|
2 0 0 4 BACK FOR MORE
Chat and Discussion Manny's own Red Sox discussion board
"I like to be fun... life is
Join the discussion now The interview room: Youkilis, Robert Parker, Johnny Pesky, Daubach, Leigh Montville, more. Remdawg's board Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer
The Nitpicked Venue of "Slavish" - Sean McAdam
"The Internet geeks are getting all the
interviews" HEADLINES 2004 2003 Please email for more information or questions. Contents Copyright 2001-2004 Boston Dirt Dogs, except logos used in accordance with the Fair Use provision (section 107) of U.S. Copyright Act. Photographic images posted with permission of Associated Press unless otherwise indicated.
|
BARKS & BITES
Date: Tuesday, October 22, 2001
From: Big Dog
Subject: ProJo Posters are in The Know
We must remember there are many
more important things,
many more important things ... off hand, I can't think of
what they are, but I'm sure there must be something.
- Newscaster from Willie
Wonka and
the Chocolate
Factory
Bashing Dan Duquette. It's become pointless and exhausting. I can't even bring myself to replay the tapes of his magical mystery media tour. I know what I'm going to hear. I know the answers were well rehearsed and poorly written by his new PR gurus. And I know I'm not going to learn anything new. So instead of putting myself to sleep listening to them one more time, I decided to poke around the Internet in search of some intelligent discourse on the Red Sox and our man Dan.
After perusing the discussion boards and fan forums on redsox.com, mlb.com, espn.com, bostonglobe.com, bostonherald.com, and even our friends at duquettesucks.com, I came up empty. Lot's of personal, irrelevant cat fights. Lot's of restating the obvious. Plenty of propaganda. But no good Duke learnings anywhere.
So I decided to return to my roots. Heading south on the Internet dial, I went to Providence to see what the folks at ProJo.com were up to. And I found they were up to the task.
In the forum called "Your Turn", the talk is tough, the posters aren't posers, and everyone seems to be in the know. When they're not blanket-bashing WEEI, easy-going Edes, the other Globe writer they (and Carl Everett) call CHB, Peter Gammons, or even their own Providence Journal reporters and columnists, they've got the goods on the Duke. The good and the bad.
Without further adieu, following please find the most recent terrific thread featuring our favorite, and hopefully -- if you're paying close attention Mr. Werner -- soon-to-be-fired General Manager:
|
tuaman (member) 10/20/01 08:31 PM |
|
||
|
It seems like every post I read is either ripping Duquette or Mo. I've been through the Mo argument before, so I'm moving on to the Duke. Now I agree that he's done a terrible job of dealing with players and media. However, when you get down to what he's done as GM, he had as good a season as just about anyone. In the offseason he brings in Manny for big money, then adds Nomo, Cone, Castillo, Wakefield and Stynes, none of whom were tremendously costly. Every one of those pickups was a real plus for the team. Then, during the season he addressed the needs that developed. Boston appeared very set at closer and catcher. However, Lowe's failure and Varitek's injury led to bringing in Urbina and Mirabelli. Many people, myself included, thought that Duke gave up too much to get a backup catcher. Then we got to see Mirabelli play. For all the blasting of Duke, i saw few apologies after Mirabelli played so well. Urbina, meanwhile, looks like a tremendous pickup, who is young enough to help for a long time. Also, for all the talk that I hear about all of the disgruntled former players, how many do people really want back? I'd love to get Mo and Roger back, but it seems that I am in the minority. Oh, and let's not forget the list of players that left in a disgruntled way during the Gorman regime, just in case anyone is reminiscing about Duke's predecessor. Off the top of my head I think immediately of Ellis Burks and Wade Boggs. Gorman severed ties with both around the same time, after which Boggs had more 300 seasons, and Burks continues to be a force to this day. The point of all this is that Duquette is someone that I trust when it comes to signings and trades. I agree that he's done many things wrong, but to blast him for bringing in overpaid veterans, never getting to the world series, or whatever else I've read in these posts, just seems a bit unfair. As a talent evaluator, he may have done the best job in baseball this year. How about someone admitting that? |
|||
|
curly (enthusiast) 10/20/01 08:59 PM |
|
||
|
Duquette gave Jimy a team with: A second baseman/leadoff hitter (Offerman) who can;t turn a double play and can't reach base like or he use, or at a remotely aceeptable rate for a leadoff man. A utilty playe (Stynes) with poor plate discipline, no power and no skills at run-producing. A third baseman out of Double A with no plate discipline who was the best choice to play the position. A left fielder (O'Leary) whose best days are long behind them, and it now a guy with below-average, speed, power and hitting ability. A DH (Bichette) who doesn't walk and doesn't drive in many runs. Lefthanded relievers (Scourek, Pulsipher and McDill) who don't belong in the majors. This is not exactly the best year by a GM. You'll notice I didn't mention the positions (shortsop, catcher) where injuries played a major role. This team, as assembled by the Duke, came out of Florida with a lot of holes. |
