SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
Brentz
Nov 13, 2017 23:00:15 GMT -5
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 13, 2017 23:00:15 GMT -5
I already can't remember which article I read that had it, but Dombrowski was quoted as saying that Farrell told him he wouldn't be able to guarantee ABs for Brentz, so the answer to the question is that Farrell didn't want Brentz around in September, not Dombrowski, which makes sense given that Dombrowski added Brentz back to the 40 man roster instead of getting rid of him.
One thing that doesn't bode well however is that when Dombrowski was mentioning possibilities for 1b behind Hanley if Hanley does wind up at 1b, he mentioned Blake Swihart and eventually Chavis, not Brentz, so maybe Brentz at 1b didn't work out so well?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 14, 2017 12:16:38 GMT -5
In September, Dombrowski's answer was that there was no room on the 40-man. That's demonstrably false (don't have Taylor pitch in 3 meaningless PawSox games and instead put him on the 60-day DL) and he's gone away from that explanation.
The reason now was that there weren't at-bats. Another bad answer. For one thing, there weren't at-bats for Tzu-Wei Lin, who got all of 6 in the month, playing in 6 games (all but one as a late-inning replacement), and they added him. "But he's versatile!" - so were Marrero and the not-yet-injured Nunez, and it's not like Lin was there to play CF. Heck, he'd have played even less if Nunez didn't get hurt.
Anyway, specific to Brentz, in September(/Oct. 1): Travis - 8 for 33, .242/.242/.273, 1 2B, 0 BB, 13 K; Young - 7 for 28, .250/.323/.357, 1 2B, 1 3B, 2 BB, 8 K (note both XBH were on 9/26, a 3/4 game without which his numbers are abysmal).
As I've said on the podcast (either the one from earlier in the month or the one that went up today), there absolutely was a spot there, even if it wasn't until the middle of the month, where Brentz could've gotten a shot to be the bench RHH in the playoffs. Compare with Lin, who was probably never making the postseason roster but still was added, or even, say, Blaine Boyer, although I wasn't nearly as in on the "Just DFA Boyer" argument some were.
And before Eric chimes in with the distraction thing, again, that's hogwash. If adding Rajai Davis and Sam Travis to the roster wasn't a distraction (both players who were competing with Young for the postseason roster, and the former who did beat him out for a spot as it turned out), the addition of Brentz wouldn't have been either. MLB players should understand that a guy who hit 31 HRs in AAA can help the team.
Unless Farrell said to Dombrowski something like "Dave, I do not want Bryce Brentz in the clubhouse. He's a horrible person, kicked my dog, and worships Satan," he should have been added to the roster. There was literally no downside except for having another body around a crowded clubhouse.
As far as I'm concerned, this is all post hoc rationalization. It wasn't a world-ending decision or anything, but it was an easy one and they messed it up.
|
|
|
Brentz
Nov 14, 2017 15:39:54 GMT -5
Post by jimed14 on Nov 14, 2017 15:39:54 GMT -5
In September, Dombrowski's answer was that there was no room on the 40-man. That's demonstrably false (don't have Taylor pitch in 3 meaningless PawSox games and instead put him on the 60-day DL) and he's gone away from that explanation. The reason now was that there weren't at-bats. Another bad answer. For one thing, there weren't at-bats for Tzu-Wei Lin, who got all of 6 in the month, playing in 6 games (all but one as a late-inning replacement), and they added him. "But he's versatile!" - so were Marrero and the not-yet-injured Nunez, and it's not like Lin was there to play CF. Heck, he'd have played even less if Nunez didn't get hurt. Anyway, specific to Brentz, in September(/Oct. 1): Travis - 8 for 33, .242/.242/.273, 1 2B, 0 BB, 13 K; Young - 7 for 28, .250/.323/.357, 1 2B, 1 3B, 2 BB, 8 K (note both XBH were on 9/26, a 3/4 game without which his numbers are abysmal). As I've said on the podcast (either the one from earlier in the month or the one that went up today), there absolutely was a spot there, even if it wasn't until the middle of the month, where Brentz could've gotten a shot to be the bench RHH in the playoffs. Compare with Lin, who was probably never making the postseason roster but still was added, or even, say, Blaine Boyer, although I wasn't nearly as in on the "Just DFA Boyer" argument some were. And before Eric chimes in with the distraction thing, again, that's hogwash. If adding Rajai Davis and Sam Travis to the roster wasn't a distraction (both players who were competing with Young for the postseason roster, and the former who did beat him out for a spot as it turned out), the addition of Brentz wouldn't have been either. MLB players should understand that a guy who hit 31 HRs in AAA can help the team. Unless Farrell said to Dombrowski something like "Dave, I do not want Bryce Brentz in the clubhouse. He's a horrible person, kicked my dog, and worships Satan," he should have been added to the roster. There was literally no downside except for having another body around a crowded clubhouse. As far as I'm concerned, this is all post hoc rationalization. It wasn't a world-ending decision or anything, but it was an easy one and they messed it up. I assume that DD was protecting JF with his explanations at that time. After the season, he was fired and the story changed a little. It is probably one of many little things that JF wouldn't listen to and part of the reason why he was gone. The main thing being the Price fiasco where they both made the owner look bad. Also, Lin should have been getting some time over Holt. And Brentz might have even been a better bench player for this team than Davis for the playoffs, considering Davis was not an automatic steal at this point of his career and that there aren't a lot of players that need to be PR for.
