Red Sox announce Dave Dombrowski is their new president of baseball operations.

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Buzzkill Pauley said:
IMO, it will come down to value. Because Pedey can't pitch every give days, and that is absolutely what the Red Sox need most to build a contender.
 
This is why it won't happen. Pedroia is still more valuable to the Sox than he would be to any other team. Add in the no trade clause and it's a non-starter.
 

nothumb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 27, 2006
7,065
yammer's favorite poster
Dombrowski is right. The vast majority of people who come to the ballpark don't know who's in the minor leagues, nor do they care. He's not saying he won't develop minor league talent, he's saying it's not an excuse for 10 losing seasons in a row or whatever it was at that point.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,278
Buzzkill Pauley said:
What should be more chilling is the mention that the Tigers' last winning season before the article was written was 9 seasons prior.

Results do matter, and making trades from the minors is a part of the game. What's important is to trade the right minor leaguers away for the right major league players. And vice-versa.

And that can't happen without strong evaluators at every level of the organization.
I seriously hope that the international scouting department is not broken up.
 

derekson

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2010
6,243
nothumb said:
Dombrowski is right. The vast majority of people who come to the ballpark don't know who's in the minor leagues, nor do they care. He's not saying he won't develop minor league talent, he's saying it's not an excuse for 10 losing seasons in a row or whatever it was at that point.
 
And ultimately, prospects are a means to an end of getting talented major leaguers rather than a valuable end in and of themselves. Some will realize that value via developing into major leaguers and some will realize the value via trades for established talent. Being able to stockpile prospects is a good thing, and speaks to strengths in one part of the FO, but not translating that into wins at the major league level means you're ultimately dropping the ball somewhere.
 

PrometheusWakefield

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2009
10,441
Boston, MA
Buzzkill Pauley said:
What should be more chilling is the mention that the Tigers' last winning season before the article was written was 9 seasons prior.

Results do matter, and making trades from the minors is a part of the game. What's important is to trade the right minor leaguers away for the right major league players. And vice-versa.

And that can't happen without strong evaluators at every level of the organization.
Results are the only things that matter, by definition.
 
I think Ben was overly cautious about trading away prospects for MLB talent and it hurt this team this year. 
 
If Ben had traded for Hamels this offseason, is he still the GM?
 

Pilgrim

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2006
2,406
Jamaica Plain
Worrying about DD trading prospects would be a bigger deal if he had a history of getting fleeced left and right.  Its mostly been the opposite.
 
the draft/International pipeline is a much more legitimate concern. 
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
johnnywayback said:
 

Really glad this wasn't true after 2012.
 
2012 was a bad year for the team, it was not an awful year for Ben assuming he had nothing to do with Bobby V (that was Larry et all).  They did after all purge the team of some bad contracts that set up 2013.  2015 was a bad year for both Ben and Larry, and the team, and basically destroyed the financial flexibility they had enjoyed the last 2 years, replacing the bad contracts of Crawford and Beckett with Hanley, Pablo, Craig and Porcello,  Now maybe Porcello bounces back like Lackey did, but Hanley, Craig and Pablo's deals dont look too bright 
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,278
“@JeffPassan: Sources: Blue Jays had serious conversations with Dave Dombrowski. Red Sox knew this, gave Dombrowski full power over baseball operations.”
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,721
Miami (oh, Miami!)
PrometheusWakefield said:
Results are the only things that matter, by definition.
 
I think Ben was overly cautious about trading away prospects for MLB talent and it hurt this team this year. 
 
If Ben had traded for Hamels this offseason, is he still the GM?
 
Hamels isn't exactly setting the world on fire in his first 3 starts for TX, so it's hard to speculate.
 
I think the better question is "If Lucchino was still in power, is he still the GM?" 
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,032
Oregon
So, since we honestly know no answers at this point, what does Dombrowski say tomorrow when asked about the potential for player moves before the end of the month?
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,402
E5 Yaz said:
So, since we honestly know no answers at this point, what does Dombrowski say tomorrow when asked about the potential for player moves before the end of the month?
 
