Edgy MD

An open secret no more? Red Sox GM appears to confirm Bobby V.'s likely firing By Jon Heyman | Baseball Insider September 27, 2012 2:19 pm ET It has been an open secret Bobby Valentine will be let go by the Red Sox at the end of the season. But suddenly, it didn't sound like such a secret anymore. Red Sox GM Ben Cherington was asked about a prospective managerial search this winter in an interview Thursday morning on WEEI in Boston, and Cherington seemed to talk openly about how he will approach this winter's managerial search. "I'd always rather get the decision right than rush it," Cherington said on the radio. "But what we need to do is hit the ground running this offseason. One of the things that, as I look back on last offseason, that didn't go so perfectly was simply the amount of time we spent on the manager search and what that did to the rest of the offseason and I would like to spend less time on it this offseason, that's for sure." Now, the Red Sox's upcoming managerial search was no great secret, though Valentine himself told Red Sox writers only a day earlier he hadn't heard anything and suggested he was hopeful to return. Even putting aside Valentine's stance, no one expected any Red Sox bosses to comment on the strategy to replace Valentine, at least not until Valentine is actually fired. People can misspeak, and Valentine's critics would say he did so a time or two this year, and perhaps Cherington didn't mean to say what he said. But if you're not changing managers, why talk about wanting to spend less time on the search this offseason? Why not just say, thankfully we have a manager, so we won't have to spend any time on the search? Cherington responded to his seeming implication that Valentine was gone for sure, saying via text, "It had nothing to do with Bobby. But if it came across that way, my mistake." Valentine's supporters will say Cherington's comments on the radio were just the latest bit of evidence Valentine never had the support of his bosses. That it fits into a season where it was a split decision to hire him, with Cherington being steered by ownership to Valentine after he targated Dale Sveum and several others. That it fit into a season's theme of disrespect. Valentine's supporters might cite these other three occurrences ... 1. Cherington sided with Kevin Youkilis after Valentine suggested in a broadcast interview that he was surprised not to be getting the ususal effort from Youkilis. 2. A couple of the coaches were not punished in any way for acting like they didn't want Valentine to be the manager. 3. The owners met with 17 players at a secret gathering sans Valentine in New York to discuss issues with the manager and perhaps the coaching staff. Again, Cherington texted to explain his comments Thursday, saying it "had nothing to do with Bobby," and that's really about all he can say. (Valentine declined to discuss the radio comments.) Perhaps Cherington merely got confused for the moment, but it's hard to really understand how he was talking about an upcoming managerial search that wouldn't affect the current manager.

In all playoff systems, one team has more to recommend them than the other. The obvious end of the logic of not throwing lesser teams in with better teams is to just award the championship to the team with the best record in an even field of round robin play. I can get behind that, certainly, but given our options --- last year's system vs. this year's --- I'll take this year's.

Whatever it was, I'm guessing that one of these guys did it.

Well, yes and no. (See what I did there?) At least part of that is tracing the simple escalations he would get during those arbitration years.

Nice.

Oh, and Wright is out.

Surprised to see Hef out there in the sixth.

NY Times wrote: In the final days of one of the most painful seasons of his career, Red Sox Manager Bobby Valentine on Tuesday lay entangled with his bicycle at the bottom of a ditch next to the Central Park Reservoir. Related On the wet, slippery path, Valentine was reading a text on his phone from Dustin Pedroia, the Red Sox second baseman, and riding his bicycle. When he looked up, he had to swerve to avoid the umbrellas of two French tourists walking in front of him. That's just... holy crap.

Bobby Valentine says he was undermined by coaches From staff reports October 3, 2012 Red Sox manager Bobby Valentine said Wednesday he believed his coaches were not loyal to him this season and that he was undermined by them. In his final appearance of the season on WEEI�s �The Big Show,� Valentine confirmed there was dysfunction within the coaching staff, which came to light over the summer and was detailed in a Boston Globe story. One member of the staff, pitching coach Bob McClure, was fired in August. When asked by WEEI host Glenn Ordway why he thought his coaching staff was disloyal, Valentine replied, �You asked me what I feel. That�s what I feel.� He responded similarly when asked if he felt he was undermined by his coaching staff. Asked if he would like different coaches if he is brought back next season, Valentine said, �Some, yeah.� Speculation has been rampant that Valentine will be fired soon. The Red Sox play their final game of the season Wednesday night vs. the Yankees in New York.

