More Red Sox Incompetence

[PonyExpress]

Annibal Sanchez throws a no-hitter. So the Red Sox traded Hanley Ramirez, the NL rookie of the year, and Annibal Sanchez, who just threw a no hitter and hasn't lost in a month, for blister boy Josh Beckett. Great.

 

[patriotspride]

it seemed like a good trade at the time didnt it? no trade or signing they do seems to workout anymore .

 

[Johnny Mac]

Hey, Beckett hasn't had any blisters this year.

And I'd give the RoY to Uggla or Josh Johnson, but it's close.

 

[PonyExpress]

The list of horrible personnel moves is becoming absurd:
Dave Roberts .308/.375 OBP/40SB for Jay Payton
Josh Bard .324 and Cla Meredith (0.50 ERA) for Mirabelli
Arroyo 12-9/3.23 ERA for Willie Mo
Annibal Sanchez 7-2/2.89 ERA and Hanley Ramirez .285/50 SB for Beckett and Lowell
Freddy Sanches (.346) for Scott Sauerbeck
Crisp for Damon
Overworking papelbon (more 4+ out saves than any closer in baseball)
Not trading for Abreu because "we already have Trot Nixon"
Seanez and Tavarez
Byung Yung Kim
etc., etc.
When does it stop? Is it just bad luck? Remember what Napoleon said when told a certain General was brilliant. "Yes, yes... but is he lucky?"

 

[patriotspride]

The list of horrible personnel moves is becoming absurd:
Dave Roberts .308/.375 OBP/40SB for Jay Payton
Josh Bard .324 and Cla Meredith (0.50 ERA) for Mirabelli
Arroyo 12-9/3.23 ERA for Willie Mo
Annibal Sanchez 7-2/2.89 ERA and Hanley Ramirez .285/50 SB for Beckett and Lowell
Freddy Sanches (.346) for Scott Sauerbeck
Crisp for Damon
Overworking papelbon (more 4+ out saves than any closer in baseball)
Not trading for Abreu because "we already have Trot Nixon"
Seanez and Tavarez
Byung Yung Kim
etc., etc.
When does it stop? Is it just bad luck? Remember what Napoleon said when told a certain General was brilliant. "Yes, yes... but is he lucky?"

the byung yung kim trade was one of the best trades they made it freed up playing time for big pappi and bill mueller and kim that year stabilized the pen .we didnt trade for abreu for alot of reasons so i wouldnt add that one to your list either and freddy sanches was traded for jeff supan not sourdick he was a seperate trade but still a lousy trade and worthy of your list.

 

[PonyExpress]

the byung yung kim trade was one of the best trades they made it freed up playing time for big pappi and bill mueller and kim that year stabilized the pen .we didnt trade for abreu for alot of reasons so i wouldnt add that one to your list either and freddy sanches was traded for jeff supan not sourdick he was a seperate trade but still a lousy trade and worthy of your list.

Good point. I also forgot Matt Clemental for Derek Lowe. If you have any others to add, feel free. The "bad decision" list is becoming staggering. Thankfully they didn't trade Manny Ramirez, not because it's the wrong thing to do, but because I'm sure they would have gotten back a six pack of warm beer in exchange.

 

[PatsWorldChamps]

yeah, "Blind Squirrel" Epstein is a genious

 

[Foley]

The list of horrible personnel moves is becoming absurd:
Dave Roberts .308/.375 OBP/40SB for Jay Payton

For Jay Payton, David Pauley, and Ramon Vazquez. Payton was traded for Chad Bradford who they got a decent half season out of, and Vazquez was traded for Cora who is a very good back up utility infielder. Roberts has continued to have injury trouble.

Josh Bard .324 and Cla Meredith (0.50 ERA) for Mirabelli

Terrible trade. Couldn't agree more. This is what happens when the FO listens to everyones whining and makes a trade to bring back one of their guys.

Arroyo 12-9/3.23 ERA for Willie Mo

If he wasn't a part time player Pena would have about 30 HR this season, next year when he is the everyday RF this won't be considered a terrible trade for Boston.