How about "I am always interested in moves to improve this ballclub."
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Buzzkill Pauley said:
What should be more chilling is the mention that the Tigers' last winning season before the article was written was 9 seasons prior.

Results do matter, and making trades from the minors is a part of the game. What's important is to trade the right minor leaguers away for the right major league players. And vice-versa.

And that can't happen without strong evaluators at every level of the organization.
 
Yeah, that quote doesn't bother me. "People don't want to hear about the minor league system" is just a practical truth. It doesn't necessarily mean that he doesn't value the minor league system, it just acknowledges that fans are more interested in how much you win than in how you get there.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
Someone please explain to me the scope of work for:
 
1. "President of Baseball Operations"
2. "General Manager"
 
This was the Red Sox Front Office a couple of weeks ago:
 
1. President/CEO (Lucchino)
2. Exec. VP / COO (Kennedy)
3. EVP / Business Affairs (Gilula)
 
4. EVP / General Manager (Cherington)
5. SVP / Asst GM (Hazen & O'Halloran)
 
 
What's the break in responsibilities?
 
And what is a "President of Baseball Operations"?
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,510
Rogers Park
Buzzkill Pauley said:
What should be more chilling is the mention that the Tigers' last winning season before the article was written was 9 seasons prior.

Results do matter, and making trades from the minors is a part of the game. What's important is to trade the right minor leaguers away for the right major league players. And vice-versa.

And that can't happen without strong evaluators at every level of the organization.
 
I don't mind trading minor leaguers, but the basis for this organization's considerable success — well, especially the 2007 and 2013 titles — has been a farm system that has produced a ton of high-value players. 
 
Some have been traded. There are some who we kept that we should have traded, and others we traded that we should have kept. But the farm has been productive. I want to keep that focus on development.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
geoduck no quahog said:
Someone please explain to me the scope of work for:
 
1. "President of Baseball Operations"
2. "General Manager"
 
This was the Red Sox Front Office a couple of weeks ago:
 
1. President/CEO (Lucchino)
2. Exec. VP / COO (Kennedy)
3. EVP / Business Affairs (Gilula)
 
4. EVP / General Manager (Cherington)
5. SVP / Asst GM (Hazen & O'Halloran)
 
 
What's the break in responsibilities?
 
And what is a "President of Baseball Operations"?
It means he'll report directly to Henry and Werner, but his duties will be much closer to Ben's than to LL's.
 

jtn46

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 10, 2004
9,757
Norwalk, CT
PrometheusWakefield said:
Results are the only things that matter, by definition.
 
I think Ben was overly cautious about trading away prospects for MLB talent and it hurt this team this year. 
 
If Ben had traded for Hamels this offseason, is he still the GM?
No, because Porcello, Sandoval and Ramirez would still be disasters so the team is still probably not a contender, possibly still in last place, even.

My unpopular opinion is that the Sox have to trade a catcher. Keeping Vazquez in case Swihart doesn't work out or vice versa is a luxury for a team with a better roster. I hope the new FO thinks that way too.
 

derekson

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2010
6,243
geoduck no quahog said:
Someone please explain to me the scope of work for:
 
1. "President of Baseball Operations"
2. "General Manager"
 
This was the Red Sox Front Office a couple of weeks ago:
 
1. President/CEO (Lucchino)
2. Exec. VP / COO (Kennedy)
3. EVP / Business Affairs (Gilula)
 
4. EVP / General Manager (Cherington)
5. SVP / Asst GM (Hazen & O'Halloran)
 
 
What's the break in responsibilities?
 
And what is a "President of Baseball Operations"?
 
President of Baseball Operations has control of everything we'd typically think of a GM controlling, as well as nearly full autonomy over baseball moves rather than being under some amount of oversight from the club president. Obviously CEO/ownership still set budgets, but they're unlikely to get involved on specific moves (other than likely approving large FA contracts).
 

Pilgrim

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2006
2,406
Jamaica Plain
[twitter]DCameronFG
[/twitter]So I REALLY want Ben Cherington to keep his @saberseminar talk as scheduled this Saturday. Bring the popcorn.
 

twibnotes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
20,232
czar said:
If this team goes and hires Frank Wren, I'm done.
As a lifelong Red Sox fan, I love this post. I've said stuff like that before...it's never true.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,051
Florida
PrometheusWakefield said:
Results are the only things that matter, by definition.
 