And with that 20th jack... Scott Hairston has officially priced himself out of the Mets' picture. Congratulations to Scott. Look at his teammates surrounding him. You KNOW they're happy for him. The couldn't BE happier. Everybody is.... OH! There's Justin Turner with the pieface!

Way to unpack the suitcase, Z.

That may be it for Wright. And, I don't really think so, but it may be it-it.

RE-SIGN TORRES!!

Ceetar wrote: Function of defense metrics apparently. I obviously haven't watched both concurrently, but Reyes always seemed better defensively to me. I'm not sure why. I'm happy with the measurement. Ceetar wrote: But it's not about Jose. Jose is much better. I disagree. Ceetar wrote: It's about Tejada putting up the same WAR in more PA than last year. Apparently WAR has more meaning when comparing Tejada to Tejada than when comparing Tejada to Reyes. Ceetar wrote: Walking less. striking out more. B-R lists him at 88 OPS+. It's been a shit second half for everybody, especially a guy who got hurt. Tejada is, indeed, 12th on a good list of valid complaints.

Ceetar wrote: Actually Tejada has had a 'eh' season and showed very little growth that has me a little concerned. plays the premium position and is probably above average defensively so that doesn't kill you or anything, but it's not a strength either. Tejada has a 1.8 WAR which is about equal to Reyes on a per-PA basis. Being above average defensively at shortstop --- or anywhere, really --- is indeed a strength. How is shortstop "the premium position"?

The Mets have announced that Steve Chillcott will be given an at-bat during this game. Mets spokesman Jay Horowitz reports that the team is also looking for Hank McGraw so they can "throw him a bone" as well.

It could happen. Ruben Tejada misses the hurry-up memo and opens by singling on his seventh pitch.

Mets fans, MLB hears you, and has therefore elected to make today's game free through mlb.tv.

What factors will influence the payroll? �What we can reasonably expect with whatever payroll we decide. So there are a lot of different factors. The players that we have going into next season, versus the players we have now or the players that we�ll have in 2014. There are different factors. It�s not all about one in particular.� In next year�s payroll, do the buyouts on Bay and Santana for 2014 ($9 million total) get included? �The buyouts typically are in the current year budget.� How willing would you be to trade starting pitching? �I think you�ve got to be real careful about dipping into your starting pitching. If you look at what happened to us, the five guys that started the season? We lost three of the five. So the depth there can be very important. And not just depth that you have at your Triple-A club with somebody who�s just coming up. �Ideally, you�d like to have depth like maybe a Chris Young gave us this year. Which is under his special circumstances. You�ve got to be careful about our starting pitching, which is certainly our strength at the moment. And was certainly our strength, more or less, most of this year.� If you deal big-leaguers from your roster now, do you need big-league ready players back? �Yes. We need some major-league ready players. There are some positions where we are not strong. Either the quality at the major-league level or in our system. And we need major-league ready players. Now that doesn�t mean to exclusion of a prospect. But we�d be looking for players that are close.� Did you ever consider blowing up the roster this season? �It�s a strategy that we�ve discussed. Again, I think every team is different. Every market is different. I�m not prepared to blow up the team and start over again. I don�t think we need to do that. so it�s unlikely that we�ll see any major explosions.� Could you do that in New York? �Look, with regard to probably 70 percent of any team�s roster, that can be done without any real negative reaction from fans. My attitude, if you think about it conceptually, is there are core players that fans identify with. It might be two players, it might be five, it might be six. Depends on how much success you�ve had, how many have come through the system. �But there�s a core group. But it�s probably not that large in number. Everybody else? It�s all about succeeding. It�s all about bringing in better players. It�s all about making the team better. So I don�t think you sever any sort of relationship with fans if those players are interchanged.� Still possible you can trade core guys? �It�s conceivable. And it would be something that we�d have to evaluate at the time.� But the 30 percent, the core, are the ones that generate value on the trade market? �Well, yes and no.� (Ed: Give this man a bonus!) How do you evaluate Terry Collins� work? �I think Terry�s done a fine job. As you know, we�re having the coaches back. Terry�s signed for next year. There are going to be questions about whether we�re going to extend him or not. That�s not something we�re doing yet. We haven�t had those discussions. We may not for a while. But I�m very pleased with the job that Terry did. The first half, second half situation has more to do with the players than it does with the manager or the coaching staff.� Will the future payroll flexibility be based solely on money coming off the books, or will there be more room to grow? �I hope both things happen. If you look at payroll, for me, there are really two components. There�s this core group of quality that most teams have. And then there�s the balance of the payroll. And right now, we have a lot of money tied up in a handful of players. So what I hope is that we do end up with more flexibility over the next couple of years. But also that we can grow the payroll to some extent.� Do you not want to backload deals for free agents this winter? �It�s a possible strategy, given the nut we have for 2013. (Ed: Poor Jordany!) But generally speaking, I don�t like to pay for today with deferrals tomorrow.�

