So....who is the new GM/head of baseball ops?
- Thread starter moondog80
- Start date
- Status
Sam Kennedy at the next press conference....."After an extensive broad range search we have discovered that I am the best candidate"
Maybe they just watched what happened with the Rangers and wanted to replicate it. The Red Sox can have their own Ivy League educated former pitcher running things.
If you keep dropping "Ivy League" into this thread, Abbey's gonna lock you in Pinsetting & Fieri.
(I just picked this post to respond to out a bunch of recent candidates on the general topic.) I think I've decided that the reporting we're getting on Cora all has to be taken with a grain of salt. We just don't know what we don't know, except that he wasn't fired after a pretty bad year. That they are looking for a CBO and not giving that person the opportunity to decide on a manager is also important information about Cora's role or influence, but it's hard to read tea leaves too much beyond that.
For outward facing jobs, this ownership group's attitude seems to be that they'd rather get a rid of a guy too early than too late -- whether it's Don Orsillo or Dave Dombrowski. Maybe there are bunch of less-glamorous positions that I don't know about where that's not the case. But it seems like a bit of a trend, and Cora is definitely bucking it. Beyond that, it's hard to guess what his role or influence might really be at the end of the day.
If Breslow ends up being the guy running things, I'd guess his first order of business will be to find another Breslow to do the groundwork necessary to fix organizational pitching.
Better be a seasoned professional. I’ve largely been skeptical of the idea this is an undesirable position, but the more think about it the more I can understand.
It’s almost impossible to know how much power you actually have. You can ask about the ‘power’ to fire Cora or Ferreira or whoever…but could you in practice? Your information and decision infrastructure has been there so long they’ve grown roots…a mixed bag of excellence and fiefdoms no doubt
That doesn’t even account for the challenges posed by the roster. Four years of rebuilding has yielded one starter of consequence for next year, meaning Day 1 you have to take some huge swings with both cash and prospects at pitching just to have chance to get out of the AL East cellar. For owners infamous for impatience.
I'm curious if Huntington would take the GM job under a guy like Breslow jumping up a couple of levels. Breslow as GM and Huntington as PBO makes more sense to me.
It seems though that Kennedy and Romero will be involved (along with Cora) so someone "green" would be getting a lot of help along the way to start I'd guess.
So the "best" candidates usually come in a few different types in rough order:
1) #1 guys who have been taking care of business, but might want an opportunity to be a #1 in a bigger & better market so they can really compete at the top & take what they're doing & continue to roll with it, but with a bigger budget & better infrastructure. This is the Falvey, Antonetti, Hazen group.
2) #2 guys in successful franchises who have learned from their #1 & from the way their org does business, but are looking to expand on what they're doing & be that captain of their own ship & not have to report to the #1 because they have visions of how they would run things & want to fashion a new franchise in their own image. Otherwise, why give up the very stable #2 job which surely pays very well & has a ton of job security. This is the Gomes, Fuld, Levine group.
3) Successful former #1s who one believes may have gotten the raw end of the deal or have otherwise learned from their previous situation who want a chance to get a fresh start & improve on where things went wrong previously. This is the Click, Ng, Daniels group.
4) People further down a team's management structure who are bright & have learned a lot from their time in their successful organization & have the opportunity to bring what they know to a new spot. This is the Breslow group, & this would also apply to people like Rosenbaum, Sestanovich & Fast if they were looking into others of this ilk.
5) Internal people who will probably mostly keep the status quo but may have a few ideas of how they would do things better, but do not have significant experience doing things any way other than the Red Sox way. This is the Romero, Groopman, Toboni group.
6) Failed former longtime #1s who would love to get out there & get another shot at running a team. This is the Huntington, Hill group (which sounds like a successful finance company). Could add Forst to this pile except for the fact that he's still employed (& not really sure if he's a #1).
The 1st group were never going to be interested because the job inherently does not come with an unlimited runway & they have established themselves where they are & have control & security.
The 2nd group is the one where most #1s come from. & they are the type who will be arrogant enough to think they are smarter & better at this than the people who would be hiring them, & would chaff at all the institutional limitations that appear to be part of the Red Sox job, including several executives who have been through 3 or 4 regime changes, & a manager who will be on his 3rd #1, too, who appears to be loved by ownership. Having smart people in place like Cora/Ferreira/Romero/etc. would be seen as a good thing by this type of candidate...but the appearance that they would not be above these people in the hierarchy & have the autonomy to do what they wanted with them after a short review period, would lead to a lot of questions & concerns over whether it's worth it to get involved.
