[Trautwein's Degree]

I'm in awe of the job that Theo has done since winning the World Series in 2007.

Looking back:

-For 2008, not giving up Lowrie, Lester, and Masterson for Santana has been a net positive for this team. I also think Theo deserves credit for helping to keep Santana out of the American League.

-Keeping Coco Crisp has provided this team with much needed outfield depth. A lesser GM may have looked at the outfield situation and moved Crisp for the sake of moving him.

-I think he played the Manny situation as well as anyone could have. They've gone 20-9 since the trade. I think Manny's outfield defense was killing them, especially on the road. I also think "team chemistry" means something.

-It's early but I love the acquisitions of both Byrd and Kotsay.

-I also think it was the right decision to move Masterson to the bullpen.

I'm sure there's more which is why I started this thread but I think Theo and by extension the front office deserves a lot of credit this season.

This post has been edited by Trautwein's Degree: 03 September 2008 - 08:44 AM

[syoo8]

Trautwein, on Sep 3 2008, 09:40 AM, said:

I'm in awe of the job that Theo has done since winning the World Series in 2007.

I totally agree with you.

Question: What is Theo's contract status? He signed in January '06 (a few months after the gorilla suit.) Does anyone know the latest?

[Bowlerman9]

syoo8, on Sep 3 2008, 09:44 AM, said:

I totally agree with you.

Question: What is Theo's contract status? He signed in January '06 (a few months after the gorilla suit.) Does anyone know the latest?

He didnt actually sign in Jan 06 - he returned in Jan 06. He went the entire 2006 season without a contract and signed in either late 06 or early 07.

[TomRicardo]

This off season was not even close to the first off season he had.

Edit - This season hasn't been great for Theo, it has been pretty good. A lot of shit has went really well for him namely Masterson, Lowrie (Lugo getting hurt), Matsuzaka, Lester, Dustin Pedroia and Kevin Youkilis becoming a beasts.

It was still a huge mistake taking Masterson out of the rotation for Buchholz, one that probably cost us the divison.

This post has been edited by TomRicardo: 03 September 2008 - 08:50 AM

[Joshv02]

According to Cots and Heyman, the contract is up at the end of this year; which makes sense as he signed a 3 year contract cover the 06-08 seasons. I assume - hope - that the negotiations aren't in public and there will be a simple press release when all is said and done.

[Foulkey Reese]

I would add signing Sean Casey to Theo's list of positives. Lowell missed a few weeks at the start of the season and Casey stepped right in for him and they didn't miss a beat.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

The key to this year's team is depth, and Jon Couture sums it up pretty well:

Quote

A year after using the D.L. nine total times, the 2008 Sox are at 20.

A year after getting more man games out of their Opening Day lineup than any team, they're in a pennant race without their third baseman, shortstop and right fielder.

Yet a year after winning the World Series, there's still a reasonable chance they could do it again.

Given all the injuries and under performance this team has already gone through, it's a real testament to the FO that they have built a club that can apparently withstand lengthy absences of key players without much falloff. This is a stark difference from 2006 and perhaps a reflection of learning the hard way that acquiring and keeping depth is very important. The Sox have had 7 players make their major league debuts this year, plus another 4 with less than 2 years of service time. Theo's statement that he wanted to build a "$100 million player development machine" seemed at the time to be harmless hyperbole, but the FO has certainly made developing their own talent a high priority.

The Byrd, Kotsay, and Colon acquisitions have helped fill in the gaps as necessary due to injury and under performance.

[Joshv02]

Two mistakes that people make when debating GMs are (1) comparing them to some hypothetical perfect GM and (2) allowing hindsight bias to rule the analysis.

On (1) - When we compare batters, we can look at OPS+ or EqA or some other statistic that does an adequate job at normalizing the player relative to the rest of the competition. This makes sense as how a player does only matters in comparison to what another player would do. We don't assume that there is some hypothetical Sasquatch of a player who bats 1.000 and, therefore, Pedroia is a big failure. We assume that the relevant comparison is to the rest of the known world. There is no GM+ to compare GM moves, so analyzing a GM is often like comparing the GM to a hypothetical GM who is batting 1.000. We fail to recognize, sometimes, that GM's, like everyone, make mistakes. So long as well all realize we are doing this, then it is fine, of course. It just skews the viewpoint.