I think Ben was overly cautious about trading away prospects for MLB talent and it hurt this team this year. 
 
If Ben had traded for Hamels this offseason, is he still the GM?
 
If the snowball effect had him not spending an extra $20m/per on Panda, or feeling a need to push ahead on that alternative risk with the Porcello extension?
 
Maybe. 
 

Yazdog8

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
4,349
Redwood City, CA
jtn46 said:
No, because Porcello, Sandoval and Ramirez would still be disasters so the team is still probably not a contender, possibly still in last place, even.

My unpopular opinion is that the Sox have to trade a catcher. Keeping Vazquez in case Swihart doesn't work out or vice versa is a luxury for a team with a better roster. I hope the new FO thinks that way too.
 
First they have to prove that Vasquez's arm is healthy before they go trading from a position of depth and strength.
 

czar

fanboy
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
4,312
Ann Arbor
nvalvo said:
 
I don't mind trading minor leaguers, but the basis for this organization's considerable success — well, especially the 2007 and 2013 titles — has been a farm system that has produced a ton of high-value players. 
 
Some have been traded. There are some who we kept that we should have traded, and others we traded that we should have kept. But the farm has been productive. I want to keep that focus on development.
 
It boggles my mind that people don't remember that only the Yankees have won more World Series that this team over the last THREE DECADES.
 
I get that Cherington made some bad moves, but this idea that the team's farm system strategy has been a major hinderance to them winning seems somewhat arrogant.
 

czar

fanboy
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
4,312
Ann Arbor
twibnotes said:
As a lifelong Red Sox fan, I love this post. I've said stuff like that before...it's never true.
 
I mean, that was clearly hyperbole, but let's say that hiring DD and Wren will easily be the most annoyed I'll be with a Red Sox "transaction" over the last two decades.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,278
I wonder if the sox go after Anthopoulos His contract is up after this year I believe.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
derekson said:
 
President of Baseball Operations has control of everything we'd typically think of a GM controlling, as well as nearly full autonomy over baseball moves rather than being under some amount of oversight from the club president. Obviously CEO/ownership still set budgets, but they're unlikely to get involved on specific moves (other than likely approving large FA contracts).
 
Thanks.
 
So a former GM is moving up and will simply oversee the moves recommended by the new GM - with obvious veto powers. Given that Dumbrowski was willing (perhaps eager, we'll never know) to keep Cherrington on as GM, I suspect we're not going to be seeing major philosophical changes in system management.
 
That's going to reveal itself in who the new candidates are, if there are more than one, and what the selection criteria turns out to be. I believe Mr. Dumbrowski is a very smart baseball man who appreciates the Red Sox and won't be an egomaniac.
 

twibnotes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
20,232
@jessespector:

DAVE DOMBROWSKI: I have experience trading Rick Por--

JOHN HENRY: You're hired!

DAVE DOMBROWSKI: --cello.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,278
Well, whatever David Dombrowski did to make Detroit Tigers owner Mike Ilitch hastily fire him as president and GM two weeks ago, as it turns out, he sure provided Dombrowski with a huge favor.

t took just days for Dombrowski to be heavily pursued by three teams, and Tuesday night, 14 days after being fired, the Boston Red Sox announced that Dombrowski will be formally introduced Wednesday as their new vice president of baseball operations.

Dombrowski actually was offered the job Sunday, but the announcement was delayed two days after clearance from the Commissioner’s office, since no other candidates, or minorities, were interviewed.

“It’s amazing how quickly things happened,’’ Dombrowski told USA Today Sports. “It was a very quick decision. I did have other options, but this one stood out, to have the opportunity of joining such a storied franchise with its history and proud tradition. There was no sense in waiting.’’


I'm thrilled. I can’t wait to get started.’’

Dombrowski’s first order of business will be looking for a general manager.

Ben Cherington resigned as general manager when he was informed of the announcement, despite Dombrowski reaching out Tuesday and inviting him to stay aboard.

