Our ownership group

Lose Remerswaal

Missing an “R”
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I guess I’m looking at on macro level.. for the better part of the last 20 years Ainge(2003) and Belichick(2000) have been the face of their respective team’s personnel decisions. Yes there have been others involved that have come and gone but the head honchos stayed in place. I am wrong about Neely as I though he started earlier than 2007.
Belichick has 6 rings
Ainge has 1
Sox ownership has 4.

I don't see a cause/effect here
 

dixoncox

lurker
Jun 11, 2019
5
It's amazing how much turnover they've had considering how many championships they've won. Since the Henry group bought the team their championship total been matched by only the Spurs (4) and Patriots (5) among the major sports leagues. Those teams have had one coach each over that time while Roenicke will be number six here.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
7,076
I don't count Mike Port's one year as a black mark against the team - they decided that Dan Duquette needed to go and then only kept Port on for the year after swinging for the fences with Billy Beane and missing.

Likewise, when things couldn't be patched up with Theo Epstein and the two sides parted in 2011, they went with continuity in elevating his protege Ben Cherington to the GM's chair, who they then kept in the role for almost four years. The major changes at the baseball executive level were the seemingly abrupt decision to hire Dave Dombrowski in 2015 and go all-in to chase a title, and the decision last year to fire Dombrowski and return to a 'sustainable' operating model with the ultimate hiring of Chaim Bloom.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
11,616
Maine
I don't count Mike Port's one year as a black mark against the team - they decided that Dan Duquette needed to go and then only kept Port on for the year after swinging for the fences with Billy Beane and missing.
The Beane pursuit happened in fall 2002, not spring, so the fall back after missing out on him was Theo. Port stayed on as the interim after Duquette was fired just before spring training 2002, because there wasn't much in the way of available alternatives that late in the off-season.

I do understand why, in discussing continuity, it makes sense to just ignore Port. While the ownership group was in place for the 2002 season, that team as a whole really wasn't something that they had much of a hand in. 2003 with the hiring of Theo and then 2004 with the hiring of Tito was when this ownership group actually was able to implement something of their own operating vision. Viewed in that context, it really is just the Dombrowski years that stick out as a diversion from the path they'd been following all along. And frankly, that all-in approach was clear from the moment he was hired. I remember the fear around here being that he was going to strip the farm to win a title. Mission accomplished.
 

Shaky Walton

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 20, 2019
105
If I had told you before this ownership group bought the team that (a) they would win 4 titles in 18 years, (b) the first title would be a Hollywood style thrill ride, with a 0-3 Comeback against the Hated Yankees, (c) by around year 18, the ownership group would be extremely unpopular with Sox fans and (d) the CEO while they won the first three titles would be reviled, I think you would have said that I was nuts and that what I posited was impossible or, at the least, highly unlikely.

My take is that the owners have done a lot of really great things and have made some recent moves that are difficult to swallow. And that they can be tone deaf at times. But in my view, the glass is always half full, and these guys have a LOT of equity built up with me. I always knew that the Curse nonsense was just that but at the same time, I saw relatives who were hard core Sox fans go to their grave before they saw the Red Sox win a title, and I wondered if that might happen to me, as well.

The same applies to Luchinno, in my opinion. Whatever bad stuff people attribute to him, a lot of really good things happened on his watch.

This does not mean, however, that I think individual decisions should not be criticized. The Mookie trade is very low hanging fruit for me, as is the "the CBT had nothing to do with it" canard. But I don't understand the level of hate or dislike for a group who has enjoyed such phenomenal overall success, especially in the context of decades of near misses and pain.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
3,664
around the way
This is absolute garbage, and the sort of thing a certain writer on the Globe would love to perpetuate - but, again, it's absolute garbage.
Have you read any of the threads?