Annibal Sanchez 7-2/2.89 ERA and Hanley Ramirez .285/50 SB for Beckett and Lowell

Lowell is outperforming Ramirez in nearly every statsitic other than SBs. And Lowell isn't doing that great. And Sanchez joins the elite group of Bud Smith, Eric Milton, Jose Jimenez and a bunch of other guys who've had mediocre careers to throw a no-hitter. Throwing a no-hitter is nice, but it is by no means a bermoeter of a successful career. He very well might have one, and I hope that he does because it reflects better of the Red Sox farm system, but a good season as a rookie in a league that is doing extremely poorly this year doesn't mean he is a better pitcher than Beckett. If Beckett has another bad year while Sanchez goes on to be fantastic, then the trade sucks, but one season after a trade is never the best time to fully make a clear judgment. Its very easy to call a GM an idiot when a trade goes down that doesn't work out perfectly, despite the fact that everyone and their uncle said that the trade was outstanding at the time.

Freddy Sanches (.346) for Scott Sauerbeck

You've got this trade all wrong. It was actually Mike Gonzalez and Scott Sauerbeck for Brandon Lyon and Anistacio Martinez. Which would have been a fantastic trade had Pittsburgh not whined about Lyons elbow injury (which they knew about before the trade) and insisted that the Sox take him back. They then made another trade involving Gonzalez and Sanchez going over to Pittsburgh for Martinez, Lyon and Jeff Suppan. Bad move in hindsight absolutely, but it was heralded at the time because Suppan was the best starter available at the deadline.

Crisp for Damon

The move sucks now, but this is another one like Pena/Arroyo that shouldn't be judged so soon. If Crisp does better when he is healthy for a full season and Damon declines in a few years (like everyone, including Yankee fans before they signed him, said would happen) then the trade doesn't look so bad.

Overworking papelbon (more 4+ out saves than any closer in baseball)

That really has nothing to do with Theo or the FO, but regardless, a short while ago everyone was whining about how Papelbon wasn't being used in 2 inning saves enough. He was their only very good reliever so whenever Timlin or Delcarmen or anyone else was brought into the 8th inning people whined about how Papelbon should have been used for a 6 out save because no one else is good enough and could have blown the game.

Not trading for Abreu because "we already have Trot Nixon"

Already having Nixon, and not having the desire to take on Abreus $20+ million for next year giving them almost no room for Free Agents this offseason. I know you'd like to think this, but they really do have a budget.

Seanez and Tavarez

What about them? They didn't sign them with the intent that they would be important cogs to the bullpen and were never used as such. And Rudy is already 1-0 with 3Ks in 2IP, a few more scoreless outings and does getting rid of Seanez go on the list of terrible moves?

Byung Yung Kim

Like already posted, the move gave Ortiz more playing time, stabilized the pen and put the Red Sox into the 2003 postseason. Not a bad trade.

I also forgot Matt Clemental for Derek Lowe

Clement and Wells were brought in to replace Pedro and Lowe, which they did in 2005. Neither was as good as Pedro, but both were much better than Lowe. A lot of people apparently forget how absolutely terrible Lowe was in the regular season in 2004, and how he wasn't much better the year before.

When does it stop? Is it just bad luck?

Yes, a bit of it is bad luck. Crisp getting injured and missing a few months and never being able to re-adjust... Meredith with a 5.27ERA in Pawtucket and Bard, a career .250 hitter before 2006, both doing fantastic in SD... Clement falling apart (I know some people blame this on the fact he isn't mentally strong enough to pitch in Boston, or something like that, but Cubs fans just as hard on their players as Red Sox fans and he never collapsed there).

But I think the bigger thing is that a lot of the trades/moves are still really in their infancy and shouldn't be judged so soon. It’s certainly possible that everyone they traded for continues to suck while everyone they got rid of does great, or that could only be the case this year. Damon could decline to a .260 hitter by 2008 while Crisp rebounds and plays in his prime. Beckett could bounce back from a bad year and be the ace of the staff for the next 10 years. Pena should become a great power hitter (which he’s shown he can be this year, he just hasn't had the playing time). And so on. The Suppan for Sanchez can be deemed a bad trade now that it has been played out, but the past two years when Sanchez was either injured or a part time player no one really had that big of an opinion on it. No one had much of an opinion on the Heathcliff Slocum for Jason Varitek and Derek Lowe trade when it first happened. While Jeff Bagwell for Larry Anderson was deemed a great success when it happened. And a lot of people hated the Nomar trade. Its way to early to judge some of these moves.

