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.
Ben Cherington to step down; Dave Dombrowski joins FO
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Aug 31, 2015 9:15:39 GMT -5
Its called good scouting, not waiting out. And we can wait out while guys like that pitch in the minors or the bullpen. I'm perfectly fine with hoping a guy has a breakout in the majors if he's already competent like Kluber (think Porcello) but if he's not good enough to be in your rotation, you dont leave him in your rotation in the hopes he figures it out. The Cardinals have had success using the bullpen as a "holding area" for their starters. Carlos Martinez, Lance Lynn, Shelby Miller, Adam Wainwright, and Joe Kelly all came out of the bullpen before they made their first start. The value of this strategy when executed correctly (as STL does but BOS may not have confidence in) is: 1. It gets the pitcher broken in facing MLB hitters without the team having to eat 100 innings of learning on the job 2. Relief pitchers are notoriously volatile and it saves the club some forays into that market On the flip side, St. Louis' strategy would burn a year of team control of these prospective starters as a relief pitcher, which seems like it would be unpalatable to the Red Sox. Hard to argue with the success though. And the Cardinals are competitive every year, like we should be. There's no reason this team shouldn't be in the playoffs nearly every year. Cherington didn't even get us close to the playoffs 3/4 years, and that's why he's gone. Completely deservedly.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Aug 31, 2015 9:30:04 GMT -5
This duality people are pushing between "Cherington and his wonderful patient long view" and "big bad irresponsible win-now Dombrowski" is just not accurate. Cherington made some very significant win-now moves. At the deadline he turned the two best arms on the trade market in Lester and Lackey into "MLB players" instead of prospects, and followed that up with perfectly unproductive outlay of $275M. Had BC been the model of patience and responsibility that some want to give him credit for... he'd still be here. At the end of the day the Red Sox are going to have to make productive moves at the MLB level to take the next step forwards. They're in a pretty big hole in that regard already thanks to Cherington's missteps. John Henry and co. probably see Dombrowski as the guy for that job. Agreed. But remember a lot of the nuance is lost because people are trying to find concise ways to express themselves. I also agree that Dombrowski is not the problem, and may actually be a saving grace; he's smart and John Henry trusts him. My concern is John Henry. There is mounting evidence that he brings an extreme "win-now" attitude. One need only look at the more patient approach Theo has taken in Chicago -- and the dividends that approach seems about to pay -- to see this. The combined departure of Larry Lucchino (who I suspect played a far more constructive role as broker between professional baseball people and an impatient owner) and of Cherington makes me fear Henry may be ready to abandon the former balance between win now and a more patient approach.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Aug 31, 2015 9:43:14 GMT -5
This duality people are pushing between "Cherington and his wonderful patient long view" and "big bad irresponsible win-now Dombrowski" is just not accurate. Cherington made some very significant win-now moves. At the deadline he turned the two best arms on the trade market in Lester and Lackey into "MLB players" instead of prospects, and followed that up with perfectly unproductive outlay of $275M. Had BC been the model of patience and responsibility that some want to give him credit for... he'd still be here. At the end of the day the Red Sox are going to have to make productive moves at the MLB level to take the next step forwards. They're in a pretty big hole in that regard already thanks to Cherington's missteps. John Henry and co. probably see Dombrowski as the guy for that job. Agreed. But remember a lot of the nuance is lost because people are trying to find concise ways to express themselves. I also agree that Dombrowski is not the problem, and may actually be a saving grace; he's smart and John Henry trusts him. My concern is John Henry. There is mounting evidence that he brings an extreme "win-now" attitude. One need only look at the more patient approach Theo has taken in Chicago -- and the dividends that approach seems about to pay -- to see this. The combined departure of Larry Lucchino (who I suspect played a far more constructive role as broker between professional baseball people and an impatient owner) and of Cherington makes me fear Henry may be ready to abandon the former balance between win now and a more patient approach. Theo took a patient approach in Chicago because he had close to zero talent on the major league roster, and overrated talent in the Farm system. That's not what he had when he got here and that's not what this team has now. The balanced approach is best. Don't trade tons of prospects for rentals or relievers, but be very willing to trade prospects for position players and starting pitchers on long term contracts, or guys you think you can extend. Theo had tons of success with this strategy. With it he acquired Curt Schilling,, Coco Crisp, Victor Martinez, and Jared Saltalamacchia and gave up nowhere near that in prospects. The one time he gave up more in prospects than he got was the Gonzalez trade, but it still netted him an elite 1B on a below market contract for 8 years.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Aug 31, 2015 10:02:40 GMT -5