|||
|
tuaman (member) 10/20/01 09:07 PM |
|
||
|
Offerman had an unforseeable drop-off in his career. Granted his defense was never good, but he was a top leadoff hitter until last year. Stynes is a good bat. I don't see how you can complain about adding him. On top of that, he could have been made the everyday third baseman, taking away the need to use Shea. O'Leary should have been the fourth outfielder, a role that he could fill pretty well. Bichette has been an outstanding run producer for years. The lefty relievers may have struggled, but Boston had an elite bullpen for the past few years coming into this season. However, even if I agreed with you about all of those issues, I'd ask what should he do? The team does not have limitless funds. He is not going to be able to put an all-star at every position. My point is, every move that he made worked out well. I mentioned something like seven players that were added, and every one of them worked out well, some shockingly well. I just don't understand the constant attacks on him. |
|||
|
paul_orourke (member) 10/21/01 03:20 AM |
|
||
|
Not every Duquette critic is rabid in his hatred for the man. Some of us are middle of the roaders who respect him for constructing a contender out of very little when he took over in 94. We think that he has had more successes than failures in his personnel moves. But we think it's time for him to move on. Here are some of the reasons. 1. He has not built the farm system he promised. He has been here now for eight years - a long enough time - and the farm system has not been very productive, especially since 1997. After eight years we should not be this barren at AAA and AA. A sad commentary on the farm system is the current thread discussing the merits of Double A journeyman Chris Elmore. 2. Duquette has not constructed a true organization as Billy Beane has in Oakland. He runs the team through the three amigos - Jauss, Qualls and Haas. He treats scouts and coaches in the farm system like chattel, leading to excessive turnover. Gammons has cited numerous instances of this. The recent article by a Trenton reporter in Diehard, cited here by Rip Repulski, presents a bottom up view of his mishandling of organization personnel. 3. Because of Duquette there is a communication vacuum within what is basically an unhappy organization. Some examples: he has not gotten along with his managers Kevin Kennedy and Jimmy Williams. He apparently talked very little with them leading to controversies over Steve Avery and Carl Everett. Trot Nixon pleaded at the end of this season for more communication between the front office and the players. 3. There is no discernable Red Sox Way to teach hitting, running, or fielding from top to bottom through the organization. Because of the organization's failure we don't have the kids to put us over the top. Hillenbrand and even Fossum are a far cry from the talent turned up by the A's in recent years. Duquette will probably make some decent trades and signings this winter but it won't be enough to compensate for the lack of home grown talent. In sum, Duquette has been a good tactician, but he has failed at his goal of developing a long term strategy for the organization. Let's give him one last year, but when the new ownership gets selected and approved, they should let him go with thanks for his real accomplishments and then go out and find someone who will actually do what Dan said he would do eight years ago - build a solid, coherent, healthy organization. |
|||
|
Rasputin (old hand) 10/21/01 12:57 PM |
|
||
|
1) He hasn't built the organization we wanted but it also wasn't as bad as has been portrayed. The minor league system is not devoid of talent, it's just bottom heavy. The old scouting and development department (i.e. the Bob Schaeffer regime) wasn't getting the job done so it was replaced. So far this one seems to be doing a decent job but it will take a few more years to really know and with the ownership change, it may not have those years. 2) What, exactly, is excessive turnover? Minor league coaches and scouts change jobs often. That's the nature of the job. There are very few minor league coaches and managers who stay in one place for long. 3) I don't know that there is necessarily a communications vacuum and I don't necessarily agree that it's Duquette's fault. Jimy was told not to start Avery because it would trigger the option year. He did anyway. How is that a communication problem? Kevin Kennedy sits in meetings where they decide to offer Mike Greenwell a 4th outfielder's contract and Kennedy tells Greenie he'll be back as the team captain. Those aren't communication gaps, those are people refusing to do what their boss tells them. The manager and the GM should communicate of course, the manager should tell the GM what he needs, and the GM should tell the manager what the long term goals are and both should make decisions in line with what the other says. I've seen a lot more of Duquette doing what his managers say than the other way around. 3) This is true and is very disturbing.
