Dombrowski 2016

[gammoseditor]

Nine guys. Nine.

Price, Porcello, Wright, Buchholz, Kelly, Owens, Johnson, Elias, Rodriguez.

Nine guys, all of whom could be reasonably expected to be halfway decent or better.

Define "decent". Anyone expecting decent for Owens, Johnson, or Elias probably weren't going to get it. Did any projection system have any of those guys projected well? That leaves 6. Of Porcello, Buchholz, and Kelly none were decent last year. Clay had an ERA of 5.73 on May 10, had 10 great starts, got hurt in his next start and missed the rest of the year. Kelly had one great 7 start stretch and was awful outside of it. On the entire season he threw 134 innings with an ERA of 4.8. Porcello had an ERA of 4.92. Steven Wright was 31 and had a total of 112 major league innings. Eduardo Rodriguez had/has promise but also had an injury and pitch tipping history and a total of 21 starts before this year.

 

[simplicio]

Clay has been great/terrible off and on for a while and hasn't been fully healthy for an entire season basically ever. Joe Kelly was really good when we were in last place and really awful when games mattered last year. Eduardo was a really good prospect and clearly a guy you want to have but you should probably have a backup plan for since he had a pitch tipping issue, a total of 21 starts, and a minor league injury history.

And results matter. Joe Kelly is averaging less than 4 innings per start with an ERA of 8.46. Eduardo Rodriguez is averaging less than 5 innings per start with an ERA of 8.59. They have both killed the bullpen.

And because we went into the season with them in the rotation, we just traded away a guy who could be the single pitcher in the minor leagues with the highest upside. We may win the world series anyway. I'm just saying Dombrowski probably doesn't deserve as much credit as some are giving him.

There are two ways I know you're writing purely from a place of hindsight:

1. You haven't mentioned going into 2016 with Porcello being a problem, even though he had a bad start and a good finish last year, just like Kelly. Why? Because he's been good this year and Kelly hasn't.
2. I can go back to August 24th of last year and find you writing "IMO the bullpen is a disaster and we need one good SP," both of which were addressed in the off-season.

Edit: you addressed Porcello a minute before I posted. The second point still stands.

 

[gammoseditor]

There are two ways I know you're writing purely from a place of hindsight:

1. You haven't mentioned going into 2016 with Porcello being a problem, even though he had a bad start and a good finish last year, just like Kelly. Why? Because he's been good this year and Kelly hasn't.
2. I can go back to August 24th of last year and find you writing "IMO the bullpen is a disaster and we need one good SP," both of which were addressed in the off-season.

Edit: you addressed Porcello a minute before I posted. The second point still stands.

I have admitted my analysis is partly hindsight. I'd still like to see an argument that projection systems showed our 2-5 in the rotation as decent. Clearly my Aug 24th post shows I'm not qualified to run the Red Sox.

What bothers me is that when they got rid of Lucchino they had the most important position in the organization open. Instead of doing a full search and finding the best guy for the job John Henry hired an old buddy who he assumed was the best guy. It's the exact opposite of what he did when he first took over and brought in Theo. And now that the team has been pretty good, mostly because of guys Dombrowski didn't bring in, Dombrowski seems to be getting credit. Not from everybody but from a lot of people. He has brought in some talent but mostly paid top dollar for it each time. I liked the Ziegler and Hill trades, but that's about it.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Espinoza isn't your run-of-the-mill pitching prospect. He's an elite pitching prospect with true #1 upside. Everything about him screams "dominant major league starter for years". His repertoire, his stuff, everything except his physical size, but for the elite guys, that has never been much of an issue. Very tough to give up someone who hits triple digits and has secondary stuff like he has. Even tougher to give up this guy for anyone who is not a #1 starter.

Again, I'm going to take issue with this, because he's 18 years old. Even assuming he doesn't encounter any setbacks along his development path, and assuming he's not the new Doc Gooden who can come in and dominate MLB at age 19, Espinosa is reasonably about 5 years away from contributing to a major league team. And the pitfalls for an 18 year old minor league pitcher in Single A ball are enormous on his way up the ladder. He could get hurt, he could struggle against better competition, he could simply not get much better.

I'm not saying he can't be a dominant major league starter in due time, but I think people are vastly overestimating his chances of doing so.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Clay has been great/terrible off and on for a while and hasn't been fully healthy for an entire season basically ever. Joe Kelly was really good when we were in last place and really awful when games mattered last year. Eduardo was a really good prospect and clearly a guy you want to have but you should probably have a backup plan for since he had a pitch tipping issue, a total of 21 starts, and a minor league injury history.

