Great news .. Thoughts of Frank Wren and other possible candidates of his ilk were sending chills down my spine.
Now they have to get rid of Baird and the jobs complete.
Now they have to get rid of Baird and the jobs complete.
People around here have been after Baird's head for quite a while. But I'm curious as to why. He hasn't made decisions on players. Yes, he has input into the decision making process, but so have a lot of people. Is he just the scapegoat here or has he done some specific things that warrant him getting fired?Buzzkill Pauley said:I think Hazen would have been my third choice, after Girsch and Dipoto.
If hiring Hazen helps keep the Sox international scouting team intact, then it's a good thing. If hiring Hazen keeps Allard Baird on the payroll, though, I'm not so sure.
Missing on drafts and international signings isn't a good thing. But it doesn't cripple a franchise the way consistent misses in handing out 8-9 figure salaries does, either.
Buzzkill Pauley said:I think Hazen would have been my third choice, after Girsch and Dipoto.
If hiring Hazen helps keep the Sox international scouting team intact, then it's a good thing. If hiring Hazen keeps Allard Baird on the payroll, though, I'm not so sure.
Missing on drafts and international signings isn't a good thing. But it doesn't cripple a franchise the way consistent misses in handing out 8-9 figure salaries does, either.
Pretty sure you're missing his point. He's saying that Baird's role has been to miss on the 8-9 figure salaries.Snodgrass'Muff said:
What does "missing on drafts" mean? Assuming that Baird has even had a significant voice in who has been drafted, the Sox have been pretty strong in the draft overall with this front office group and the last five years doesn't suggest there's been any recent change in that regard.
absintheofmalaise said:People around here have been after Baird's head for quite a while. But I'm curious as to why. He hasn't made decisions on players. Yes, he has input into the decision making process, but so have a lot of people. Is he just the scapegoat here or has he done some specific things that warrant him getting fired?
If he doesn't make the final decision on players, he's in charge of what information recommends a particular course of action.absintheofmalaise said:People around here have been after Baird's head for quite a while. But I'm curious as to why. He hasn't made decisions on players. Yes, he has input into the decision making process, but so have a lot of people. Is he just the scapegoat here or has he done some specific things that warrant him getting fired?
Buzzkill Pauley said:If he doesn't make the final decision on players, he's in charge of what information recommends a particular course of action.
Baird has been either the top pro scout preparing the recommendation, or the top executive in charge of the pro scouting group which makes the recommendation, on almost all pro player acquisitions since Carl Crawford.
That responsibility makes him nominally answerable for the Sox comitting $511MM to Carl Crawford, Ryan Dempster, Shane Victorino, Allen Craig, Pablo Sandoval, Hanley Ramirez, and Rick Porcello.
Now, missing on a bet now and then happens. But when virtually every contract over $30MM that you hand out ends up busting, over a period of four straight years, there is a problem. And that problem is most likely attributable to the information on which the decision is made.
well , if he was the primary driving force behind the Crawford, Panda and Hanley deals then I doubt he'll survive. For what it's worth - probably nothing - in Hazen's presser today he reamed off along list of his fellow FO staff workers that he felt were a team .. A list from which Baird was conspicuously absent (although he did mention him later on)Papelbon's Poutine said:The continued crucifixion of Allard Baird is perhaps the biggest reach of the main board over the last few years, slightly behind the notion that the Sox will eat half of Hanley or Pablo's contract to dump them.
People pay too much attention to titles and attribute too much weight to them. End of day the decision is the GMs or the owner's. Baird may have given bad advice but I'm sure every other FO has a guy in his position, whatever the title, that has given a lot worse.
If anyone wants to blame every bad acquisition on him, I have a bridge to sell you. And also a pamphlet about the good moves the FO has made since he;s been in employ, but I assume you'll just attribute those to someone else.
An MLB FO is much bigger than any singular person, positive or negative. We saw that as Theo's minions began to be poached.
First, the jury is still very much out on Pablo and Hanley. We witnessed first hand from Lackey that there is always time to make a contract worth it.BCsMightyJoeYoung said:well , if he was the primary driving force behind the Crawford, Panda and Hanley deals then I doubt he'll survive. For what it's worth - probably nothing - in Hazen's presser today he reamed off along list of his fellow FO staff workers that he felt were a team .. A list from which Baird was conspicuously absent (although he did mention him later on)
Some (as we've seen with the responses) mark him as directly responsible for the big failed contracts of the last half decade and want him gone for that reason, but that wasn't really his job.absintheofmalaise said:People around here have been after Baird's head for quite a while. But I'm curious as to why. He hasn't made decisions on players. Yes, he has input into the decision making process, but so have a lot of people. Is he just the scapegoat here or has he done some specific things that warrant him getting fired?
