Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

John Henry on WEEI - 5p EST


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
342 replies to this topic

#301 Guapos Toenails

  • 1,855 posts

Posted 04 November 2005 - 01:58 PM

Did you work 1000 hours?  I heard that was the cutoff (security and ushers didn't get it, even guys with 35-40 years of service)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I hadnt heard that there was a cutoff. 1,000 hours? Not even close! Not that anyone selling $4 Cokes actually would deserve a WS ring (tongue in cheek doesnt come across well on message boards...). I do know of a few security guys that got rings...the guy who watches the Sox players cars, and the really old guy who guards the TV trucks (center field, by the employees entrance)...he was showing it off one day and let me try it on!

edit: [/hijack]

Edited by Guapos Toenails, 04 November 2005 - 02:02 PM.


#302 Ted Cox 4 president

  • 766 posts

Posted 04 November 2005 - 01:59 PM

"Does he, in the sense of business practices owe them more? I think he did, subject to the caveat that we don't really know what went on, from either direction."


I couldn't disagree more. And my disagreement has nothing to do with the particular situation or the people involved. Instead, it has to do with my having worked, as a paid employee, in a variety of positions--supervisory and otherwise--for a variety of companies, both good and bad, over the past thirty years.

The employer (the Red Sox) knew the employee (Theo Epstein) was under contract until, and only until, a certain specified date.

To assume, or presume, more than that is (was) foolish.

#303 PedroKsBambino


  • SoSH Member


  • 14,635 posts

Posted 04 November 2005 - 02:08 PM

I will be surprised if many people here who have been in the position of being in charge of major operating units or who work in positions of trust and responsibility look at it as "my contract runs out at midnight so I don't really have any obligation to inform the organization other than that."

I have no idea what kind of notice Theo gave, mind you...he could have told them long ago he really might walk. And I recognize the point someone can make that "he left because they mistreated him" too. I'm just noting that my experience is that people with responsibilities at the level of Theo's very rarely just cut out on short notice. Maybe others have a different experience on that point.

#304 wade boggs chicken dinner


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,033 posts

Posted 04 November 2005 - 02:08 PM

I think the short answer to that is the highly paid executives in all fields are expected by their bosses/boards of directors to give more notice that they are or are seriously considering leaving than a few hours.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know. When you have a highly talented high-level employee, and you don't lock them up, there's always the chance they are going to say no. The longer you wait, the more chance they have of walking or finding a better place to be. I think it's one thing if they are leaving in the middle of the contract. I think it's a completely different thing if a contract is to be negotiated.

BTW, I have been wondering about how LL's contract extension was handled but can't really find any details. I know it was for seven years and signed January 2004. Anyone remember if LL's contract was on the verge of expiring? I think not, but I don't know for sure.

#305 Maalox


  • full of shit, and proud of it


  • 49,118 posts

Posted 04 November 2005 - 02:16 PM

But please, tell me how my (wrong) assertion that his contract was up distorted my ability to come to the conclusion that he owed the Red Sox nothing at the negotiating table.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think it has, and I agree with you in substance. In fact I agree whether Theo is under contract or not. Theo is not bound to renew a contract except as and for the fixed period that the contract specifies. So substantively, with eight hours left till lapse, Theo owes the Sox nothing, or at least very little.

Morally, I guess Theo's obligation to the Sox to tell them he's thinking leaving is about the same as the team's obligation to tell Theo they're thinking of firing him. It would be courteous to do so, if that's how you want to look at it. But circumstances don't always make that possible. Provided Theo was negotiating a renewal in good faith, I think there's no obligation. And on a practical level, during a contract negotiation, what really is the difference between a courteous early warning and a tactic to get more from the other party? And how do you tell the difference.

Anybody negotiating a fifty-cent mortgage on a dill pickle ought to know that you go into negotiations willing to walk away without a deal if your requirements (whatever they are) aren't met. That means that sometimes deals will break down. That's warning enough, and the Sox either understood this or had forgotten it because they took Theo somewhat for granted.

I did not respond to your post because I disagreed with it. I just wanted to clarify that point. Really more because of the post you were responding than your own, but imo your statement that he was "not under contract" went too far the other way.

#306 JimD

  • 4,795 posts

Posted 04 November 2005 - 04:01 PM

My $0.02:

I think the Venocchi/commercialism angle, to use a P&G phrase, has legs.

I don't think it's a disagreement on the baseball ops side (go veteran v. go young, or something else), because if the schism were over purely baseball matters, what value could Theo add in prepping for the GM meetings? Would ownership want him there knowing they don't share the same philosophy? Why would Theo help?