|
|
|
Brentz
Nov 14, 2017 17:12:15 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by jiant2520 on Nov 14, 2017 17:12:15 GMT -5
Agree with the last two posts on all points.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 15, 2017 10:57:52 GMT -5
Dombrowski told reporters yesterday that Brentz has the inside shot at the 4th OF job. This makes the decision not to add him in September all the more baffling - he not only could have helped you in the present, but you apparently see him as part of the club's future, so why not call him up? Kind of incredible.
This is indeed making me think, as others have suggested, that Farrell was being stubborn about it for... reasons?... and Dombrowski didn't want to die on that hill, which I kind of get. Still, from a practical perspective, Dombrowski absolutely could and arguably should have said, look, we're adding him, I'm not going to force you to use him, but this is happening.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 15, 2017 11:08:35 GMT -5
I'll be honest. "We're going to let the manager I've already decided to fire dictate my roster decisions" isn't a thought process I'm a fan of.
|
|
|
Brentz
Nov 15, 2017 11:14:55 GMT -5
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 15, 2017 11:14:55 GMT -5
I'll be honest. "We're going to let the manager I've already decided to fire dictate my roster decisions" isn't a thought process I'm a fan of. Agreed, but he may not have made that decision for certain, and based on what was reported, I doubt that this was the only debate between the two (see www.weei.com/articles/column/bradford-real-reason-dave-dombrowski-fired-john-farrell ). I wouldn't blame Dombrowski for leaving "we're adding Brentz to the roster" on the table if there were bigger fish to fry.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 15, 2017 11:30:28 GMT -5
Yep. It's just tough to take because Brentz so obviously fit the team's most glaring weakness.
And the other side of the same coin: if keeping Brentz off the roster was a hill Farrell was willing to (and arguably did!) die on, then he deserved to die on it.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Brentz
Nov 15, 2017 11:36:37 GMT -5
Post by ericmvan on Nov 15, 2017 11:36:37 GMT -5
In September, Dombrowski's answer was that there was no room on the 40-man. That's demonstrably false (don't have Taylor pitch in 3 meaningless PawSox games and instead put him on the 60-day DL) and he's gone away from that explanation. The reason now was that there weren't at-bats. Another bad answer. For one thing, there weren't at-bats for Tzu-Wei Lin, who got all of 6 in the month, playing in 6 games (all but one as a late-inning replacement), and they added him. "But he's versatile!" - so were Marrero and the not-yet-injured Nunez, and it's not like Lin was there to play CF. Heck, he'd have played even less if Nunez didn't get hurt. Anyway, specific to Brentz, in September(/Oct. 1): Travis - 8 for 33, .242/.242/.273, 1 2B, 0 BB, 13 K; Young - 7 for 28, .250/.323/.357, 1 2B, 1 3B, 2 BB, 8 K (note both XBH were on 9/26, a 3/4 game without which his numbers are abysmal). As I've said on the podcast (either the one from earlier in the month or the one that went up today), there absolutely was a spot there, even if it wasn't until the middle of the month, where Brentz could've gotten a shot to be the bench RHH in the playoffs. Compare with Lin, who was probably never making the postseason roster but still was added, or even, say, Blaine Boyer, although I wasn't nearly as in on the "Just DFA Boyer" argument some were. And before Eric chimes in with the distraction thing, again, that's hogwash. If adding Rajai Davis and Sam Travis to the roster wasn't a distraction (both players who were competing with Young for the postseason roster, and the former who did beat him out for a spot as it turned out), the addition of Brentz wouldn't have been either. MLB players should understand that a guy who hit 31 HRs in AAA can help the team. Unless Farrell said to Dombrowski something like "Dave, I do not want Bryce Brentz in the clubhouse. He's a horrible person, kicked my dog, and worships Satan," he should have been added to the roster. There was