|
|||
|
Rasputin (old hand) 10/21/01 01:06 PM |
|
||
And this is just a ridiculous statement. Chris Elmore is hardly a AA
Journeyman. The guy spent 2000 in Lowell, started 2001 in Sarasota, and was
promoted to AA Trenton when it was obvious he was too damn good for the
Florida State League. He then showed that he was too damn good for the
Eastern League. The Journeyman lable doesn't fit Chris Elmore. |
|||
|
JimPagliaroni (addict) 10/21/01 01:16 PM |
|
||
|
"A cogent, intelligent assessment of the situation. Nice job. As such, of course, it has no place on this board." Really Rip. Is that because the most intelligent assessments of the situation have been made by Duquette supporters? IMO, Paul O'Rourke's comments are some of the few by Duquette non-supporters that actually makes sense. Thank you Paul for elevating the discussion. 2001: The End of the Yankee Dynasty |
|||
|
Beautravis (stranger ) 10/21/01 03:12 PM |
|
||
|
Im speechless to the reply's and Post. All of you make honest and true statements.. None of you are right or wrong. Much like other Teams GM's, the Duke has made decent draft picks, trades and several questionable and busts. Fact is, It hasn't brought a WSeries championship. Many battles were won, but the war was lost.. Not managements fault, time for a change thats all.. New Blood new visions, new idea's.. Seattle did it, Toronto is doing it, Hart left Clev. Maybe the Duke needs a fresh start, much like the Fans seem to want? |
|||
|
paul_orourke (member) 10/21/01 03:21 PM |
|
||
|
Rasputin: You make some good points. What is excessive turnover on the minor league level? You're always going to have (and should have) significant turnover each year. But there should be continuity too, like the old (1960's, 1970's) Orioles had. Do we really have that core of coaches committed to an organizational philosophy of player development? The article by the Trenton reporter in Diehard would give a bottoms up view of part of the minor league program. to complement the top down criticism of Edes and Gammons. I'd like to see the text of it. Can Rip Repulski or someone provide it? I agree that Williams and Kennedy were not blameless in their disputes with Duquette. But some of the problems could have been avoided if they had talked more. Apparently weeks went by during the season when Williams and Duquette did not communicate. One would think that a manager and a general manager would be talking every couple of days. Whose fault was this? Well, a lot of it was the responsibility of a GM who doesn't return phone calls from other GM's, who doesn't talk to the players as much as Trot Nixon would like him to, who notified Mike Stanley of his release on his answering machine, who wouldn't communicate directly with the Texeira family. We're talking about a pattern here. Duquette's apparently an introvert who is not energized by interactions with others. He prefers to operate alone or in concert with a few long time associates. I don't think he is evil incarnate. In fact, he seems like an ordinary, decent guy. However, a lot of the communications problems within the organization can be attributed to him, and I think we need a more open and sensitive management style. Right now the Red Sox do not seem to be a happy, healthy, focused organization. A change is in order. |
|||
|
Rasputin (old hand) 10/21/01 03:41 PM |
|
||
|
|||
|
jofi (old hand) 10/21/01 04:46 PM |
|
||
|
Rasputin, I am not disputing your point here, and it has been made before, so my questions are also directed towards people like DieHard and Shamus, who are very well versed as you are in these matters. Personally as a long time fan, I would like to believe the claims about the progress at the lower levels, but they have been made before. Nobody seems to be able to quantify the claims or make any kind of cogent analysis, other than throwing some names out there. First, "he hasn't built the organization we wanted but it also wasn't as bad as has been portrayed. " What was the system he wanted to build- an international focus, focus on developing pitchers, and more tool players. Well, so far, we still are waiting. "The old scouting and development department (i.e. the Bob Schaeffer regime) wasn't getting the job done so it was replaced." Other than replacing Shaeffer, who else went and who came in? Isn't Wayne Britton still around? Just what were the qualifications and experience of the new people who came in? To his credit, Duquette seems to have developed more of an organizational structure to the minor league system, with actual coaches and trainers assigned to each time, elaborate data collection, spanish speaking instructors, and the like. And Duquette's team is really working and trying real hard. At the same time there are numerous complaints about a top -down approach, which stifles creativity, individual judgment, yada, yada. Likewise, there are concerns that this top down approach is guided by 'non baseball' people who seem to change their minds constantly. "The minor league system is not devoid of talent, it's just bottom heavy.... So far this one seems to be doing a decent job but it will take a few more years to really know and with the ownership change, it may not have those years." If it will take a few years to really know, how can we say "it seems to be doing a decent job." It can also be seen as just a so so job. How does it seem to be a decent job? Of course, this leads us to the question as to the 'talent' or 'prospects' at the lower levels, including the people others mentioned will be at Trenton this coming season. It seems that we are talking about a hand full of players, who others have labeled decent but not outstanding. Again i am not trying to be critical of you or the others. In fact, it seems to me that there are a few more interesting players at the lower levels than a few years back. But is it that that much more, and do they really do have 'star'written across them. There seems to be some differences of opinion on how good this talent is. I cannot judge, other than by looking at minor league stats and trying to read some papers covering those teams. Shamus said a while back on a thread that he could write 10 pages on the talent at the lower levels. But he usually mentions the same players again and again- all four or five of them. I realize that it is hard to present a long discussion on these boards, but it would be helpful to the rest of us if people like Shamus, DieHard, and yourself would take the time present a cogent analysis. |