The hint for this, in my mind, was Theo saying that you have to believe in the whole organization. Meaning more than just on the field.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


This still doesn't wash. Theo has seen Lucchino's business development philosophy at work in San Diego. Did he think Larry was going to become a philanthropist simply because he was taking over Theo's beloved Red Sox? Maybe he should become a social worker - I mean, good luck finding an owner in baseball who shares such progressive views.

And what about the fact that it was the development efforts of both the previous and current Sox ownership groups that gave Theo access to the second-highest payroll in the game? Without that, he does not have the opportunity to win a World Championship in his second year as GM, afford Craig Hansen, etc. Would he have been able to secure a multimillion-dollar salary at age 31 without those resources?

JD

#307 Arock78

  • 1,953 posts

Posted 04 November 2005 - 04:09 PM

This quote, from someone that appears to be in a position to know inside information, reinforces my opinion that Theo's pulling out at the final hour was chickenshit.

While I can respect a man that is the "master of his own fate" and is willing to walk away from a situation because of ethical or personal reasons, I  still think Theo handled this poorly. Lucky Larry's game was well known to Theo... hadn't he been around Lucky  for more than a decade?

No matter how badly the Red Sox Front Office handled this it does not absolve Theo for bailing out at the last second and leaving the Red SOx Organization in a more weakened position... It isn't like Theo was worrying about making his house payment or trying to support his family while weighing the job offer. He can make plenty of money to support himself with or without the Red Sox.

By saying maybe, maybe, maybe, yes, yes, yes, yes, NO THeo put a big turd in the Red Sox Front Office's pocket. Even if they deserved it personally on one level or another it was a crappy thing to do to my favorite team.

For that, Theo is diminsihed.

Two other things:
1. I haven't read a CHB column in years. Isn't it time for everybody to just not give a fuck what that guy writes or thinks?
2. It is disheartening to see this Billionaire Ownership Group of the Red Sox acting on the one hand like  petty little bitches and on the other hand lie some jilted teenager. You'd think they weren't even grown-ups sometimes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


OR

Possibly, Theo put up with it until he had some leverage to change it. He didn't want to be a part of an organization that knowingly, consciously, and deliberately turns the team's fans against him (Nomar, Mienkievictz, Pedro, Manny, etc). Someone might believe that this helps the team save face when it wants to move on from a player, but if you ask me, it makes it harder for Theo to make a pitch for the city to FAs. Now that it was time for Theo to re-up, he made it clear that something had to change.

I know I don't want to see Damon, Mueller, or Manny demonized this offseason. The idiot who does read CHB is made a part of the negotiation process, in such a way that encroaches upon Theo's ability to do his job. I think this could be what was keeping Theo from being feeling able to "go all in."

Theo's well-liked by the players not just because he's good people, but because if Theo's good people, players will want to come to Boston. Theo's been able to get players to see value in coming to Boston on the basis of being very able to make them feel wanted.

#308 amh03


  • Tippi Hedren


  • 4,458 posts

Posted 04 November 2005 - 04:10 PM

I hadnt heard that there was a cutoff. 1,000 hours?


If you worked 1,000 hours and were an employee of the Red Sox, you got a ring. Employees of Aramark, and other companies (even Fenway Sports Group) didn't qualify for the ring.

I don't know about Aramark, but some other employees who worked fewer than 1,000 hours received Red Sox watches...some really nice looking ones...with the 10/27/04 date inscribed on the back along with their name or initials, I believe. They're cool looking.

Edit: spelling

Edited by amh03, 04 November 2005 - 04:11 PM.


#309 pedros hairstylist


  • Allison?


  • PipPipPip
  • 5,577 posts

Posted 04 November 2005 - 04:15 PM

I've put in about 100,000 hours over the years watching the Red Sox. What do I get? ;)

#310 kartvelo

  • 3,857 posts

Posted 04 November 2005 - 04:20 PM

If your current contract expires today, and you haven't signed a new one yet, then both sides should understand quite clearly that you may not be employed there tomorrow. Nobody needs any "notice," and neither side is under any obligation whatsoever to sign a contract they don't find acceptable.

#311 amh03


  • Tippi Hedren


  • 4,458 posts

Posted 04 November 2005 - 04:20 PM

I've put in about 100,000 hours over the years watching the Red Sox. What do I get?


The big headache we all have over loving something we cannot control...that and a huge craving for hot dogs & beer every few days.

#312 Maalox


  • full of shit, and proud of it


  • 49,118 posts

Posted 04 November 2005 - 04:57 PM

I've put in about 100,000 hours over the years watching the Red Sox. What do I get? ;)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, you just had your biannual kick in the nads. What else were you expecting?