“We offered Ben the opportunity to stay as GM,’’ Dombrowski told USA TODAY Sports. “I had a lengthy conversation. He could have stayed. We like Ben. He’s a good person. I don’t know him very well, but I have the utmost respect for him and as a person.

“But I could understand it. It hit him very quickly. He was surprised.

“As president of baseball operations, you have control over making deals, and the final say in hiring. I understand it would be a transition with him.

“We have a good professional relationship, but he just felt at the time he really didn’t want to stay on board.’’
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2015/08/19/dave-dombrowski-hired-red-sox-president-baseball-operations-changes/31964559/

More at the link


Read the whole thing. It's worth your time.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,745
ToeKneeArmAss said:
 
Sounds like the right guy for the current version of the AL East then ...
 
This is alluding to the common perception that this year's AL East is awful, and nope, it's still probably the strongest of the six divisions, top to bottom. Current run differential by division:
 
AL East +219
AL Central -92
AL West -1
 
NL East -248
NL Central +105
NL West +17
 

HriniakPosterChild

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 6, 2006
14,841
500 feet above Lake Sammammish
Cellar-Door said:
I don't think he has 10 years yet, and his no-trade is limited.
Of course it's probably irrelevant, Ownership isn't going to let Pedroia be traded.
 
Not according to Bradford:
 
 
The stories suggesting the Sox should start exploring a trade involving Pedroia surfaced almost immediately after it was learned he would be missing the rest of the season due to his lingering hand issue. It was, and is, an easy narrative to throw out: dwindling numbers, continuing injury concerns, a long-term contract ...
 
Yet there were some important aspects of the equation that conveniently were left out.
 
Perhaps the most notable piece of that trade puzzle consistently was ignored: Pedroia has a full no-trade clause in his contract.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,423
Not here
jtn46 said:
No, because Porcello, Sandoval and Ramirez would still be disasters so the team is still probably not a contender, possibly still in last place, even.

My unpopular opinion is that the Sox have to trade a catcher. Keeping Vazquez in case Swihart doesn't work out or vice versa is a luxury for a team with a better roster. I hope the new FO thinks that way too.
I really hope nobody in the front office thinks like you.

Writing off a contract as a disaster based on one season is remarkably short sighted.

There are basically four things the front office needs to do in the off v season.

Get us an ace.

Figure out where Hanley Ramirez is going to play.

Figure out who is going to play first.

Bring in two or three really solid bullpen guys, one of whom is the primary lefty.

Everyone is available, but anyone who wants out prime, under 25 talent should have to back up the truck.

The notion that this roster is a complete mess that requires a massive overhaul is kind of silly.
 

alwyn96

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 24, 2005
1,351
Welp, in case the world was wondering about my hot take on Dombrowski - it seems like the dude is going to have pretty much complete control over everything, right? It will be like Epstein/Hoyer in Chicago, I would guess. Dombrowski will mostly be calling the shots no matter who the GM is. In terms of what this means for analytics, it seems complicated. The internet has been very friendly to 'traditional' analytic-based GMs. Epstein, Beane, Friedman, DePodesta - the internet loves these guys. And for good reason! They've often done well! But then, so have many less nerdy GMs. I don't know how many Bill James Abstracts John Mozeliak has on his shelf, but he's been very successful. As has Brian Sabean somehow, even though many of his decisions seem crazy to me. It seems like Dombrowski falls more on the traditional than Jamesian side of the GM spectrum, but I'm sure we'll get a sense of what he thinks about OBP, FIP and WAR and in the coming months.
 
But we've all seen the next generation of analytics - the MLBAM stuff. That stuff is basically quantifying traditional scouting data. Velocity and angle of the ball off the bat, spin on pitches, reaction time on flyballs....it's the old school meeting the new school. I don't know if there's a 'type' of GM/CEO who's most qualified to take advantage of this new data, or whether this data even adds much above what can already be easily measured. I'm not sure anyone has really figured out how best to use that stuff yet. But Dombrowski seems well-respected and connected throughout the league, and has built some winning teams. I'm sure he knows a lot of smart baseball people, and would hope he knows how to choose the right people to figure out how to be successful.
 