Now don't get me wrong: I am by no means a Theo/FO ballwasher and have criticized them numerous times in the past about things they've done or haven't done, or Theo having a temper tantrum and leaving in the offseason, or a bunch of other stuff, but I don't think its really fair to criticize a trade that everyone loved at the time just because it hasn't worked out perfectly right now. People whined non-stop about how not resigning Pedro was an awful move, now the general thought is that it was a good move because he’s been injured most of this year. But if he bounces back and is great in 2007, people will go right back to calling Theo an idiot for not resigning him. I think that’s absurd.

 

[PonyExpress]

For Jay Payton, David Pauley, and Ramon Vazquez. Payton was traded for Chad Bradford who they got a decent half season out of, and Vazquez was traded for Cora who is a very good back up utility infielder. Roberts has continued to have injury trouble.
Terrible trade. Couldn't agree more. This is what happens when the FO listens to everyones whining and makes a trade to bring back one of their guys.
If he wasn't a part time player Pena would have about 30 HR this season, next year when he is the everyday RF this won't be considered a terrible trade for Boston.
Lowell is outperforming Ramirez in nearly every statsitic other than SBs. And Lowell isn't doing that great. And Sanchez joins the elite group of Bud Smith, Eric Milton, Jose Jimenez and a bunch of other guys who've had mediocre careers to throw a no-hitter. Throwing a no-hitter is nice, but it is by no means a bermoeter of a successful career. He very well might have one, and I hope that he does because it reflects better of the Red Sox farm system, but a good season as a rookie in a league that is doing extremely poorly this year doesn't mean he is a better pitcher than Beckett. If Beckett has another bad year while Sanchez goes on to be fantastic, then the trade sucks, but one season after a trade is never the best time to fully make a clear judgment. Its very easy to call a GM an idiot when a trade goes down that doesn't work out perfectly, despite the fact that everyone and their uncle said that the trade was outstanding at the time.
You've got this trade all wrong. It was actually Mike Gonzalez and Scott Sauerbeck for Brandon Lyon and Anistacio Martinez. Which would have been a fantastic trade had Pittsburgh not whined about Lyons elbow injury (which they knew about before the trade) and insisted that the Sox take him back. They then made another trade involving Gonzalez and Sanchez going over to Pittsburgh for Martinez, Lyon and Jeff Suppan. Bad move in hindsight absolutely, but it was heralded at the time because Suppan was the best starter available at the deadline.
The move sucks now, but this is another one like Pena/Arroyo that shouldn't be judged so soon. If Crisp does better when he is healthy for a full season and Damon declines in a few years (like everyone, including Yankee fans before they signed him, said would happen) then the trade doesn't look so bad.
That really has nothing to do with Theo or the FO, but regardless, a short while ago everyone was whining about how Papelbon wasn't being used in 2 inning saves enough. He was their only very good reliever so whenever Timlin or Delcarmen or anyone else was brought into the 8th inning people whined about how Papelbon should have been used for a 6 out save because no one else is good enough and could have blown the game.
Already having Nixon, and not having the desire to take on Abreus $20+ million for next year giving them almost no room for Free Agents this offseason. I know you'd like to think this, but they really do have a budget.
What about them? They didn't sign them with the intent that they would be important cogs to the bullpen and were never used as such. And Rudy is already 1-0 with 3Ks in 2IP, a few more scoreless outings and does getting rid of Seanez go on the list of terrible moves?
Like already posted, the move gave Ortiz more playing time, stabilized the pen and put the Red Sox into the 2003 postseason. Not a bad trade.
Clement and Wells were brought in to replace Pedro and Lowe, which they did in 2005. Neither was as good as Pedro, but both were much better than Lowe. A lot of people apparently forget how absolutely terrible Lowe was in the regular season in 2004, and how he wasn't much better the year before.
Yes, a bit of it is bad luck. Crisp getting injured and missing a few months and never being able to re-adjust... Meredith with a 5.27ERA in Pawtucket and Bard, a career .250 hitter before 2006, both doing fantastic in SD... Clement falling apart (I know some people blame this on the fact he isn't mentally strong enough to pitch in Boston, or something like that, but Cubs fans just as hard on their players as Red Sox fans and he never collapsed there).