And results matter. Joe Kelly is averaging less than 4 innings per start with an ERA of 8.46. Eduardo Rodriguez is averaging less than 5 innings per start with an ERA of 8.59. They have both killed the bullpen.

And because we went into the season with them in the rotation, we just traded away a guy who could be the single pitcher in the minor leagues with the highest upside. We may win the world series anyway. I'm just saying Dombrowski probably doesn't deserve as much credit as some are giving him.

Hindsight. Total hindsight. You can't say that last November you knew for a fact that Clay Buchholz, Joe Kelly and ERod would have that bad a performance prior to the All Star break. And that's all I'm saying. Going into spring training, the Red Sox had five guys ticketed for the rotation that seemed reasonable bets to be at least okay, with four more guys, three of them young up-and-comers, in reserve. You can't reasonably expect a GM to continue to sign and hoard starting pitchers (which is what those saying they should have signed Hill or "someone else" seem to have wanted) when he's got that to work with and only so many roster spots available to fill.

It's easy to be pessimistic about what a guy's projections were six months ago when you already know the results.

 

[InsideTheParker]

This is what I'm looking forward to seeing. I think buyers are about to get bent over and fleeced at the trade deadline trying to get anything resembling a decent starting pitcher. Folks are going to look back at this trade and say "How the hell did the Sox get Pomeranz for one, albeit one great, prospect." I think DD making this move a couple weeks before the deadline was brilliant.

As someone often critical of DDski, especially his past efforts to build bullpens in Detroit, I would like to agree with this post. All through this discussion, I have been thinking that we can't really evaluate this trade fully until we see what Texas and Baltimore do about their rotations. So far, this looks more than acceptable.

 

[gammoseditor]

Hindsight. Total hindsight. You can't say that last November you knew for a fact that Clay Buchholz, Joe Kelly and ERod would have that bad a performance prior to the All Star break. And that's all I'm saying. Going into spring training, the Red Sox had five guys ticketed for the rotation that seemed reasonable bets to be at least okay, with four more guys, three of them young up-and-comers, in reserve. You can't reasonably expect a GM to continue to sign and hoard starting pitchers (which is what those saying they should have signed Hill or "someone else" seem to have wanted) when he's got that to work with and only so many roster spots available to fill.

It's easy to be pessimistic about what a guy's projections were six months ago when you already know the results.

What projection system had our 2-5 as league average before the season started?

It's not my job to project pitchers. It's Dombrowski's. He had Clay Buchholz, Joe Kelly, Eduardo Rodriguez, and Rich Hill on the team last year. He kept the first three. They have been among the worst pitchers in the game this year. He let the 4th go. He has been among the best. You want to give him zero blame for that? If you made the decision wouldn't you want to review the reasons?

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Is DD to blame for Rodriguez suffering a freak knee injury in spring training?

 

[gammoseditor]

Is DD to blame for Rodriguez suffering a freak knee injury in spring training?

No. Did I say he was? Did anyone? Are you arguing that if it weren't for that injury that Rodriguez would have been a good pitcher? If so do you have a date when that injury won't be bothering him anymore so all of our problems are solved? Are you arguing the Red Sox have had below average luck with pitcher injuries? I would argue against that. What exactly is your point?

And finally, what has DD done well? Was he the best guy for the job when it was open?

 

[Dogman]

Is DD to blame for Rodriguez suffering a freak knee injury in spring training?

Of course not. That's on Farrell. Keep the narratives in line, good sir.

 

[Devizier]

What projection system had our 2-5 as league average before the season started?

Steamer projections from before the season (ranking among all pitchers in parentheses).

David Price 5.0 fWAR (5th in MLB)
Clay Buchholz 2.6 fWAR (42nd in MLB, incredibly)
Rick Porcello 2.2 fWAR (62nd in MLB)
Eduardo Rodriguez 1.6 fWAR (102nd in MLB)
Joe Kelly 1.1 fWAR (136th in MLB)

Pomeranz was projected at 2.4 fWAR (59th in MLB) before the season.

Wright (obviously) and Porcello have significantly outperformed their projections. The problem is with Buchholz, Rodriguez, Kelly, etc. I think most of us felt that Buchholz's projection was a bit optimistic, given his injury history. But those guys have been worth, collectively, one win below replacement level this season.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

What projection system had our 2-5 as league average before the season started?

It's not my job to project pitchers. It's Dombrowski's. He had Clay Buchholz, Joe Kelly, Eduardo Rodriguez, and Rich Hill on the team last year. He kept the first three. They have been among the worst pitchers in the game this year. He let the 4th go. He has been among the best. You want to give him zero blame for that? If you made the decision wouldn't you want to review the reasons?