I do think we'll see some big moves this winter, though. It's just what new GMs tend to do.
 

jtn46

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 10, 2004
9,757
Norwalk, CT
Rasputin said:
I really hope nobody in the front office thinks like you.

Writing off a contract as a disaster based on one season is remarkably short sighted.

There are basically four things the front office needs to do in the off v season.

Get us an ace.

Figure out where Hanley Ramirez is going to play.

Figure out who is going to play first.

Bring in two or three really solid bullpen guys, one of whom is the primary lefty.

Everyone is available, but anyone who wants out prime, under 25 talent should have to back up the truck.

The notion that this roster is a complete mess that requires a massive overhaul is kind of silly.
The question I was answering was "Would Cherington still have a job if he traded for Hamels". I apologize for not adding the qualifier "in 2015". I figured that was a given based on the question. Those 3 players have been a disaster in 2015. I am not in this thread or in any thread declaring that we rule the contracts disasters or advocating dumping the players for 10 cents on the dollar. My unpopular opinion was only regarding the catchers.

Is there a reason Sandoval can't play first?
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,423
Not here
jtn46 said:
The question I was answering was "Would Cherington still have a job if he traded for Hamels". I apologize for not adding the qualifier "in 2015". I figured that was a given based on the question. Those 3 players have been a disaster in 2015. I am not in this thread or in any thread declaring that we rule the contracts disasters or advocating dumping the players for 10 cents on the dollar. My unpopular opinion was only regarding the catchers.

Is there a reason Sandoval can't play first?
Okay, my bad.

I think there are fewer options at third than there are at first. Sandoval has never had an ops+ below 99 before. I rather suspect he'll be back above 100 next year.

Hell, he may do it this year.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
One more vote for not sold on Dombrowski. I always thought that Tigers team from 2013 was so poorly assembled, all that talent undermined by the lack of attention to defense, depth, bullpen, baserunning. They should never have lost that ALCS, but the Sox' roster, by contrast, was a fantastic blend of guys who did everything pretty well, and they hung in long enough for the Tigers' mistakes to do the job. That's not to say that Dombrowski is an idiot -- maybe ownership forced him to build in one particular way, or maybe players didn't want to come to Detroit -- or that the Sox had a brilliant organizational plan -- they always seem to have one when they win, then ditch it right after. But I'm not doing cartwheels over the news.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
tomdeplonty said:
Does anybody else think it's a little odd that the Globe article (linked above) basically says one of the first things on DD's plate is to ship Hanley out of town?
 
Is that just speculation from Abraham and Cafardo, or did somebody tell them something? Why would it be announced in advance like that?
That's just Pete Abe's personal anti-Hanley crusade. Not that I disagree, but if anyone else wrote the piece I don't think it cites moving Hanley as job 1.
 

staz

Intangible
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2004
20,671
The cradle of the game.
chrisfont9 said:
but the Sox' roster, by contrast, was a fantastic blend of guys who did everything pretty well, and they hung in long enough .
Who also coalesced around Boston Strong and maybe played above their heads a bit. Or a lot.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,051
Florida
Rasputin said:
I really hope nobody in the front office thinks like you.

Writing off a contract as a disaster based on one season is remarkably short sighted.

There are basically four things the front office needs to do in the off v season.

Get us an ace.

Figure out where Hanley Ramirez is going to play.

Figure out who is going to play first.

Bring in two or three really solid bullpen guys, one of whom is the primary lefty.

Everyone is available, but anyone who wants out prime, under 25 talent should have to back up the truck.

The notion that this roster is a complete mess that requires a massive overhaul is kind of silly.
 
I actually agree with all of that, but none of it changes the fact that at least 2 of those signings he listed (Panda/Porcello ext) should have never happened in the first place. That they did was all the more reason a fresh overall perspective needed to be brought in.
 
So with Dombrowski at the helm now it's pretty much an absolute given that we'll be signing at least one big free agent starter in hopes of solving our ace problem, right? 
 

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,667
Mid-surburbia
Rasputin said:
There are basically four things the front office needs to do in the off v season.

Get us an ace.

Figure out where Hanley Ramirez is going to play.

Figure out who is going to play first.