Agreed. But remember a lot of the nuance is lost because people are trying to find concise ways to express themselves. I also agree that Dombrowski is not the problem, and may actually be a saving grace; he's smart and John Henry trusts him. My concern is John Henry. There is mounting evidence that he brings an extreme "win-now" attitude. One need only look at the more patient approach Theo has taken in Chicago -- and the dividends that approach seems about to pay -- to see this. The combined departure of Larry Lucchino (who I suspect played a far more constructive role as broker between professional baseball people and an impatient owner) and of Cherington makes me fear Henry may be ready to abandon the former balance between win now and a more patient approach. Theo took a patient approach in Chicago because he had close to zero talent on the major league roster, and overrated talent in the Farm system. That's not what he had when he got here and that's not what this team has now. The balanced approach is best. Don't trade tons of prospects for rentals or relievers, but be very willing to trade prospects for position players and starting pitchers on long term contracts, or guys you think you can extend. Theo had tons of success with this strategy. With it he acquired Curt Schilling,, Coco Crisp, Victor Martinez, and Jared Saltalamacchia and gave up nowhere near that in prospects. The one time he gave up more in prospects than he got was the Gonzalez trade, but it still netted him an elite 1B on a below market contract for 8 years. Actually the net WAR of prospects traded by the Red Sox over the last 15 years has far exceeded the WAR of veterans acquired (or if you add in contract extensions has slightly exceeded the veterans at a fraction of the cost). Feel free to look it up (I did). Also feel free to go to Fangraphs and see that the Red Sox will get 15 WAR from their young players this year but won't make the playoffs -- so another of your favorite assertions does not stand scrutiny. The Red Sox appear to be a 30 WAR team this year. They really don't need very much to be a wild card team. Toronto is a 50 WAR team. The Red Sox could mortgage their farm system and still not catch the Blue Jays. I don't see why investing in one of the FA aces out there and adding a few bullpen pieces and allowing our younger players another year to develop while competing for a wild card is such an unpalatable strategy to so many people.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Aug 31, 2015 10:15:00 GMT -5
Theo took a patient approach in Chicago because he had close to zero talent on the major league roster, and overrated talent in the Farm system. That's not what he had when he got here and that's not what this team has now. The balanced approach is best. Don't trade tons of prospects for rentals or relievers, but be very willing to trade prospects for position players and starting pitchers on long term contracts, or guys you think you can extend. Theo had tons of success with this strategy. With it he acquired Curt Schilling,, Coco Crisp, Victor Martinez, and Jared Saltalamacchia and gave up nowhere near that in prospects. The one time he gave up more in prospects than he got was the Gonzalez trade, but it still netted him an elite 1B on a below market contract for 8 years. Actually the net WAR of prospects traded by the Red Sox over the last 15 years has far exceeded the WAR of veterans acquired (or if you add in contract extensions has slightly exceeded the veterans at a fraction of the cost). Feel free to look it up (I did). Also feel free to go to Fangraphs and see that the Red Sox will get 15 WAR from their young players this year but won't make the playoffs -- so another of your favorite assertions does not stand scrutiny. The Red Sox appear to be a 30 WAR team this year. They really don't need very much to be a wild card team. Toronto is a 50 WAR team. The Red Sox could mortgage their farm system and still not catch the Blue Jays. I don't see why investing in one of the FA aces out there and adding a few bullpen pieces and allowing our younger players another year to develop while competing for a wild card is such an unpalatable strategy to so many people. I was asking about Epstein. I'm pretty sure the veterans he acquired for prospects have outperformed the prospects by a lot. Cherington gave up Iglesias and Lajoie/Shipley/Cherington/Hoyer/Luchhino have up Hanley and Anibal, even though those weren't bad trades, but Theo gave up very few quality prospects and got many quality prospects in return
