Lucchino’s Departure From Boston Creates Disastertunity
Another day another tire fire. The Red Sox were beat by the Yankees 13-3 last night, dropping their record to 47-60. The team is in last place in the AL East again and looks destined for their third last place finish in four seasons, though there is a World Series win sandwiched in there (is a World Series a sandwich?) so it’s not like things are really that bad. Still, for a team of Boston’s means and expectations, a run of futility like this usually presages changes at the top, and low and behold, that’s exactly what has happened.
Two days ago it leaked out that Larry Lucchino, in the post of team president and CEO since 2002, would step down at the end of the season. He’ll be replaced by Sam Kennedy. Not exactly a bloodletting, but it should be noted that Kennedy will take only the CEO title (officially Executive Vice President/Chief Operating Officer) and focus solely on the business side of things. This leaves a hole in Boston’s baseball operations department. The Red Sox could let things sit as they are, with General Manager Ben Cherington in charge and right-hand-men Allard Baird, Brian O’Halloran, and Mike Hazen directly below him in the organizational structure, but there’s that impending three last place finishes in four seasons thing, so that seems unlikely. And when you consider the smoke from the media around a new addition to baseball operations combined with the removal of Lucchino, who is supposedly stepping down due to age but who rumors persist is poised to join another team rather than retire, then you’re entering the realm of ‘especially likely’.
The Red Sox have had essentially the same front office philosophy since John Henry bought the team in 2002 from the estate of the late team owner Tom Yawkey. When he did so, Henry sought to modernize both the team and the stadium, and he brought Lucchino in from San Diego to help accomplish that. Lucchino’s management style was often abrasive and occasionally caused consternation in the fanbase and even in the team’s front office. For example, there’s the time in 2005 following the Red Sox first World Series win in 86 years that GM Theo Epstein quit even though the team had met his contact demands because, in essence, he couldn’t stomach working under Lucchino any more. Epstein had been on the job all of three seasons at that point, but instead of accepting $1.5 million per season to run the team he grew up rooting for, he snuck out the back door in a gorilla suit. That’s Larry Lucchino.
But the real question is what does this all mean for the Red Sox, and the answer is ‘it depends.’ It depends on how team owner John Henry and co-owner Tom Werner decide to move forward. Ben Cherington hasn’t made a great case that he should be the guy to run baseball operations by himself with the team’s last place finishes and the way the last off-season turned out, but then Henry has also made it clear recently how he feels about all that. Back in early June when there was still a slim chance the Red Sox might not be awful, Henry spoke to the media about both Cherington and manager John Farrell.
The general manager is going to be the general manager of this club for a very long time. I have nothing but respect for him and the job that he does. I think we’ve been on the same wavelength, so you have to blame ownership as much as you can blame the general manager. We have a certain philosophy, we’ve talked a lot about adjusting that philosophy. As I said earlier, I’m not sure that just the players need to make adjustments. In fact, I’m sure about that. There are adjustments we need to make as an organization. Ben will make those adjustments and he’ll lead that process. But I think he and his people are the right people to do that.
That doesn’t leave a lot of gray area. Henry trusts Cherington and by extension Farrell to be the guys in charge who can bring about whatever change the organization needs. It was about as strong an endorsement as endorsements go. There is one caveat, however. It was said two months ago and since then the Red Sox have gone 25-31. That’s not to say six games under .500 in a small sample should or will change Henry’s feelings on the matter, but it should also be noted that when Henry made the above statements the team was still thought to be competitive and Larry Lucchino was still the team’s president and CEO.
Henry brought in Lucchino, Lucchino brought in Epstein, and Cherington learned under Epstein and took over when he departed (both times, in fact). Together that combination of men has brought about the most success the Boston Red Sox have seen in the past century. That isn’t something to be dismissed out of hand. Henry isn’t perfect though. When Epstein left, the team attempted to give the GM job to Kevin Towers and there was lots of talk about J.P. Ricciardi as a possible fit as well. What’s more, Boston Globe columnist Nick Cafardo recently published a list of men who could take over the reigns from Lucchino and lead Boston’s baseball operations department. That list included, shockingly, Kevin Towers and J.P. Ricchiardi. It also included Kenny Williams, Joe Garagiola Jr, Dan O’Dowd, and Jim Bowden. Ruben Amaro must have been left off by accident. If you’re a Red Sox hater that list must look a delicious pizza after a day of fasting. Cafardo’s analysis isn’t my cup of tea, but he is a connected reporter and when he puts out something like this that appears to be out of left field, it often ends up with at least some grain of truth to it, if not more than a grain.