|||
|
Beautravis (stranger ) 10/21/01 07:48 PM |
|
||
|
Add Harrington to your list. DDombrowski available out of Florida? There's your man. Look at his track record.. If Harrington gave two cents, he'd make a run with a new G.M. |
|||
|
JimPagliaroni (addict) 10/21/01 08:28 PM |
|
||
|
jofi, check out this SOSH discussion on Sox prospects. A little slow at first, but there is some good information in here.... Sox prospects 2001: The End of the Yankee Dynasty |
|||
|
JimVH (journeyman) 10/21/01 09:56 PM |
|
||
|
curly said: Duquette gave Jimy a team with: A second baseman/leadoff hitter (Offerman) who can;t turn a double play and can't reach base like or he use, or at a remotely aceeptable rate for a leadoff man. you have a point here. A utilty playe (Stynes) with poor plate discipline, no power and no skills at run-producing. stynes was a good pickup as a 2b/3b/lf utilityman. A third baseman out of Double A with no plate discipline who was the best choice to play the position. This was Jimy's choice. he could have used Merloni who did fairly well last year at the 3b spot. A left fielder (O'Leary) whose best days are long behind them, and it now a guy with below-average, speed, power and hitting ability. A DH (Bichette) who doesn't walk and doesn't drive in many runs. jimy could have used alancantra who was doing well in aaa ball but chose not to give him a chance. he could have used stynes out there also. Lefthanded relievers (Scourek, Pulsipher and McDill) who don't belong in the majors. schourek stayed and played as manager's decision. pulsipher did well against left handed hitters, giving up a .255 batting average with a 13-8 so/bb ratio. mike stanton gave up a .283 batting average with a 28-11 so/bb ratio to lefties This is not exactly the best year by a GM. You'll notice I didn't mention the positions (shortsop, catcher) where injuries played a major role. This team, as assembled by the Duke, came out of Florida with a lot of holes. duke had a good offseason. he got one of the best hitters in baseball. he got the #1 strikeout pitcher in the al and went 13-10. he got castillo who went 10-9. he got cone who went 9-7. he got urbina, a top closer and a hot commodity that the swinebrenners wanted. he got stynes, who unfortunately was hurt but was a help at 2b/3b and should have helped in LF. and he got mirabelli who was a help behind the plate and went .270/.360/.513 for the sox; a very good performance for a backup known for his defense. most of the holes were due to injury. |
|||
|
curly (enthusiast) 10/21/01 10:30 PM |
|
||
|
Jim VH, I don't think Merloni is an everyday player. He's OK at best as a utiltyman. As for Pulsihper, not only did the Red Sox let him get away, but the White Sox did as well. |
|||
|
riprepulski (stranger ) 10/21/01 10:57 PM |
|
||
|
Paul O'Rourke: Diehard is not on line, so can't provide link of article you mentioned. I copied it instead from the magazine - forgive any spelling errors - they are mine. Here it is: Management Tactics Have Caused Fear And Departure in Sox System By David McDonough Ralph Treuel, the latest pitching coach in Boston, made a statement during his first day on the job in early September - something about his coaching philosophy - and promptly tried to retract it. You really can't blame him. It was the first time he's opened his mouth since 1996. You see, for the last six years, Ralph Treuel has worked for the Red Sox, and you don't last that long working for Dan Duquette by making statements. Which tells you a lot more about how Duquette runs an organization than it does about what kind of a pitching coach Ralph Treuel is going to be. While covering the Trenton Thunder for the last seven years, I have run into Ralph Treuel a lot. He was the pitching coach for the Thunder in 1996 and 1998 and has spent a lot of time down in New Jersey over the last three years, serving as minor league pitching coordinator. He is a pleasant, humorous, polite and intelligent man. But up until September 4, I didn't even know he had a pitching philosophy because if there was ever a deer in the headlights, it was Ralph Treuel when a reporter asked him a direct question. As Ralph once explained to a would-be interviewer, "You just never know how things are going to be taken in this organization." But this isn't about Ralph Treuel. It isn't about Steve Braun, hitting coach for Class A Sarasota, and another good man who runs from the room if a reporter so much as approaches him. There is a much bigger story here: The story of the paranoia and despotism that have chased many a good man out of the Red Sox development system, and left it in the hands of the sycophants, the clueless, and the fearful. Some in the organization embody all three characteristics; others, like Treuel and Braun, merely illustrate the last attribute. It isn’t that not talking to