On (2) - Closely related to (1) is that we often assume things are "mistakes" by using hindsight bias. I think the Masterson/Buchholz choice falls into this category, though that debate has been made on SoSH before and need not be repeated here. The point is that we should analyze choices that are made in light of all the information (i) known to the relevant decision maker at the time or (ii) reasonably should have been known at the time. Then, look at the alternative choices and compare the total set of those choices (given the available information and choices) against the GM's peers.

I think when we do that, we'll find that this current regime does far better than most other teams. Rather than figuring out whose decisions those were, I tend to just attribute them to the GM. The biggest thing he did was develop incredible depth before the season started - and this was well recognized before hand. See, for example, the discussion on BTF when the ZIPS for the Sox came out: BTF Discussion.

So, Theo (likely) grades out well when all is said and done.

Plus, I read King of the Jews in college, am a ~30 y/o Brookline Jew, and wish I had Theo's hair.

[smastroyin]

TomRicardo, on Sep 3 2008, 09:47 AM, said:

It was still a huge mistake taking Masterson out of the rotation for Buchholz, one that probably cost us the divison.

This is doubtful unless they lose the division by one or two games. Not only do you have to presume Masterson's continued success as a starter (which was in question at the time), but you have to replace his innings in the bullpen.

Regardless, you could take this statement and say "David Ortiz hitting 200 points below expecated OPS probably cost us the division."
You could say "Josh Beckett pitching essentially as badly as he did in 2006 probably cost us the division."
You could say "Jason Varitek's three months of hitting worse than a random SoSHer taking his plate appearances probably cost us the division."
You could say "Jonathan Papelbon and Hideki Okajima being at a lower level than they were in 2007 cost us the division."
You could say "A bizarre inability to transform hits and walks into runs at an efficient level cost us the division."
You could say "The team still managed to underperform Pythag. even based on the already deflated run scoring and that cost us the division."
You could say "The starting lineup as of today has missed roughly 200 games due to injury (OK it helped in Lugo's case) cost us the division."

Despite these things, the team is most likely going to make the playoffs and can have a good chance to win the division if they take 4 of their remaining 6 games against the Rays. If they can manage to take 5, they become the favorites for the division. Hey, maybe it's unlikely, but it's not as if the division is conceded at this point.

Theo could have done better but this is the perfect example of taking Branch Rickey's famous axiom that "Luck is the residue of opportunity and design." The Red Sox got "lucky" that they had kids ready to step in, but they wouldn't have needed the kids to step in if they didn't have so much bad luck in the first place.

[SaveBooFerriss]

smastroyin, on Sep 3 2008, 02:14 PM, said:

This is doubtful unless they lose the division by one or two games. Not only do you have to presume Masterson's continued success as a starter (which was in question at the time), but you have to replace his innings in the bullpen.

Regardless, you could take this statement and say "David Ortiz hitting 200 points below expecated OPS probably cost us the division."
You could say "Josh Beckett pitching essentially as badly as he did in 2006 probably cost us the division."
You could say "Jason Varitek's three months of hitting worse than a random SoSHer taking his plate appearances probably cost us the division."
You could say "Jonathan Papelbon and Hideki Okajima being at a lower level than they were in 2007 cost us the division."
You could say "A bizarre inability to transform hits and walks into runs at an efficient level cost us the division."
You could say "The team still managed to underperform Pythag. even based on the already deflated run scoring and that cost us the division."
You could say "The starting lineup as of today has missed roughly 200 games due to injury (OK it helped in Lugo's case) cost us the division."

I think the logical retort is that the Masterson decision is the only one of those in Theo's control. Theo had no control over anything on your list.

I don't necessarily agree with Tom on substance, but he can point to that one decision by the F.O. as potentially costing the Sox 1 or 2 wins.