Why are we supposed to blame Dombrowski alone for letting Hill walk? Of those four players, only Hill was a free agent. He didn't have a say in this? We're supposed to believe that Dombrowski didn't have a conversation with him and his agent about staying? Isn't it remotely possible that Dombrowski wanted Hill to stay but because the best he could offer was a chance to compete with those other guys for a rotation spot, Hill sought employment somewhere where he had a more clear path to a sure job in a rotation?

And frankly, I'd be secure in putting my eggs in the basket with the three guys who pitched 100+ innings a piece last year, 2 out of 3 of which were notably above average for the season, rather than the 36-year-old guy we picked up off the scrap heap who gave us four really good starts and had done nothing else over the last 2-3 years.

Sorry, I'm not sure how keeping on the oldest guy of the four, the one with the shakiest recent history of the four, was a sure bet to be the smartest, wisest move of the bunch. More like damn luckiest of the bunch assuming all four guys perform exactly as they have.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

What's the "therefore" on the argument that DD supposedly put us in this position?

Even if we accept that it's a debatable proposition, isn't it for another thread? As a GM, you play the ball as it lies. Shouldn't we judge trades the same way.

We are where we are. Whatever happened in the past doesn't mean a thing. If San Diego had obtained Pomerantz for a bag of balls two weeks ago or if the Red Sox could have had two cy young players for a bag of balls last summer doesn't mean anything today.

 

[gammoseditor]

Steamer projections from before the season (ranking among all pitchers in parentheses).

David Price 5.0 fWAR (5th in MLB)
Clay Buchholz 2.6 fWAR (42nd in MLB, incredibly)
Rick Porcello 2.2 fWAR (62nd in MLB)
Eduardo Rodriguez 1.6 fWAR (102nd in MLB)
Joe Kelly 1.1 fWAR (136th in MLB)

Pomeranz was projected at 2.4 fWAR (59th in MLB) before the season.

Wright (obviously) and Porcello have significantly outperformed their projections. The problem is with Buchholz, Rodriguez, Kelly, etc. I think most of us felt that Buchholz's projection was a bit optimistic, given his injury history. But those guys have been worth, collectively, one win below replacement level this season.

Thanks. Clay's projection is kind of surprising and the totals are higher than I expected. 2-5 they come in at 7.5 WAR. I think 2 WAR is league average so they were projected to be slightly below.

On Hill, again, the results in hindsight have been so awful that if it were your decision and you wouldn't second guess yourself then you're doing it wrong.

 

[lexrageorge]

No. Did I say he was? Did anyone? Are you arguing that if it weren't for that injury that Rodriguez would have been a good pitcher? If so do you have a date when that injury won't be bothering him anymore so all of our problems are solved? Are you arguing the Red Sox have had below average luck with pitcher injuries? I would argue against that. What exactly is your point?

And finally, what has DD done well? Was he the best guy for the job when it was open?

To answer your last 2 questions:

In less than one season, DD got a front line starter, a relief ace, and a couple of other above average bullpen pieces. He gave Farrell the rope to bench Sandoval and play Shaw. He punted on Castillo, and picked up a useful outfield piece in Chris Young. Last season the Sox finished last; this year, they are 2 games out of the division lead, and would be one of the wild cards if the season ended today.

And "that injury" was a big f-ing deal for Ed Rod; it basically ended his spring training before it started, and left open the possibility of a reinjury requiring season ending or possibly career ending surgery. So, noone has a date on when this rather complex injury will suddenly stop being an issue. As for general injury luck, Kimbrel is out until August, Carson until next year's All Star break, and Tazawa has likely thrown his last pitch this season. Some things just aren't forecastable, no matter how much you want to believe otherwise while building your nonsensical argument.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

No. Did I say he was? Did anyone? Are you arguing that if it weren't for that injury that Rodriguez would have been a good pitcher? If so do you have a date when that injury won't be bothering him anymore so all of our problems are solved? Are you arguing the Red Sox have had below average luck with pitcher injuries? I would argue against that. What exactly is your point?

And finally, what has DD done well? Was he the best guy for the job when it was open?

Lessee....last year as a 22 year old, ERod went 10-6 with an ERA+ of 110. So yeah, without the injury it was reasonable to think that he'd be a good pitcher this year.

Let go ahead and stop trying to make judgements solely on 20/20 hindsight.

