Q&A with JohnWHenry
From SoSH
On November 22, 2005, Red Sox owner John Henry (SoSH member JohnWHenry) agreed to take questions from members regarding the departure of Theo Epstein (who would later return as GM), Larry Lucchino, and other front office issues. Henry's candid answers would make headlines the following day.
User:JohnWHenry: I’ve been asked by SoSH to answer a number of questions. I am not going to answer all of your questions. Some have already been answered and there are too many! A number of the questions may no longer be timely.
After this I intend to turn the page of this issue publicly. The Red Sox have significant challenges this year that require attention be focused on the future and not the past.
User:Big Mike: "There have been accusations in the past that the organization has been to very free leaking information to the press in order to win PR wars with players and even managers. Now we have a situation where it would seem that a leak to the press has been a large factor in the first GM to win a championship in Boston in 88 years leaving town. Will you consider making a clear statement in your organization that the leaks be stopped, and back it up with a promise to discipline anyone who uses the media in an underhand fashion to discredit a player or anyone in the organization?"
JohnWHenry: It is virtually impossible to stop leaks in Washington or in sports. The promise of anonymity eliminates accountability and makes it impossible to “discipline” anyone. The Plumbers were formed to plug leaks in the White House. Witch hunts can be more damaging than leaks.
User:Smiling Joe Hesketh: "Will you get the NYT/Globe to divest itself of its 17% share so as to remove the cloud of conflict of interest that hangs over every baseball story the Globe runs?"
JohnWHenry: No. There are potential conflicts of interest everywhere. They are not always disclosed, but the Times Company share is continually disclosed.
As an example, we will all agree papers sell more copies and media gets higher ratings during periods of major controversy. But you don’t see that disclosed during each controversy. If you have a dark view, media has an interest in continuing controversy. Big Red Sox stories in all probability sell more newspapers in New England than when there is nothing to report.
When we see a doctor, lawyer, real estate agent – they don’t disclose the basic, inherent conflicts they may.
User:PedroKsBambino: You mentioned that there was a "reason to be named later" in your WEEI appearance. Do you believe right now that this "reason" will be publically stated by either you or Theo Epstein at a certain point in the future, or is it an internal matter you do not anticipate making public at any time?
JohnWHenry: No. This was a joke Tom Werner came up with from a “player to be named later.” When he told it, it was funny. When I told it, it became a new “fact.”
User:redsox1918: "Do you anticipate cutting team payroll significantly in the near future?"
JohnWHenry: No. The payroll question is always there for some. The facts speak for themselves. We continue to try to increase revenues in order to compete with our neighbors to the south. They still have a huge advantage in that department.
User:drtooth: Your statement regarding whether or not you should be the majority owner in the Sox was a bit troubling. Is there actually a thought on your part of selling your share or was it just a "heat of the moment' comment that we should all disregard as frustration?
JohnWHenry: No. (I don’t always say no to everything) It was not frustration. But whenever a head of an enterprise obtains an end result that they are very unhappy with and almost everyone else is unhappy with, he or she has an obligation to question themselves. What was unusual was an executive questioning himself in front banks of cameras. Most people in my position never question themselves publicly but try to put forward absolute conviction in their conclusions and direction.
As I said that day, I made mistakes in this process. One can assert that everyone associated with this process made mistakes at one time or another, but I am ultimately responsible. This isn’t a matter of falling on one’s sword. It’s about taking responsibility when you are, in fact responsible.
User:Foxy42: Do you realize that Boston fans are savy enough to know that creating headlines by chasing the biggest free agent fish in the market is 100% the wrong way to go at this time and the majority of the fan base is really looking forwards to seeing the fruit of the farm system joining the team in the next few years?
JohnWHenry: Creating headlines is not a factor that drives us. This particular free agent “class” is not particularly strong. In addition, teams have an unusually large amount of liquidity with respect to what they can spend for free agents this year. Revenue sharing and the timing of contracts ending/continuing has created a situation that even by maintaining or marginally increasing the second-highest payroll in the game, teams like Kansas City and Pittsburgh – not generally major forces in the free agency market – may have more to spend in this particular off-season than we do.
With so many dollars chasing a limited amount of players who can materially help us, we have a significant challenge this year. Theo and all of us see this year as a year in which our young players will be tested.
User:LoweTek: Clearly in the aftermath of this, Larry Lucchino will have a struggle even if he is able to regain credibility in Boston. Realizing you have taken full responsibility for the events that transpired (as you should) does not change the public consensus that Lucchino instigated and has created a mess with this. Has or will any consideration be given to changing Larry's role such that he is responsible primarily for say park improvements and park operations and remove him from involvement in baseball operations? i.e. having baseball operations report directly to you?