Adding Towers, Williams, or someone else of that ilk would likely signal a new way of doing things in Boston, a step away from the analytical bent that Henry instituted when he first took over the team 13 years ago and a step towards old-school scouting and gut analysis. Perhaps Henry perceives that this is what Boston needs. Perhaps the team under Cherington has been relying too much on analytics, or too much on the wrong kind of scouting-based player analysis, but to me, stepping away from any information is a bad idea. Information is good, and more information is better. It’s what is done with that information that defines how good the front office is at their jobs. While there is a chance the team could turn to a Towers or someone comparable who would take the team in a backwards direction away from analytics, there’s also a chance Lucchino’s departure will be a boon to the organization. After all, it was Lucchino who reportedly championed bringing in Bobby Valentine as manager and we all saw how that turned out.
Change creates opportunity, and after what will likely be the third last place finish in the last four seasons, the Red Sox are poised to undergo some opportunity. Henry was the one who brought the Red Sox organization into the light after decades of cronyism, racism, and straight incompetence. Don’t expect that to fundamentally change, but the way the team has played on the field in recent seasons could shake anyone’s faith in the specific way the organization has been approaching baseball analysis. Lucchino’s departure represents a chance to alter that philosophy, for the better or not.
Henry made the fortune that allowed him to buy the Sox on applying (then) advanced analytics to investing. He’s not bringing in freakin Jim Bowden.
I thought the timing with Dombrowski’s release from DET was worth noting. Probably just a case of two sides in DET knowing they were too far apart and agreeing to part a bit early out of respect, but he is the kind of guy that would make sense to pair with Kennedy at the top.
Yet they have Baird, who was amazingly terrible with the Royals.
#HireBowdenNow
#TowersShippingUptoBoston
Please, please let one of those happen.
The Red Sox beat the Yankees 2-1 last night.
The news about Lucchino leaked Saturday.
“rumors persist is poised to join another team rather than retire”
I hadn’t hurt this at all until now. The guy is turning 70 and was in a motorcycle accident over the winter so I never considered the idea he might be going elsewhere instead of retiring. A cursory search of google and twitter doesn’t bring up any rumors of him going to a new team.
I think the outside world sees the Sox organization in a different light than they see themselves. While they probably hoped to be competitive this year, they were hardly all-in. They started a rebuild in 2012 with the Punto trade and just because everything broke right and they won a title in 2013 didn’t change the fact that they were clearly in a rebuild. I think Cherington stays and they bring in a low-key name to fill the VP spot. Farrell, on the other hand, might be out of here after the season.
So signing Ramirez and Sandoval to expensive four and five year deals and putting together a $180 million dollar payroll (third highest in baseball) was because “they hoped to be competitive this year”? I look forward to seeing what the Red Sox do when they’re ready to contend!
Probably sign a big arm or two. IIRC, Boston has always had an organization stance against big contracts to free agent pitchers. The last one that even came close was Lackey, and that was only a 5 year deal.
That stance has not really played out well. If they’re going to do things differently, that seems like an obvious place to start.
Signing Shields instead of Sandoval for example would have been a lot less stupid. Arguably even signing Scherzer (or that guy Lester) would have been less stupid.
I think they looked it at it similar to the way looked at 2013. They didn’t give up a first round pick. They didn’t trade away any of their prospects. They just spent money on free agents to patch holes and hoped things would break right with the kids and entrenched veterans (Pedroia, Napoli, Victorino). They also went way over their international amateurs cap. Money is their biggest resource. I think we’ll know how they feel about their window when they start trading good prospects for present value. If they hadn’t had that good year in 2013 nobody would be calling this year a disaster – just another step in the right direction towards developing talent from their farm. Cherington always said they were working on building a new young core that would take some years to develop. Just because public perception of their plan changed doesn’t mean their internal perception changed.