There are pages and pages that recount all of the horrible mistakes that this ownership group has made in their time here. These posts include multiple mentions of how cheap and stupid they are. They also include gripes about which announcers the team chose to retain.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. If the single winningest team in the majors in this millennium, who is consistently at the top of spending lists is taking a beating for being both stupid and cheap somehow, then "we must just be miserable people" is not a garbage answer. Alternatives include "we have gone full-on entitled dbags" or "we lack the ability to look at facts", and it's fair to stand in that camp too.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
7,076
The same applies to Luchinno, in my opinion. Whatever bad stuff people attribute to him, a lot of really good things happened on his watch.
The good things that Lucchino presided over as CEO have to be weighed against some significant negatives, starting with his running out of town a homegrown Hall of Fame executive (and local guy to boot) and the best manager in team history. Someone needed to tell LL to put his ego aside and give Theo the same title and powers that they would later give to Dave Dombrowski. Larry is the closest thing to a villain in this story IMO, three world championships or not.
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
3,827
It's frustrating that the ownership couldn't be more honest about the Mookie trade. People will disagree about the value of resetting the CBT, but to say that the trade had nothing to do with the CBT is a lie, and everyone knows it. It's insulting to the fans. They could have just said "Look, we have spent a lot of money on this club, and will continue to do so in the future. But, the reality of baseball economics is that after you have exceeded the luxury tax threshold for a few years, it is necessary to reset it so that you can continue to compete in future years. That is the way that every other team in baseball operates, and the way that we feel we need to operate in order to put the best possible product on the field". Many people wouldn't like that answer, but I think more people would like it than what they did say, which was complete nonsense.
 

Shaky Walton

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 20, 2019
105
The good things that Lucchino presided over as CEO have to be weighed against some significant negatives, starting with his running out of town a homegrown Hall of Fame executive (and local guy to boot) and the best manager in team history. Someone needed to tell LL to put his ego aside and give Theo the same title and powers that they would later give to Dave Dombrowski. Larry is the closest thing to a villain in this story IMO, three world championships or not.
Did LL really run Tito out of town?

Putting who did what to whom in the aftermath of Tito's departure aside for the moment, the fact remains that the 2011 Red Sox suffered a pretty horrible collapse. There were multiple causes, of course, and the pitching was high on the list. But I think it's at least arguable that Terry Francona's in game managing and handling of the clubhouse played a role in what happened that year. I also had the impression at the time that the parting was a mutual decision and that TIto was a little burnt out from the Boston grind. That Tito was maligned in the Hohler article doesn't change that reality.

As to Theo, it's tempting and possibly fair to say that LL should have known to get out of the way and let Theo run things. But that ignores some of the questionable and even Dombrowski like moves (Carl Crawford) that Theo made, and his role in assembling the 2011 team. (And true/fair, LL may be a big part of why Theo made some of his mistakes).

My sense is that there's probably a lot more complexity to the relationships and roles of all of the parties than we as fans can truly appreciate. Of course, there's no defending the Bobby Valentine hire, which sure seems to have been his doing.

But like my reaction to the owners, I think it's convenient and short sighted to charge him with a series of "CEO crimes" and not take into account the many good decisions he made or was part of on the way to three titles. Even with respect to Theo and Tito, someone had to bring them in to the fold in the first place, and that someone includes the owners and executive that have become punching bags for so many.

I guess, bottom line, I have a hard time calling the CEO of such a successful operation a villain.

A credible tell all book would be fascinating reading.
 
Last edited:

Melrose Diner

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 11, 2020
28
I think part of the big difference between Belichick + the Red Sox brass is consistency, and how the general reaction to certain decisions plays into that. The Patriots tend to approach all Mookie-like scenarios the same; they have a price they're willing to pay and if the market goes above that then that player is gone. We've beat our heads into the ground angry over this in the past (Chandler Jones, Flowers last year, Thuney coming up), but at the very least we pretty much know what to expect, like it or not.

For the Red Sox ownership to make what's viewed as a penny-pinching move (whether that's fair or not to call it that) sort of flies in the face of a lot of the decisions they've made in the past. Why should anyone buy the explanations they're putting out around letting Mookie go when we've seen them dump money at guys from outside the organization that come in and don't perform at all? Obviously there are luxury tax implications in 2020, and the people on this board understand that stuff more than Joe from Quincy, but again -- letting Mookie go over money doesn't make sense when you have $64 million being paid to Nate Eovaldi, Jackie Bradley, David Price, Pablo Sandoval, and Rusney Castillo this year (Castillo not counting against the tax). It's been mentioned in this thread that it seems like there's no consistent plan or organizational philosophy with these things, and I would agree.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
14,228
But like my reaction to the owners, I think it's convenient and short sighted to charge him with a series of "CEO crimes" and not take into account the many good decisions he made or was part of on the way to three titles. Even with respect to Theo and Tito, someone had to bring them in to the fold in the first place, and that someone includes the owners and executive that have become punching bags for so many.

I guess, bottom line, I have a hard time calling the CEO of such a successful operation a villain.
I don't care how many "CEO crimes" this group has committed, as long as the number is among the fewest in MLB during their tenure, which I'm confident it is.