Some guy on Twitter talking about Bobby Valentine wrote: "What's your relationship with Ben Cherington." "It's still a work-in-progress." Work in progress is Valentine-ese for "Fuck that asshole"

metirish wrote: Sure seems like he is saying things of substance , especially in regards to our "core" two this I don't like though Could Baltimore or Oakland winning help show the lack of a need for a huge payroll? �Yeah, to some extent. But look: The expectations in Baltimore this year, or the expectations in Oakland this year, or any year in some of these cities are very different than they are in New York. And I think we just have to recognize that.� What expectations in NY?, I mean really. I wasn't sure what to conclude from that. A lot of deliberate ambiguities, of course, but sometimes he snuck what looked like a concrete statement in there, but it when I tried to pick up on it, I couldn't get a handle. Very sneaky, Alderson.

Do you have to sell Wright and Dickey on the future here before they can sign? �I guess that�s going to be hard for me to assess. But what I intend to be, in any conversation that relates to the future of the Mets overall, is as honest as I can possibly be. I expect that that�s what they�ll want. I also think that there are factors that relate to New York that go beyond winning. That�s clearly the most important thing for any of us. �But I think there are some other important factors, too, that don�t relate to salary or money, that may have an impact. I�ll try to be as honest in that regard as well.� What would your message be? �My message would be �Look, I think we�re very definitely headed in the right direction. But at the same time, we will not in the near-future have unlimited funds. So recognize what our immediate situation is, what we expect to be our mid and long-term situations, and evaluate us on that basis.� So is there any imperative to show some sort of talent acquisition before they sign? �As a practical matter, that�s probably not going to happen between now and the time that these conversations take place. But I think it will be important for them to hear from me, and again, to some extent, we�ve had these conversations. So I expect there will be further discussions about it.� Wright wants this to be his last contract. That�s a long time. Can that deal work here? �Yeah. Would I rule that kind of contract out? No. I don�t know how long he expects to play. Presumably beyond 31 or 32.� Could Baltimore or Oakland winning help show the lack of a need for a huge payroll? �Yeah, to some extent. But look: The expectations in Baltimore this year, or the expectations in Oakland this year, or any year in some of these cities are very different than they are in New York. And I think we just have to recognize that.� You don�t like second-generation deals. Is Wright an exception to that philosophy? �I still hold a philosophy. But I think there are always exceptions to any rule. In my career, I�ve made exceptions in the past. I�m sure I�ll make exceptions in the future.� Is Wright an exception? �Well, look, we wouldn�t have had the last 15 minutes of conversation if that weren�t the case.� What number do you put this year�s payroll at? �The one that I use? We�re going to come in right around $100 million.� That includes salaries added during the year? �Now it also includes 40-man roster guys at the minor-league level. It includes say a buyout on previous contracts. So I think we had a buyout of about $3 million or so on Frankie Rodriguez. So all in, right around $100 million.� Could the payroll go 10 percent higher next year? �We�re having those conversations now. Met with Fred [Wilpon] and Saul [Katz] and Jeff [Wilpon]. Presented a number of different scenarios. We haven�t locked in to anything yet. There will be another meeting or two before we do that. So I can�t really give you an answer to that.�

So it�s very possible that we�ll be more active in the trade market, as well as potentially in the free-agent market. We will certainly be looking for tall players, as well as short ones and moderately sized ones.