I too have not heard anything about Lucchino going to another team. It would be especially strange since he now holds primary ownership in the Pawtucket (soon to be Providence) Red Sox AAA team.
According to Matthew Cherington and the people working with him are heavily responsible for the 3 last place finishes in the past 4 years. However, he fails to mention that Lucchino was a major driving force behind the large free agent contracts handed out to Carl Crawford, HanRam and the Panda. Everybody agrees that those deals are terrible. Cherington is well known to prefer to build from within and focus on player development. His leadership has resulted in one of the top talent pipelines in the big leagues and the team has already reaped major benefits from this strategy in Mookie Betts, Xander Bogaerts, Blake Swihart, and Eduardo Rodriguez. My point is that the Sox struggled due to meddling from Lucchino that played a significant part in the failures of recent Red Sox teams. His departure is great news for the club and, hopefully, Chertington will now be able to run the show the way he wants.
You do realize that Mookie Betts, Xander Bogaerts, Blake Swihart were all drafted by the Red Sox while Theo was still the GM right?
and you realize Cherington worked for Theo as his VP of Player Personnel, right?
Sure I realize that Cherington worked for Theo. But working for someone when most of the examples cited were drafted hardly supports the claim that “[h]is leadership has resulted in one of the top talent pipelines in the big leagues”.
GMs get far too much credit for drafts and IFAs.
Xander was not drafted. He and his twin brother were IFAs with in Aruba. A Sox scout accidentally discovered Xander when scouting his brother Jair (who’s no longer playing professional baseball). If Xander were from a more heavily scouted country than Aruba, the Sox likely never sign him, let alone for only 300k.
Blake Swihart was a no-brainer draft pick. He was the top prep catcher of his class and heavily scouted throughout his HS career. There were some concerns that he wouldn’t sign but he wasn’t exactly a stretch where he was selected.
Mookie Betts was the consolation prize for not being able to sign Senquez Golson. If the Sox were able to sign Golson, Mookie would have gone to college.
We fans place way too much emphasis on individual draft classes and draft picks/ IFAs. What matters is the process. I think it’s safe to say that the Sox process for finding and developing talent has been very good regardless of GM, while there free agency track record has ranged from ok to horrible.
Small nitpick, but Swihart was not a catcher until he joined the Red Sox oragnization. He played 3B and OF in high school. The Sox loved his athleticism and turned him into a catcher. Not sure if other organizations would have done the same should they have drafted him. Credit to the Red Sox for successfully developing him (so far) at the hardest position.
Not the whole truth with the Mookie signing. They actually made the very first offer to Mookie…but he didn’t budge. So they tried hard for Golson.. Then when that flopped they made a last effort to come back to Mookie with a stronger offer that got him to sign..
Caveman, you have to be careful about not spreading misinformation.
Swihart was a catcher in HS. It’s true that he only started playing the position junior year, so he was raw at the time of the draft, and it’s also true that he was viewed as hit-first and a fine athlete, so there was plenty of talk and projecting of him at other positions, but Boston didn’t turn him into a catcher.
You’re right that other organizations might have moved him immediately, and that Boston deserves credit for what looks to be successful development of him at catcher, but your nitpick isn’t on point.
@Ed —
The GM doesn’t do the drafting. The player development people do that.
I disagree that people thought the Hanley signing was terrible. Most people agreed it was a good deal – below-market, even – until they went and signed Sandoval. Hanley should have been their 3B.
lo and behold*
Don’t know why the front office should take the blame for failing to predict that Ramirez, Sandoval, and Porcello would forget how to play baseball a few months after being solid Major League players. If you need to scapegoat someone, let it be Farrell. Maybe he hasn’t done anything to cause the problem, but I haven’t seen any indication that he’s helping to solve it.
Ramirez hasn’t forgotten how to play baseball, he is just being used incorrectly. The front office absolutely deserves some blame for taking the positional adjustments literally and thinking Ramirez would be anything other than a disaster in left field.