#313 Murray Rude

  • 788 posts

Posted 04 November 2005 - 06:32 PM

That being said, Theo is just as guilty as LL and JH for letting out information if he is speaking to G38.  Who’s to say (and I am sure this is not the case seeing that Curt and Theo are friends) that Curt wouldn’t say something about private negotiations to someone and that person calls Tony Mazz and there is a story in the paper the next day.  Would Theo have divulged that information to G38 thinking it would get into the paper, no way. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



There's a chasm between leaking info to a writer to better your PR/negotiation stance and talking to someone you're fairly close to while in the midst of a messy situation. One is malicious, the other is not.

I think this argument that Theo, due to business ethics or some other amorphous morals, did owe it to the Sox not to walk away when and how he did is insane. He didn't quit, he could have been fired anytime while under contract. They tried to work it out - it didn't happen. It was their perfect right to wait on negotiation and it was his perfect right to walk.

They undervalued Theo as an employee by waiting. What was the benefit of waiting, even after Theo reached out for talks before Spring Training? They sure aren't leaving LL's contract to such chance, are they?

#314 PedroKsBambino


  • SoSH Member


  • 14,635 posts

Posted 04 November 2005 - 06:57 PM

Unfortunately, that's simply not how negotiations amongst senior managers really work, though. They simply don't walk away cold, without notice, regardless of contract status. And it may well not be how things happened here, but suggesting that isn't the proper way for things to go amongst experience professionsals is simply wrong.

I have no idea what the Red Sox and Theo told each other; they may well have made clear that the relationship might end when the contract expired (there were leaks that Theo had said this), or they may both have made clear to each other that either side may decide to walk away before that and not pursue an extension. If so, then Theo certainly did what was responsible, and it's his prerogative to simply walk. We just don't know either way on that.

If the Red Sox negotiated right up until the deadline, then hired Byrnes at 12:01 AM, with no notice to Theo that this may occur, that would be unethical as well in my view. It's a two-way street, but it's the reality of how senior-level negotiations go.

#315 5belongstoGeorge


  • Left Coast


  • PipPipPip
  • 8,013 posts

Posted 04 November 2005 - 07:11 PM

Unfortunately, that's simply not how negotiations amongst senior managers really work, though.  They simply don't walk away cold, without notice, regardless of contract status.  And it may well not be how things happened here, but suggesting that isn't the proper way for things to go amongst experience professionsals is simply wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Well said PKsB. Your post echos and explains part of my point that I posted a few pages back. Grown-ups routinely handle this situation much better than Theo did. I do give him credit for sticking around a few days to tie up loose ends, but in his particular type of position a few days tacked on at the end is not that meaningful.

All this blind Theo worship indicates an immaturity similar to what Theo displayed. Of course there are breaks that result iin an immedeate split, but I have to believe those situations are the exception rather than the rule.

#316 The Gray Eagle


  • SoSH Member


  • 9,519 posts

Posted 04 November 2005 - 07:22 PM

The fact that they were negotiating for a new contract, with the expiration of the old one on everyone's mind, is plenty of "notice" for the Red Sox. How naive are they that they need Theo to be the one to point out that once his contract is up, he won't be their GM anymore? If there were no negotiations, then I could see it being bad behavior by Epstein to leave without prior notice. But there certainly were negotiations, and they went on for a while. The Red Sox, IMO, took Epstein for granted and assumed that he wouldn't walk from the job he's always wanted. That's their prerogative, but they have to take the results for doing so.

The negotiations leading up to the expiration of the contract were enough "notice" for any businessman with a head on his shoulders.

#317 rmurph3

  • 790 posts

Posted 04 November 2005 - 07:28 PM

Well said PKsB. Your post echos and explains part of my point that I posted a few pages back. Grown-ups routinely handle this situation much better than Theo did. I do give him credit for sticking around a few days to tie up loose ends, but in his particular type of position a few days tacked on at the end is not that meaningful.

All this blind Theo worship indicates an immaturity similar to what Theo displayed. Of course there are breaks that result iin an immedeate split, but I have to believe those situations are the exception rather than the rule.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Can we stop comparing this situation to our own collective experiences in the business world? They aren't relevant. Theo stated that he is interested in continuing to work in baseball. On the day his contract expired, there were all of 3 job openings in the entire industry that matched his experience level. All three figured to want to fill their opening before an industry meeting next week (two apparently have done so). And Theo was supposed to what, give 30 days notice beyond the expiration of his contract out of some obligation, costing him any real shot at those other openings? I don't buy it, in fact I'm impressed he offered any transitional assistance.

Edited by rmurph3, 04 November 2005 - 07:29 PM.


#318 jp

  • 1,636 posts

Posted 04 November 2005 - 07:35 PM

Well said PKsB. Your post echos and explains part of my point that I posted a few pages back. Grown-ups routinely handle this situation much better than Theo did. I do give him credit for sticking around a few days to tie up loose ends, but in his particular type of position a few days tacked on at the end is not that meaningful.