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 31, 2015 10:16:01 GMT -5
Actually the net WAR of prospects traded by the Red Sox over the last 15 years has far exceeded the WAR of veterans acquired (or if you add in contract extensions has slightly exceeded the veterans at a fraction of the cost). Feel free to look it up (I did). Also feel free to go to Fangraphs and see that the Red Sox will get 15 WAR from their young players this year but won't make the playoffs -- so another of your favorite assertions does not stand scrutiny. The Red Sox appear to be a 30 WAR team this year. They really don't need very much to be a wild card team. Toronto is a 50 WAR team. The Red Sox could mortgage their farm system and still not catch the Blue Jays. I don't see why investing in one of the FA aces out there and adding a few bullpen pieces and allowing our younger players another year to develop while competing for a wild card is such an unpalatable strategy to so many people. I was asking about Epstein. I'm pretty sure the veterans he acquired for prospects have outperformed the prospects by a lot. Cherington gave up Iglesias and Lajoie/Shipley/Cherington/Hoyer/Luchhino have up Hanley and Anibal, even though those weren't bad trades, but Theo gave up very few quality prospects and got many quality prospects in return Maybe you forgot what he left the team with, but that's what happens when you do what he did for too long. And he's not doing it in Chicago now. He's hoarding his prospects there, because he realized how the lack of steroids, the extra wild card spot and the unbelievable parity has changed the game completely from what worked until a few years before he left Boston.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Aug 31, 2015 10:28:07 GMT -5
I was asking about Epstein. I'm pretty sure the veterans he acquired for prospects have outperformed the prospects by a lot. Cherington gave up Iglesias and Lajoie/Shipley/Cherington/Hoyer/Luchhino have up Hanley and Anibal, even though those weren't bad trades, but Theo gave up very few quality prospects and got many quality prospects in return Maybe you forgot what he left the team with, but that's what happens when you do what he did for too long. And he's not doing it in Chicago now. He's hoarding his prospects there, because he realized how the lack of steroids, the extra wild card spot and the unbelievable parity has changed the game completely from what worked until a few years before he left Boston. He hoarded his prospects in Chicago because the team sucked. He needed to build from the ground up. And Theo left the team with plenty of talent, both young talented major leaguers and an amazing 2011 draft and good international signings. His undoing was actually the big signings people are suggesting to do now in order to keep the prospects! In terms of young, cheap talent, Theo left the team with Reddick, Lowrie, WMB, Iglesias, Bogaerts, Bradley, Betts, Owens, Swihart, Workman and Margot. I'm suggesting a balanced approach. What do you guys want? Never trade prospects? We saw how that worked out with Cherington.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Aug 31, 2015 10:32:34 GMT -5
Actually the net WAR of prospects traded by the Red Sox over the last 15 years has far exceeded the WAR of veterans acquired (or if you add in contract extensions has slightly exceeded the veterans at a fraction of the cost). Feel free to look it up (I did). Also feel free to go to Fangraphs and see that the Red Sox will get 15 WAR from their young players this year but won't make the playoffs -- so another of your favorite assertions does not stand scrutiny. The Red Sox appear to be a 30 WAR team this year. They really don't need very much to be a wild card team. Toronto is a 50 WAR team. The Red Sox could mortgage their farm system and still not catch the Blue Jays. I don't see why investing in one of the FA aces out there and adding a few bullpen pieces and allowing our younger players another year to develop while competing for a wild card is such an unpalatable strategy to so many people.That is a palatable strategy. So here is my question to you - does Cherington's track record suggest that he is the man to be handing out a $200M contract to a free agent pitcher? Does his track record in identifying bullpen arms on other teams look like he is the guy who is going to rebuild the bullpen? People are painting false equivalencies between Dombrowski and 'win-now', and between Cherington and 'sustainable development'. Perhaps the hire of Dombrowski was Henry, Werner and co. laying the groundwork for precisely the kind of offseason you want to see so badly?