But I think the bigger thing is that a lot of the trades/moves are still really in their infancy and shouldn't be judged so soon. It’s certainly possible that everyone they traded for continues to suck while everyone they got rid of does great, or that could only be the case this year. Damon could decline to a .260 hitter by 2008 while Crisp rebounds and plays in his prime. Beckett could bounce back from a bad year and be the ace of the staff for the next 10 years. Pena should become a great power hitter (which he’s shown he can be this year, he just hasn't had the playing time). And so on. The Suppan for Sanchez can be deemed a bad trade now that it has been played out, but the past two years when Sanchez was either injured or a part time player no one really had that big of an opinion on it. No one had much of an opinion on the Heathcliff Slocum for Jason Varitek and Derek Lowe trade when it first happened. While Jeff Bagwell for Larry Anderson was deemed a great success when it happened. And a lot of people hated the Nomar trade. Its way to early to judge some of these moves.

Now don't get me wrong: I am by no means a Theo/FO ballwasher and have criticized them numerous times in the past about things they've done or haven't done, or Theo having a temper tantrum and leaving in the offseason, or a bunch of other stuff, but I don't think its really fair to criticize a trade that everyone loved at the time just because it hasn't worked out perfectly right now. People whined non-stop about how not resigning Pedro was an awful move, now the general thought is that it was a good move because he’s been injured most of this year. But if he bounces back and is great in 2007, people will go right back to calling Theo an idiot for not resigning him. I think that’s absurd.

Tremendous insight. Thanks for taking the time. I take issue with one point that I've heard often: We can't criticize the front office for a trade most fans agreed with at the time. This is a massive fallacy. None of us has the salary or the resources of the front office. They should be judged on their record. Second guessing a front office is absolutely justifiable. Also, I think Derek Lowe has been very good this year, and decent last year. I would, in retrospect take D.Lowe over Clement easily. Also, my point about Seanez is to highlight a trend with the FO: they have a very difficult time judging pitching talent, especially filling out the bullpen. The seanez and Tavarez signings highlight this. And although it is true that all these trades may turn out golden in a few years, the early returns are stunningly bad, and have cost the Red Sox big time so far.

 

[Foley]

Tremendous insight. Thanks for taking the time. I take issue with one point that I've heard often: We can't criticize the front office for a trade most fans agreed with at the time. This is a massive fallacy. None of us has the salary or the resources of the front office. They should be judged on their record. Second guessing a front office is absolutely justifiable. Also, I think Derek Lowe has been very good this year, and decent last year. I would, in retrospect take D.Lowe over Clement easily. Also, my point about Seanez is to highlight a trend with the FO: they have a very difficult time judging pitching talent, especially filling out the bullpen. The seanez and Tavarez signings highlight this. And although it is true that all these trades may turn out golden in a few years, the early returns are stunningly bad, and have cost the Red Sox big time so far.

No resources they have could have told them that Beckett would not be very good this year. Its fine to criticize trades that happen and say they are bad or shouldn't have been made, but I don't think that the FO should be held accountable when a trade everyone thought was fantastic turns out to be a dud. I know this is an unrealistic scenario, but if Boston trades Kyle Snyder for Johan Santana this offseason, and Snyder goes on to win 5 Cy Youngs while Santana annually struggles to keep his ERA below 5, are the Red Sox idiots for making the trade?

Lowe has been very good the past two years and of course if given the chance now I'd rather have him over Clement, but after 2003 and 2004 I wanted Lowe nowhere near the team. He was flat out awful and one of the worst starters in baseball that season. Clement, though no ace himself had a much better 2003-2004 than Lowe.