All this blind Theo worship indicates an immaturity similar to what Theo displayed. Of course there are breaks that result iin an immedeate split, but I have to believe those situations are the exception rather than the rule.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I guess you are making the major assumption that Theo knew he was going to leave months before he did. I don't know that everyone is making that assumption. Personally, I think it may have been a culmulative thing that just built up and, then, faced with making a major commitment to re-up for three years it all came to a head right when several more very negative things surfaced at the last second. Do you think he should have just signed the 3 year deal regardless of how he was treated or how he felt? Conversely, why in the world would he bother getting pounded by LL in negotiations and working 20 hours a day if he knew for months that he was going to walk regardless. No one would do that - it just doesn't make sense.

Honestly, I feel that some of the people who are slamming Theo now are sounding like spurned lovers trying to get over the relationship by attributing something negative to the person who is walking away. I was pretty critical of Theo while he was here but I honestly don't have any problems with how he is walking away, particularly considering the circumstances. In fact, I think he has handled this all with an amazing level of maturity and professionalism. Certainly more than any of the other major players in this little drama.

Edited by jp, 04 November 2005 - 08:04 PM.


#319 Murray Rude

  • 788 posts

Posted 04 November 2005 - 07:43 PM

The whole "adults don't do that" notion is ridiculous. When things get contentious, people do walk...even among "senior managers."

If management doesn't want someone to leave, they need to take steps on their own part to ensure things don't get too ugly, especially if they don't allow representation (an incredibly stupid restriction designed, I would assume, to save money).

Mangement waited and waited and waited and then allowed things to get ugly.

Edited by Murray Rude, 04 November 2005 - 07:44 PM.


#320 PedroKsBambino


  • SoSH Member


  • 14,635 posts

Posted 04 November 2005 - 08:09 PM

I guess you are making the major assumption that Theo knew he was going to leave months before he did.


My guess, and that's all it is, is that in fact Theo didn't decide until the weekend. Which is his prerogative ultimately, and one can certainly make the case that he had good justification to change his mind based on things that occurred over the weekend, too.

But it also leaves open the real possibility (and this, like the rest of this thread, is speculation...because we don't know what was said or what either side indicated) that deciding that late in the process, without any indication you were thinking of leaving, was not the most appropriate thing to do vis a vis his obligations to the team...and by "obligations" I mean moral moreso than legal.

Whoever suggested we shouldn't use how the business world works to understand all this is, in my view, completely naive and unrealistic. The Boston Red Sox are a business and Theo Epstein is a senior executive. That's the context they both exist in, and noting how others who have that relationship interact is the very definition of relevant.

There's a notion here that the only thing which matters is the date on the contract, and I neither think that's reasonable in this context nor consistent with how the real world works.

I also think people are holding the team to a set of "moral obligations" which they then refuse to hold Theo to as well. For example, nothing in Theo's contract (I am confident) prevents the Red Sox from leaking information about him. If you believe that extracontractual moral obligations apply in that context, which many do, I think it's pretty obvious that this a two-way street and Theo has some moral oblications outside of the four corners of the contract, too.

Now, I simply don't know what kind of discussions they had and what they told the other. Theo may well have made his position clear, and this may be a non-issue. Repeat: I don't have any idea whether Theo did anything wrong and am not claiming he did. I'm simply noting a potential issue to consider in all this.

I don't buy it, in fact I'm impressed he offered any transitional assistance


Let me ask you about a different situation. Do you suppose when Ron Shandler left the Cards he walked into the office one day and said "you know what, I'm done," or do you think he had several discussons with them specifically about whether he would continue working with them or not, and then worked out a deal with them where he'd leave at a fixed future date, while negotiatng for some of his staff to continue on as well, working to ameliorate the impact of his departure. I'll bet you the answer is the latter, not the former....but I am just guessing on that, too.

Edited by PedroKsBambino, 04 November 2005 - 08:22 PM.


#321 Kid T

  • 501 posts

Posted 04 November 2005 - 08:29 PM

Do you really have to believe in the whole organization, though? There's lots of things at my work I don't believe in, but that's life. I guess I don't have the power that Theo wields, but if he has a problem with the team capitalizing on revenue opportunities and he's opposed to that....does it matter? I guess we can't really know unless we know what those issues were, and how they impacted (and would impact) his job.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


But it's clear that this position was more than just a job for Theo. It was an all-consuming priority complete with consequences on his privacy and quality of life. When one is gearing up to devote that much of himself, I think it is necessary to believe in the whole organization. I think in order to succeed, one has to believe that there's an appropriate risk/reward trade-off along with an appreciation for the efforts put forth. The CHB "article" clearly signaled that there was little appreciation felt by LL.