literally no downside except for having another body around a crowded clubhouse. As far as I'm concerned, this is all post hoc rationalization. It wasn't a world-ending decision or anything, but it was an easy one and they messed it up. Yes, Dombrowski lied to the media about the reason for Brentz's absence, because he wasn't going to go public with his disagreement with his manager. I said so at the time, so why are you puzzled now? Davis was a pinch-runner and Travis a backup 1B. I mean, seriously, all these guys were competing with a handful of pitchers, too. Brentz, like Young was a lefty-killing (alleged in Young's case) corner outfielder and questionable (bad, in Young's case) defender. They were the same player. And Farrel was adamant about playing the lesser guy, because he was a well-liked veteran. The obvious, unquestionable distraction would not have been among the players. In fact, I said that the young players on the team very likely would have rather seen Brentz do that job. It would have been over the evident disagreement between the GM and the manager, as it played out in the press (who would then take it to the clubhouse). Dombrowski has made it clear now that the only way that Brentz would have gotten at bats is if he had ordered Farrell to do so, and that's not what GMs do. DDo has all but said that Farrell's refusal to play Brentz was part of what cost him his job. There is certainly a sense in which "they" screwed this up royally, but "they" was John Farrell and he was fired. Imagine Garrett Morris shouting this next sentence as news for the hard-of-hearing. John Farrell told Dave Dombrowki that Bryce Brentz would not play if added to the roster (and presumably after DDo had tried to talk him into doing so). So, exactly why would it have been a good move to add him to the roster anyway? There is, quite demonstrably, nothing gained. All you get is three stories a week questioning why Bryce Brentz is not playing (well, one story by Speier questioning it, one by Abraham waffling on it, and one by Cafardo defending it). I mean, really. I explained at the time why Brentz hadn't been added to the roster, explained next why he would be protected from the Rule 5, and explained why he was the obvious candidate to take Young's job. All of this proved to be correct (and unsurprising to me and anyone who bought the logic), with an accuracy worthy of a Vegas magic act (I saw him put that piece of paper with the Dombrowski quote into the sealed envelope a month ago!) And people who disagreed then are still defending a form of their version.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Brentz
Nov 15, 2017 11:45:31 GMT -5
Post by ericmvan on Nov 15, 2017 11:45:31 GMT -5
Yep. It's just tough to take because Brentz so obviously fit the team's most glaring weakness. And the other side of the same coin: if keeping Brentz off the roster was a hill Farrell was willing to (and arguably did!) die on, then he deserved to die on it. One thing that's important to understand is that the odds of winning an extra game because you used Brentz instead of Young were low. Maybe even very low. But a manager makes ten or twenty of these 0.2 WAR decisions over the course of a season. They add up. We're not privy to all of the other times Farrell declined to do what the front office thought was the analytically superior thing. But the fact that he was fired, and replaced with an analytics lover, indicates that there were many of them. If you're looking for the final straw that broke the camel's back to the wall, it was almost certainly letting Sale go after strikeout 300. That was the Grady / Pedro moment. The Brentz thing was probably just one of many lesser frustrations endured along the way.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Nov 15, 2017 14:24:51 GMT -5