 

[gammoseditor]

To answer your last 2 questions:

In less than one season, DD got a front line starter, a relief ace, and a couple of other above average bullpen pieces. He gave Farrell the rope to bench Sandoval and play Shaw. He punted on Castillo, and picked up a useful outfield piece in Chris Young. Last season the Sox finished last; this year, they are 2 games out of the division lead, and would be one of the wild cards if the season ended today.

And "that injury" was a big f-ing deal for Ed Rod; it basically ended his spring training before it started, and left open the possibility of a reinjury requiring season ending or possibly career ending surgery. So, noone has a date on when this rather complex injury will suddenly stop being an issue. As for general injury luck, Kimbrel is out until August, Carson until next year's All Star break, and Tazawa has likely thrown his last pitch this season. Some things just aren't forecastable, no matter how much you want to believe otherwise while building your nonsensical argument.

He gave that front line starter the largest contract in team history. There have been other free agents that have been better that signed for a lot less. It's early but it's not hard to get a good player for $210 million.

He gave up a huge prospect package for the relief ace. The relief ace has been just ok by relief ace standards and is now injured.

Playing Shaw over Sandoval was a good decision. Was it DD's? Would Cherrington/Lucchino have forced Sandoval on Farrell?

Castillo can't hit in AAA. But we're giving DD credit for not keeping him on the roster? This doesn't seem like a difficult decision.

Chris Young was a good bench signing. Point DD. He did pay him a lot of money for a bench player.

We've had one injury to our starting rotation. That shouldn't be shocking. That pitcher has still made 6 starts this year. Prior to the year he was projected as a 1.6 fWAR. Not hindsight.

They are 2 games out of the division lead because they had 4 guys start the all star game, none of whom DD acquired. But let's give him all the credit. He's clearly the best guy for the job.

 

[Adrian's Dome]

He gave that front line starter the largest contract in team history. There have been other free agents that have been better that signed for a lot less. It's early but it's not hard to get a good player for $210 million.

He gave up a huge prospect package for the relief ace. The relief ace has been just ok by relief ace standards and is now injured.

Playing Shaw over Sandoval was a good decision. Was it DD's? Would Cherrington/Lucchino have forced Sandoval on Farrell?

Castillo can't hit in AAA. But we're giving DD credit for not keeping him on the roster? This doesn't seem like a difficult decision.

Chris Young was a good bench signing. Point DD. He did pay him a lot of money for a bench player.

We've had one injury to our starting rotation. That shouldn't be shocking. That pitcher has still made 6 starts this year. Prior to the year he was projected as a 1.6 fWAR. Not hindsight.

They are 2 games out of the division lead because they had 4 guys start the all star game, none of whom DD acquired. But let's give him all the credit. He's clearly the best guy for the job.

You're grasping at straws.

Where would this team be WITHOUT David Price, Craig Kimbrel, or any of DD's lesser acquisitions? Last place.

 

[gammoseditor]

You're grasping at straws.

Where would this team be WITHOUT David Price, Craig Kimbrel, or any of DD's lesser acquisitions? Last place.

And how much credit does DD deserve for that?

He was given a ferrari and 100k a year ago. The ferrari had old tires. He's paid 30k for new tires and just paid another 10k for new lights. He didn't turn a toyota into a ferrari. The ferrari could still break down.

Edit: You want to give him credit because he didn't do nothing and break down on the side of the road. Any idiot could've signed Price for a record contract.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

That's nonsensical and I suspect at some level you know that.

DD was the guy who put his ass on the line to pony up $217 million for Price. To trade 4 prospects for Kimbrel. Scoffing at those acquisitions and question how much credit he deserves for that is farcical. DD made those decisions. Those players are here because that's how he decided to spend his money/prospects.

To turn this on its head, Theo "only" tossed money at Foulke and traded prospects for Schilling in the winter of 2003-04. How much credit did he deserve for that?

 

[Adrian's Dome]

And how much credit does DD deserve for that?

He was given a ferrari and 100k a year ago. The ferrari had old tires. He's paid 30k for new tires and just paid another 10k for new lights. He didn't turn a toyota into a ferrari. The ferrari could still break down.

He doesn't deserve any credit for identifying the glaring weaknesses of the team and quickly and aggressively fixing them? He came in and saw the biggest flaw with this team was a lack of a #1 starter and got Price. Second biggest issue was a glaringly weak bullpen. Got Kimbrel (with the centerpiece being a non-premium prospect who was completely blocked) and Smith. Needed a platoon OF. Got Young. Went to war, didn't lose any of his most coveted or valuable assets doing so (in the B's, Moncada, or Benintendi.) Turns out the pitching he inherited absolutely sucked and there was some bad injury luck, so he was forced to use the lower end of his valuable assets to fix that as opposed to punting what could end up a very good season.