I'm just happy he's working out at 6AM these days. That's the first real good news I've read this offseason.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I thought only ARod worked out at 6 every morning (everybody else is sleeping in or taking their kids to school).


On a separate note, I wonder if G38 might comment on any of the other front office guys in the running. i.e., Were they personable (and interact) with the players? Would the promotion of any of them inspire confidence by players that this team is headed in the right direction?

#322 rmurph3

  • 790 posts

Posted 04 November 2005 - 09:08 PM

Let me ask you about a different situation.  Do you suppose when Ron Shandler left the Cards he walked into the office one day and said "you know what, I'm done," or do you think he had several discussons with them specifically about whether he would continue working with them or not, and then worked out a deal with them where he'd leave at a fixed future date, while negotiatng for some of his staff to continue on as well, working to ameliorate the impact of his departure.  I'll bet you the answer is the latter, not the former....but I am just guessing on that, too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Apples and oranges... and that's not a guess.

Edited by rmurph3, 04 November 2005 - 09:09 PM.


#323 PedroKsBambino


  • SoSH Member


  • 14,635 posts

Posted 04 November 2005 - 09:13 PM

No, it's not apples and organges whatsoever...the issue is how you choose to leave an organization and how you should communicate about that intention.

The reason for the departure is wholly irrelevant to this particular issue. But I take it you see the point.

#324 jp

  • 1,636 posts

Posted 04 November 2005 - 10:11 PM

No, it's not apples and organges whatsoever...the issue is how you choose to leave an organization and how you should communicate about that intention.

The reason for the departure is wholly irrelevant to this particular issue.  But I take it you see the point.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


OK, what do you suggest he should have done.? If he didn't know how the whole equation added up in his head about re-upping until that weekend, should Theo have offered to stay the whole off season? How do you know he didn't? If you insist that he must have known several weeks earlier, should he have announced it some time during the pennant run or while they were in the playoffs? I'm trying to understand specifically what you think he should have done. I've heard the platitudes - tell me the solution for what behavior you feel would be "reasonable" in this situation. I am assuming that you can't seriously suggest that he should have signed the contract though if he had decided that he didn't want to be there.

Edited by jp, 04 November 2005 - 10:13 PM.


#325 PedroKsBambino


  • SoSH Member


  • 14,635 posts

Posted 04 November 2005 - 11:07 PM

jp, I've been very clear that I have no idea what happened or whether there's really an issue with this. So for you to say "how do you know he didn't?" when I specifically said "he might have done this" leaves the impression you aren't even reading what's posted. I've state no platitudes at all, and I've never suggested he should sign the contract.

If Theo really had never indicated in any way that he might walk until the weekend, then I'd think the right thing to do is offer to stay for several months, or until spring training---something like that. I don't imagine the team would have accepted this offer, because they want to move forward with their own long-term person in place. But I don't really know what they would have done, and it's tough to say. They certainly may have asked him to stay on until they hire a new GM, for example. He may have offered this, the team and he may have been clear all along on what he was going to do, or the team may have immediately told him to clear his desk when he said he was resigning. I simply have no idea.

The larger issue to me is how clear the two sides were on the reality that Theo might resign, and when that became clear. There's simply no way for us to know, but it's an interesting sidelight to all of this with Byrnes leaving and the team pretty clearly having no backup plan in place.

Once again, because people are working very hard to make these all black or white posts, I have no idea whether Theo did anything at all wrong. But I do think one has to wonder a bit about the bind the team is now in timing-wise and how that developed.

#326 Murray Rude

  • 788 posts

Posted 04 November 2005 - 11:26 PM

All this talk about Theo or the club doing the right thing, even if no deal was in the offing, seems to assume there's good faith involved, when it appears that's not the case. When negotiations get acrimonious like that, I don't think anyone's looking to do anyone any favors...like stay on until Spring training, just to be a nice guy or whatever.

Extend the contract or don't and deal with the consequences, good and bad. If you want someone to stay through April, don't have the contract expire in October.

#327 jp

  • 1,636 posts

Posted 05 November 2005 - 10:10 AM

Once again, because people are working very hard to make these all black or white posts, I have no idea whether Theo did anything at all wrong.  But I do think one has to wonder a bit about the bind the team is now in timing-wise and how that developed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Actually, the curious thing in my mind about the timing is why the Red Sox dragged this out so long. They didn't even put a half reasonable offer on the table until the last second. That wasn't bad faith or scheming, at least on Theo's part. Theo wanted a deal done a year ago. I do wonder how the team was so incompetent to manage the timing as it did.