the press is an issue. Heck, that’s every American’s right, to dislike the media and refuse to speak to them. The fact that Nomar Garciaparra hates talking to reporters, and blames them when he misspeaks, in no way diminishes what he does as a ballplayer and as a teammate. It’s the naked fear in the eyes and voices of the men who work for Dan Duquette that is the problem. We've all worked for people like John Harrington and Dan Duquette: the chief executive who doesn't really care what happens as long as the bottom line looks good; and the general manager who got his job by demonstrating some organizational ability, but whose knowledge and understanding of how to manage human beings is non-existent, and who takes refuge in intimidation and retribution. Since his first day on the job in 1994, Dan Duquette, a man of few words and fewer people skills, has provided, by his actions, the answer to the riddle of his rules of management: always find new and creative ways to harass and demoralize your employees. You can (as Peter Gammons has written) slash the meal money and per diem for your lower minor league instructors, thus forcing your Director of Minor League Development, Bob Schaefer, a man whom you really wanted to get rid of anyway, into a meaningless battle that takes his attention away from what he really should be doing. And you can (Gammons again) flaunt your power by denying one of your best minor-league instructors, Gerald Perry, permission to interview for big league jobs. Then, you can completely ignore the talents of your highly successful Double-A and later Triple-A manager, Ken Macha, and, when he leaves for Oakland, you can show your contempt for your Double-A skipper, the good soldier, DeMarlo Hale, by giving not him so much as a courtesy call, let alone an interview, regarding the Triple-A job. Then you fire Bob Schaefer. When one of your minor league hitting instructors protests, Dave Gallagher - the type of guy who happily spends just as much time turning a .220 hitter into a .260 hitter as he does with the team stars - you can tell him to leave the job right now: The baseball equivalent of changing the locks and having him escorted from the building. Have we forgotten anything? Well, you can go out of your way to alienate the press for no reason. You can put your minor league pitching instructor, Sammy Ellis, a veteran of over thirty years in pro ball, in the uncomfortable position of having to tell reporters "I'm not allowed to talk to you." You can force one of your best and most conscientious pitching coaches, Mike Griffin, to tell reporters that he is not allowed to tell them the number of pitches a minor-league hurler has thrown during a game, a figure that does not exactly come under the heading of a state secret. And you can surround yourself with people like Kent Qualls, who has told reporters that he does not comment on players’ development, even as he sits under the sign that reads "Director of Player Development." Qualls will not confirm that the sun has come up without checking with Duquette. Of the non-administrative types mentioned above, only Griffin remains in the system. The organization is left with a few good men, but many more are mediocrities, too lazy or too scared to do much. One who shall be nameless holds as his claim to fame the building of birdhouses, and another can only be viewed through special high-tech glasses as he whizzes out of the coaches' dressing room just long enough to sample the post-game spread. Now, is all this just the rant of a reporter who has been talking with too many malcontents? Perhaps. But consider the state of the Red Sox minor league system, currently rated twenty-seventh out of thirty by Baseball America. Duquette has been on the job almost eight years, and one of his first boasts was that he would remake a malaised minor league system. The current Red Sox roster (pre-September call-ups) contained only seven home-grown products, and three of them were signed under former GM Lou Gorman. By contrast, the Yankees had fourteen alumni with them. Scattered around the majors are seven souvenirs of the Duquette years. One, David Eckstein, is a top rookie with the Angels - the Red Sox asked waivers on him last year. Another, Chris Reitsma, is in the starting rotation for the Reds - he went in the Dante Bichette deal. All the others are marginal big leaguers. (By the way, for those of you who keep track of such things, there are 11 other remnants of the Lou Gorman regime in the bigs, and two leftovers from the halcyon days of Haywood Sullivan.) From a typical Red Sox draft, June 1996, two of the 44 draftees are in the big leagues (Reitsma and Shea Hillenbrand). Three others have had time in the majors - none of them for the Red Sox. Hillenbrand, then, is the sole member of that draft to play with Boston. Two others remain in the system. Duquette is known for his penchant for trading minor leaguers for established big-leaguers whom he thinks will help the team (and almost never do). But it has been argued that the shrewd horse-trader never swaps youngsters who come back to haunt him. And, so far, that is mostly true. Still, in the same breath, one could argue that the system just doesn't produce too many top quality minor leaguers, and that is why so few succeed in Boston or elsewhere. If you follow that, then you can reach only one of two conclusions: Either the Red Sox have the worst scouts in the world, or the quality of minor league instruction is doing nothing to turn Red Sox farmhands into big leaguers. If that is so, the penchant for desperately trading for major leaguers in the vain hope that they will somewhat catapult the team