They signed two third basemen and stuck the better one in left field. This was never a good plan.
this is the worst offensive season of his career that he’s been healthy.
Since 2010 his wRC+ are: 127, 97, 106, 190(!), 135, 100
His 2015 should not be unexpected. Also, he’s currently having a career worst BABIP, so you might expect a bit of better fortune going forward.
You expected someone with a 127 wRC+ over 2519 plate appearances from 2010 to 2014, with a 135 wRC+ just last season, to start hitting like only a league average player.
I get what you’re trying to say. It’s not really weird or uncommon for a player to have a down year, and the season’s not over. But that doesn’t mean that this was the most likely outcome, and it was absolutely reasonable to expect more.
He has certainly hit like only an average hitter in the past, so it is not shocking to me.
A smart front office would think of the expectation as a likely range of possible outcomes, rather than a point estimate. Hanley is probably performing at the bottom end of his likely range of possible outcomes. I agree that this isn’t the most likely single estimate, but that doesn’t make it unexpected.
He has not hit like an average hitter in the past. He has a decidedly above average 130 wRC+ for his career. The only season in which he posted a sub 100 wRC+ was his injury shortened 2011 season.
A 100 wRC+ falls over a standard deviation away from his career mean of 130 wRC+ by my rough calculation. In other words, there was about a 16% chance of Ramirez putting up a 100 wRC+ this season, going solely on his track record which we have no reason to disregard.
It’s not a point estimate. 100 wRC+ falls outside the range of reasonably expected outcomes. Would you have also expected Ramirez to have a 150 wRC+ this season? Because that was just about as likely.
He has had seasons of 97 and 106 wRC+. That is pretty average.
I think we just disagree on what should be considered unexpected. To me, a 16% chance occurring is not unexpected. It is about the chance of rolling a six with a single dice roll. It happens.
However, both players are well documented for being lazy and having bad makeup. You can get away with that in your mid twenties, when you are uber talented, but those guys fade fast once their bodies dont respond the same. Not the types of veterans to invest and believe in.
No one could’ve predicted two guys with huge makeup concerns would fail to live up to their statistical projections!
Porcello’s decline is a little harder to blame them for but it’s not like the Front Office should be praised for that when they could’ve gotten James Shields for the same money that offseason.
I have nothing to base my opinion of Ramirez and Sandoval’s work ethic on other than hearsay, so I won’t comment on that. But this isn’t about them not performing to their projections, its about them not performing to Major League standards.
No but they should take the blame for thinking Ramirez, of all players, would be able to just switch to a totally different position and be fine, that Sandoval had a history of a decling bat and effort issues and that Procello was an ~3 win pitcher a borderline skill set. When you can add 6 wins to a team and they’d still be looking up at 3-4 teams for the second wild card in early Augest that’s still pretty bad.
“Perhaps the team under Cherington has been relying too much on analytics”
If they have, they’ve done an excellent job of hiding it. It seems much more likely that the problem has been the opposite – not enough analytics.
The BoSox FO decision getting the most current criticism here (and everywhere)is Sandoval. So let’s ask “was that from relying too much on analytics, or not enough?” And the best answer I can come up with comes from one of the best ‘analytics’ writers I know of…
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/why-six-years-for-pablo-sandoval-isnt-crazy/
Interesting perspective, but can we do some editing please? I’ve never posted a comment like this – and I understand that I sound like an a-hole doing it, but it was significantly distracting to what was otherwise a thoughtful article. There are grammatical errors and typos throughout:
– “beat” instead of ‘beaten’ in the first sentence makes it sound like a middle-schooler wrote it
– “contact” instead of ‘contract’ in the third paragraph
– run-on sentence (or improper punctuation) in the first sentence of the second-to-last paragraph (you want a dash or parenthetical instead of a comma)
-“undergo some opportunity” in the last paragraph? I understand that you’re going for a turn of phrase here, but it just sounds weird.
Have a lot of time on your hands, huh?
@atpiacenza… you’re fun at parties!