#328 Country Sinker

  • 881 posts

Posted 05 November 2005 - 10:20 AM

Actually, the curious thing in my mind about the timing is why the Red Sox dragged this out so long.  They didn't even put a half reasonable offer on the table until the last second.  That wasn't bad faith or scheming, at least on Theo's part.  Theo wanted a deal done a year ago.  I do wonder how the team was so incompetent to manage the timing as it did.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Which begs the ques. of which coaches have contracts and who will be given a crappy one at the last minute, they will have nowhere else to go and maybe that is the 'smart business' man's plan.

#329 PedroKsBambino


  • SoSH Member


  • 14,635 posts

Posted 05 November 2005 - 11:05 AM

jp, that's one I've asked a couple times, too. Why the team waited so long is a quite legitimate question and an interesting part of the thing. Were they unsure about Theo? Was it a leverage issue? Did they just assume it would get done regardless?

I believe it's a much more interesting, and complicated, situation than most people seem to be describing.

#330 jp

  • 1,636 posts

Posted 05 November 2005 - 11:47 AM

jp, that's one I've asked a couple times, too. Why the team waited so long is a quite legitimate question and an interesting part of the thing.  Were they unsure about Theo?  Was it a leverage issue?  Did they just assume it would get done regardless?

I believe it's a much more interesting, and complicated, situation than most people seem to be describing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I had been thinking that it's kind of straight forward, actually, It's a standard hardball negotiating tactic - come in very low and drag the negotiations out to the last second hoping the other guy will crack. However, the Red Sox cracked in the end and not Theo. My guess - that pissed off LL so much that he needed to get his pound of flesh at the end from Theo to satisfy his ego and show Theo who was boss. Hence, the CHB article. Petty and immature, but not unheard of in business, particularly when you are dealing with big egos. BSG alluded to this seeming to be LL's MO in a recent post.

This is a major warning signal for me going forward. I am sure that LL is a very talented businessman. However, if he has a blind spot like this causing him to have this need to satisfy his ego so that he is always preceived as the alpha male in every negotiation and in the organizational pecking order, then this organization is in trouble. From the FO and player comments that have been published, I have come to an increasing awareness that Theo was a critical buffer with regards to this LL flaw, shielding everyone else from it (though it seems at a personal price).

Hopefully, Henry has come to see this as well.

Edited by jp, 05 November 2005 - 03:51 PM.


#331 ddupre

  • 565 posts

Posted 05 November 2005 - 08:22 PM

...
If Theo really had never indicated in any way that he might walk until the weekend, then I'd think the right thing to do is offer to stay for several months, or until spring training---something like that.  ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I find this expectation, quite simply, insane.

All the published reports state that Theo tried to get this done months ago and the team stalled him. All the published reports state that the team failed to make valid financial offers until the very end. Reports also state that the parties involved knew a week before the end that the consumation of this deal would depend on repairing the fractured trust of a very disturbed relationship. People can say all they want that Theo was incorrect in his assumption that it was LL torpedoing him in the press but the fact that he thought the assumption was valid speaks volumes about his lack of trust for LL.

Under the circumstances, and taking into account how job tenure and behavior are in baseball management circles, I think your standard is unrealistic and unreasonable.

Dave

#332 Murray Rude

  • 788 posts

Posted 05 November 2005 - 08:53 PM

It's completely unrealistic and unreasonable.

Why on earth would someone extend that kind of good faith in the face of the bad faith offered (presumably) by the club? It absolutely defies logic.

It's not the right thing to do, even in the most extreme business ethics/morals sense. The club fucked up and the principal owner has said as much. The loquacious LL has been silent. Why does this debate still rage?

Promote someone. I can't believe some hold up Sabean as a viable option - what has he done in the last 5 years?

Just figure out who the best in-house guy is and maintain philosophy.

#333 Steve Dillard


  • wishes drew noticed him instead of sweet & sour


  • 3,692 posts

Posted 06 November 2005 - 12:55 PM

Actually, the curious thing in my mind about the timing is why the Red Sox dragged this out so long.  They didn't even put a half reasonable offer on the table until the last second.  That wasn't bad faith or scheming, at least on Theo's part.  Theo wanted a deal done a year ago.  I do wonder how the team was so incompetent to manage the timing as it did.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


It's LL showing off his negotiating skills. Didn't negotatiate after the WS because Theo had too much leverage. Wait until July, and offer a bare minimum, then wait for Theo to have to take it. Remain at 700,000 until the last week, when Theo tells them his $1.5 is pretty much take it or leave it. LL goes up to 1 m, then 1.2, and finally has to give in at 1.5. LL doesn't like to have to give in and be bested, and we see the only comeback he had.

Not incompetent, just gamesmanship, losing sight of the goal.