In September, Dombrowski's answer was that there was no room on the 40-man. That's demonstrably false (don't have Taylor pitch in 3 meaningless PawSox games and instead put him on the 60-day DL) and he's gone away from that explanation. The reason now was that there weren't at-bats. Another bad answer. For one thing, there weren't at-bats for Tzu-Wei Lin, who got all of 6 in the month, playing in 6 games (all but one as a late-inning replacement), and they added him. "But he's versatile!" - so were Marrero and the not-yet-injured Nunez, and it's not like Lin was there to play CF. Heck, he'd have played even less if Nunez didn't get hurt. Anyway, specific to Brentz, in September(/Oct. 1): Travis - 8 for 33, .242/.242/.273, 1 2B, 0 BB, 13 K; Young - 7 for 28, .250/.323/.357, 1 2B, 1 3B, 2 BB, 8 K (note both XBH were on 9/26, a 3/4 game without which his numbers are abysmal). As I've said on the podcast (either the one from earlier in the month or the one that went up today), there absolutely was a spot there, even if it wasn't until the middle of the month, where Brentz could've gotten a shot to be the bench RHH in the playoffs. Compare with Lin, who was probably never making the postseason roster but still was added, or even, say, Blaine Boyer, although I wasn't nearly as in on the "Just DFA Boyer" argument some were. And before Eric chimes in with the distraction thing, again, that's hogwash. If adding Rajai Davis and Sam Travis to the roster wasn't a distraction (both players who were competing with Young for the postseason roster, and the former who did beat him out for a spot as it turned out), the addition of Brentz wouldn't have been either. MLB players should understand that a guy who hit 31 HRs in AAA can help the team. Unless Farrell said to Dombrowski something like "Dave, I do not want Bryce Brentz in the clubhouse. He's a horrible person, kicked my dog, and worships Satan," he should have been added to the roster. There was literally no downside except for having another body around a crowded clubhouse. As far as I'm concerned, this is all post hoc rationalization. It wasn't a world-ending decision or anything, but it was an easy one and they messed it up. Yes, Dombrowski lied to the media about the reason for Brentz's absence, because he wasn't going to go public with his disagreement with his manager. I said so at the time, so why are you puzzled now? Davis was a pinch-runner and Travis a backup 1B. I mean, seriously, all these guys were competing with a handful of pitchers, too. Brentz, like Young was a lefty-killing (alleged in Young's case) corner outfielder and questionable (bad, in Young's case) defender. They were the same player. And Farrel was adamant about playing the lesser guy, because he was a well-liked veteran. The obvious, unquestionable distraction would not have been among the players. In fact, I said that the young players on the team very likely would have rather seen Brentz do that job. It would have been over the evident disagreement between the GM and the manager, as it played out in the press (who would then take it to the clubhouse). Dombrowski has made it clear now that the only way that Brentz would have gotten at bats is if he had ordered Farrell to do so, and that's not what GMs do. DDo has all but said that Farrell's refusal to play Brentz was part of what cost him his job. There is certainly a sense in which "they" screwed this up royally, but "they" was John Farrell and he was fired. Imagine Garrett Morris shouting this next sentence as news for the hard-of-hearing. John Farrell told Dave Dombrowki that Bryce Brentz would not play if added to the roster (and presumably after DDo had tried to talk him into doing so). So, exactly why would it have been a good move to add him to the roster anyway? There is, quite demonstrably, nothing gained. All you get is three stories a week questioning why Bryce Brentz is not playing (well, one story by Speier questioning it, one by Abraham waffling on it, and one by Cafardo defending it). I mean, really. I explained at the time why Brentz hadn't been added to the roster, explained next why he would be protected from the Rule 5, and explained why he was the obvious candidate to take Young's job. All of this proved to be correct (and unsurprising to me and anyone who bought the logic), with an accuracy worthy of a Vegas magic act (I saw him put that piece of paper with the Dombrowski quote into the sealed envelope a month ago!) And people who disagreed then are still defending a form of their version. Man, you're making me feel old now...I SAID - YOU'RE MAKING ME FEEL OLD NOW!