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Aug 31, 2015 10:59:18 GMT -5
This is the best analysis I've read of what's gone down. People ready to criticize Cherrington every which way need to look no further than the product on the field right now. The construction of the pitching staff was certainly questionable. But when it comes to the position players, Cherrington had a hand in building a lot of what we see. These days, that looks pretty good. All this talk reminds me that Cherington didn't even give us most of the position players! C Swihart (Theo) Hanigan (Cherington) 1B Shaw (Theo) 2B Pedroia (Theo) Holt (Cherington) 3B Sandoval (Cherington) SS Xander (Theo) LF Hanley (Cherington signed him) De Aza (Cherington) CF Mookie (Theo) Bradley Jr. (Theo) RF Rusney (Cherington) DH Ortiz (Theo) So basically, Cherington gave us the two most overpaid guys on the team, plus Rusney, Hanigan Holt and De Aza. Theo gave us all the guys who are playing well right now plus the best pitcher on the team. So thank you Cherington for 2013, and a couple of your international signings look good right now, but who knows, but you did nothing else well, so no, I will not miss Ben Cherington one bit. Not a great drafter, and a horrible major league GM
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Aug 31, 2015 11:01:22 GMT -5
Actually the net WAR of prospects traded by the Red Sox over the last 15 years has far exceeded the WAR of veterans acquired (or if you add in contract extensions has slightly exceeded the veterans at a fraction of the cost). Feel free to look it up (I did). Also feel free to go to Fangraphs and see that the Red Sox will get 15 WAR from their young players this year but won't make the playoffs -- so another of your favorite assertions does not stand scrutiny. The Red Sox appear to be a 30 WAR team this year. They really don't need very much to be a wild card team. Toronto is a 50 WAR team. The Red Sox could mortgage their farm system and still not catch the Blue Jays. I don't see why investing in one of the FA aces out there and adding a few bullpen pieces and allowing our younger players another year to develop while competing for a wild card is such an unpalatable strategy to so many people.That is a palatable strategy. So here is my question to you - does Cherington's track record suggest that he is the man to be handing out a $200M contract to a free agent pitcher? Does his track record in identifying bullpen arms on other teams look like he is the guy who is going to rebuild the bullpen? People are painting false equivalencies between Dombrowski and 'win-now', and between Cherington and 'sustainable development'. Perhaps the hire of Dombrowski was Henry, Werner and co. laying the groundwork for precisely the kind of offseason you want to see so badly? Again I agree with you. I have advocated for weeks for adding someone much like Dombrowski to do exactly these things. I also do not think it's a given that Dombrowski will trade away the farm. However that doesn't change my opinion that based in what we now know it appears that John Henry (a) engages in a lot of short-term thinking and (b) injects himself into baseball ops a lot more than people think. I don't think he brought Dombrowski in to execute the reasonably conservative strategy I just outlined, although Dombrowski may decide to do exactly that. Finally although it may appear that way, I am not opposed to trading prospects. What I am opposed to is thinking of them as "trade chips". When you trade prospects for veterans it is normally a "sell-low" "buy high" transaction. It is not a well you should be visiting very often.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Aug 31, 2015 11:09:39 GMT -5
That is a palatable strategy. So here is my question to you - does Cherington's track record suggest that he is the man to be handing out a $200M contract to a free agent pitcher? Does his track record in identifying bullpen arms on other teams look like he is the guy who is going to rebuild the bullpen? People are painting false equivalencies between Dombrowski and 'win-now', and between Cherington and 'sustainable development'. Perhaps the hire of Dombrowski was Henry, Werner and co. laying the groundwork for precisely the kind of offseason you want to see so badly? Again I agree with you. I have advocated for weeks for adding someone much like Dombrowski to do exactly these things. I also do not think it's a given that Dombrowski will trade away the farm. However that doesn't change my opinion that based in what we now know it appears that John Henry (a) engages in a lot of short-term thinking and (b) injects himself into baseball ops a lot more than people think. I don't think he brought Dombrowski in to execute the reasonably conservative strategy I just outlined, although Dombrowski may decide to do exactly that. Finally although it may appear that way, I am not opposed to trading prospects. What I am opposed to is thinking of them as "trade chips". When you trade prospects for veterans it is normally a "sell-low" "buy high" transaction. It is not a well you should be visiting very often.Dombrowski trade record Year Trades Made bWAR Traded bWAR Acquired Difference 2001 1 4.2 6.7 +2.5 2002 9 0.8 16.4 +15.6 2003 3 5.1 7.0 +1.9 2004 3 7.7 18.0 +10.3 2005 5 1.0 30.5 +29.5 2006 3 -0.7 2.3 +3.0 2007 12 33.4 24.7 -8.7 2008 6 13.0 16.3 +3.3 2009 4 19.4 38.2 +18.8 2010 2 -0.6 9.0 +9.6 2011 6 -0.1 9.0 +9.1 2012 4 1.3 10.8 +9.5 Total 58 84.5 188.9 +104.4 Edit:It didn't come out too well, I'll fix it later