#334 SoxFanSince57


  • Carrie Nation


  • 10,048 posts

Posted 06 November 2005 - 01:00 PM

Not incompetent, just gamesmanship, losing sight of the goal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Same difference IMO

#335 PedroKsBambino


  • SoSH Member


  • 14,635 posts

Posted 06 November 2005 - 10:19 PM

Under the circumstances, and taking into account how job tenure and behavior are in baseball management circles, I think your standard is unrealistic and unreasonable.


And your basis for this statement is...what exactly? I can't think of a single other GM who left in this situation....rather than qutting, being fired, or being told the team didn't want to resign him. Thus, I don't see where the standard common in other industries for executives is "unreasonable" at all. But if there's better comps, I'm curious to hear what they are.

Also, noting the vitriol in a number of posts, it seems there's a group here who is unwilling to even consider the possibility that St Theo did something imperfect. I think very highly of him, and it won't surprise me if (when we get actual facts, unlike what we really have now) he's mostly the good guy here and others are to blame. But I think the unwillingness to discuss possibilities which include his imperfection is disappointing.

Edited by PedroKsBambino, 06 November 2005 - 10:21 PM.


#336 Paul M


  • SoSH Member


  • 10,381 posts

Posted 06 November 2005 - 10:37 PM

Presuming guilt and waiting until every nugget of info is available also isn't realistic as far as discussing the issue--it's not a trial. As I said in the other thread, it's Pedro Part 2 and like most issues, there aren't many people that are moderates. Everyone wants to claim they are independent and unbiased but at this point, it seems as if it's all or nothing. The true does reside somewhere in the middle but it's not our jobs to be the arbiters. As long as things don't get personal, and they have been too often in general, I'd say carry on and defend your views. Trying to change opinions never works, but it's good for debate to have solid views on both sides. A key trait is to acknowledge the other side.

#337 PedroKsBambino


  • SoSH Member


  • 14,635 posts

Posted 06 November 2005 - 11:01 PM

That's certainly a prudent reminder for all of us.

I'd suggest that is less like the Pedro signing (and the Grady debate before that) than it is like the Nomar trade, where there's a lot of people reacting with strong opinions and a few people saying "gee, maybe there's something else to consider in all this"

I was one of the people who decided two hours after the Nomar deal it was an unmitigated disaster and who was sure that I understood all the relevant considerations, too. I was wrong on that, and I guess I want to be a bit more circumspect here.

That's in no way a suggestion that we have to wait for every relevant nugget to appear, but at the same time we start to look like WEEI if we don't ask each other to make sure there's some rational basis for what's stated, too, right?

Edited by PedroKsBambino, 06 November 2005 - 11:23 PM.


#338 ddupre

  • 565 posts

Posted 07 November 2005 - 08:39 AM

And your basis for this statement is...what exactly?  I can't think of a single other GM who left in this situation....rather than qutting, being fired, or being told the team didn't want to resign him.


My basis is that Theo had no obligation to the Red Sox, either legal or moral, to continue working for the team after the end of his contract. None. My basis is that he, by all reports, negotiated in good faith with every intention of accepting the new contract if his needs were met. For you to claim that Theo should continue on working for the team for months when those negotiations failed, for reasons we don't really know, is, I think, unreasonable and unrealistic.

Thus, I don't see where the standard common in other industries for executives is "unreasonable" at all.  But if there's better comps, I'm curious to hear what they are.


Why the need to look at other comparables? What's wrong with just looking at how the industry we're discussing works? In baseball, loyalty lasts the length of the contract. If you're in baseball management, you're lucky if you even last to the end of your contract. The standard you're setting for Theo apears to be reflected nowhere in baseball. As for the "standard common in other industries", it varies and you know it. My place of employment does a lot of business with people in the oil & gas business. I know lots of those guys who were shown the door the same day they gave notice. The standard you refer to doesn't really exist as a standard. Things very from industry to industry based on availablity of replacement employees among other things.

Also, noting the vitriol in a number of posts, it seems there's a group here who is unwilling to even consider the possibility that St Theo did something imperfect.  I think very highly of him, and it won't surprise me if (when we get actual facts, unlike what we really have now) he's mostly the good guy here and others are to blame.  But I think the unwillingness to discuss possibilities which include his imperfection is disappointing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I'd suggest that you'd have a hard time finding a post of mine in that tone. I'm not "absolving" Theo for the unhapppiness I feel at his departure. Pretty tough to do that when I haven't really discovered what his reasons are.

Dave

#339 PedroKsBambino


  • SoSH Member


  • 14,635 posts

Posted 07 November 2005 - 09:49 AM

My basis is that Theo had no obligation to the Red Sox, either legal or moral, to continue working for the team after the end of his contract. None. My basis is that he, by all reports, negotiated in good faith with every intention of accepting the new contract if his needs were met. For you to claim that Theo should continue on working for the team for months when those negotiations failed, for reasons we don't really know, is, I think, unreasonable and unrealistic.