The fact that the 3rd group seems universally uninterested is a bit concerning as well, but I suppose not toooo surprising. They have experienced hierarchies that they are not necessarily happy with & have enough cache that they can wait around for what they feel is the right opportunity, because they probably aren't getting a 3rd bite at the apple if the 2nd one doesn't work out.
Which leaves the 4th group as by far the most interesting to pull from as there are going to be some really sharp people in that group, & there is a lot of institutional knowledge that would provide support to that type of hire & give that person a chance to blossom, & they are far enough down the totem pole where they are at that the opportunity to jump a few steps while their star is bright should be appearling.
After that, we have group 5 which is boring...& most of the people in it will still be part of the organization & able to provide the same insights as if they all got moved up a rung or two, but I think is probably still better than group 6 as they do not have the same scary track record as the people in that group.
Now some people in lower tiers may certainly be more desirable than people in higher tiers - for example I'm more interested in Breslow (tier 4) than I am in Levine (tier 2), but I think the general structure & order makes sense, & it also makes sense why the top few tiers may not be interested or skeptical. But great candidates can come from any tier & you just have to spot the right 1.
1) #1 guys who have been taking care of business, but might want an opportunity to be a #1 in a bigger & better market so they can really compete at the top & take what they're doing & continue to roll with it, but with a bigger budget & better infrastructure. This is the Falvey, Antonetti, Hazen group.
2) #2 guys in successful franchises who have learned from their #1 & from the way their org does business, but are looking to expand on what they're doing & be that captain of their own ship & not have to report to the #1 because they have visions of how they would run things & want to fashion a new franchise in their own image. Otherwise, why give up the very stable #2 job which surely pays very well & has a ton of job security. This is the Gomes, Fuld, Levine group.
3) Successful former #1s who one believes may have gotten the raw end of the deal or have otherwise learned from their previous situation who want a chance to get a fresh start & improve on where things went wrong previously. This is the Click, Ng, Daniels group.
4) People further down a team's management structure who are bright & have learned a lot from their time in their successful organization & have the opportunity to bring what they know to a new spot. This is the Breslow group, & this would also apply to people like Rosenbaum, Sestanovich & Fast if they were looking into others of this ilk.
5) Internal people who will probably mostly keep the status quo but may have a few ideas of how they would do things better, but do not have significant experience doing things any way other than the Red Sox way. This is the Romero, Groopman, Toboni group.
6) Failed former longtime #1s who would love to get out there & get another shot at running a team. This is the Huntington, Hill group (which sounds like a successful finance company). Could add Forst to this pile except for the fact that he's still employed (& not really sure if he's a #1).
The 1st group were never going to be interested because the job inherently does not come with an unlimited runway & they have established themselves where they are & have control & security.
The 2nd group is the one where most #1s come from. & they are the type who will be arrogant enough to think they are smarter & better at this than the people who would be hiring them, & would chaff at all the institutional limitations that appear to be part of the Red Sox job, including several executives who have been through 3 or 4 regime changes, & a manager who will be on his 3rd #1, too, who appears to be loved by ownership. Having smart people in place like Cora/Ferreira/Romero/etc. would be seen as a good thing by this type of candidate...but the appearance that they would not be above these people in the hierarchy & have the autonomy to do what they wanted with them after a short review period, would lead to a lot of questions & concerns over whether it's worth it to get involved.
The fact that the 3rd group seems universally uninterested is a bit concerning as well, but I suppose not toooo surprising. They have experienced hierarchies that they are not necessarily happy with & have enough cache that they can wait around for what they feel is the right opportunity, because they probably aren't getting a 3rd bite at the apple if the 2nd one doesn't work out.
Which leaves the 4th group as by far the most interesting to pull from as there are going to be some really sharp people in that group, & there is a lot of institutional knowledge that would provide support to that type of hire & give that person a chance to blossom, & they are far enough down the totem pole where they are at that the opportunity to jump a few steps while their star is bright should be appearling.
After that, we have group 5 which is boring...& most of the people in it will still be part of the organization & able to provide the same insights as if they all got moved up a rung or two, but I think is probably still better than group 6 as they do not have the same scary track record as the people in that group.
Now some people in lower tiers may certainly be more desirable than people in higher tiers - for example I'm more interested in Breslow (tier 4) than I am in Levine (tier 2), but I think the general structure & order makes sense, & it also makes sense why the top few tiers may not be interested or skeptical. But great candidates can come from any tier & you just have to spot the right 1.
Why would Kennedy be involved? He should stick to advertising and marketing and stay in his lane.
Someone is the head of the snake. So far that person does not exist. Until they bring that person in to own baseball ops, Kennedy is already involved. He's basically baseball ops now.
That's my question.