This post has been edited by Skins24: 03 September 2008 - 09:24 AM

[bankshot1]

When you factor in the personnel moves/drafting, players not resigned, the significant contributions that prospects and young players have given this team, in addition to the Colon, Byrd, Kotsay mid-season adds, IMO its hard not to give theo and the FO a ton of credit. They've done a very good job.

[Paul M]

What if Masterson saved them from trading Moss, Lowrie, Bowden, or Hansen? Who knows if they get Jason Bay and not lose that important depth? They saw Masterson as the best relief pitcher value out there and they were right it seems. Last week's game in NY will be a game to look back on. They needed a RP badly and they also needed all of those pieces I listed above to survive this season. Given that neither Buchholz nor Masterson would be playoff starters but Masterson was the better bet to relieve well, the move has more potential October impact as well, though I don't think even the harshest Buchholz skeptics foresaw what happened in the last month he was up. Ex ante, it was at best a wash and that kind of ignores the ancillary value Masterson brought to the team.

[Manny's Hammies]

To keep the Masterson/Buchholz thing squarely in the Theo side of the things here...

The thing I think we miss on that decision was that it was all about upside. I agree w/ the point above about hindsight, and here you have to consider that Buchholz's situation has clearly confounded a lot of baseball people, from Farrell to Buchholz himself -- notwithstanding the griping going on here, everybody who actually KNEW the situation firsthand kept saying how much progress he was making and expressing genuine surprise that it wasn't translating into performance on the field. And wouldn't you know it, as soon as the guy is demoted, he's back to blowing everyone away.

All of which is to say, it's understandable why they might have blown this one -- Theo took a calculated gamble that Buchholz would perform at or around Masterson's performance level and would get a power arm for the late-innings in the pen w/o having to give anything up. Using the information that was available at the time—Buchholz's performance in his rehab and past performance, Masterson's declining performance as a starter, and the high price for relievers on the market—the choice wasn't badly informed. It just didn't work out.

[smastroyin]

Skins24, on Sep 3 2008, 10:24 AM, said:

I think the logical retort is that the Masterson decision is the only one of those in Theo's control. Theo had no control over anything on your list.

I don't necessarily agree with Tom on substance, but he can point to that one decision by the F.O. as potentially costing the Sox 1 or 2 wins.

This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. You can do that but there are a million decisions being made so harping on one as being more important than the others because we can view it easily is just ignorant. Every single thing creates a cascade of decisions. As Paul notes, moving Masterson to the pen lets them keep other players instead of trading them for a reliever. That's just a small example.

Despite all of the things that Theo could not control, the team is in place for the playoffs and still has a good shot at the division. That is the essence of the Rickey quote and how you missed that part of point is beyond me. Of course in hindsight we can pick apart decisions. But when the overall performance is there then maybe it's time to think that some of the "bad" decisions are the residue of a thought process that minimizes risk of a complete collapse. Even in the case of Buchholz, the upside of getting him straight will be felt for years, not just in this specific pennant race. So even if they knew perfectly what the result would be (and they didn't, and based on all available data at the time they made the right decision), the long term effect may outweigh the short term.

[Soxfan in Fla]

Skins24, on Sep 3 2008, 02:24 PM, said:

I think the logical retort is that the Masterson decision is the only one of those in Theo's control. Theo had no control over anything on your list.

I don't necessarily agree with Tom on substance, but he can point to that one decision by the F.O. as potentially costing the Sox 1 or 2 wins.

I think the real logical retort is the fact that the pen needed some major help and getting Masterson in there has stabilized it.

[dauber23]

Theo did indeed create a hole in the rotation by moving Masterson to the pen. But his move to get Byrd--for a bag of balls--to replace the ineffective Buchholz has minimized the damage to the rotation while we still enjoy the benefits Masterson has brought to the pen.

I think the non-trade for Santana, the brilliant move to get reasonable value (a reasonable replacement in Bay) for the no-longer-viable Manny, and the August pick ups of Byrd and Kotsay are all fantastic decisions by Theo. If the Sox win another ring, Theo gets a lot of the credit.