You're acting as if you'd rather have the Toyota than the Ferrari.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

And how much credit does DD deserve for that?

He was given a ferrari and 100k a year ago. The ferrari had old tires. He's paid 30k for new tires and just paid another 10k for new lights. He didn't turn a toyota into a ferrari. The ferrari could still break down.

Edit: You want to give him credit because he didn't do nothing and break down on the side of the road. Any idiot could've signed Price for a record contract.

And you have an excuse to give him no credit for anything he does.

 

[gammoseditor]

If Price and Kimbrel do what Schilling and Foulke did then DD gets more credit. Theo was lucky that Schilling became available when he did and only had a few teams he was willing to be traded to.

If the weaknesses were "glaring" then no. Any idiot can see a glaring weakness and pay top dollar to fix it.

I wouldn't rather have the toyota. I'd rather fix the Ferrari for less money. And if the Ferrari is better than Theo's and everyone else's DD will get more credit. Right now it hasn't been.

I'll give DD credit if he makes the best use of his assets. If his decisions win a world series or two of course he gets credit. Right now most players who are any good he has paid top dollar for. Right now I see him as lucky for being given a team with a top farm system, lots of financial resources, and several of the top players in the game already on it. If they win a world series because Xander, Mookie, Ortiz, JBJ, and Pedroia are great and his guys are just ok does he really deserve a ton of credit?

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

If the weaknesses were "glaring" then no. Any idiot can see a glaring weakness and pay top dollar to fix it.

Unless, of course, they guys he signs fall on their faces, in which case you'd just blame DD for it.

You're posting from a hindsight perspective.

 

[Yossarian]

Any idiot can see a glaring weakness and pay top dollar to fix it.

Which is why we've spent all season celebrating the Sandoval, Hanley, and Castillo contracts.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Any idiot can see a glaring weakness and pay top dollar to fix it.

Which is why we've spent all season celebrating the Sandoval, Hanley, and Castillo contracts.

Ben's not here, man. We don't talk about him no more.

 

[smastroyin]

I think the assessment of DD has to come with the lens of what his marching orders are.

I think he also comes with a rep that tells us what those are.

I think we (baseball amateur analysts) gave him a wide berth on too much GFIN in Detroit because of the Ilitch situation but Tigers fans aren't going to be happy with what DD left behind without winning. But, he also didn't have a disaster time like Gorman did in his final Sox years doing the same thing. But, we may also be finding out that it is DD's style and some people are going to naturally prefer that and others aren't. You may as well be arguing politics.

I'm not super impressed with DD to this point, I will admit. This is informed by his previous history as much as his time with the Red Sox, so don't give me a bunch of shit about what Cherington left him, etc. Paying market rates for the best thing available isn't really enough of a virtue for me. But it's better than paying top of market rates for less than market production? Curse of low expectations much? Anyway, if DD is just doing the job that Henry told him to do (sell out to put the best possible product on the field right now) then it's fine, and he does have some admirable qualities to go with it, like understanding sunk cost.

That said, I find the inane listing of prospect failures to be...well, inane.

 

[Adrian's Dome]

If Price and Kimbrel do what Schilling and Foulke did then DD gets more credit. Theo was lucky that Schilling became available when he did and only had a few teams he was willing to be traded to.

If the weaknesses were "glaring" then no. Any idiot can see a glaring weakness and pay top dollar to fix it.

I wouldn't rather have the toyota. I'd rather fix the Ferrari for less money. And if the Ferrari is better than Theo's and everyone else's DD will get more credit. Right now it hasn't been.

I'll give DD credit if he makes the best use of his assets. If his decisions win a world series or two of course he gets credit. Right now most players who are any good he has paid top dollar for. Right now I see him as lucky for being given a team with a top farm system, lots of financial resources, and several of the top players in the game already on it. If they win a world series because Xander, Mookie, Ortiz, JBJ, and Pedroia are great and his guys are just ok does he really deserve a ton of credit?

If "any idiot" can identify weaknesses and fix them, why didn't Cherington do it? Also, how was inheriting a team nearly hamstrung by Craig, Castillo, Sandoval, Porcello, and Hanley's contracts a positive? Yeah, the Sox have resources, but DD wasn't allowed to use 80% of them. One Price was signed, that was nearly all of it. A big part of being successful with a team with a top farm system is knowing when to cash in those prospects, if you don't believe me, just ask the Angels. For every Kris Bryant, there's a hundred Andy Martes or Brandon Woods.