|
|
|
Brentz
Nov 15, 2017 14:27:55 GMT -5
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 15, 2017 14:27:55 GMT -5
Yes, Dombrowski lied to the media about the reason for Brentz's absence, because he wasn't going to go public with his disagreement with his manager. I said so at the time, so why are you puzzled now? Davis was a pinch-runner and Travis a backup 1B. I mean, seriously, all these guys were competing with a handful of pitchers, too. Brentz, like Young was a lefty-killing (alleged in Young's case) corner outfielder and questionable (bad, in Young's case) defender. They were the same player. And Farrel was adamant about playing the lesser guy, because he was a well-liked veteran. The obvious, unquestionable distraction would not have been among the players. In fact, I said that the young players on the team very likely would have rather seen Brentz do that job. It would have been over the evident disagreement between the GM and the manager, as it played out in the press (who would then take it to the clubhouse). Dombrowski has made it clear now that the only way that Brentz would have gotten at bats is if he had ordered Farrell to do so, and that's not what GMs do. DDo has all but said that Farrell's refusal to play Brentz was part of what cost him his job. There is certainly a sense in which "they" screwed this up royally, but "they" was John Farrell and he was fired. Imagine Garrett Morris shouting this next sentence as news for the hard-of-hearing. John Farrell told Dave Dombrowki that Bryce Brentz would not play if added to the roster (and presumably after DDo had tried to talk him into doing so). So, exactly why would it have been a good move to add him to the roster anyway? There is, quite demonstrably, nothing gained. All you get is three stories a week questioning why Bryce Brentz is not playing (well, one story by Speier questioning it, one by Abraham waffling on it, and one by Cafardo defending it). I mean, really. I explained at the time why Brentz hadn't been added to the roster, explained next why he would be protected from the Rule 5, and explained why he was the obvious candidate to take Young's job. All of this proved to be correct (and unsurprising to me and anyone who bought the logic), with an accuracy worthy of a Vegas magic act (I saw him put that piece of paper with the Dombrowski quote into the sealed envelope a month ago!) And people who disagreed then are still defending a form of their version. Man, you're making me feel old now...I SAID - YOU'RE MAKING ME FEEL OLD NOW! Me, too. Not sure how many get the reference.
|
|
|
Brentz
Nov 15, 2017 14:28:40 GMT -5
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 15, 2017 14:28:40 GMT -5
Eric,
Logic as to why he wasn't added then - It's stupid. We agree he should have been. I just can't believe Farrell would be that dumb and that he would even have an opinion on the matter.
Logic as to why he was protected - Again, it's dumb that he wasn't added.
Logic as to why he should take Young's job - I've agreed the whole time.
Only place we really disagree is the distraction thing.
|
|
|
Brentz
Nov 15, 2017 17:08:59 GMT -5
Post by ramireja on Nov 15, 2017 17:08:59 GMT -5
WEEI article with Dombrowski quote that Chris alluded to earlier...
|
|
|
Brentz
Nov 15, 2017 17:25:28 GMT -5
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 15, 2017 17:25:28 GMT -5
Interesting he goes Brentz and then Swihart. No mention of Castillo. Could mean nothing or it's a sign they just don't plan on using him do to the money.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Nov 15, 2017 18:01:17 GMT -5
Interesting he goes Brentz and then Swihart. No mention of Castillo. Could mean nothing or it's a sign they just don't plan on using him do to the money. From the same article (although, lets not discuss here....move over to the Rusney thread if anyone wants to discuss this quote):
|
|
|
Brentz
Nov 20, 2017 14:52:36 GMT -5
Post by patford on Nov 20, 2017 14:52:36 GMT -5
Can Brentz play 1B ?
|
|
|
Brentz
Nov 20, 2017 15:17:07 GMT -5
Post by mattpicard on Nov 20, 2017 15:17:07 GMT -5
From July: However, he never ended up getting into a game there, which isn't a great sign. So right now I'd say the answer to your question is "not really".
|
|
|
Brentz
Nov 20, 2017 15:44:03 GMT -5
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 20, 2017 15:44:03 GMT -5
Have heard the thing with Brentz was his own thing, rather than something the organization was working with him on. I believe it's been reported this offseason they may work him there in camp.
|
|
|
Brentz
Nov 20, 2017 16:23:59 GMT -5
Post by GyIantosca on Nov 20, 2017 16:23:59 GMT -5
Farrell's M.O. was always go with the veteran. I mean he sat Devers in game 2 vs the Astros. He made Xander move to 3b for friggin Drew. I think Lou Merloni said Jackie didn't get along with him. It just seemed like Farrell M.O. to go with the veterans. I know the team promoted the young kids but you have to look between the lines.
|
|
|
Brentz
Nov 20, 2017 18:45:24 GMT -5
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Nov 20, 2017 18:45:24 GMT -5
would love for Brentz to be a cheap power addition to next years club. I don't care if he strikes out 30% of his AB's, that's pretty standard for today's game. If he can get 300 AB's and hit 12-15 HR's, that would be a big help.
As far as the JF stuff, if this is remotely true, that is a bad look for the former manager.
|
|
|