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 michael on Sept 8, 2015 15:29:16 GMT -5
I'm not doing this to change anyone's mind, but guidas's post in the other thread got me thinking of this ... when Cherington assumed power, Anthony Rizzo was already gone. So, for him, the draft classes of 2007-2010 produced almost nothing. Christian Vazquez is basically it, and he got hurt before he could rack up some real positive WAR, so in a sense, even he didn't help Cherington. And, from Latin America & the Caribbean, the only thing between Anibal Sanchez in 2001 and Xander Bogaerts in 2009 is basically Felix Doubront (plus some marginal value in Stolmy Pimentel and a couple others who were gone by the time Cherington took over). So he got really nothing from IFAs outside of Tazawa, and nothing from the drafts relevant to his time. This is the talent gap the Sox had to deal with during Cherington's reign. His 3+ years coincided almost exactly with the years that 2007-2010 draft (and slightly earlier IFA classes) should have been putting up mid-career WAR numbers in Boston. Now, there were some good players in Boston that he got the benefit of, but when people talk about the lull in the system, this is what it's about. Of course, then Sawdaye - after his meh 2010 draft - took a mysterious trip to a crossroads in Mississippi and came back to draft the 2011 class ... which laid the foundation of the current team, and Romero rebuilt the IFA system, which laid the foundations for the current talent-rich system in the lower levels. Mississippi? You mean it was voodoo?
|
|
|
Post by bosox81 on Sept 8, 2015 15:36:57 GMT -5
Cherington got extremely lucky then extremely unlucky. I mean, he signed all the right free agents that one season and everyone played beyond expectations to bring in the WS. This season it's the opposite. Every FA played below expectations. And to make matters worse, as soon as he stepped down Porcello turned things around.
You can think about it like this. If Ben had a well-spread-out amount of luckiness through his tenure, the Red Sox would not have won the 2013 WS and Ben might still have a job right now.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Sept 8, 2015 15:40:18 GMT -5
What is all of this revisionist history regarding Cherington's achievements? Xander signed in 2009. Swihart, Bradley, Betts, Shaw and Owens (as well as Barnes and Noe) all came out of the 2011 draft. ALL of these guys were acquired under Theo's watch. Whatever this group accomplishes is a credit to Theo NOT Cherington. Well, then Cherington can't win at this game. If you give credit to everyone in the system before he got here, then he simply didn't have time to build up a roster of contributors to the major league roster. But if you criticize him for not fielding a good enough major league roster, then you can't ignore the fact that he could've traded all of those guys away for a better roster this year and last. Besides, we probably should credit Sawdaye with acquiring those players more than either Theo or Cherington. Oh he absolutely can win. He could've started with not signing 2 players for 180 million that are more than 2 wins below replacement. He also could've traded several of the flameouts we had before they lost their value. He also could've traded some of the current prospects for MLB players, but the man was terrible at evaluating talent, so he had no idea which prospect to trade so he just kept him all. Now he's gone and we're better for it. I have no idea why people are falling over their heels to give Cherington so much credit.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,825
|
Post by nomar on Sept 8, 2015 16:40:55 GMT -5
Cherington got extremely lucky then extremely unlucky. I mean, he signed all the right free agents that one season and everyone played beyond expectations to bring in the WS. This season it's the opposite. Every FA played below expectations. And to make matters worse, as soon as he stepped down Porcello turned things around. You can think about it like this. If Ben had a well-spread-out amount of luckiness through his tenure, the Red Sox would not have won the 2013 WS and Ben might still have a job right now. I think one critique you could make is that Porcello should have been phantom DL'd like 5+ starts before he was. But no projection would've had Hanley or Sandoval this bad.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Sept 8, 2015 16:47:32 GMT -5
Brian nailed this yesterday: Organizations are made up of multiple people with, hopefully, complementary skills.
The Red Sox were (and the Cubs are) fortunate to have had both Theo Epstein and Jed Hoyer. It is somewhat incredible how often those two have found the best player on the board when they first drafted: Lester (I know I am guessing with this one), Pedroia, Ellsbury, Bryant and Schwarber. It is also in my mind a real strength of Epstein that he recognized the need for Hoyer in Chicago.