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Aug 31, 2015 11:12:10 GMT -5
This is the best analysis I've read of what's gone down. People ready to criticize Cherrington every which way need to look no further than the product on the field right now. The construction of the pitching staff was certainly questionable. But when it comes to the position players, Cherrington had a hand in building a lot of what we see. These days, that looks pretty good. All this talk reminds me that Cherington didn't even give us most of the position players! C Swihart (Theo) Hanigan (Cherington) 1B Shaw (Theo) 2B Pedroia (Theo) Holt (Cherington) 3B Sandoval (Cherington) SS Xander (Theo) LF Hanley (Cherington signed him) De Aza (Cherington) CF Mookie (Theo) Bradley Jr. (Theo) RF Rusney (Cherington) DH Ortiz (Theo) So basically, Cherington gave us the two most overpaid guys on the team, plus Rusney, Hanigan Holt and De Aza. Theo gave us all the guys who are playing well right now plus the best pitcher on the team. So thank you Cherington for 2013, and a couple of your international signings look good right now, but who knows, but you did nothing else well, so no, I will not miss Ben Cherington one bit. Not a great drafter, and a horrible major league GM For what it's worth, I think you may be attributing way too much of amateur player procurement to the general manager. When it comes to the draft, the GM is usually only involved in the first round or maybe two. I sincerely doubt that Theo Esptein had seen Shaw, Bogaerts, or Betts play before the team signed them, save perhaps for a private workout. Could probably say the same for Cherington with Holt, as he was likely relying on his pro scouts on who the second Pirate in that deal should be.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Aug 31, 2015 11:16:50 GMT -5
All this talk reminds me that Cherington didn't even give us most of the position players! C Swihart (Theo) Hanigan (Cherington) 1B Shaw (Theo) 2B Pedroia (Theo) Holt (Cherington) 3B Sandoval (Cherington) SS Xander (Theo) LF Hanley (Cherington signed him) De Aza (Cherington) CF Mookie (Theo) Bradley Jr. (Theo) RF Rusney (Cherington) DH Ortiz (Theo) So basically, Cherington gave us the two most overpaid guys on the team, plus Rusney, Hanigan Holt and De Aza. Theo gave us all the guys who are playing well right now plus the best pitcher on the team. So thank you Cherington for 2013, and a couple of your international signings look good right now, but who knows, but you did nothing else well, so no, I will not miss Ben Cherington one bit. Not a great drafter, and a horrible major league GM For what it's worth, I think you may be attributing way too much of amateur player procurement to the general manager. When it comes to the draft, the GM is usually only involved in the first round or maybe two. I sincerely doubt that Theo Esptein had seen Shaw, Bogaerts, or Betts play before the team signed them, save perhaps for a private workout. Could probably say the same for Cherington with Holt, as he was likely relying on his pro scouts on who the second Pirate in that deal should be. Betts was also attributed to neuroscouting, and Theo may have had something to do with that, but alright. That wasn't my point anyway. Don't give credit to Theo if you don't want to. But don't give credit to Cherington either like people were doing.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 31, 2015 11:50:14 GMT -5
For what it's worth, I think you may be attributing way too much of amateur player procurement to the general manager. When it comes to the draft, the GM is usually only involved in the first round or maybe two. I sincerely doubt that Theo Esptein had seen Shaw, Bogaerts, or Betts play before the team signed them, save perhaps for a private workout. Could probably say the same for Cherington with Holt, as he was likely relying on his pro scouts on who the second Pirate in that deal should be. Betts was also attributed to neuroscouting, and Theo may have had something to do with that, but alright. That wasn't my point anyway. Don't give credit to Theo if you don't want to. But don't give credit to Cherington either like people were doing. You CAN credit Cherington for not trading them away. It wasn't long ago that some fans wanted to trade Bogaerts for Cliff Lee. He said no to trading Betts and/or Swihart for Hamels too. If DDo builds another championship team, Cherington is going to wind up getting a lot of credit for it because of what he has left him.