Personally, I'm a fan of a GM that makes aggressive and logical moves to address issues rather than one that continually attempts to fix gunshot wounds with band-aids. I'd had enough of the bargain-bin and middling talent pickups praying to catch lightning in a bottle. A team with the resources of the Sox shouldn't be playing that card often.

You're acting as if DD has completely torched the system as well. Last I checked, Moncada, Benintendi, and Devers are still here. Groome just signed. Kopech is around. There's a ton of talent there.

 

[gammoseditor]

Unless, of course, they guys he signs fall on their faces, in which case you'd just blame DD for it.

You're posting from a hindsight perspective.

If you pay pitcher $210 million and he falls on his face of course you failed. If you pay him $210 million and he does as expected then you did an ok job.

If you pick up a guy for cheap who turns out to be great you did a great job.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

If you pay pitcher $210 million and he falls on his face of course you failed. If you pay him $210 million and he does as expected then you did an ok job.

If you pick up a guy for cheap who turns out to be great you did a great job.

No. If you sign a guy for $217 million and he performs well, you've done a great job. You're vastly underestimating the risk associated with handing out $217 million; that's an enormous amount of money so the GM has to decide who if anyone is worth such an investment.

I mean, the contract the Rangers have ARod was a good one. That was a good move. Arod was worth the money. That was a huge risk that worked out for them. It was giving Chan Ho Park $65 million that turned out to be unwise.

 

[Adrian's Dome]

If you pay pitcher $210 million and he falls on his face of course you failed. If you pay him $210 million and he does as expected then you did an ok job.

If you pick up a guy for cheap who turns out to be great you did a great job.

So the only way to be a successful GM is to catch lightning in a bottle. Utilizing your resources to put a consistent winning product on the field is only "ok."

 

[gammoseditor]

If "any idiot" can identify weaknesses and fix them, why didn't Cherington do it? Also, how was inheriting a team nearly hamstrung by Craig, Castillo, Sandoval, Porcello, and Hanley's contracts a positive? Yeah, the Sox have resources, but DD wasn't allowed to use 80% of them. One Price was signed, that was nearly all of it. A big part of being successful with a team with a top farm system is knowing when to cash in those prospects, if you don't believe me, just ask the Angels. For every Kris Bryant, there's a hundred Andy Martes or Brandon Woods.

Personally, I'm a fan of a GM that makes aggressive and logical moves to address issues rather than one that continually attempts to fix gunshot wounds with band-aids. I'd had enough of the bargain-bin and middling talent pickups praying to catch lightning in a bottle. A team with the resources of the Sox shouldn't be playing that card often.

You're acting as if DD has completely torched the system as well. Last I checked, Moncada, Benintendi, and Devers are still here. Groome just signed. Kopech is around. There's a ton of talent there.

How hamstrung are they by those contracts? They were still able to spend enough money this offseason to bring in the highest paid pitcher in team history.

He wasn't allowed to use 80% of the financial resources. Instead he had Xander, Mookie, Ortiz, JBJ, Pedroia, and a whole bunch of other talented players under contract.

I never said he torched the system. He inherited a top farm system and it still is one.

 

[gammoseditor]

So the only way to be a successful GM is to catch lightning in a bottle. Utilizing your resources to put a consistent winning product on the field is only "ok."

You don't win the world series by handing out a bunch of contracts that are fair. If every player made what he was worth and every GM paid every player what they were worth then the team with the highest payroll would win every year. Would you call that GM the best in the game simply because his owner had the deepest pockets?

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

You don't win the world series by handing out a bunch of contracts that are fair. If every player made what he was worth and every GM paid every player what they were worth then the team with the highest payroll would win every year. Would you call that GM the best in the game simply because his owner had the deepest pockets?

Of course this way of thinking inherently precludes the possibility that the GM of a high-payroll team could ever be the best in the game. On second thought, though, that's OK, because they don't hand out rings to the team with the best GM. The Red Sox don't need the best GM in the game; they just need one that's good enough to make effective use of the unfair advantages he's given.

 

[Pilgrim]

You don't win the world series by handing out a bunch of contracts that are fair. If every player made what he was worth and every GM paid every player what they were worth then the team with the highest payroll would win every year. Would you call that GM the best in the game simply because his owner had the deepest pockets?

What happened to all the pre-FA players? Is this hypothetical taking place in the Children of Men universe?

 

[Yossarian]

I think it's worth recognizing that one reason why DD was able to pay Price such an enormous contract is that he had Henry's complete faith, built up over their time in Florida.

I mean, does Cherington Irightly or wrongly) get that kind of blank check from ownership? Does a non-DD replacement (especially of the up-and-comer variety)? He certainly didn't seem to with Lester. Whether DD deserves it or not, gaining the complete trust of your owner with little interference is a skill.