It's unclear (to some at least) whether he owed them anything in terms of notice or "moral" obligations in this context though...that's entirely my point. You are assuming things about the negotiation and the situation that we simply can't know, and that's my concern. You say that by "all reports" he "negotiated in good faith" But this isn't true---there's no reports either way on that point, it's just your assumption based, presumably, on how you view the larger issue. The substance of the debates is entirely what we don't know! Do I have reason to think he was acting in bad faith? None at all. But I do think leaving that late in the process is questionable behavior, and thus I'm curious what proceeded it. It's an open question.

Put another way, absence of knowledge about the endgame speaks to the question of whether Theo handled the situation appropriately as well. Suggesting that we can be sure he didn't err in the way he left seems to simply be a statement of faith in Theo rather than anything else.

Why the need to look at other comparables? What's wrong with just looking at how the industry we're discussing works? In baseball, loyalty lasts the length of the contract. If you're in baseball management, you're lucky if you even last to the end of your contract.


That's not really the case, though. Can you name a comparable situation where the longstanding GM decided he wanted to walk away in the last 24 hours of a negotiation? I can think of GMs who negotiated for new jobs and didn't sign or walked away almost immediately after signing...but that's very different, because they don't have unique organizational knowledge and the potential responsibilities that come with it. I can think of interim GMs who left for permanent jobs, but that's largely different as well...there's a clear statement in the job title that the sides don't expect the relationship to continue indefinitely absent some mutual reaffirmation. And so forth.

It's a question of what was communicated amongst these guys and when; we just don't know the answer. I suspect that Theo was reasonably clear that he might walk and the team understood that, but noting that it's an issue is quite fair and reasonable. It's not uncommon for this to arise in the larger corporate world, and everyone there understands there's a series of obligations which exist.

For those noting the leverage issue, isn't the reality that Theo's leverage was far, far greater than the team's as they made it to the endgame? If you don't think so, ask yourself whether the team right now is more desperate to address the GM spot than it was three months ago...I think that's your answer on actual leverage.

Edited by PedroKsBambino, 07 November 2005 - 09:52 AM.


#340 Worst Trade Evah


  • SoSH Member


  • 10,834 posts

Posted 07 November 2005 - 04:52 PM

But it also leaves open the real possibility (and this, like the rest of this thread, is speculation...because we don't know what was said or what either side indicated) that deciding that late in the process, without any indication you were thinking of leaving, was not the most appropriate thing to do vis a vis his obligations to the team...and by "obligations" I mean moral moreso than legal.


I completely disagree with this. The end of Theo's contract was a surprise to no one. If the team wanted him around beyond that time -- then they should have figured out what they needed to do to sign him. Instead, they delayed and then low-balled -- as they have done repeatedly in previous big negotiations. It bit them in the ass, and Theo simply cannot be blamed for this. He owed them ZERO "moral" obligation, whatever could possibly be meant by this.

What is Theo supposed to have done? He had a window to use, and he used it. That is entirely his right. If the organization wanted some other outcome, well, they had their chances. Expecting Theo to decide at some arbitrary time before hand (during the season? you can't be serious), or expecting him to hang out another year or so -- these are just completely unrealistic.

#341 PedroKsBambino


  • SoSH Member


  • 14,635 posts

Posted 07 November 2005 - 10:33 PM

It's been clearly described in the thread, but if you don't want to agree that's your prerogative. The question is what indications they may have given each other in the negotiations, and what the sides believed, against the context of how senior executives act. We simply don't know, and I don't know that it's very likely Theo did anything wrong at all. But ignoring the possibility is rather closeminded, too.

I have most certainly not said that Theo should have decided at "some arbitrary time beforehand" or "hang out another year or so" If that's what you've gotten you've badly misread what the discussion is about.

Edited by PedroKsBambino, 07 November 2005 - 10:40 PM.


#342 Guest_Corsi Combover_*

Posted 08 November 2005 - 12:22 AM

Like his Sox, Henry’s funds are in the Red

As if Red Sox owner John Henry didn’t have enough problems, new figures suggest he is heading for his worst year in the markets in recent memory.
    Six of his 11 funds lost money last month, leaving 10 in the red for 2005 with just two months to go.
    His main $1.8 billion Strategic Allocation fund is down 16 percent. His Dollar fund: 28 percent.
    This in a year when Wall Street is up 1 percent, international markets 6 percent and commodities 27 percent.


Source: http://business.bost...rticleid=111065

#343 Rudy Pemberton


  • Just a string of characters


  • 28,704 posts

Posted 08 November 2005 - 09:42 AM

Poor John, he's going to have trouble making ends meet this year, isn't he?

So his $1.8 billion fund is down to $1.5 billion? I don't envy him! :)