|
|
|
Post by pokeefe363 on Aug 31, 2015 12:10:21 GMT -5
Actually the net WAR of prospects traded by the Red Sox over the last 15 years has far exceeded the WAR of veterans acquired (or if you add in contract extensions has slightly exceeded the veterans at a fraction of the cost). Feel free to look it up (I did). Also feel free to go to Fangraphs and see that the Red Sox will get 15 WAR from their young players this year but won't make the playoffs -- so another of your favorite assertions does not stand scrutiny. The Red Sox appear to be a 30 WAR team this year. They really don't need very much to be a wild card team. Toronto is a 50 WAR team. The Red Sox could mortgage their farm system and still not catch the Blue Jays. I don't see why investing in one of the FA aces out there and adding a few bullpen pieces and allowing our younger players another year to develop while competing for a wild card is such an unpalatable strategy to so many people.That is a palatable strategy. So here is my question to you - does Cherington's track record suggest that he is the man to be handing out a $200M contract to a free agent pitcher? Does his track record in identifying bullpen arms on other teams look like he is the guy who is going to rebuild the bullpen? People are painting false equivalencies between Dombrowski and 'win-now', and between Cherington and 'sustainable development'. Perhaps the hire of Dombrowski was Henry, Werner and co. laying the groundwork for precisely the kind of offseason you want to see so badly? Here's my problem with this entire discussion, everyone is assuming that it's some kind of player development wizard to figure out which $200+ million contract will workout. News flash: None of them workout when you're signing guys in their 30's. If you're going to do it, it's gotta be for someone younger. Price and Cueto will almost certainly be bad contracts. If you really want to look at this like a business, you sell high buy low and reduce risk. Buchholz, Uehara, and Holt almost certainly should've been traded back in June for a lot, which many were highly averse to. I think Buchholz could've fetched Schwarber at the time to fill our 1B hole. Looking at this strategy now, Sonny Gray could be a target by using guys like Margot who is being given a huge benefit of the doubt due to age. The Mets also may undervalue a starter as they showed by their willingness to give-up Wheeler for short-term assets. With either Gray or a Mets starter, you'd be gaining 3+ years of control for an ace without the risk of the downside. Getting really creative, Jason Heyward would be an interesting target if Rusney Castillo has value on the trade market for a starter (to the NYM most likely). This depends on how much money Heyward will cost, but if it's within reason, he'd be a far lower risk than other guys on the market. Before anyone says Carl Crawford, Heyward is a RF, has a much better track record, and is younger.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Aug 31, 2015 12:34:24 GMT -5
I'm not really sure why people need things to be so black and white. Cherington's more responsible than anyone for the player development system in place and revamped the international development system, two of the biggest factors in the current wealth of talent in the lower minors. He prioritized building a strong foundation for multiple years' successes, only trading away at the margins of the system and the upper minors. He kept Sawdaye's amateur scouting system in place and let Sawdaye draft pretty well.
AND, his regime - outside of an incredible 2012-2013 offseason that was the GM equivalent of throwing a perfect game - got terrible results from professional scouting, really let the pitching staff atrophy, and guided the team to a last place finish last year and a last place current status this year. He did some good things, some bad, but results are results, and he didn't provide them at the major league level.
Theo, otoh, made shrewd moves when he first got here (Ortiz, Mueller, etc) but then also had some trouble with free agent pick ups (Renteria, Lugo, Crawford), drafted really well but stubbornly stuck with a Shipley-led international system that underperformed markedly, etc, etc. He left the team in pretty poor shape, with a bloated, inflexible payroll and little in the way of near- or medium-term help on the horizon.
I do think the question of impatience and meddling at ownership is a valid one, though. Theo clearly had a problem with it, and Ben said that "sometimes most" of his time was spent dealing with ownership. One possible benefit of bringing someone in with the stature of Dombrowski (and with the subtraction of Lucchino) is that he clearly demanded a level of independence and control over baseball ops that the other guys didn't have.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Aug 31, 2015 12:44:16 GMT -5
