Considering the overwhelming majority of the current team are products of Theo and Dave, I'm not exactly shaking in my boots. We'll all be fine.Good for Cherington, bad for the rest of the AL East. I will change the title to reflect it's a done deal.
Ben basically had the same job under Theo that he was just hired for, so he's pretty good at it.Considering the overwhelming majority of the current team are products of Theo and Dave, I'm not exactly shaking in my boots. We'll all be fine.
Geeze man, we'd probably have to throw Panda in that deal as well.So when do we trade Tazawa for Donaldson?
I mean, this is great for Cherington, but I don't see him as the sort of generational talent that means we'll see a change in the balance of power in the AL East because of this move.Good for Cherington, bad for the rest of the AL East. I will change the title to reflect it's a done deal.
Yeah, I'm not seeing the 'fuck fuck fuck' aspect of this. Good for him, but the guy isn't going to turn them into a juggernaut. Lots of people contributed to the farm system he gets credited for. If he can recreate that, good on him and it would likely lead to another GM job. Only (small) fear is he steals some staff.I mean, this is great for Cherington, but I don't see him as the sort of generational talent that means we'll see a change in the balance of power in the AL East because of this move.
Don't think anyone in this thread is saying he was terrible. But he also wasn't Pat Gillick, Theo, or a handful of other guys I would worry about a divisional opponent hiring. He made good moves and bad, like any other GM (as you note), but that's kind of irrelevant since that's not what he's being hired for. He did a great job running the minor league, but that's a title that has a lot of people below him doing a lot of legwork and one can't assume he can walk in and replicate that.You guys, he wasn't terrible. Porcello, Hanley, Wright, Shaw, Koji, Eduardo, and Holt are huge parts of this ballclub. Yea he had his Panda moment but every GM has those.
That's my worry.Only (small) fear is he steals some staff.
Is Toronto not a big market? I guess hockey will always be king but this isn't like going to Pittsburgh.I'm happy for Ben. Seems like a really good guy. I'm not sure if this moves the needle overall but it helps the organization especially since they are on the cusp of losing EE and Bats. I look at his time in Boston as someone who loved player development but was gun shy to make a move to fill a hole when needed. He's perfect for that kind of organization though where he's going to be under zero pressure day 1 and he can slowly bring along prospects to restock the 25 man roster.
In a big market like Boston or NY he's middle of the road.
Any argument that begins with "he wasn't terrible" demonstrates why this move should not concern Red Sox fans. You're absolutely right, but not being terrible shouldn't be the benchmark of a GM, and it doesn't suggest a skill set that will negatively impact the Sox within the division.You guys, he wasn't terrible. Porcello, Hanley, Wright, Shaw, Koji, Eduardo, and Holt are huge parts of this ballclub. Yea he had his Panda moment but every GM has those.
we should be concerned about the farm system he is about to build, while DD trades this one away and leave it barren by the middle of next seasonAny argument that begins with "he wasn't terrible" demonstrates why this move should not concern Red Sox fans. You're absolutely right, but not being terrible shouldn't be the benchmark of a GM, and it doesn't suggest a skill set that will negatively impact the Sox within the division.
Edit: What Poutine said.
You mean like he had the opportunity to do this year (for Sale) and declined to do so? Pretty sure if he didn't splash the pot at that time odds are pretty good that fear is unfounded.we should be concerned about the farm system he is about to build, while DD trades this one away and leave it barren by the middle of next season
They also have to take in Canadian money and pay out in American for salaries. That can affect things. But Toronto is a very big city, and their "region" is pretty much a whole country. Sure, their TV ratings are padded with Elk and beavers, but woodland creatures buy stuff too.Toronto has over 3 million in attendance this year, they have a national TV deal with their parent company broadcasting all 162 games reaching over 35 million people. They also have been trying their best here in the Maritime Provinces to convince the young people to become Blue Jay followers by holding numerous skill camps and other caravans. In other words trying to cut in to the traditional Red Sox following that exists in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. They are indeed a major market.
What does this have to do with Cherington? Is it that they'll have plenty of money to sign the next sandavol?Toronto has over 3 million in attendance this year, they have a national TV deal with their parent company broadcasting all 162 games reaching over 35 million people. They also have been trying their best here in the Maritime Provinces to convince the young people to become Blue Jay followers by holding numerous skill camps and other caravans. In other words trying to cut in to the traditional Red Sox following that exists in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. They are indeed a major market.