JohnWHenry: No. Often we want to assign blame to one individual or to one side and then ignore everything else. Life is often more complex. Life is not nearly as black and white as we sometimes hope it would be or feel that it is.
Larry hired Theo in the first place. Larry then asked for permission from the Padres to bring Theo to Boston and installed him as Assistant GM. Larry first suggested that Theo become our general manager. You may remember at the time it was a big risk to make a 28-year-old with a certain philosophy the general manager of the Boston Red Sox.
User:TudorFever: Many have posited that Larry Lucchino's polarizing management style and, more importantly, absence of personal integrity have poisoned the atmosphere of the club to such an extent that not just Theo Epstein but also other current and potential key employees no longer wish to be associated with the club. What constructive steps, if any, do you plan to take to address this?
JohnWHenry: This is just untrue speculation. The Red Sox have brilliant, brilliant people working every day to improve the franchise. It is normal and natural for them to be offered promotions from other organizations. It is much easier to move up the ladder of an organization that is not as well-staffed as ours is.
User:jp: You obviously thought that $1.5 million per year was a reasonable salary for Theo since you eventually agreed to that number. Given that fact, why did you lowball him so severely at the start of the negotiation, then drag the process out and then leak disparaging information about him to the press?... If you had no part in any of what happened above and it was really driven by someone else in the organization, do you agree with what they did? THERE - I think I got 12 questions into one note alone!
JohnWHenry: I shortened your 12 questions, JP, into 2. :)
I’m afraid very little is obvious except that Theo chose not to re-sign. Numbers past and present that were reported in the press were erroneous. But since we weren’t speaking to the press during the negotiation, the numbers became “facts.” But they were not facts. To state that we severely low-balled him, drug out the process and leaked disparaging information is simply not true.
There is no doubt that both sides had leaks. None of the principals doubted that at the end. The degree is unknowable and debatable. As I pointed out in my first response, it is impossible to know who is talking with the media and therefore why. We have a free press and free speech in this country. You just exercised it using a pseudonym. That gives you the same kind of anonymity and lack of accountability that these people had.
I’m not criticizing you at all. I’m just making the point that in an intensely free society there are going to be negative things said publicly and anonymously. It’s unfortunate when the principals are not talking and the only thing getting out is coming from anonymous persons.
This is more of an issue for the media. Are they willing to reconsider how much leeway or credibility they are willing to give to sources? Can they make them accountable in any way? Are they willing to go to great lengths to make sure an unnamed source is correct - especially when that may be impossible to do?
User:BCSoxFan: Where do you see interest rates going in the next 12 months and do you see the yield curve inverting?
JohnWHenry: LOL. This would certainly be easier to predict than the future performance of any American League reliever.
User:SoxFanSince57: Why were you willing to give Larry a contract through 2011 and why did those negotiations go so smoothly compared to the negotiations with Theo?
JohnWHenry: This is a very good question. No one could have done a better job of running the Boston Red Sox than Larry Lucchino over the past four years. I receive infinitely more credit than I should for what has gone right. Conversely, Larry seems to receive credit for anything that goes wrong. It’s very curious.
The past four years have proved that Tom and I were right about Larry. I came to Boston to spend the rest of my life working to create excellence in this organization. We wanted to ensure that Larry had the same long-term approach. If you remember, people initially felt we might not be here for the long-term.
There really was no negotiation between Larry and Tom and I. We knew we wanted to work together for the long-term.
There were times in the recent negotiation when Theo was not sure he wanted to do this for the long-term – that was an issue. And there were times he felt we did not value him enough. There were times we felt he was ambivalent and we did not want a GM who did not crave the position. There were times late when we weren’t on the same page monetarily. There were a number of reasons that although I thought for many months this was a slam dunk like the LL negotiation, it became apparent that there were issues.
User:SoxFanSince57: Please tell us what actions you took to resolve the differences between the two sides in the negotiations?
JohnWHenry: It’s more important to ask what I didn’t do. I didn’t do enough. Had I pushed harder for a resolution early on, external forces would not have played such a role.
User:SoxFanSince57: Whose decision was it to not offer Pedro an extension in the winter and spring of 2004?
JohnWHenry: I’m not sure that Pedro was not offered an extension at that time but there were health concerns. We wanted to be able to insure the risks, but found that to be impossible at the time. I can tell you this fact: the person in the organization most adamant about extending Nomar and Pedro was Larry Lucchino. This was a constant despite media reports that Larry was the bad guy in these negotiations.
User:SoxFanSince57: What have you found to be the biggest differences in running your other financial company and running a baseball team? Does running one require a different skill set than the other?