I'm not really sure why people need things to be so black and white. Cherington's more responsible than anyone for the player development system in place and revamped the international development system, two of the biggest factors in the current wealth of talent in the lower minors. He prioritized building a strong foundation for multiple years' successes, only trading away at the margins of the system and the upper minors. He kept Sawdaye's amateur scouting system in place and let Sawdaye draft pretty well. AND, his regime - outside of an incredible 2012-2013 offseason that was the GM equivalent of throwing a perfect game - got terrible results from professional scouting, really let the pitching staff atrophy, and guided the team to a last place finish last year and a last place current status this year. He did some good things, some bad, but results are results, and he didn't provide them at the major league level. Theo, otoh, made shrewd moves when he first got here (Ortiz, Mueller, etc) but then also had some trouble with free agent pick ups (Renteria, Lugo, Crawford), drafted really well but stubbornly stuck with a Shipley-led international system that underperformed markedly, etc, etc. He left the team in pretty poor shape, with a bloated, inflexible payroll and little in the way of near- or medium-term help on the horizon. I do think the question of impatience and meddling at ownership is a valid one, though. Theo clearly had a problem with it, and Ben said that "sometimes most" of his time was spent dealing with ownership. One possible benefit of bringing someone in with the stature of Dombrowski (and with the subtraction of Lucchino) is that he clearly demanded a level of independence and control over baseball ops that the other guys didn't have. The no near or medium term help thing is simply false. Theo left Ben with Reddick, Lowrie and Iglesias. It's not Theo's fault Ben traded all of them away.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Aug 31, 2015 12:46:31 GMT -5
Betts was also attributed to neuroscouting, and Theo may have had something to do with that, but alright. That wasn't my point anyway. Don't give credit to Theo if you don't want to. But don't give credit to Cherington either like people were doing. You CAN credit Cherington for not trading them away. It wasn't long ago that some fans wanted to trade Bogaerts for Cliff Lee. He said no to trading Betts and/or Swihart for Hamels too. If DDo builds another championship team, Cherington is going to wind up getting a lot of credit for it because of what he has left him. Okay, but he didn't trade anyone away. It's not like he traded away the Ranaudo's and the Brittons and the Cecchinis while holding on to the best guys. He just didn't trade anyone. Theo usually traded away guys who didn't end up that good other than Rizzo. He traded Andy Marte at the height of his value and all of those prospects in the Schilling trade. If DD builds a championship team, Ill give a lot of credit to The for actually getting the guys, and close to none to Ben for just sitting on his hands while the team sucked 3/4 years
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Aug 31, 2015 13:19:54 GMT -5
Here's my problem with this entire discussion, everyone is assuming that it's some kind of player development wizard to figure out which $200+ million contract will workout. News flash: None of them workout when you're signing guys in their 30's. If you're going to do it, it's gotta be for someone younger. Price and Cueto will almost certainly be bad contracts.
If you really want to look at this like a business, you sell high buy low and reduce risk. Buchholz, Uehara, and Holt almost certainly should've been traded back in June for a lot, which many were highly averse to. I think Buchholz could've fetched Schwarber at the time to fill our 1B hole. Looking at this strategy now, Sonny Gray could be a target by using guys like Margot who is being given a huge benefit of the doubt due to age. The Mets also may undervalue a starter as they showed by their willingness to give-up Wheeler for short-term assets. With either Gray or a Mets starter, you'd be gaining 3+ years of control for an ace without the risk of the downside. Getting really creative, Jason Heyward would be an interesting target if Rusney Castillo has value on the trade market for a starter (to the NYM most likely). This depends on how much money Heyward will cost, but if it's within reason, he'd be a far lower risk than other guys on the market. Before anyone says Carl Crawford, Heyward is a RF, has a much better track record, and is younger. Obviously none will work out in a purely academic, $/WAR sense. You do it if you think front-end pitching is an essential ingredient, and that you don't have palatable trade options. The riskiest thing you can do if you're a sports franchise is miss out on a great team. Here's the thing. You can't avoid risk, you have to balance risk mitigation with being in a position to win the pennant as best as you can. The Red Sox in the past two offseasons have absorbed substantial non-aging related risk in the name of competing without paying older pitchers. They've risked $95M on Sandoval's obesity, $88M on Ramirez's ability to change positions and stay healthy, $82.5M on Porcello's metamorphosis, and $72.5M on Castillo's ability to be a major league player. The Red Sox have made a policy out of avoiding a specific model of risk they feel confident in projecting. That is fine until you fail to find impact in the "asset pool" you see as undervalued. Short of tapping out of the sport and becoming the Tampa Bay Rays, any effort to improve the team is going to be risky. In 2013 the Red Sox signed a declining, broken down OF for $39M, a marginal inning-eating RHP for $39M, and a catcher with a degenerative hip condition to play first base. And... it worked. This is why I don't think you can simply "look at baseball like a business". There are parallels but at the end of the day you can't. Business performance is proportional to profits, while a sports franchise derives infinitely more value from finishing 1st than any other position. Put another way, if the 2013 Red Sox were a business they'd be looking at a huge loss on Shane Victorino. But they're a sports team, and flags fly forever. Furthermore, I think that in talking about players as assets to buy low or sell high, you are ascribing too much variance too their valuations. I don't think professional GMs are going to look at 2 months of Buchholz or Holt and just throw out the book on them. Theo Epstein isn't going to think Clay Buchholz is a whole new player just because he's healthy for two months. Clay is a very good pitcher who doesn't throw a lot of innings, he's been a very good pitcher who doesn't throw a lot of innings, and other than looking like he might be done last year his value probably hasn't changed much in any direction. As for the specific moves, if either of the plans you submitted actually happens, I'll be absolutely thrilled.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 31, 2015 13:21:43 GMT -5