 

[gammoseditor]

Of course this way of thinking inherently precludes the possibility that the GM of a high-payroll team could ever be the best in the game. On second thought, though, that's OK, because they don't hand out rings to the team with the best GM. The Red Sox don't need the best GM in the game; they just need one that's good enough to make effective use of the unfair advantages he's given.

No. It doesn't. It just means the bar is higher. If you have two GM's who have run their teams for 10 years each win 1 world series, but one did it with half the payroll. And the one with double the payroll won 10 more regular season games and made the post season 1 more time, who would you consider the better GM?

If the one with the higher budget had 2 world series to 0 and won 8 more games per year then I would pick the one with the higher payroll. In my first example, even with less wins, the one with half the payroll is clearly the better GM.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

I think it's worth recognizing that one reason why DD was able to pay Price such an enormous contract is that he had Henry's complete faith, built up over their time in Florida.

I mean, does Cherington Irightly or wrongly) get that kind of blank check from ownership? Does a non-DD replacement (especially of the up-and-comer variety)? He certainly didn't seem to with Lester. Whether DD deserves it or not, gaining the complete trust of your owner with little interference is a skill.

Cherington did get that type of blank check from ownership after winning in 2013 and promptly signed Pablo, Hanley, and Castillo to huge contracts, and took on Craig's contract as well via trade. That's probably why he's no longer employed by the team.

Henry generally seems to get his GMs, well, GM. The last time management really seemed to stick their nose into affairs was when Lucchino overruled Cherington's first choice for manager for 2012 and basically ordered the hiring of Valentine. We all saw how well that worked out. Henry generally lets his GMs spend money if they want to.

 

[Harry Hooper]

LL had a BIG hand in the Lester negotiation.

 

[smastroyin]

I split this, most of it has nothing to do with the actual trade.

 

[Yaz4Ever]

I split this, most of it has nothing to do with the actual trade.

Not for nothing, but you could've just deleted it all - no?

 

[gammoseditor]

I didn't mean to start a "Fire Dombrowski" thread but I never liked the hire to begin with. It's the most important position in the organization. He is the one with final say on all moves. And when the position opened up John Henry hired and old buddy instead of doing an exhaustive search to find the best person for the job.

Since then the team is a lot better. I'm arguing that has more to do with guys the previous regime brought in and they could still miss the playoffs. It seems he gets little criticism in a media environment that regularly tears into the best coach in football history. I think he's good at talking to the media and it's gotten him a free pass.

He's not bad at his job, but again, I find it hard to believe he's the best guy out there. Nothing he has done since being hired has changed my mind.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I didn't mean to start a "Fire Dombrowski" thread but I never liked the hire to begin with. It's the most important position in the organization. He is the one with final say on all moves. And when the position opened up John Henry hired and old buddy instead of doing an exhaustive search to find the best person for the job.

Since then the team is a lot better. I'm arguing that has more to do with guys the previous regime brought in and they could still miss the playoffs. It seems he gets little criticism in a media environment that regularly tears into the best coach in football history. I think he's good at talking to the media and it's gotten him a free pass.

He's not bad at his job, but again, I find it hard to believe he's the best guy out there. Nothing he has done since being hired has changed my mind.

Did the position really "open up" or did the man become available and Henry decided he had to have him in the organization, even at the cost of a guy he wasn't 100% prepared to fire? Based on the timeline of events, I have to quibble with the notion that there was a position for which Henry needed to do an exhaustive search.

In other words, if Dombrowski doesn't walk away/get pushed out of Detroit when he did, would the Red Sox have hired a new President of Baseball Ops at all and would Ben Cherington still be in that role?

 

[czar]

Thanks. Clay's projection is kind of surprising and the totals are higher than I expected. 2-5 they come in at 7.5 WAR. I think 2 WAR is league average so they were projected to be slightly below.

On Hill, again, the results in hindsight have been so awful that if it were your decision and you wouldn't second guess yourself then you're doing it wrong.

Drive-by'ing a bit, but why is Buchholz's projection surprising? He had a 3.2 fWAR in ~half a season last year. Essentially Steamer was like "he'll be a worse pitcher in 2016, but pitch a few more innings."

As much as I'm lukewarm on DD, the Buchholz completely falling apart for the first 80 IP of 2016 can't be pinned on him. He was elite before being hurt last year. Even in his "bad" seasons, he's provided positive value (see 2012 and 2014). Even if you believe in the mythical "good Buchholz ends up being hurt and bad Buchholz" ends up being mediocre," "hurt Buchholz" still gives you a partial season of high-level performance to offset his needed replacement.