Nick Cafardo is the Ruben Amaro of beat writers. All he’s done for the past few years is advocate for Lucchino, Valentine, Bradley Jr and Cole Hamels. You can believe if someone is on his “list” then it’s all hot air. Cafardo isn’t “connected”, he’s delusional. They’re not dumb enough to bring in failures like O’Dowd, Towers or Ricchiardi. If they bring in anyone, it’ll be another run at Beane, Dombrowski, or they’ll try to buy Theo back. Henry tends to go with what he knows and trusts.
Have to agree here, I trust Edes more than I trust Cafardo, and Edes writes for ESPN…
Agree here as well. I used to read Cafardo’s Sunday Baseball Notes just because I liked Sunday Baseball Notes, until I realized it basically made me angry because his perspectives never made any sense!
Pete Abraham and Alex Speier give the most useful info on the Sox nowadays, IMO.
I don’t think it’s fair to knock Cherington for singing players like Porcello, Pablo and Hanley. Contracts of that size need buy-in from everyone at the top, all the way up to Henry. The same can be said of any large contract given to a player. Everyone all the way up has to say OK for something like that to happen.
I do however think you can knock Cherington on the scouting/player development side of things. WIth Xander/Mookie/Swihart/ERod/Owens, you have to think they will at least get 1 franchise-caliber player they can build their team around for the next 5 years, the way Pedroia/Ellsbury/Lester anchored their team from 2007-2013.
But before this year, they have simply not developed/acquired young talent the way they need to since that trio came and left. The 2011 draft looks to be a bit of a savior for the franchise at this point. If the Red Sox are going to avoid signing large free agents so that they can remain nimble and have shorter periods of turnover, they need to draft/develop better. It’s not easy to do; if it were, every team would do it. But it’s the only way to avoid long periods of rebuilding.
I don’t really understand what you’re saying. You say they need to draft and develop better yet you list 8 players that they have drafted and developed who have contributed or could yet contribute at a high level. They had a strong core of young players for a while, they got old, now they have a new core of young players. Are you saying they should be graduating a top prospect every year?
Let me ask you this. Which team’s player development do you think the Red Sox should emulate?
I’m saying before this year though. Right now the future looks bright, but the reason the last 5+ seasons have mostly been a disappointment is because they really haven’t had much success graduating players from their minor league system the way they needed to.
And the only reason I think it’s fair to criticize ownership for this is because they stay out of the FA pool for the most part, and are only willing to hand out money to second tier free agents. If you don’t make a run at guys like Scherzer, Lester, Price, Grienke, or Sabathia, then you need to be producing guys who can give you 75-80% of the production they provide at a fraction of the cost.
I’m not saying it’s easy. If it were, every team would do it and the price of free agents wouldn’t be so high. But the Red Sox try to be competive year in and year out without mortgaging future seasons. If there is any org that does it it’s the Cardinals, but that’s why they are more or less the model franchise.
You can’t just throw away this year though. Obviously, if you take away all the good players the Red Sox have developed over the last 10 years, then they haven’t developed any good players.
I have to admit that I liked the Hanley signing – admittedly in kind of a “it’s not my money” way. Figured he’d hit. And the contract isn’t over – he’ll do his best work when he’s the Sox DH.
People “blame” Dombrowski for not bringing a pennant to Detroit. Since 2010, the tigers have won their division 4 times and made the world series once. On the other hand the Red Sox have only made the playoffs one and they won the World Series that year. Regardless if you are a fan of one team or the other. In which position would you rather be? 1 World series and 3 last place finish, or 4 division titles and no World Series?
WS win, hands down. The name of the game is championships.
Who was “better”; Detroit or Boston?
Detroit and it isn’t close. But I agree that I’d prefer Boston’s WS.
In 2013 or since 2010?
And to think, people hate the way I run my team.
Sure if you want to look back as far as 2010 the Tigers have been better. But who’s been better the last 15 years? Who’s going to be better than next 5 years? The next 15 years? I’ll take the Sox and a few down years here and there for more consistent and sustainable success. I understand that the Tigers had a serious impetus to win now because their owner is old, but as a fan I’d rather see the owner care more about the experience of the fan going forward than their immediate personal experience.