Bring in two or three really solid bullpen guys, one of whom is the primary lefty.
 
It really is just about this simple.  The batting lineup, barring our worst DD nightmares being realized in the offseason, really is starting to look like it could be something special for 3-5 years.  On the other hand, it really is stunning how every player acquired last offseason, particularly the starting rotation, just took their projections and shoved them up Cherington's ass.  The anti-2013.  Personally, I think I would have given this management team into the start of next year to prove they could get all this talent and resources marching in the right direction.  
 
Obviously (ahem) the Hanley and 1B questions are connected to many, but I'd argue the real scratcher is the path to adding the ace and who he bumps off the end.  I do not think they have much choice but to hope for positive regression from Porcello and health from Buch in their 2-3 slots.  Miley and Kelly are guys you'd like to see have positive value, then you've got to figure out to how continue bringing in the youth to the pitching staff.  Basically, the variance in those 4 dudes makes for the riskiest possible environment for trying out new young starters.
 
I think they don't need one ace at the top, they need 2 pitchers who slot in above Clay.  If they don't find 350 quality innings to add to the rotation from the outside, I think they're setting themselves up for rotation instability to submarine their chances again in 2016.  The rotation this year leaned heavily on projections of growth; they can't rely on that again next year.
 

Gash Prex

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 18, 2002
6,828
I have serious concerns about the direction that the Sox will now take - which includes any suggestion of trading Betts, X, E-Rod, etc....for a "quick fix" .  I don't have faith in any retread GMs like Frank Wren and I really hope they find somebody like Theo to take over.  I know its not popular, but I really wish Cherrington was still the GM since he comes from the Theo regime.  
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
Gash Prex said:
I have serious concerns about the direction that the Sox will now take - which includes any suggestion of trading Betts, X, E-Rod, etc....for a "quick fix" .  I don't have faith in any retread GMs like Frank Wren and I really hope they find somebody like Theo to take over.  I know its not popular, but I really wish Cherrington was still the GM since he comes from the Theo regime.  
 
I personally believe that the only way Betts or X gets traded is if someone like Gray becomes available, even then maybe not. Dombrowski does deserve a little benefit of the doubt here since he was under the gun the last few years in Detroit since the owner is about to die or has been on deaths door for about a good 10 years or something like that. People look at this in a vacuum, and you're entitled to do so. It's all about who exactly is going to be around Dombrowski that will define his tenure. Clearly, the international scouting department needs to stay by any means necessary. Honestly, invite them all over for dinner and lock the door until all new contracts are signed and the only exit clause is death. You can have an old school baseball approach and still embrace stats. Its just going to come down to who are the scouts and assistants are going forward. I think everyone is on the same page in regards to the Sox MLB evaluators needing a total overhaul. Baird needs to be shown the door today. But the people who they have watch the other 29 teams are missing something and they need to improve on it. 
 
I know its not necessarily popular, but Dombrowski has a tremendous track record with trades which is something the Sox sorely lack. He also has been under fire for not being able to construct a bullpen. The bullpen thing can be chalked up to bad luck for the most part. Detroit at one time had Joel Zumaya pegged as their future closer. If you remember Zumaya, when he was healthy could throw harder than anyone else in the league and could actually control it. Problem was that he was brittle and hurt himself in various ways. They have Rondon currently who might turn out decent, Feliz if he can figure it out was once a top closer, Wilson is a guy the Sox traded and probably regret it. 
 
The main point I would like to make is that a move like this was needed. While I wish Ben would have stayed on in the GM role, I would not have been comfortable with him or Henry/Werner running baseball ops. Especially since it looked like a few weeks back when Lucchino left that Werner was going to have more say over baseball ops. Dombrowski probably doesn't take this job without assurances from Henry/Werner that he has the final say on all baseball related issues. This type of arrangement would have happened with Theo if LL had stepped down a few years back. Obviously since a new GM is needed I feel that Dipoto would be an excellent candidate. Someone who has obviously been in the organization before and knows how Theo felt about types of players and could bring his ideas to Dombrowski and work together. This team is certainly not that far off and has greatly underachieved this season.
 
