Theo Epstein > Brian Cashman

[CowboyB]

Translation: listing those teams would hurt my case in trying to show that they were not a good team.

Here's a hint on how many there were: you could count all the teams with more wins than the Sox from 1998-2002 on one hand.



Your argument here is almost as silly as your claim that Molina had a 'steady progression' instead of getting significantly better over a short time.

You may disagree either me, but you'd be wrong.

I never knew there would be someone like you telling us getting a team to average 90+ wins is insignificant

 

[StanMarsh51]

You may disagree either me, but you'd be wrong.

I never knew there would be someone like you telling us getting a team to average 90+ wins is insignificant

Never said that (either your reading comp is poor or you're intentionally making things up).

What I am saying is that Boston was a good team before Theo became GM, which 89+ wins the prior 5 seasons shows...is that a stretch to say?

 

[CowboyB]

Never said that (either your reading comp is poor or you're intentionally making things up).

What I am saying is that Boston was a good team before Theo became GM, which 89+ wins the prior 5 seasons shows...is that a stretch to say?

Like Molina's stats you're just looking at a different perspective. I don't think anyone would say an 86 year drought is good.

 

[StanMarsh51]

Like Molina's stats you're just looking at a different perspective. I don't think anyone would say an 86 year drought is good.

A team could not win the World Series and still be a good team, correct? Where the Dodgers not a good team this year because they didn't win it all?

The Sox didn't win a WS for the 5 years prior to 2003, but were a good team on the whole.

 

[CowboyB]

A team could not win the World Series and still be a good team, correct? Where the Dodgers not a good team this year because they didn't win it all?

The Sox didn't win a WS for the 5 years prior to 2003, but were a good team on the whole.

Once again different perspective. You're thinking small picture when a GM is responsible for big picture. You're think micro when you should be thinking macro.

 

[StanMarsh51]

Once again different perspective. You're thinking small picture when a GM is responsible for big picture. You're think micro when you should be thinking macro.

I think you're the only one here with the perspective that an 89 win team for a 5 year stretch isn't any good. Theo took them from a good team to a great team, but your memory is quite fuzzy if you think they were cellar dwellers (or anything close to that) for the years immediately preceding Theo.

 

[CowboyB]

I think you're the only one here with the perspective that an 89 win team for a 5 year stretch isn't any good. Theo took them from a good team to a great team, but your memory is quite fuzzy if you think they were cellar dwellers (or anything close to that) for the years immediately preceding Theo.

Lol it's funny how you blame me for putting words know your mouth and then put them in my mouth.

What part of different perspective are you confused by? ?

 

[StanMarsh51]

What part of different perspective are you confused by? ?

Do you think anyone would reasonably have the perspective that an 89 win team is bad?

 

[The Q]

Judging GMs interesting.

How much credit do you give Theo for the Hendricks trade when Dempster vetoed his original deal? And then had to beg Dempster to let him get traded to Texas after LA had no interest?

 

[CowboyB]

Do you think anyone would reasonably have the perspective that an 89 win team is bad?

No. Did I ever say an 89 team is bad?

 

[CowboyB]

Judging GMs interesting.

How much credit do you give Theo for the Hendricks trade when Dempster vetoed his original deal? And then had to beg Dempster to let him get traded to Texas after LA had no interest?

Honestly, I cannot even comment on it as I am not familiar with the situation.

 

[StanMarsh51]

No. Did I ever say an 89 team is bad?

So then what are you arguing about if you don't disagree with my main point from the start?

Do you have that mental condition where people like to argue for the sake of arguing, even if they don't disagree with what they're arguing?

 

[CowboyB]

So then what are you arguing about if you don't disagree with my main point from the start?

Do you have that mental condition where people like to argue for the sake of arguing, even if they don't disagree with what they're arguing?

LOL - no. You are just having an incredibly hard time understanding the difference between macro and micro, big picture and little picture.

I am beginning to think it is you that is here to argue for the sake of arguing since you haven't addressed a single claim of mine and keep going on tangents.

 

[StanMarsh51]

LOL - no. You are just having an incredibly hard time understanding the difference between macro and micro, big picture and little picture.

.

So in trying to argue my point, you decided to bring on your own timeframe (a 'macro' one), which is clearly not what I was arguing.

I'm not arguing about the Sox of the 1940s or 1970s because none of those players were on the team that Theo inherited. Simple enough?

 

[CowboyB]

So in trying to argue my point, you decided to bring on your own timeframe (a 'macro' one), which is clearly not what I was arguing.

I'm not arguing about the Sox of the 1940s or 1970s because none of those players were on the team that Theo inherited. Simple enough?

Hey, this is my fucking post. If you want to talk about some arbitray 5-year span then start your own fucking thread. There isn't any moving of goal posts or suddenly "bringing on my own timeframe."

Everyone in the world knew the Red Sox were a nearly centennial disaster and there was a thought of a curse. You are the one who wants to ignore 86 years of suck because they had some outstanding 85 win years.

 

[StanMarsh51]

Hey, this is my fucking post. If you want to talk about some arbitray 5-year span then start your own fucking thread. There isn't any moving of goal posts or suddenly "bringing on my own timeframe."

Everyone in the world knew the Red Sox were a nearly centennial disaster and there was a thought of a curse. You are the one who wants to ignore 86 years of suck because they had some outstanding 85 win years.

What players from the 1948 Red Sox did Theo inherit? If you know why I'm asking this question, then you know that you're arguing something completely different than what I'm arguing (which further shows that you're arguing for the sake of arguing).

 

[CowboyB]

What players from the 1948 Red Sox did Theo inherit? If you know why I'm asking this question, then you know that you're arguing something completely different than what I'm arguing (which further shows that you're arguing for the sake of arguing).

Are you a Trump supporter?

 

[The Q]

Honestly, I cannot even comment on it as I am not familiar with the situation.

That's cool. It was just an example.

Like 2 things out of Theo's control made the Hendricks deal happen.

His first choice was Randall Delgado out of ATL. But Dempster blocked that deal.

How much credit does Theo get for something like that?

That's why it's really hard to evaluate GMs.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

The Yankees have missed only four of the last twenty-two postseasons. That's fucking impressive.

 

[CowboyB]

That's cool. It was just an example.

Like 2 things out of Theo's control made the Hendricks deal happen.

His first choice was Randall Delgado out of ATL. But Dempster blocked that deal.

How much credit does Theo get for something like that?

That's why it's really hard to evaluate GMs.

It is hard but one thing that is pretty consistent across all industries is culture being something that is created at the top. By building his own team he was able to eliminate the losing culture in both Boston and Chicago. If you want to nitpick some of the moves not being "his" I am okay to a certain extent but the one thing nobody can take away is the culture he helped create.