[Soxfan in Fla]

The one thing not really stated was getting Jason Bay in the whole Manny debacle. Consideration everyone knew he was desperate to get Manny out of town I think he did pretty damn good in getting Bay as his return. Could not have done any better and could have done much worse (insert what Marlins were offering here). Also, his throw ins on this deal, Hansen (who needed a fresh start elsewhere) and Moss (who was replaced dirt cheap with Kotsay for now) really were expendable parts. He didn't give up anything of any value and got great value in return in a move that had to be made out of desperation. Nicely done.

[Philip Jeff Frye]

Soxfan in Fla, on Sep 3 2008, 10:59 AM, said:

The one thing not really stated was getting Jason Bay in the whole Manny debacle. Consideration everyone knew he was desperate to get Manny out of town I think he did pretty damn good in getting Bay as his return. Could not have done any better and could have done much worse (insert what Marlins were offering here). Also, his throw ins on this deal, Hansen (who needed a fresh start elsewhere) and Moss (who was replaced dirt cheap with Kotsay for now) really were expendable parts. He didn't give up anything of any value and got great value in return in a move that had to be made out of desperation. Nicely done.

We have bingo. Consider what the Phillies got when they "had" to trade Abreu. Or what we got for Nomar - OCab was a decent player but he's not Jason Bay and there was far less pressure on Theo to get something done at almost any price with that deal. I hated the idea of trading Manny, but Theo did a remarkable job of getting value back for him.

When "Feeding the Monster II" is written about our 2008 championship (or is it III - we need a book about the 2007 championship team, don't we?), the main themes will be building this team's incredible depth and negotiating a way through the Manny mess.

[TomRicardo]

I think people are extremely overvaluing the 4th/3rd reliever out of the bullpen. Masterson is not even the primary set up reliever in the scheme now and was used for mop up more times than for meaningful innings. He only has two holds so far. For better or worse MDC has been getting more meaningful innings than Masterson, so Masterson would probably be considered the 4th arm out of the bullpen. At best and this is really stretching it, Masterson has been +1 win in the bullpen.

Meanwhile Buchholz was an absolute unmitigated disaster in the rotation. His 8.28 ERA and less than 4 1/3 IP per a start were crippling. We are talking 8 starts that were extremely below replacement value. The Red Sox only went 1 - 7. Teams like Toronto and Kansas City were getting to him. I would say that it would be easy to say with Masterson the Red Sox would have gone 4 - 4 in these games (even without Masterson's mop up skills in the bullpen). 5 - 3 may be more likely.

The move was more of a 2 - 4 game swing than a 1 - 2 game swing. Fortunately we got really lucky and got Byrd (Cashman was sleeping).

[SaveBooFerriss]

smastroyin, on Sep 3 2008, 02:49 PM, said:

This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. You can do that but there are a million decisions being made so harping on one as being more important than the others because we can view it easily is just ignorant. Every single thing creates a cascade of decisions. As Paul notes, moving Masterson to the pen lets them keep other players instead of trading them for a reliever. That's just a small example.

First off, I am not arguing that Theo or the F.O. has done a bad job (I think they have done great). I am not even arguing that the Masterson move to the pen was the wrong move. All I am saying is someon can point to it an argue that it may have cost the Sox 1 or 2 wins.

Of course there are a myraid of decisions that affect each other, but let's look at it this way: Assume the Red Sox are trailing a game 4-3 in the 9th inning with the bases loaded and one out, Tito inexplicably pinch hits Cash for Ortiz and Cash gounds into a double play to end the game. Most people would probably point to the decision to pinch hit for Ortiz as the most significant decision that cost the Sox a chance to win the game even though there were dozens of plays earlier in the game that could have caused the Sox to win. If the Sox had been leading 8-3, the same decision would have been irrelevant.

I am not saying that the Materson decision was a bad decision like pinch hitting for Cash or Ortiz, but it we play your game and agree that every single thing creates a cascade of decisions we might as well give up trying to evaluate decisions by the front office and just look at the end result of the season. If the season was a success, every decision was great. If the season was a failure, every decision was bad.

As I said it my initial post, I do not agree with Tom on substance, but he said that the Masterson move was bad when it was made and he has the right to claim it cost the Sox a couple games. Pointing out the Varitek has underperformed does not refute this argument.