They need an ace and I think that this move actually increases the chances of someone like David Price coming here in 2016. If it saves the young talent currently on the 40 man roster then sign me up.  If signing Price stops the Sox from trading Moncada and Devers then why not? I think we are letting the last few years in Detroit cloud our collective judgement. Much like the situation Theo was in over his last few years here where the Sox strongly encouraged Theo to make moves that might not have been the best for the overall development of the team. 
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
JimBoSox9 said:
 
It really is just about this simple.  The batting lineup, barring our worst DD nightmares being realized in the offseason, really is starting to look like it could be something special for 3-5 years.  On the other hand, it really is stunning how every player acquired last offseason, particularly the starting rotation, just took their projections and shoved them up Cherington's ass.  The anti-2013.  Personally, I think I would have given this management team into the start of next year to prove they could get all this talent and resources marching in the right direction.  
 
Obviously (ahem) the Hanley and 1B questions are connected to many, but I'd argue the real scratcher is the path to adding the ace and who he bumps off the end.  I do not think they have much choice but to hope for positive regression from Porcello and health from Buch in their 2-3 slots.  Miley and Kelly are guys you'd like to see have positive value, then you've got to figure out to how continue bringing in the youth to the pitching staff.  Basically, the variance in those 4 dudes makes for the riskiest possible environment for trying out new young starters.
 
I think they don't need one ace at the top, they need 2 pitchers who slot in above Clay.  If they don't find 350 quality innings to add to the rotation from the outside, I think they're setting themselves up for rotation instability to submarine their chances again in 2016.  The rotation this year leaned heavily on projections of growth; they can't rely on that again next year.
 
Under Dombrowski, the Tigers were one-year wonders with an ace and a superb #3 hitter. They became a dominant team once they got two aces and two superb hitters hitting 3-4. This is also the formula used by the Theo.
 
The Sox have none of those things presently, except for the 40-year old DH who hits 4th. That's why they're in last place. 
 
Now, the Sox do have two handfuls of 20-25 year old kids with promise, who may yet become some of these things that great teams need. However, it's not going to happen overnight. Trying to build for 2016 ignores the trainwreck in the bullpen, the disaster of the left-side corner defense, and the sham for the rotation. 
 

yecul

appreciates irony very much
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 8, 2001
18,470
The team has talent, but is missing pieces. Everyone laments the lack of a top end starter. Let's see how small a problem that winds up being when DD gives out a big/long contract and/or trades from the deep system. It will be easy to put together a '16 winner, IMO. A key big FA or two. A few trades out of the system moving big prospects for the ML team.
 
Basically BC had worked to setup and not disturb the '16-'22 window with '16 being a step up. That window will be accelerated the window and shortened. That's my prediction. New leadership doesn't come in and wait, they push for short term immediate gain. 
 
The people who want success now will get it. They'll just complain about things in a few years instead of now.
 

Why Not Grebeck?

New Member
Feb 29, 2008
378
Just curious: why is everyone so scared of Frank Wren? The Upton/Uggla deals were bad, but they weren't really panned at the time. Can't you say the same thing about the Hanley/Sandoval deals that Cherington made?
 
Other than that, Wren cobbled together some pretty decent pitching (bullpen and rotation) out of nothing and signed most of Atlanta's young stars to long-term, team-centric contracts. For several years, that team was a couple of epic collapses away from deep post-season runs. That wasn't the GM's fault.
 
Is he very old school/stats-adverse or something? 
 

twibnotes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
20,232
yecul said:
Basically BC had worked to setup and not disturb the '16-'22 window with '16 being a step up. That window will be accelerated the window and shortened. That's my prediction.
I have three problems with this narrative:

1) while Ben was keeping the youth (an approach I liked), it's not true that he managed as though the window was '16+. They are spending a ton of money NOW, a lot of it poorly

2) even if you endorse the youth movement and the patience that needs to go with it, at some point you do need to bring in MLBers through trades and free agent signings. Ben did that well on that front once in four years. This past offseason may well be a historically bad one

3) this ownership is clearly set on having few, if any, bridge years. While I do hope dombrowski maintains much the farm, it's a pipe dream that any gm will be able to focus on a window a couple years out exclusively