A lot of the 2004 team was in place in 2002, a team which was assembled pre-John Henry. Pedro, Manny, Damon. They lucked into Ortiz, who was let go by the Twins. And the Nomar for Mientkiewicz and Cabrera trade is overblown, since they got something like .1 WAR from that pair in 2004 combined. They’ve won 2 Division titles since then.
I think it has generally been a well-run franchise, but it was being pretty well-run when Henry et al got there.
Since 2006, 10 year run (including this partial season), Tigers won 842 games, Red Sox 836. 2013 may have been their best team. Pythag was right behind the Sox, 99 wins, and slightly more total WAR than the Sox.
And the Curt Schilling trade is underblown, I guess, since you omitted it completely. He was the Cy Young runner-up with 7 WAR in the regular season and a huge playoff run.
Since 2006? Interesting sample you chose there.
Since 2003, when the group in question took over, Boston has won 1124 games (4th most in MLB, 96 games more than Detroit). They also lead all of MLB in total fWAR for position players (~70 WAR ahead of Detroit), are 9th (~10 WAR ahead of Detroit) in pitching fWAR, and 7th in RA9-WAR (~50 WAR ahead of Detroit).
Prior to 2012, they averaged 93 wins per season. Even now, their average by season’s end will be 88 or 89.
You can’t just cruise on your past successes and they deserve every ounce of criticism they get for the last several years of sucking, but there’s no reason to ignore the massive amounts of success they’ve had since taking over in Boston.
They “lucked” into hiring Bill James who pushed hard for signing Ortiz.
Schilling was a great signing and yeah, fair is fair, they got Ortiz. Detroit did very well once Dombrowski cleaned out. But it is true Boston has a very good nucleus when Henry et al got there. Dombrowski stepped into a tougher situation.
Sorry, trade not signing, for Schilling.
“Lucchino’s management style was often abrasive and occasionally caused consternation in the fanbase and even in the team’s front office.”
Wow, if Massholes think you’re a jerk you must be really, really awful.
This is not a critique or even a statement about the sox analytics at all.
However the statement that any information is good is demonstrably false.
Bad, incorrect information can in fact be worse than no information.
And too much information can be paralyzing.
In a vacuum with unlimited resources to properly analyze and interpret that information yes you can argue that more is always better.
But that’s not a real world scenario.
Look at the intelligence services with the absurd mountain if data they will never use. There is a cost in energy (human and even electrical) to gathering and storing that information.
Bury good information under a mountain of misleading, useless or even flat incorrect information and now you’ve made it much more difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Again, i have no idea if Henry thinks this is the issue (and frankly with his track record and history i find that list very very hard to believe) but i though it important to point out that one can in fact have too much information.
Paralysis by analysis is a cliche but it points to a real world issue that can have seriously deleterious effects upon any process.
I think that if you prioritize gathering information to such an extent you cannot analyze it all, you are in serious trouble, even as an individual researcher. What is sometimes called “information” is often not informative because it is little more than a report of a fact or occurrence. In my mind this because there is too little analysis paired with gathered information. On this website, which gathers all sorts of facts and occurrences, they devote the majority of their time trying to make it information through analysis and then Suggest manners of utilization through even more analysis.
It is not so much an issue of analysis paralysis as it is gathered fact/occurrence paralysis. I wonder if any business brainiac or researcher has investigated a ratio for diminishing returns on fact gathering versus potential for meaningful analysis.
Exactly. I do not think this has been the issue with the sox. The problems they’ve encountered haven’t been missing on undervalued assets.
In fact they’ve KILLED it on that. The problem has been roster construction and perhaps a failure to appreciate the value of having a bunch of war in one pitcher.
This winter was certainly puzzling. One of Pablo or Hanley would have been great. Then get a #2 who has a track record of results.
Their problem has been missing on the big ticket items and trying to reinvent the wheel around the construction of a winning starting rotation
Nick Cafardo might have sources and hit occasionally but he’s pretty much the bottom tier of sports journalists. I wouldn’t pay any attention to his list.