When he steals Sawdaye and Romero I'll start to get concerned. BC isn't responsible for the farm anymore than Jobs is for the iPhone. There's a large network underneath that deserves the credit that the head receives, as any business.we should be concerned about the farm system he is about to build, while DD trades this one away and leave it barren by the middle of next season
His trades were Good to Meh - but his FA signings turned from Good to Disastrous, Porcello and Hanley excepted.You guys, he wasn't terrible. Porcello, Hanley, Wright, Shaw, Koji, Eduardo, and Holt are huge parts of this ballclub. Yea he had his Panda moment but every GM has those.
I can't fault Cherington for leaving; he wanted "the big job" and was passed over. Either he hoped Sam Kennedy would get the President job and he could be the top dog in Baseball Ops, or he wanted to be President of Baseball Operations - either way, it was a crushing disappointment to have someone like Dombrowski brought in to be his supervisor.My Blue Jays fan friend has been ripping Mark Shapiro since the day he arrived in Toronto. He's convinced that Shapiro wants to blow up this team because it's not 'his' team, and rebuild it to his liking with his own fingerprints on it. If Ben didn't want to work under Dombrowski, it doesn't sound like working under Shapiro will be any easier - quite the opposite.
I don't think that's right.Either way, good luck to Cherington. He's gonna need it, because he'll need to replicate his success in Boston with Toronto for several season in order to get a shot at the job he really wants.
What are you on about? Minnesota is currently looking for a top dog; Cherington didn't get a sniff for that job and his "strengths" would seem to align with their need.I don't think that's right.
This year in Boston is showing how good Cherington is at building a farm.
How is he going to further build his resume in Toronto? He could work on better FA signings, but he's never going to get sole credit for them.
I think Cherington wants to work after a year off. His resume is pretty strong now that the young Sox are playing well. GM vacancies are rare especially at top clubs. Cherington will get interviews and how he acquits himself in the interviews will determine when he gets a full GM job.
I think Cherington would have gotten that interview in Minnesota had he sucked it up and dealt with Dombrowski for this year. But he chose not to. And that is now on his resume and is something owners are going to weigh heavily when considering whether he he should get an interview.
What does that mean? Cherington didn't trade the prospects Theo drafted. He gets props for that, and for drafting/signing Moncada, Devers, Benintendi, Espinoza but did he truly "build" a farm? He was successful, but it's not like he came into the system in 2013 and loaded it up with good prospects, nor lateraled what we had for better fitting pieces (in terms of prospects). It's looking thin right now, especially in terms of pitching.I don't think that's right.
This year in Boston is showing how good Cherington is at building a farm.
Top President/GM jobs are high-talent jobs that are scarce. If you don't get one right away you go get another job and wait for an opportunity. That's what Cherington is doing. He'll get a shot at a top job eventually.
Edit:shorter
No way.I think quitting in Boston is now an issue that he has to overcome in any future job opportunities. He'll need to answer an owner who asks "Why didn't you want to stay on in Boston?" It isn't a disqualifier - but it is an issue he'll have to address. Had he stayed in Boston, he'd get a slightly different question but an easier to answer one: "why didn't you leave?"
Please show your work, re: demotion. He was reporting to a President who, per the owner, "runs the Red Sox" and was so notoriously hands-on that the previous wunderkind decamped for Chicago rather than keep working for him for a few years in exchange for his dream job. Cherington was asked to stay in the same role, with basically the same responsibilities, reporting to a new boss. He was not "demoted."No way.
I'm not even sure that ordinary working folks are expected to take a demotion in stride. Executives certainly aren't -- in fact, it's rare that someone at BC's level of responsibility is even offered a demotion; usually, they are just fired. If BC had chosen to stay on, it might not have been a career-killer, but it would certainly have raised eyebrows and required explanation in all future job interviews. Choosing to leave is the expected decision; any tactful explanation he gives for that decision will be just fine.
I see this type of comment a lot around here and I don't really get it.Please show your work, re: demotion. He was reporting to a President who, per the owner, "runs the Red Sox" and was so notoriously hands-on that the previous wunderkind decamped for Chicago rather than keep working for him for a few years in exchange for his dream job. Cherington was asked to stay in the same role, with basically the same responsibilities, reporting to a new boss. He was not "demoted."