JohnWHenry: I don’t run either enterprise. I haven’t run the financial company since the 80s. I don’t run the Red Sox. But that doesn’t mean I am not intimately involved with the two companies. I am.
They are very different. One is highly insular. The other is reported on daily by a coterie of journalists. The two could not be more different.
User:pk1627: 1. Do you realize our primary weakness is pitching, and that the answer is primarily in our farm system? We will not be happy to see these young guys go for a short-term solution.
2. Now that RSN is panicking, can you bump me up on the season ticket waiting list?
JohnWHenry: The results in 2005 and the injuries to Curt and Keith placed us, I believe, 12th in pitching. Our baseball ops are well aware of what our needs are and they are not just pitching presently. I hope you’re right about the farm system!
Truthfully, pk, we haven’t seen any openings.
User:irishkg: Would you consider having some sort of fan advisory group that provides their views on Red Sox baseball - what's on the field, what's in the park, what's in the various media? [These fans would have to range from the wildly passionate to those with a "normal" interest]
JohnWHenry: I’ve actually done this before. I did not have partners when I owned the Florida Marlins.
[Sometimes I read that I was the owner in 1997/1998 when the championship team was dismantled, however I purchased the team in 1999]
In Florida I held partnership meetings quarterly with 20 season ticket holders. I consider season ticket holders and sponsors to be investors in a baseball team. The media covered these meetings via closed circuit and they were very interesting with interesting exchanges.
I’ve sat in on meetings Larry has had with fans and season ticket holders. He loves to poll fans and to ask questions. I attended a particularly good one when we were considering how and what to build on the right field roof.
I’ll discuss this idea internally and get back to you.
User:Green Monster: Who was the one that did not want the Bigbie deal to go through?
JohnWHenry: Me! You probably think I’m joking, but unlike the media, I was there.
User:SoxFanSince57: What do you think about giving the type of authority to the new GM that Josh Byrnes has with the Diamondbacks? While Byrnes will undoubtedly run deals past Diamondbacks General Partner Jeff Moorad and the club's Managing General Partner, Ken Kendrick, it was interesting to hear Jeff Moorad say "The buck has to stop somewhere and with baseball operations, it stops with Josh Byrnes." What do you think of that position?
JohnWHenry: Buck passing is about who is held responsible. I am not aware of any franchise in sports in which the front office does not involve ownership and management in financial decisions. I have never heard directly or indirectly of an internal complaint from anyone in our baseball operations about GM authority. The Red Sox are run with a collegial atmosphere. No one is afraid to ask questions and no one is afraid of being questioned. Questioning is a positive exercise in subjective matters. Very little in baseball is objective.
In short, the external speculation about “meddling” within the Red Sox is misguided and Theo would be the first to agree with me. Theo made the baseball decisions. Were there instances where he didn’t do a deal based on questions we asked or opinions he received? Probably. Almost certainly. We value each others’ opinions. Part of what a GM does is weigh everything associated with transactions.
In the Colorado deal late one night I called Theo with questions about that deal in comparison to the one the we actually ended up doing. I preferred the one we did. I didn’t want to give up prospects when we had a comparable alternative that involved paying dollars in lieu of prospects. It was that simple and that innocent. How Larry or anyone else got the blame – I have not a clue. What I didn’t know at the time was that Colorado made a trade thinking I was going to rubber stamp it that night, because that is usually what happens. It’s never been reported that I stepped into the middle of that. I wrote a note of apology to Josh over it, but Larry received the blame in the following days in the media. Then Theo took responsibility a few days later but the stories still continue about it.
JohnWHenry: While controversy seems to be continually linked with the Red Sox, we are all incontrovertibly linked together in our passion to see the Red Sox be an organization of excellence. I want all of you who post here to know that we listen even when we think it best not to comment and we appreciate your dedication to this organization.
I believe you are going to like the physical changes at Fenway you see this year and I believe that ultimately many of you will be happy with the next steps taken to move the franchise forward. I can assure you that these steps are being taken quite carefully. No decisions are going to be taken to “take the pressure off.”
User:Lanternjaw: I'm curious to know how the GM search is going? From what I understand, Beattie is the frontrunner. Is there no chance that Theo can return at this point? Is that bridge burnt on both ends or just charred on one end?
JohnWHenry: Last one for now!
Theo was clear in his press conference when he opted not to close the door to the future. But life is constant change and for the most part it is exceedingly unpredictable. He is not going to return as our surprise GM in this process. We are proceeding carefully to make the right choice. There are more potential candidates than is known simply because a number of people prefer to avoid, if at all possible, a highly charged, circus atmosphere that ends with only one candidate being chosen.