into first place or the wild card spot will continue forever. And the possibility of hiring and keeping quality coaches in the system will get harder and harder. An atmosphere has been created which stifles creativity. If instructors are not given free rein to impart their hitting and pitching philosophies, you end up with instructors who would rather say nothing to a young player for fear of saying the wrong thing. And then you have a system no better than the one Duquette vowed to reform, back at a time when the Red Sox didn't even have pitching and hitting instructors at every level. Without a good minor league system, the Red Sox will not win a World Series in this century. So, Treuel, a few words of advice. Beware the "Turnover Bosses" - these are the guys who when confronted with the fact that personnel are leaving their organization at an alarming rate, say smugly and defensively, "Oh, there is always a high rate of turnover in our business". Think twice about hitching your star to a suspect administration, because when that regime is overturned, you may find yourself on the way to the guillotine with the others. Instead, contemplate how nice it would be to call your soul your own again. Personally, I'm waiting for the book Treuel is going to write when he is old and doesn't care anymore. It's going to have some great stories. I know Treuel must have some great stories in him. Because he sure isn't telling them now. |
|||
|
paul_orourke (member) 10/22/01 00:36 AM |
|
||
|
Rip Repulski: Thanks for taking the time to type out the entire article. It makes a big contribution to our ongoing debate over the Duke's effectiveness. The picture of fear and paranoia painted by the Trenton reporter is similar to the account of the Providence Journal's Pawsox correspondent recounted here by Art Martone one or two years ago. The Duke's defenders - hey, I was one up until a few months ago - concede that he's not "warm and fuzzy" and attribute his press criticism to his unwillingness to schmooze with the media. They ignore the basic fact that the DUKE DOES NOT COMMUNICATE ADEQUATELY WITH HIS MANAGERS, HIS PLAYERS, AND OTHER GM'S, AND HE ACTIVELY DISCOURAGES COMMUNICATION BY THE PEOPLE UNDER HIM. (Pardon me for shouting.) This explains a lot of the things that have gone wrong here including the farm system's failure to produce talent. Hell, even Haywood Sullivan (Roger Clemens, Wade Boggs (I think), Bruce Hurst, Mike Greenwell, Ellis Burks) and Lou Gorman (Mo Vaughn, John Valentin, Aaron Sele, Jeff Bagwell, Curt Schilling) were more successful on their watch than Dan. Dan has built a good team, but he has not built a healthy organization. It's catching up with us. Give him one more year. When the new owners are in place and approved, they need to bring in a new GM. |
|||
|
phendrie (addict) 10/22/01 10:44 AM |
|
||
|
Great post Paul! Right on the mark. One point in response to Rasputin, who says ``The minor league system is not devoid of talent, it's just bottom heavy.'' We don't know if the system is really bottom heavy or not, and won't know til some of these players make it. Prospects always look good at the lower levels (or at least usually do) and they get winnowed out as they move up. three years ago, we were drooling over the prospects of Brian Rose, Michael Coleman and Donnie Sadler and Wilton Veras -- none made it. We would have said at the time that the Sox were loaded with talent at that level. Then were was the wave of Stenson, Kim, Lomasney, Cho. Some of these guys may yet make it. I hope so. But it's fair to say that the clock is running out on some of those guys. Maybe the guys at the lower levels now will do better and indeed they are loaded. I hope so. I'm rooting for it. But until we see guys like Tony Blanco succeeding at this level, we won't know if they're really loaded down there or if it's a mirage. |
|||
|
JGF (enthusiast) 10/22/01 06:31 PM |
|
||
An organizational philosophy must come
from the top. There is no other way. It would seem to me that when an
organization tries to implement an overall philosophy, there will certainly
be a number of whiners and complainers, especially among those who had no
real accountability under the old system. So I don't have alot of sympathy
for these complainers. |
|||
|
jofi (old hand) 10/22/01 09:59 PM |
|
||
|
JGF, the top-down approach I was referring to was not about organizational
philosophy, which also changes, so I am told. It has to do with issues such
as Rip posted in his transcript, such as how to instruct certain players,
who to play, etc. In effect, they really did not allow much input and leeway
to people in the field. The result was the bright coaches getting frustrated
off and leaving, and the less talented staying. Now again, I do not know this as a fact. It is basically second hand information. |
|||
|
paul_orourke (member) 10/22/01 11:02 PM |
|
||
|
Jofi, you are right that this is second hand information. Almost 100 % of what goes up on this board is based on what we saw at the ballpark or on TV or read somewhere. We could actually be wrong in our conclusions. But there are three sources here - the Trenton reporter, Art Martone's reporter, and Peter Gammons who have talked to principals involved. They concur that there is an atmosphere of fear within the organization. One would think that morale must be low and that it would be difficult to retain good people. (Again, we could be wrong.) But the poor performance of the farm system in the last couple of years and the current barrenness at AAA would seem to bear this out. |
duquette [Post#: 75929 ]
|
DieHard3 (addict) 10/23/01 04:32 PM |
|
||
|