Cherington brought a different set skills when he took Hoyer's place when he left for San Diego. Under Cherington, the Red Sox haven't nailed their first pick as regularly, but he seems to have been able to cast a wider net. The 2011 draft looks really looks like the subsequent Cherington drafts, and it is probable that he had as much say in who was picked as did Epstein.
One area in which I think Cherington was clearly less effective than Theo was in managing John Henry. I believe both Epstein and Cherington were under pressure from above to win now, and both worked hard to find compromise moves to enable the team to compete without trading prospects or signing a top of the rotation starter. This is one area where I think my initial reaction to the Dombrowski may have been wrong. I am now of the opinion that Dombrowski may be one of the few candidates who can manage John Henry.
None of this is to say Ben Cherington was a great GM; he clearly needed a complement, like Epstein needed Hoyer. However, his contribution to building this farm system should not be underestimated. At a time when slotting and the proliferation of prospect reporting has made it even more difficult to acquire amateur talent without multiple really high draft picks, the talent assembled with the help of Ben Cherington is truly impressive. I would welcome him back as a complement to Dave Dombrowski, and I hope the team he assembled decides to stay in Boston.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2015 20:24:09 GMT -5
And you can definitely credit Cherington for Moncada, Devers, Benintendi, Guerra, Espinoza, Travis and Kopech. Even with the ridiculous amount of good young players they have in the majors already, that might be an even better group of prospects coming up behind them if that's even possible. Okay, just so that we're clear, these are the guys who have a shot at making it who were acquired during the Cherington era. I'm willing to give Cherington credit for all of them with the exception of Moncada - Since he just went to the highest bidder and Theo would have outbid the Red Sox if he hadn't been artificially restricted from doing so. So, that leaves Devers, Benitendi, Guerra, Espinoza, Travis and Kopech as Cherington's haul during his 3 1/2 years at the helm. Guerra and Travis are fringe players, nothing to hang your hat on there. Espinoza and Kopech have high ceilings but are quite young, so that's going to take time. That leaves Devers and Benitendi as players who might be able to crack the team before 2018. So, around about 2018, the team might have two young players on the 25 man roster who trace to Cherington - one via international free agency and one via the draft. Unless both are just absolute superstars, the core of the team will continue to be composed mostly of players tracing to Theo's time with the club. In addition, the team may well still be saddled with the poor free agent contracts amassed by Cherington. I give the man all the credit in the world for constructing that wonderful 2013 team. Outside of that one year though, there's a whole lot of black hole on this guy's tenure with the club.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 8, 2015 20:29:49 GMT -5
And you can definitely credit Cherington for Moncada, Devers, Benintendi, Guerra, Espinoza, Travis and Kopech. Even with the ridiculous amount of good young players they have in the majors already, that might be an even better group of prospects coming up behind them if that's even possible. Okay, just so that we're clear, these are the guys who have a shot at making it who were acquired during the Cherington era. I'm willing to give Cherington credit for all of them with the exception of Moncada - Since he just went to the highest bidder and Theo would have outbid the Red Sox if he hadn't been artificially restricted from doing so. So, that leaves Devers, Benitendi, Guerra, Espinoza, Travis and Kopech as Cherington's haul during his 3 1/2 years at the helm. Guerra and Travis are fringe players, nothing to hang your hat on there. Espinoza and Kopech have high ceilings but are quite young, so that's going to take time. That leaves Devers and Benitendi as players who might be able to crack the team before 2018. So, around about 2018, the team might have two young players on the 25 man roster who trace to Cherington - one via international free agency and one via the draft. Unless both are just absolute superstars, the core of the team will continue to be composed mostly of players tracing to Theo's time with the club. In addition, the team may well still be saddled with the poor free agent contracts amassed by Cherington. I give the man all the credit in the world for constructing that wonderful 2013 team. Outside of that one year though, there's a whole lot of black hole on this guy's tenure with the club. Cherington had 4 years. What the f do you expect for him to contribute to the major league team already? And yes you have to credit him for Moncada if you're treating him like every other GM. He developed the relationship. You're insane in your hatred of him. Theo left the team without a single drafted player who contributed for 3 seasons from 08-10. And Ben got rid of the garbage free agents that Theo signed. Try to name a sweeter GM gig for anyone who has ever taken over for any team. They are in an unbelievable situation.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Sept 8, 2015 20:52:03 GMT -5