Is Dickey a high priority to retain long-term? �Those are the two big issues. Retaining our own players is, as I said, one of the key tenets of the approach we�re trying to take. Those two would be the most obvious. They�re free agents at the end of 2013. Those are the two situations we need to address and expect to address.� Is the organization in a stronger place financially than it was a season ago? �Yeah, I think that�s unquestionably the case. The Madoff situation was resolved. The investments were made in the team. And I think that overall, just with those two issues behind us, the team is in a better position. That�s progress.� Any idea how much money you project to lose this year? �No. But unlike last year, I don�t intend to get involved in that discussion.� How will the better financial footing affect your future spending? �The first indication will be what happens with David and R.A. Because while those situations may not significantly increase our payroll this year, they will represent commitments on out years. Which I think is a fundamental shift in our situation. If you have the uncertainty that existed last spring, it would be difficult to make those long-term commitments. So I think that�s a fundamental shift. And I think that would be a good indication. �I think the fact that we�re talking about it, and talking about retaining our players in a different tone than we were last year, should be a positive signal.� Do you feel an urgency to get those deals done before spring training? �I think not only would we like to see these two situations resolved by the beginning of spring training, Opening Day, I think we�d like to see them resolved much sooner rather than later.� When will you open the dialogue? �How long does [this] game last?� (Ed: Nice one!) Have you had any discussions yet? �With the agents? No.� Or with David. �There have been some, I think, informal conversations with David. I wouldn�t say that they have been negotiations. That wouldn�t be our approach. That would be something that would be done with his representatives. But we�ve had some informal conversations.� How soon could this be done? By the World Series? Winter meetings? �I don�t see why it couldn�t happen quickly. Now whether it will or not, I don�t know. I don�t have any indication that it would get done quickly. But as you look at it from our standpoint, the sooner the better.� Is there a certain point where you need to have this done, or else trades become a possibility? �I think that there�s a preferred time frame from a baseball standpoint. As you get further into the offseason, with the uncertainty of the contract situation, then you do have to start thinking about other possibilities. That�s something we�re contemplating right now. but there�s that inevitability. �But from a non-baseball standpoint, getting these resolved earlier, and if we were able to do it positively, that would have a salutary effect on everything else in the offseason. So there are lots of reasons why it would be great, if things got resolved soon. Whether they will or not, I have no idea.�

�Overall, a disappointing season. We had some positive things, I think, but overall inconsistency. Certainly disappointed with the won-loss record. Lots of inconsistencies, first half/second half, home/road, individual performances. All of which I think led to the record that we will have after today�s game. �So the first half was of course positive. I think we exceeded many expectations. I thought that we played as well as we had expected coming out of spring training. For a variety of reasons, some of which are only hypotheses at this point, they�re not actual explanations, we did not play well in the second half. �There were a variety of things that happened. I�ll go back and probably point to four or five things. But ultimately, the second half was similar to the second half we�ve had over the last several years. I think if there�s one consistency among those four that we�ve been able to determine it�s that we really did not see significant contributions from additional players over the second half of any of those season. �Inevitably, you have injuries and other things that happen, maybe subpar performance. It�s nice to have somebody come in and take up the slack. And we had a couple people who had good second halves. We saw the emergence of Matt Harvey. Ike Davis played well in the second half. But overall, that wasn�t the case. �Lots of positive things did happen. I think we�ll start with R.A. Dickey, I guess, and David Wright. Jon Niese had an excellent season for us. Parnell out of the �pen was good. Chris Young finished well. We saw Harvey emerge, some other young players emerge. So I think there�s some positives from the season, certainly. I take all of those as positives. �The thing we�re trying to do here is three-fold: One is build through our farm system. The second is to retain our core players. And the third, really, is to add free agents and trade acquisitions on a fairly judicious basis. I would say over the first couple years, we�ve certainly looked to the farm system. Obviously not totally successful. We really have not, until now, been in a position to retain our core players. Which is the second prong of this approach. I think we�re in that place now. �Then the third, we really have not been able to be involved significantly in the free-agent market. We certainly have brought in players on a free-agent basis. But in terms of significant acquisitions, it�s somewhat limited. But I can see that changing, perhaps not immediately, but somewhere in the near-term. �So from my standpoint, many positives. But overall, a disappointing year.� Are you looking to make a more significant number of trades and free-agent signings than in years past? �Well, I think that it�s possible, given what we have, that we�ll be more active in the trade market. But that�s not a given necessarily. I mean, I really do believe that some of our players are on the verge of making bigger contributions. But it�s been two years. We have a better idea now of who we have at the major-league level, who�s coming from our player-development system, and the places where we need to look outside. �There are a couple of obvious needs that we have. So it�s very possible that we�ll be more active in the trade market, as well as potentially in the free-agent market. But I don�t want to give the impression that we�ll be out in the free-agent market, looking for significant additions. We have lots of payroll tied up in a handful of players. �That�s a situation that gradually has to resolve itself. We�re not really at that point.� Who are the core players? �The two that are popularly referenced are David Wright and R.A. Dickey. What we said over the last couple of months is we�re going to make every effort to retain those two guys. And I think we are in a position to be able to do that. Whether we are successful or not, time will tell. But I think we�re in a position to make a bona fide effort to do it. So I�m happy about that.