“…so it’s not like things are really that bad.”
I think they are. The 2013 World Series looks more fluke than anything else, and in essence has probably masked some greater issues. Perhaps that championship was the baseball gods trying to even out some past World Series the Red Sox should have won, like 1986! More seriously, 2013 is the outlier as the Red Sox are heading into their fourth season out of five that could be and should be termed a disaster, beginning with the great collapse in 2011 and now heading towards three out of four last place finishes. A team rebuilding over a five year span is nothing shocking if it’s the Astros, but the Sox are maintaining extremely high MLB payrolls during this period, not to mention spending tremendous money in other areas and on players such as Moncada. There has to be a point where the Sox’s player evaluation capabilities have to be questioned, from bringing in Pablo and Hanley, and spending big on Rusney to name just a few recent.
That is more likely the reason for Lucchino stepping down, or being told he’s stepping down. There has to be a point where Henry says it’s no longer working. Cherington is probably next.
“When Epstein left, the team attempted to give the GM job to Kevin Towers and there was lots of talk about J.P. Ricciardi as a possible fit as well.”
This isn’t accurate. The transition from Epstein to Cherington was immediate; there was basically no opportunity for speculation that anyone else would be GM. The Sox have shown interest in having both Towers and Ricciardi be special assistant to the GM or something like that, but clearly under Cherington.
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2009/10/towers_will_enj.html
If anything Lucchinos departure will be a big plus for the Red Sox. Not having a big voice in ownership meddling in baseball ops is a good thing. Kennedy will focus on the business side as that position should, and someone else can come in to oversee baseball ops, like Dombrowski.
I watch the Dbacks out west. Towers was an unmitigated disaster for that organization. So bad people are even willing to play along with Stewart and La Russa, based solely on the fact they are not Towers. Towers has a simple M.O.: inherit an organization with good prospect depth and promising young major league talent then trade all prospects for low returns and alienate all the young talent.
The Sox don’t need a guy like that, when they seem to ha e a good pipeline set up and really just need to even out the major league team. Towers is a trade for names type, and I can’t see that taking the Red Sox very far.
The Boston’s have a very poor record of drafting or developing both starting pitching and power. That’s no way to build a pyramid.
Pulling the switches at the ML playing level may require an entirely different personality and talent from all the other aspects of the game, and if the front offices around baseball are not terribly different, the men at the top are. There’s never more than a handful who stand above the rest. Boston’s issue is that there is not clear who has ultimate power at the top, and committees are not leadership, they are back stabbing affairs.
Friedman ran Tampa Bay, I don’t think there is any doubt about that. Now the buck stops at his desk in LA. In Boston, nobody knows.
The team’s record with SPing and power isn’t sterling, but it’s just fine. The criticism of Boston’s minor league development, for some strange reason, is always, always, guaranteed to be overly critical. I don’t get it.
Perhaps you’re especially forgetting the players Boston has dealt away. It’s power “development” looks a lot better when you remember that Boston developed Hanley Ramirez and Anthony Rizzo. As for the SPing, there are successes such as Buchholz and Lester, and other arms (e.g. Sanchez, Masterson) who have found success elsewhere.
“Henry was the one who brought the Red Sox organization into the light after decades of cronyism, racism, and straight incompetence”.
Woof. This is just…not true.
Henry helped lead Boston to arguably its most successful period ever, but the team’s racism was long-dead, and I don’t know where the author got “straight incompetence”.
The Boston Red Sox transformed as a franchise with the “Impossible Dream Team” of 1967. It changed the team’s on-field fortunes and also saw its fan base grow to a national following thanks to successful conversions of local college kids into Boston fans.
Since the start of 1967 to 2001, Boston went 2962-2574, good for a 0.535 WP. The team had 28 winning seasons, and a grand total of six (!!!) losing seasons. Six. Plus three WS appearances (all classics, by the way).
That’s some impressive “incompetence”, for sure. Calling the pre-Henry Red Sox incompetent is roughly equivalent in trolling and ignorance to all the goobers who have called Jerry Jones “the next Al Davis [old/vampire edition]”. Pretty much just dumb.