I don't think it’s so much an issue that they can't judge relievers talent, as much as they haven't wanted to go out and get a big name guy since the last time they did that it blew up in their face. Keith Foulke was one of the best closers in baseball from 1999-2004 and was a huge investment on their part, but after 2004 he was trash. Maybe that made them gun-shy about going hard after a BJ Ryan or Billy Wagner, but considering how fickle relievers can be, they really needed to have done that. Or at the very least, have traded for a Scott Eyre, Joe Borowski, Damaso Marte, or someone else at the deadline.

 

[PonyExpress]

In many ways it reminds me of Frank Kashen breaking up the '86 Mets. We can't believe that these people, lauded as brilliant innovators, have become dumb as doorknobs. So we think, "Keep the Faith!", because it worked so well two years ago. These are admirable traits in fans, spouses, and religious believers; but also can lead people to not seeing the ugly reality in front of their noses. Theo reminds me of an artist who, after painting a brilliant painting, couldn't help himself from tinkering and tinkering, until before long the great painting devolved into a mishmash of misplaced colors and shapes...

 

[Foley]

In many ways it reminds me of Frank Kashen breaking up the '86 Mets. We can't believe that these people, lauded as brilliant innovators, have become dumb as doorknobs. So we think, "Keep the Faith!", because it worked so well two years ago. These are admirable traits in fans, spouses, and religious believers; but also can lead people to not seeing the ugly reality in front of their noses. Theo reminds me of an artist who, after painting a brilliant painting, couldn't help himself from tinkering and tinkering, until before long the great painting devolved into a mishmash of misplaced colors and shapes...

Who on that 2004 team who isnt on it now would make a huge difference?

Pedro? Injured a lot of the year, not that dominant when he was healthy.
Mueller? Injured entire year. Career likely over.
Mientkiewicz? Decent year, terrible 2005. Really not all that special.
Millar? Awful.
Bellhorn? Awful.
Roberts? Part time player who was injured much of last year
Cabrera? Decent year, following an awful 2005. Not worth 8 million a year.
Myers? A LOOGY. Having a decent year, but not that special.
Arroyo/Embree/Lowe? Great years, but a great year in the NL. Not too likely they'd be as dominant in the AL.
Pokey and Leskanic? Retired.
Damon? Fantastic year.

So basically, of the 14 on the roster when they won the WS, two of them (Damon and Arroyo) would really make that much of a difference. You can argue for Lowe, but his 2004 is worse than Beckett's 2006... so if trading for Beckett before he had a bad year is incompetence, what would resigning Lowe be AFTER a bad year?

 

[PonyExpress]

If we had Pedro and Lowe last year we would have won the WS again. We might have won it if they had just pitched Arroyo in Game 1. If I really had faith in Theo's ability to judge and develop pitching talent, I would be more willing to believe in "the waiting game" and trading off proven veterans. But since pitching, sadly, has been a significant hole in his judgment, I don't have alot of confidence in "the plan" going forward, and would have been happy merely winning two WS in a row. I applaud his idea of developing a "program" like BB, but BB is a real genius, a freak of nature. I realize Theo is sticking to his principles, but that alone is not worthy of praise, if you don't have the judgment to back it up. For two years his judgment has been embarrassingly bad, to the point where even a diehard has to be troubled.

 

[Foley]

If we had Pedro and Lowe last year we would have won the WS again. We might have won it if they had just pitched Arroyo in Game 1. If I really had faith in Theo's ability to judge and develop pitching talent, I would be more willing to believe in "the waiting game" and trading off proven veterans. But since pitching, sadly, has been a significant hole in his judgment, I don't have alot of confidence in "the plan" going forward, and would have been happy merely winning two WS in a row. I applaud his idea of developing a "program" like BB, but BB is a real genius, a freak of nature. I realize Theo is sticking to his principles, but that alone is not worthy of praise, if you don't have the judgment to back it up. For two years his judgment has been embarrassingly bad, to the point where even a diehard has to be troubled.