I know he's become the proverbial whipping boy for all things wrong with the 2016 starting rotation, but if folks said "I totally saw the complete evaporation in his peripherals coming!" they'd almost certainly be lying.

 

[gammoseditor]

Did the position really "open up" or did the man become available and Henry decided he had to have him in the organization, even at the cost of a guy he wasn't 100% prepared to fire? Based on the timeline of events, I have to quibble with the notion that there was a position for which Henry needed to do an exhaustive search.

In other words, if Dombrowski doesn't walk away/get pushed out of Detroit when he did, would the Red Sox have hired a new President of Baseball Ops at all and would Ben Cherington still be in that role?

Either way there was no search and DD was pre-ordained. IMHO it doesn't really matter. What has DD done to be the clear choice without a search?

 

[gammoseditor]

Drive-by'ing a bit, but why is Buchholz's projection surprising? He had a 3.2 fWAR in ~half a season last year. Essentially Steamer was like "he'll be a worse pitcher in 2016, but pitch a few more innings."

As much as I'm lukewarm on DD, the Buchholz completely falling apart for the first 80 IP of 2016 can't be pinned on him. He was elite before being hurt last year. Even in his "bad" seasons, he's provided positive value (see 2012 and 2014). Even if you believe in the mythical "good Buchholz ends up being hurt and bad Buchholz" ends up being mediocre," "hurt Buchholz" still gives you a partial season of high-level performance to offset his needed replacement.

I know he's become the proverbial whipping boy for all things wrong with the 2016 starting rotation, but if folks said "I totally saw the complete evaporation in his peripherals coming!" they'd almost certainly be lying.

Because he missed the entire 2nd half and was off and on his entire career. I mean, the projection systems are better than my eye ball test, but I think most of SOSH would've taken the under.

 

[Maximus]

I am a DD fan. I like the decisiveness in his decision making. He develops a plan then is an execution machine. His additions of Price, Kimbrel, Young, Smith, Hill, Ziegler and Pomeranz to augment the young core have strategically been the right decisions. His decision to keep Moncada and Benintendi to add to the young core have been the right moves. I'll still miss Espinoza, love his delivery and potential.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

We've had one injury to our starting rotation. That shouldn't be shocking. That pitcher has still made 6 starts this year. Prior to the year he was projected as a 1.6 fWAR. Not hindsight.

War is a cumulative stat. 1.6 WAR over around 170 innings is pretty close to league average. Using projected WAR to argue Rodriguez wasn't expected to be decent with no mention of innings pitched pretty much perfectly encapsulates why your argument is 100% hindsight isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

 

[glennhoffmania]

That's nonsensical and I suspect at some level you know that.

DD was the guy who put his ass on the line to pony up $217 million for Price. To trade 4 prospects for Kimbrel. Scoffing at those acquisitions and question how much credit he deserves for that is farcical. DD made those decisions. Those players are here because that's how he decided to spend his money/prospects.

To turn this on its head, Theo "only" tossed money at Foulke and traded prospects for Schilling in the winter of 2003-04. How much credit did he deserve for that?

I'm not picking a side in this debate because I think it's way too early to judge DD and the moves he's made so far. If Price ends up being a top ten pitcher in baseball for the next five years (assuming he doesn't opt out) then it was a great deal. But we can't ignore the costs. In a vacuum, any team would love to have Price and Kimbrel on their roster. But would any team pay what DD paid both in terms of money and talent? Several people, maybe even you I think, questioned the Kimbrel deal at the time since he basically traded significant talent for the right to pay him market rate. That doesn't make it a bad deal but it could end up being so.

Would the Sox have been better off signing Cueto for 6/130 instead of Price, only acquiring Smith for the pen, and using the Kimbrel deal prospects to get another quality starter? Maybe. And that, I think, is the point Gammo is trying to make. Getting potentially good or even great players is nice. But we have to look at the opportunity costs to determine if the moves were good or bad. And I don't know how anyone can make that judgment at this point.

 

[NortheasternPJ]

Either way there was no search and DD was pre-ordained. IMHO it doesn't really matter. What has DD done to be the clear choice without a search?

Outside of win a World Series and have other teams that have won in the playoffs, not sure. When these jobs open up, which this one didn't, its almost never a real search unless the job sucks, which GM of the Red Sox does not. It's talk to the 4 guys on the short list. There may be 1-2 guys thrown in as wildcards who may be interesting but that's it. This isn't the real world it's MLB where everyone knows everyone at that level already.