Sure. But I look at it the same way that it's looked at in say the NBA. They've never really grabbed a big free agent in the last 20 or so years unless you consider BJ Ryan as a top prize which back then he was. I don't think the media will be dissecting every move Ben makes like Boston media did. Northeast baseball fans are the most rabid out there.Is Toronto not a big market? I guess hockey will always be king but this isn't like going to Pittsburgh.
Roger Clemens thinks you should have used 15 years as a cut-off.Sure. But I look at it the same way that it's looked at in say the NBA. They've never really grabbed a big free agent in the last 20 or so years unless you consider BJ Ryan as a top prize which back then he was. I don't think the media will be dissecting every move Ben makes like Boston media did. Northeast baseball fans are the most rabid out there.
I would understand your point if BC was offered the same role, just with another layer between him and ownership. But that's so obviously not the case that I'm having trouble responding to your point -- titles aside, you don't really believe that Mike Hazen has the same job that Theo Epstein once did, do you?Please show your work, re: demotion. He was reporting to a President who, per the owner, "runs the Red Sox" and was so notoriously hands-on that the previous wunderkind decamped for Chicago rather than keep working for him for a few years in exchange for his dream job. Cherington was asked to stay in the same role, with basically the same responsibilities, reporting to a new boss. He was not "demoted."
I would have quit if I were Cherington. I am in no way arguing that professional pride is not a factor; Cherington wanted the promotion, he did not get it, and rather than stay in the same role, he quit. He was not demoted.
As for the quoted section, he'll definitely get asked why he chose to quit rather than be a team player. As I said, it won't be a deciding factor question in a future interview - but it will be asked and he better have a good answer that is better than "I didn't want to work with Dave."
I guess this comes down to what level of autonomy you think Theo had. That he now resides in Chicago as opposed to remaining with the team he grew up rooting for, and the team he was personally assured by the owner he would "run" when Larry retired - suggests to me that Larry had much more involvement than you're crediting to his account.I would understand your point if BC was offered the same role, just with another layer between him and ownership. But that's so obviously not the case that I'm having trouble responding to your point -- titles aside, you don't really believe that Mike Hazen has the same job that Theo Epstein once did, do you?
DD is doing the job that BC (and Theo before him) once did, perhaps with a bit of LL's old job thrown in. Maybe DD has more authority than his predecessors did, or maybe Henry and Werner are more active now that LL is gone.
Dombrowski would not have had to demote Cherington himself, as his very hiring at the top of baseball operations was already enough to demote Cherington.Similarly, I am totally open to someone - anyone - giving me a source stating that Dombrowski is a micro-manager on Larry's level, or that he was going to "demote" Cherington.
That's... not evidence of a "demotion." Cherington didn't have final say in hiring (hi Bobby!) and he didn't have control over making deals. Learning to work with Dombrowski instead of Lucchino would have been a "transition."Dombrowski would not have had to demote Cherington himself, as his very hiring at the top of baseball operations was already enough to demote Cherington.
Here's a quote from Dombrowski from USA Today showing how Cherington's role would have changed:
"As president of baseball operations, you have control over making deals, and the final say in hiring. I understand it would be a transition with him (Cherington)."
In effect, no. Cherington HAD someone over him, and would have again. That's not a demotion. (link goes to the definition of the word)Some media reporting of the story with my emphasis in bold:
Sports on Earth: The Red Sox hired someone above Cherington, which, in effect, meant a demotion.
Well, this is promising. But since there's no details about what "power" is being removed - and since I've already explicitly stated that Cherington did not have the power to sign big money FA or make trades or hire managers ... what are we talking about?Grantland: Dombrowski had offered to keep him as the team’s GM, but Cherington, who’d been with the franchise since 1999, opted to step down instead since the move essentially removed his power.
Again, this is useless. He was not re-titled "Dombrowski's Coffee Boy" or "Farm Director." Cherington retained his title. He retained many of his previous responsibilities.Boston Globe: Why embarrass Cherington with what essentially would be a demotion?
Well, technically correct is the best kind of correct.USA Today: To be technically correct, Cherington could have stayed in his job, in title only. Yet to suddenly go from being the man in charge to asking whether Dombrowski wanted cream or sugar in his coffee, he couldn't accept the demotion and still look at himself in the mirror each morning.