They'd be D-U-M-B to make that determination based on the Betts trade. And reading the tea leaves sounds helpful to a certain degree, but it would also be crazy to not simply ASK them.
My guess is that they're going give Romero the CoBO job, bring in Breslow as the GM and then kick Breslow up to CoBO job once Cora is ready to take the GM job. I'm not sure where that leaves Romero, but presumably this will happen in four years and that's when Sox FO personnel "graduate".
Everything you're saying is logical... And all of these people saying no to the job or the interview are smart, tenured professionals. Which tells me they likely know things we don't about all of this from sources we don't have access to.
Cora can only have so much input to the scouts and analytics folks while he's busy managing the team though, I'd think. There's something to be said for the GM and manager to share the same perspective. Then Cora doesn't have to explain stuff to the front office.
Not necessarily, if you interview for 4-5 of these jobs and don't end up in one, people will start wondering what's wrong with that candidate.
Yes, I too find him very handsome, but I don't imagine that's enough for the job. I wouldn't mind his succeeding Cora as manager, but I am not convinced of his suitability for GM/POBO.
Lots of us don't click on Xitter. Could you give a few words of summary when you post links?
I think that there are a fair amount of us thinking similarly. Possibly one top tier FA arm and possibly one via trade. I have to say that I'm now a bit concerned that some players/agents might be taking interest in the number of high profile names that don't appear to be interested in running the team.
I was going to say four people who haven't been in John Henry's kitchen.
Here's hoping that we don't see Henry taking the mic at a presser any time soon to announce "Gabey K blew us away, what else do I have to say.".
I think the job descriptions may vary a bit from team to team, but the structures are somewhat similar. Many of us old timers still remember a time when the top person was the GM. I'm guessing that in the past 15-20 years the complexity game from both the business and analytical sides has evolved to the point where traditional GM duties needed to be broken out into a couple of positions. PBO/CBO seems standard among most teams today as the head baseball person with GM being sort of an assistant PBO/CBO and multiple assistant GMs below that spot.
It varies from team to team. The genesis of the PoBO title (or Chief Baseball Officer or others like it) was more or less to give teams a way to hire another team's GM and call it a promotion rather than a lateral move. It's the person in charge of running the baseball side of the organization (drafting/signing/trading players, hiring the manager, etc). For teams with a PoBO or equivalent, the GM spot is the #2. For teams without, the GM is still #1 and assistant GMs are #2.
I agree with you that most GM candidates would not shy away from taking a job with a team just because it is in the AL East or because the team needs pitching. GM's have willingly taken over much, much worse teams talent-wise than the current Red Sox. I mean, how do the Pirates or Royals get new GMs to come over?
So members of MLB front offices were so openly frustrated with Bloom and his indecisiveness that he was fired for it, but they're also close enough with him to decline an interview based on his recommendation?
This seems off. Look how much interest there's been in one-off reports about single individuals simply not interviewing for a Red Sox job.
What's changed is that there's a voracious social media landscape now, and legacy media have shifted their focus from beat reporting to "soap opera coverage" (Rob Bradford's term) to keep up. Now, we've got that dink Carrabis and his wannabes cynically tweeting INTEREST KINGS every time someone (anyone) put a free agent's name in the same sentence as the team.
There are 29 major league teams other than the Red Sox and a ton of front office employees. So...yes? Am I missing something? This seems to be phrased like a "gotcha" but the answer is so obvious I feel like I'm not connecting something
It may be helpful to read the first paragraph through the lens of the second paragraph. If you believe the second paragraph to be true, it may be worth considering how the first one actually was, the incentive of those reporting it, and how that may ultimately play out...
Those are the beat writers and I’m sure Shaughnessy will have a piece this weekend. I’m not sure if you’re in New England but this barely is the fourth story after the Pats (Mac, BB, this week’s game), the B’s (off to a 3-0 start) and the Celts (starting the season in a few days).
There's at least one more interviewee that hasn't been reported.
I am in New England (Maine) and don't listen to talk radio, don't follow football or hockey at all and follow basketball pretty sporadically these days.
I think the bolded is part of the problem with the coverage and conversations about this. We don't know that they were preferred. We know they were offered an interview because they declined it. That's all we really know. Any notion of "leading" or "preferred" candidates versus other (lesser?) candidates is all media (and fan) speculation.
Yes, we will never truly know the answer using your guidelines above. However, even if they were just "candidates", my point still stands. It's not mutually exclusive that some front offices could have been tired of Bloom's methods and that some "candidates" are friends of Bloom's and care about his recommendation.
Maybe one of the posters in this forum! No wonder @John Marzano Olympic Hero and others wanted Bloom gone!!
I haven’t seen scottyno in a long time. Or maybe it’s you! Or maybe me! Or maybe we’ll all get to be the Red Sox GM for 15 minutes, just like Andy Warhol prophesied!