Betts was also attributed to neuroscouting, and Theo may have had something to do with that, but alright. That wasn't my point anyway. Don't give credit to Theo if you don't want to. But don't give credit to Cherington either like people were doing. You CAN credit Cherington for not trading them away. It wasn't long ago that some fans wanted to trade Bogaerts for Cliff Lee. He said no to trading Betts and/or Swihart for Hamels too. If DDo builds another championship team, Cherington is going to wind up getting a lot of credit for it because of what he has left him. Just like everyone fell all over themselves to give Duquette credit for the 2004 team? Sadly, the history will largely be written by sportswriters, most of whom will credit Dombrowski for righting a team that was among the very worst in 3 of Cherington's 4 years.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 31, 2015 13:29:28 GMT -5
You CAN credit Cherington for not trading them away. It wasn't long ago that some fans wanted to trade Bogaerts for Cliff Lee. He said no to trading Betts and/or Swihart for Hamels too. If DDo builds another championship team, Cherington is going to wind up getting a lot of credit for it because of what he has left him. Just like everyone fell all over themselves to give Duquette credit for the 2004 team? Sadly, the history will largely be written by sportswriters, most of whom will credit Dombrowski for righting a team that was among the very worst in 3 of Cherington's 4 years. Fine if we want to be ridiculous like that, then people should at least just give Cherington credit for 2013 and shut up about it. You can't just hate on a guy, blame him for everything that went wrong and give credit to others for what went right. This is getting ridiculous. We have the top farm system in the majors right now and won a WS two years ago. Thanks Ben Cherington.
|
|
|
Post by Smittyw on Aug 31, 2015 13:53:12 GMT -5
You CAN credit Cherington for not trading them away. It wasn't long ago that some fans wanted to trade Bogaerts for Cliff Lee. He said no to trading Betts and/or Swihart for Hamels too. If DDo builds another championship team, Cherington is going to wind up getting a lot of credit for it because of what he has left him. Just like everyone fell all over themselves to give Duquette credit for the 2004 team? Sadly, the history will largely be written by sportswriters, most of whom will credit Dombrowski for righting a team that was among the very worst in 3 of Cherington's 4 years. I don't know if this was meant as sarcasm, but I do remember a lot of discussion about exactly how much credit Duquette deserved for the 2004 team. I don't know why it has to be 100% or nothing. If the Red Sox win a World Series in 2017 or 2018 with Cherington's young core plus whatever Dombro has brought in to supplement it, it stands to reason that Ben would deserve some partial share of the credit for that win.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Aug 31, 2015 14:02:16 GMT -5
Just like everyone fell all over themselves to give Duquette credit for the 2004 team? Sadly, the history will largely be written by sportswriters, most of whom will credit Dombrowski for righting a team that was among the very worst in 3 of Cherington's 4 years. I don't know if this was meant as sarcasm, but I do remember a lot of discussion about exactly how much credit Duquette deserved for the 2004 team. I don't know why it has to be 100% or nothing. If the Red Sox win a World Series in 2017 or 2018 with Cherington's young core plus whatever Dombro has brought in to supplement it, it stands to reason that Ben would deserve some partial share of the credit for that win. Ahem, Theo's young core
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 31, 2015 14:06:54 GMT -5
I don't know if this was meant as sarcasm, but I do remember a lot of discussion about exactly how much credit Duquette deserved for the 2004 team. I don't know why it has to be 100% or nothing. If the Red Sox win a World Series in 2017 or 2018 with Cherington's young core plus whatever Dombro has brought in to supplement it, it stands to reason that Ben would deserve some partial share of the credit for that win. Ahem, Theo's young core He might be talking about Rodriguez, Devers, Moncada, Espinoza, Kopech and Benintendi too.
|
|
|
Post by Smittyw on Aug 31, 2015 14:10:04 GMT -5
I don't know if this was meant as sarcasm, but I do remember a lot of discussion about exactly how much credit Duquette deserved for the 2004 team. I don't know why it has to be 100% or nothing. If the Red Sox win a World Series in 2017 or 2018 with Cherington's young core plus whatever Dombro has brought in to supplement it, it stands to reason that Ben would deserve some partial share of the credit for that win. Ahem, Theo's young core I'll borrow from JimEd's post above: So yeah, credit to Theo for what he left Ben with, but also to Ben for being patient with those kids and not trading them away for a stupid attempt at a quick fix.
|
|
|