Buzzkill Pauley said:
The Sox have played better ball under Lovullo, it's not a demotion, Farrell's strengths fit that role perfectly, and he probably could use the break from grueling travel next summer, anyway.
I would expect Dipoto to land a GM job as well, but that is far from a certainty as there are only so many top jobs to go around. If Dombrowski does see reason to replace Baird he'll have some worthwhile candidates to pick from.absintheofmalaise said:Dipoto was signed to a three month contract and I'd be very surprised if he isn't hired as a GM. I didn't see the press conference yesterday where he was barely mentioned, but if Baird is let go, that would create the opening in the FO for Farrell.
Papelbon's Poutine said:The continued crucifixion of Allard Baird is perhaps the biggest reach of the main board over the last few years, slightly behind the notion that the Sox will eat half of Hanley or Pablo's contract to dump them.
People pay too much attention to titles and attribute too much weight to them. End of day the decision is the GMs or the owner's. Baird may have given bad advice but I'm sure every other FO has a guy in his position, whatever the title, that has given a lot worse.
If anyone wants to blame every bad acquisition on him, I have a bridge to sell you. And also a pamphlet about the good moves the FO has made since he;s been in employ, but I assume you'll just attribute those to someone else.
An MLB FO is much bigger than any singular person, positive or negative. We saw that as Theo's minions began to be poached.
Papelbon's Poutine said:First, the jury is still very much out on Pablo and Hanley. We witnessed first hand from Lackey that there is always time to make a contract worth it.
Second, he is and was a subordinate. "Primary driving force" =\= "decision maker". He was not the one that signed those contracts at the end of the day. That was Theo and Ben.
Quite frankly we have no idea exactly what his role is and how much influence he has, but complaining about a second level executive to the extent that persists strikes me as witch hunting. Yes he didn't have a successful stint as a GM, but he didn't get that job because he won a contest. Further, the people that hired and employ him are not idiots.
He doesn't have his finger on the button, so to me blaming him for anything really comes off as making excuses for TE or BC. If you think he was ultimately responsible for three of the last four biggest contracts the team has decided to sign, I think you need to reconsider your view on the FO and the hierarchy there.
cahlton said:Just to add to the limited information we have about Baird's duties and track record with the Red Sox: He allegedly signed Jose Abreu, only to be "overruled by ownership." Or so says Gammons.
http://www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-sea-of-possibilities-for-dombrowski-in-boston/
The Allented Mr Ripley said:This is a message board, dude. Ridiculous statements and hyperbole are what we traffic in.
But it sure does seem like Allard Baird must have kicked some posters' puppies or something, given the disproportionate vitriol that is thrown his way.
BCsMightyJoeYoung said:well , if he was the primary driving force behind the Crawford, Panda and Hanley deals then I doubt he'll survive. For what it's worth - probably nothing - in Hazen's presser today he reamed off along list of his fellow FO staff workers that he felt were a team .. A list from which Baird was conspicuously absent (although he did mention him later on)
alwyn96 said:
Gammons does seem to have a lot of respect for Baird:
On Dombrowski coming to Boston: "He quickly learned why Allard Baird is considered by his peers the hardest-working and most loyal person in the organization."
Baird at risk for reassignment: "Allard Baird, the hardest-working, most loyal employee"
On bringing Bannister on board: "With the help of Allard Baird and Jared Porter, they centered on Brian Bannister, a former major league pitcher who made 114 starts over five seasons with the Mets and Royals and, after retirement continued his photography and gradually became fascinated by the data, analytical and sabermetric studies of the baseball he so loves."
On Cherington's off-season work in 2014: "his inner circle with Mike Hazen, Allard Baird, Ben Crockett, et al, is really smart and detailed; in fact, the best news since the Derek Jeter end to the season is that Hazen didn’t get one of the general manager openings"
kieckeredinthehead said:
There's nothing in there that specifically points to Baird being at all useful. Hard working? Yes. Loyal? Sure. Great, you just described Lou Merloni.
I think you're confusing the task of advance scouts (who evaluate short-term recent trends in order to find competitive advantages), with player evaluation scouts (who compare and project players for the puropose of acquisition).alwyn96 said:I do kind of wonder how much professional scouting really makes a difference in signings and deals. I'm curious about the kind of information you could get from scouts that you couldn't just pick up from the stats or a lay understanding. I mean, you don't need a scout to know how good most players are. I feel like I have a decent sense of how good Brett Gardner is, for example (pretty good. not great but a solid OF). It seems like their insight is more valuable in terms of stuff like "Mike Trout is a having a hard time with high fastballs right now. We should try pitching him that way" or "Tanaka's throwing tons of first-pitch fastballs for strikes. We should jump on him early." Scouting information seems most useful when stats can't already tell you 90% of the story, like in non-MLB settings or in getting mechanistic advantages against specific players.