Is this really a number 2 baseball position reporting to Sam Kennedy and a step removed from ownership. Is part of the rub? It's not PBO....cuz in reality, that's Sam Kennedy? And Sam has ownership's ear....and Cora has Sam's ear. The PBO position is further down the food chain than has been projected/appreciated? Or maybe that's generally known, and hence the lack of interest?
Breslow sounds great to me. A really smart, thoughtful person who has senior leadership experience with a forward-thinking club and specializes in the area in which the team is weakest? Sign me up for Breslow as the head guy and Romero as GM.
I don't think I realized that Sam Kennedy literally is ownership since March '21:
https://fenwaysportsgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/FSG-Announces-Investment-by-RedBird-Capital-LeBron-James-Maverick-Carter-Join-FSG-Ownership.pdf
They created the President of Baseball Ops position to differentiate Kennedy's job (President/CEO) from that of his predecessor. I can see them returning to a hierarchy like we saw in the Theo days. Then it was Team President Lucchino over EVP/GM Theo. Now, it might be Kennedy over new hire. That doesn't necessarily mean Kennedy will be more involved in baseball ops decisions than he's been for the better part of the last decade. It just solidifies him at the top of the food chain, rather than an equal footing kind of thing like existed with Kennedy and Dombrowski/Bloom.
Perhaps they've already promised him an extension but they want to wait for the new guy to give it to him?
I just don't see how they could bring in Breslow from the outside as chief baseball executive and expect Romero and others to work for him. At minimum, I think Romero leaves the first good opportunity he gets. As promising as Breslow might be, by all accounts he's still pretty green when it comes to calling the shots and in overseeing a team of other executives. I think he's still in the mix because the Sox are trying to figure out how to land him at some other position in the organization.
Chris Gasper brought up this very point on the radio this past weekend. I think that Romero interviewed for Bloom's job back in 2019 and was under the guy who took his job, which would be the same thing if Breslow was hired. Gasper said, and I happen to agree with him, that not being able to clean the front office out of people who actively tried for his job could be a huge pothole for the new guy (whether it's Breslow or whomever) and may have been a problem for Bloom. To be fair, I never read that it was, but logically, if you interviewed for a position and were passed over and now that guy is your boss, you may have a chip on your shoulder about that. Gasper says that either consciously or subconsciously that might allow for a person to handicap their new boss. I'm not sure if I necessarily buy that, but at the same time it wouldn't shock me if it happened either.
I think that if someone comes into the Sox FO he (or she) is going to be saddled with a manager that they didn't pick, a front office staff of people that he can't fire, some of which actively campaigned for his job and their bosses are notoriously fickle and seem to change their minds on the direction of the team on a whim.
I understand that there are 30 heads of baseball ops in the world, but I don't know if I'd want this one. That's a tall order.
Not that I think we'll ever know this, but in many ways doesn't it come down to where Romero was in the "pecking order" before Bloom was fired. I believe he and Ferreira had the same title of EVP, Assistant GM, so lets just say he was "4th" in that line (Bloom, O'Halloran, Ferreira and Romero). In that circumstance, I could see where Breslow becomes PoBO and Romero becomes GM (or the clear cut 2nd in command) and that would be a pretty nice jump in terms of power and I'd assume salary and Romero is pretty happy.
Now, if he was already #3 in the organization and is replaced by another organization's #3, I can see where that might ruffle some feathers.
Breslow would already be off to a pretty terrible start as a negotiator if he admitted to being willing to accept less than the #1 job while the #1 job was potentially on the table. It could be true, but it doesn't really matter unless they have a true big get #1 lined up from somewhere else who Breslow could potentially want to work with as a #2. Otherwise, just give him the job & move about your business. & of course hire Andrew Bailey now that Bob Melvin is taking over in SF.
Good summary. 1 & 3 seem unlikely as you say, and 2 would come down to fit, also not terribly likely. There are some other posts above talking about fit issues, but not explicitly, so I'll just say that this feels like the biggest factor, given that they aren't clearing out the place for the new person. Which brings the focus on 4 & 5. On 5, I'm not so sure that Romero, for example, is schooled in the Red Sox Way to his detriment. He's probably smart enough to understand how other FOs run, to some extent -- these guys move around, talk to each other, etc. He also dates back to 2000, so he has four rings and not just a handful of 5th place finishes to his resume.
I don't mean "the Red Sox way" as a pejorative. My point from the beginning has been that I want to bring in bright minds from multiple different smart organizations to let the best ideas in all phases rise to the top. & there's a difference between having a general idea of how different teams do different things & being immersed in it.
View: https://twitter.com/ChrisCotillo/status/1716950272935924189
Be on the lookout for white smoke in the direction of Fenway
As someone whose become relatively pessimistic about the Sox, and their ownership, I’d love a Breslow hire.
- Status