Not having Pedro and Lowe wasn't the problem last year. Not having a healthy Schilling and Foulke was the problem. Like I said before: Clement and Wells in 2005 was better than Pedro and Lowe in 2004. If a healthy Schilling and Foulke were on the 2005 team then it would have been a lot better than the 2004 team.

You wouldn't have had a problem with Theo if he resigned Lowe and Lowe contined to put up horrible stats? Or was Theo supposed to know that Lowe would be fine after 2 years of sub-mediocrity in 2003 and 2004?

And you're being a complete hypocrite chastizing him for trading away proven veterens, but also chastizing him for trading prospects to get a proven veteren in Beckett. Can't have it both ways.

 

[PonyExpress]

Foley,
I'm chastizing Theo for having demonstrably bad judgment in any case, trading for rookies, or signing veterans. He's like an inverse Midas right now. I can't knock you for being such a good fan, but you can be a fan without having to support these rdiculously bad moves. If he had been a Yankee mole he could hardly have done worse. I'm not a hypocrite, I'm very disnchanted with this litany of bad decisions. I think there was an element of narcissism and minor celebrity status that inflitrated the front office. It was evident in the offseason at those multiple press conferences, such as Jed and Ben. They were so obviously self-conscious of their status as "New Boston celebrities", it was amusing. I think the towering success of the WS victory corrupted the decision making process.

 

[Foley]

You're not answering anything I ask and are just going on random tangents. How can you justify resigning Lowe? And how can any of the other guys, Damon and Arroyo aside, really have helped this team this year?

If Lowe was resigned and had a 5.42ERA in 2005 and 2006 would that have been the right move? If he did that and Clement succeeded somewhere else people would chastize Theo for resigning Lowe despite the fact he was terrible in 2003 and 2004, and for not signing Clement who was better in both years.

 

[PonyExpress]

You are really missing the point. I'm not going to haggle with you over Theo's decision making process, because however clever he seemed at the time, all his decisions stunk. Is it alright for Custer's dishwasher to mention after Little Big Horn, that maybe it wasn't such a good idea? If the public cheers a general who goes to war, and then the general's army is annihilated, is it alright to mention that perhaps the General made a bad decision? Or should we just say, "We stood in the town square cheering, so we have no right to criticize the General?" Come on. Whatever Theo's logic was, whether it seemed valid at the time or not, he was obviously wrong in almost every case. Defending poor results by saying "At the time it seemed right" is the way losers try to avoid blame by passing the buck.

 

[Foley]

And you are again refusing to answer simple questions. My point was that it is impossible for a GM to be able to tell the future, and criticizing him for not resigning a guy with an ERA in the mid-5s is asinine. If he goes out and signs 25 random scrap heap players who all manage to have career seasons and end up winning the WS, that doesn't make him a good GM. If he goes out and gets a few players who are typically very good but manage to have off years, it doesn't make him a bad GM.

And I never said it was wrong to criticize a move that doesn't go well; I just said that it doesn't make sense to hold the GM responsible for a player under producing. Was Belichick responsible for Starks, Beisel, C Brown, Poole, etc having bad seasons? Or Branch holding out? Or Colvin taking 2 years to play like he was signed to play? Or all the injuries last year? Or anything else that goes wrong with the players?

 

[PatsWorldChamps]

Whatever Theo's logic was, whether it seemed valid at the time or not, he was obviously wrong in almost every case.

that's what happens when you hire a GM based on nepotism and not talent

 

[Foley]

that's what happens when you hire a GM based on nepotism and not talent

Are you aware what nepotism means? Theo wasn't even their first choice when he was hired, the FO (Theo included) planned on trading for someone else as the GM, but that someone else decided to renig on the deal he made with Boston and stay with his old team. It's not like Theo inherited the job.

And regardless, they are 363-263(.580) with Theo as a GM and have reached the postseason in 3 out of 4 years. Considering the GM before him was 656-574(.533) and only reached the postseason 3 out of 8 seasons, I don't think hes done all that terrible. Want me to make a nice long list of good moves he has done like the list of bad moves earlier in the thread?