Buzzkill Pauley said:I think you're confusing the task of advance scouts (who evaluate short-term recent trends in order to find competitive advantages), with player evaluation scouts (who compare and project players for the puropose of acquisition).
To use non-loaded examples, the Sox had advance scout David Gauss following the Cardinals in late 2004, and his reports were roundly praised as giving the Sox a great game plan to silence the bats of Rolen, Pujols, and Edmonds.
OTOH, the Sox also had unnamed pro scouts following Coco Crisp as a possible acquisition target through 2004-05. But the job there wasn't to break down how to attack Crisp the next time the Sox faced the Indians, rather to assess how Crisp's peak would project based on his skills as a young player, and whether he had the ability to transition from left field to center, in case Damon couldn't be re-signed.
kieckeredinthehead said:
There's nothing in there that specifically points to Baird being at all useful. Hard working? Yes. Loyal? Sure. Great, you just described Lou Merloni.
alwyn96 said:
Gammons does seem to have a lot of respect for Baird:
On Dombrowski coming to Boston: "He quickly learned why Allard Baird is considered by his peers the hardest-working and most loyal person in the organization."
Baird at risk for reassignment: "Allard Baird, the hardest-working, most loyal employee"
On bringing Bannister on board: "With the help of Allard Baird and Jared Porter, they centered on Brian Bannister, a former major league pitcher who made 114 starts over five seasons with the Mets and Royals and, after retirement continued his photography and gradually became fascinated by the data, analytical and sabermetric studies of the baseball he so loves."
On Cherington's off-season work in 2014: "his inner circle with Mike Hazen, Allard Baird, Ben Crockett, et al, is really smart and detailed; in fact, the best news since the Derek Jeter end to the season is that Hazen didn’t get one of the general manager openings"
alwyn96 said:Gammons does seem to have a lot of respect for Baird:
On Dombrowski coming to Boston: "He quickly learned why Allard Baird is considered by his peers the hardest-working and most loyal person in the organization."
Baird at risk for reassignment: "Allard Baird, the hardest-working, most loyal employee"
On bringing Bannister on board: "With the help of Allard Baird and Jared Porter, they centered on Brian Bannister, a former major league pitcher who made 114 starts over five seasons with the Mets and Royals and, after retirement continued his photography and gradually became fascinated by the data, analytical and sabermetric studies of the baseball he so loves."
On Cherington's off-season work in 2014: "his inner circle with Mike Hazen, Allard Baird, Ben Crockett, et al, is really smart and detailed; in fact, the best news since the Derek Jeter end to the season is that Hazen didn’t get one of the general manager openings"
This is maybe a separate topic entirely, but what would a reasonable bounceback year for Sandoval look like? He has, by one measure, been the worst player in baseball this year as of this moment (maybe Victor will "pass" him). He'll turn 30 during the year. I know injuries have been a factor this year, and I would say conditioning also, but I'm not familiar enough with his work in SF to say for sure.Papelbon's Poutine said:First, the jury is still very much out on Pablo and Hanley. We witnessed first hand from Lackey that there is always time to make a contract worth it.
Danny_Darwin said:This is maybe a separate topic entirely, but what would a reasonable bounceback year for Sandoval look like? He has, by one measure, been the worst player in baseball this year as of this moment (maybe Victor will "pass" him). He'll turn 30 during the year. I know injuries have been a factor this year, and I would say conditioning also, but I'm not familiar enough with his work in SF to say for sure.
Is it reasonable to expect him to transform back into the guy he was in 2012-13 (.280/.341/.430, 20ish HR power)? Would it be more like 2014 SF Panda (.279/.324/.415, 15ish HR power)? Are either of those possible, or did that version of Sandoval disappear when he left the West Coast? And if either of them are possible, do they justify $19 mil in AAV? The excuse of the May HBP would seem a lot stronger to me if he hadn't been much better in June (.775 OPS) than July, August, and September (.593, .650, .461).
One need only to look at Friday night's game to recognize that unlikely things can and do happen in baseball, but I'm not optimistic.
Allard Baird seems like the Red Sox version of Dale Snitterman.The Allented Mr Ripley said:This is a message board, dude. Ridiculous statements and hyperbole are what we traffic in.
But it sure does seem like Allard Baird must have kicked some posters' puppies or something, given the disproportionate vitriol that is thrown his way.