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. He has not built the farm system he promised. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a Red Herring. It is about as relevant as Joe Kerrigan's "stable lineup" statement. Times change and so do organizational priorities. When Dan Duquette took over the Red Sox they were a second division team and their best minor league prospect was Dwayne Housie. It made perfect sense for him to say he was going to re-build the minor league system, it was the only goal he possibly could have given that wasn't laughable. According to published reports, this strategy was blessed by John Harrington. The 1994 and 1995 drafts by the Red Sox were rated as two of the best in all of baseball by Baseball America, and at the end of the 1995 season, Baseball America was singing the praises of the Red Sox farm system and Dan Duquette. But a funny thing happened along the way. The 1995 Red Sox won the American League East and made the playoffs. Mo Vaughn and John Valentin looked like emerging superstars, and Dan Duquette's revamped farm system had the appearance of a gold mine just 2 years into the project: Jeff Suppan looked like a young Greg Maddux (Peter Gammons' words, not mine) and wonderboys Nomar Garciaparra, Brian Rose, and Carl Pavano weren't far from the major leagues. All of a sudden, Dan Duquette's boss, John Harrington went back into his "win one for the Yawkey's" mode that had such disasterous results from 1988 to 1993. Out went the focus on drafting and signing the "tough signs," in came safe, low-cost first round picks like Jason Garrett and lost opportunities like Pat Burrell (37th round, 1996) and Justin Wayne (10th round, 1997) while money was -- AT HARRINGTON'S REQUEST -- diverted to the major league team. Rick Aguilera came as a 1/2 year rental for 2 prospects, Wil Cordero came in for 3 prospects, 3 prospects went for Heathcliff Slocumb, Mike Stanley was signed as a type-B free agent as they forfeited a draft pick, Tom Gordon also came as a type-B free agent forfeiting another draft pick. Putting the two events together -- the less agressive drafting combined with the trading of prospects and forfeiting of draft picks -- is as easy as 2+2=4. Evidence of HARRINGTON's decision to abandon the farm system couldn't be more clear if it was broadcast live from the horses mouth on WEEI. |
|
David_Weinfeld (old hand) 10/23/01 04:59 PM |
|
||
|
All of a sudden, Dan Duquette's boss, John Harrington went back into his "win one for the Yawkey's" mode that had such disasterous results from 1988 to 1993. Out went the focus on drafting and signing the "tough signs," in came safe, low-cost first round picks like Jason Garrett and lost opportunities like Pat Burrell (37th round, 1996) and Justin Wayne (10th round, 1997) while money was -- AT HARRINGTON'S REQUEST -- diverted to the major league team. Rick Aguilera came as a 1/2 year rental for 2 prospects, Wil Cordero came in for 3 prospects, 3 prospects went for Heathcliff Slocumb, Mike Stanley was signed as a type-B free agent as they forfeited a draft pick, Tom Gordon also came as a type-B free agent forfeiting another draft pick. " Diehard3 you may be right on this but I am curious as to when and to who Harrington gave such orders. Is this speculation or was their hard evidence..a quote to a media person and a speculation by someone else outside the Sox organization. For a guy who seems to know very little about the actual personel it seems unusual for Harrigton to be REQUESTING the Draft of Josh Garrett or the trading for Codero for 3 prospects. Where was Duquette during all of this ? Sitting at his Desk writing down Harrington's orders or was Duke doing the trading and drafting? According to your version it seems like poor helpless Duke was just sitting there with his hands tied behind his back saying yes sir no sir Mr Harrington. Did every club in the league have a gun to Dukes head saying your Prospects or your Life? Curious! |
|||
|
DieHard3 (addict) 10/23/01 05:18 PM |
|
||
|
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Diehard3 you may be right on this but I am curious as to when and to who Harrington gave such orders. Is this speculation or was their hard evidence..a quote to a media person and a speculation by someone else outside the Sox organization. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, Red Sox-hater-in-chief, Peter Gammons, reported it at one point. However, I prefer to follow the philosophy of "Tell me what they do, not what they said." In 1994 and 1995, the Red Sox went after players up and down the draft who were considered "tough signs" (Carl Pavano was bought out of an LSU scholarship, Steve Lomasney was plucked away from BC) and took the "highest rated player on the board" with their first round picks (Andy Yount was considered by some scouts to be a better prospect than Kerry Wood). In 1996 and 1997, the Red Sox took "safe signs," Josh Garrett (not Jason, he was the Cowboys QB) signed for "slot money" and then the Sox went about taking college seniors in middle rounds where they previously would have taken highly sought after players with college scholarships. Those draft picks and signing bonuses are facts you can look up, what they mean is informed speculation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For a guy who seems to know very little about the actual personel it seems unusual for Harrigton to be REQUESTING the Draft of Josh Garrett or the trading for Codero for 3 prospects. Where was Duquette during all of this ? Sitting at his Desk writing down Harrington's orders or was Duke doing the trading and drafting? