite willing to let Henry “fall on his sword” over the failed negotiations. As we all heard during the Wednesday news conference Henry was clear in taking the blame for Theo’s departure.

What we didn’t learn was why Henry felt that it was his fault other than he was the principal owner and most senior executive so the buck had to stop on his desk. That is fine and dandy and very noble. But what was Henry’s mistake?

In Ian Browne’s article on mlb.com, we learn what I believe to be a major reason why Henry felt he was to blame.

Browne reports that “back in Spring Training, Epstein suggested to the Red Sox that they take care of his contract then so it wouldn't turn into a media-infested distraction after the season. Henry regrets not being more proactive in taking Epstein up on that suggestion. He knows that if he had, things might have wound up differently. Browne quotes Henry as saying "Had I acted six months ago or nine months ago to bring this to a resolution, maybe to force a resolution, to put those guys in a room and say, 'You're not leaving until we have a deal,’ none of that would have come into play."

Perhaps it is a leap, but what I understand Henry to be saying is that he delegated the job to LL and he (Henry) didn’t get involved until it was too late.

This indicates to me that Henry’s management style is essentially “hands off” when it comes to personnel matters. He delegated the responsibility to LL and it didn’t get done even though Henry wanted it to get done.

So we have Henry falling on his sword for LL and publicly defending LL in public saying that it wasn’t LL’s fault.

Yet, LL’s boss delegated the job to him. It was clearly important to Henry that the organization retain Theo. As we have seen in other personnel/contract issues LL’s negotiating style is to delay the start of the process until the 11th hour. LL waited and waited to start the negotiations in earnest. Henry either wasn’t asking how the negotiations were proceeding or was told that they were moving forward successfully. LL did not get the job done and Henry waited until it was too late in the process.

LL seems at this point in time either unable or unwilling to hold himself accountable for a critically important responsibility that was delegated to him by his boss.

Henry delegates a critical task in a way that functionally abdicates his responsibility as principal owner of the Boston Red Sox.

Will either of these two men change? One may. He has stood up and acknowledged his misstep. The other? He remains in hiding.

EDIT: Ian Browne

This post has been edited by SoxFanSince57: Nov 5 2005, 06:29 PM

[SoxFanSince57]

Hello JH,

What do you think about giving the type of authority to the new GM that Josh Byrnes has with the Diamondbacks? While Byrnes will undoubtedly run deals past Diamondbacks General Partner Jeff Moorad and the club's Managing General Partner, Ken Kendrick, it was interesting to hear Jeff Moorad say "The buck has to stop somewhere and with baseball operations, it stops with Josh Byrnes." What do you think of that position?

The Arizonia Republic

This post has been edited by SoxFanSince57: Nov 5 2005, 09:11 PM

[DeJesus Built My...]

Here is my question:

Do you ever tire of the knee-jerk rantings of obsessive fans who act as if they know far more about the inner workings of your baseball team than you?

[Murray Rude]

Here is my question:

Do you ever tire of the knee-jerk rantings of obsessive fans who act as if they know far more about the inner workings of your baseball team than you?

Isn't this just a knee-jerk rant?

EDIT: I don't mean to be rude but JWH let this happen. Your statement could hold true for literally anything Sox-related so could we ever question him on anything?

And yes, this IS a knee-jerk rant.

This post has been edited by Murray Rude: Nov 5 2005, 09:42 PM

[wade boggs chick...]

I know I'm tardy to this party, and I only read this thread quickly so I apologise if this question has already been mentioned, but here is mine.

It seems to this observer that a lot of the damage done (through leaks or otherwise) were not by Theo and LL directly but people within the organisation who were supportive of Theo/LL and who could not stand the other camp. Does your observation of the organisation support that there is a pro-LL camp and a pro-Theo camp who just do not get alont with each other? And if so, did you ever or do you now think that this is a problem, and is there any way to resolve this problem?

Thanks.

[Lanternjaw]

I'm curious to know how the GM search is going? From what I understand, Beattie is the frontrunner. Is there no chance that Theo can return at this point? Is that bridge burnt on both ends or just charred on one end?

[JohnWHenry]

I’ve been asked by SoSH to answer a number of questions. I am not going to answer all of your questions. Some have already been answered and there are too many! A number of the questions may no longer be timely.

After this I intend to turn the page of this issue publicly. The Red Sox have significant challenges this year that require attention be focused on the future and not the past.

[JohnWHenry]

One question

"There have been accusations in the past that the organization has been to very free leaking information to the press in order to win PR wars with players and even managers.  Now we have a situation where it would seem that a leak to the press has been a large factor in the first GM to win a championship in Boston in 88 years leaving town.  Will you consider making a clear statement in your organization that the leaks be stopped, and back it up with a promise to discipline anyone who uses the media in an underhand fashion to discredit a player or anyone in the organization?"

It is virtually impossible to stop leaks in Washington or in sports. The promise of anonymity eliminates accountability and makes it impossible to “discipline” anyone. The Plumbers were formed to plug leaks in the White House. Witch hunts can be more damaging than leaks.

[JohnWHenry]

"Will you get the NYT/Globe to divest itself of its 17% share so as to remove the cloud of conflict of interest that hangs over every baseball story the Globe runs?"

No. There are potential conflicts of interest everywhere. They are not always disclosed, but the Times Company share is continually disclosed.

As an example, we will all agree papers sell more copies and media gets higher ratings during periods of major controversy. But you don’t see that disclosed during each controversy. If you have a dark view, media has an interest in continuing controversy. Big Red Sox stories in all probability sell more newspapers in New England than when there is nothing to report.

When we see a doctor, lawyer, real estate agent – they don’t disclose the basic, inherent conflicts they may.

[JohnWHenry]

5.  You mentioned that there was a "reason to be named later" in your WEEI appearance.  Do you believe right now that this "reason" will be publically stated by either you or Theo Epstein at a certain point in the future, or is it an internal matter you do not anticipate making public at any time?

No. This was a joke Tom Werner came up with from a “player to be named later.” When he told it, it was funny. When I told it, it became a new “fact.”

[bosoxx05]

my fault, hit something by accident...sorry

This post has been edited by bosoxx05: Nov 21 2005, 11:33 PM

[Punchado]

Well, this is turning into a very interesting evening, isn't it?

[JohnWHenry]

"Do you anticipate cutting team payroll significantly in the near future?"

No. The payroll question is always there for some. The facts speak for themselves. We continue to try to increase revenues in order to compete with our neighbors to the south. They still have a huge advantage in that department.