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure what your point is. Duquette was given a budget by John Harrington, and went about implementing that Budget in the best way he could. Harrington said to transfer $4 million from scouting and development to the major league payroll, so Duquette did so. The exact players, are irrelevant, really. Once you move away from "best athlete available" in the draft, you are setting yourself up for failure. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to your version it seems like poor helpless Duke was just sitting there with his hands tied behind his back saying yes sir no sir Mr Harrington. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Isn't this generally the way one reacts to requests from one's boss? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Did every club in the league have a gun to Dukes head saying your Prospects or your Life? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once again, you're making very little sense. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Curious! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Clueless would be more apt. |
|||
|
curly (enthusiast) 10/23/01 07:05 PM |
|
||
|
Wil Cd not come for three prospects. He came for one marginal prospect (Ryan McGuire) and Rheal Cormier. I think one of the guys who went for Slocum was Glenn Murray, who was a Montreal farm system retread. I don't think the deal cost the Sox any top prospects. I know Harrington decided to pour money money into the major-league team after 1995, but I don't recall him ordering Duquette to slash the minor league budget and not go aftet "tough signs." If he did, that was terribly short-sighted, and it was a move the Duke should have fought (maybe he did, I don't know). But if Duquette was ordered to trade minor-leaguers for veterans, he should have done a better job. Ed Sprague, Kent Mercker, Butch Huskey. Dante Bichette were not great pickups. Rick Aguilera was the exception, a good, in-season deadline deal. |
|||
|
curly (enthusiast) 10/23/01 08:34 PM |
|
||
|
Also don't forget that there was money available for the likes of Robinson Checo, Sang Hoon Lee and Jin Ho Cho. I don't know how much they paid for Cho, but they overpaid for the other two guys. |
|||
|
Nuke (enthusiast) 10/24/01 05:06 AM |
|
||
|
Diehard3 wrote “Rick Aguilera came as a 1/2 year rental for 2 prospects, Wil Cordero came in for 3 prospects, 3 prospects went for Heathcliff Slocumb, Mike Stanley was signed as a type-B free agent as they forfeited a draft pick, Tom Gordon also came as a type-B free agent forfeiting another draft pick.” This statement is not accurate, and does not reflect the whole picture. 1) Slocumb was not traded for 3 prospects. He was traded for Lee Tinsley, Glen Murray & Ken Ryan. Lee Tinsley was hardly a prospect. The Red Sox reaquired him the same season that they traded him. Ken Ryan had a couple of decent seasons but had a flat fastball. Glen Murray was a head case from the Montreal system who could not even crack a pitiful Phillies’ OF that featured Incaviglia and Eisenreich. I was in favor of this trade when it was made. If anything this trade of so called “prospects” for Slocumb helped DD rebuild the team when he parlayed Slocumb into the teams starting catcher and a closer/starter. I think trading Tinsley, Murray & Ryan for Lowe & Tek is not what is ailing the system. 2) What level draft pick was lost in the signing of Mike Stanley? I doubt the player would have been as good as who the Red Sox got in return from the Yankees when they traded Stanley. Stanley was traded for Armas. Armas was instrumental in the Sox being able to trade for Pedro. Again this is a bad example. 3) The players that Wil Cordero was traded for where hardly prospects. Rheal Cormier, Shayne Bennett and Ryan McGuire were the players involved in this trade. Mcguire and Bennett were both 24 at the time, and neither could make it with Montreal. We all know about Cormier. Again hardly a trade that depleted the farm system. 4) You also mention that we lost picks in the signings of Stanley & Gordon. What types of picks did the Sox get as compensation when Vaughn & Clemens were signed away? 5) Aguilera was traded for Frankie Rodriguez & a player to be named later. I know that Rodriguez was highly touted, but he did nothing in the majors. Certainly not a move that hurt the farm system any. I think that DD has made some very good trades. His draft record has not been as good. The reasons that you list for a depleted farm system just do not hold up when you really look at the facts of each move. |
[Post#: 77100 / re: 76914 ]
|
Wild Card Wannabees
Get Everything Red Sox at The Souvenir Store Right across from Fenway 19 Yawkey Way, Boston
The “Curt’s Pitch for ALS” program is a joint effort by Curt and Shonda Schilling, and The ALS Association Mass Chapter to strike out Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, more commonly known as Lou Gehrig’s Disease. Curt and Shonda will be contributing $25,000 to The ALS Association Massachusetts Chapter, and they are asking fans to contribute as well. All proceeds will benefit research and patient services for those in Massachusetts affected by the disease. Program participants will receive different incentive prizes based on the dollar amount per strikeout that they pledge. Please click here to learn more about the program. The Curt and Shonda Schilling Melanoma Foundation of America welcomes Red Sox Nation to join in their fight to save future generations from melanoma, a potentially preventable skin cancer. Get a Danny O Fenway Litho, as Seen in the Cooperstown Catalog
Chasing Steinbrenner Exclusive excerpts on the Kevin Millar signing |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