Okay, just so that we're clear, these are the guys who have a shot at making it who were acquired during the Cherington era. I'm willing to give Cherington credit for all of them with the exception of Moncada - Since he just went to the highest bidder and Theo would have outbid the Red Sox if he hadn't been artificially restricted from doing so. So, that leaves Devers, Benitendi, Guerra, Espinoza, Travis and Kopech as Cherington's haul during his 3 1/2 years at the helm. Guerra and Travis are fringe players, nothing to hang your hat on there. Espinoza and Kopech have high ceilings but are quite young, so that's going to take time. That leaves Devers and Benitendi as players who might be able to crack the team before 2018. So, around about 2018, the team might have two young players on the 25 man roster who trace to Cherington - one via international free agency and one via the draft. Unless both are just absolute superstars, the core of the team will continue to be composed mostly of players tracing to Theo's time with the club. In addition, the team may well still be saddled with the poor free agent contracts amassed by Cherington. I give the man all the credit in the world for constructing that wonderful 2013 team. Outside of that one year though, there's a whole lot of black hole on this guy's tenure with the club. Cherington had 4 years. What the f do you expect for him to contribute to the major league team already? And yes you have to credit him for Moncada if you're treating him like every other GM. He developed the relationship. You're insane in your hatred of him. Theo left the team without a single drafted player who contributed for 3 seasons from 08-10. And Ben got rid of the garbage free agents that Theo signed. Try to name a sweeter GM gig for anyone who has ever taken over for any team. They are in an unbelievable situation. I'm not gonna give Cherington any credit for Moncada right now, because right now its not clear to me Moncada has been a positive investment. I like Moncada, but I'm not gonna give Cherington any positive credit for him unless he makes the majors and earns more than 9 WAR cost controlled.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Sept 9, 2015 13:07:38 GMT -5
I wonder when we will start hearing names of GM interviews. The guy from Pittsburg who's interviewing for the Brewers looks like he'd be a good fit and of course Jon Morsi tweeted this morning reiterating Doms ties to DeJon Watson.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,667
|
Post by gerry on Sept 9, 2015 16:23:27 GMT -5
Wow. Is this going to go on forever? django and 1615, are you brothers from different mothers? Your insistence that we all accept your vitriolic harangues of Cherington are really getting old. Ben is gone, with the 2013 WS ring he created, leavimg behind an exciting long term core of guys he either/and/or brought aboard or nurtured and kept aboard Perfect? Who is? You? Mistakes? Absolutely? You? Hindsight? Not always perfecf. Can we please just move forward and enjoy this young team without the need to parse and assign blame for every detail?!? Please? This board should not be so strident and boring. Talk about redundance. Time for fans to move on and see what the new GM and team hold in store.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Sept 10, 2015 10:15:55 GMT -5
In all the media interviews, columns and stories I've been able to find the praise of Dombrowski has been effusive from other GMs and baseball ops people. One concern that I have not seen, and I would have as a fan, at least to a degree, is that, like Billy Beane can do, Dombrowski is known to focus on specific partners when he is looking to trade players from his team or for players from other teams. Or, put another way, he doesn't open it up when it puts certain players on the block. He wants Player A B or C from Team X, Y or Z. I remember this being mentioned with a few of his deals, including Smily and Price.
Of course this is balanced by his great record on trades, so I would defer to him initially, but I've always been a big fan of opening the bids on a commodity to all parties who may be interested because you never know who will get a little stupid/lustful and overpay.
|
|
|
Post by abeybaby14 on Sept 10, 2015 11:41:33 GMT -5
Hey Dave, looking for a front-of-the-order GM? Ruben Amaro just became available...
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 10, 2015 12:06:34 GMT -5
In all the media interviews, columns and stories I've been able to find the praise of Dombrowski has been effusive from other GMs and baseball ops people. One concern that I have not seen, and I would have as a fan, at least to a degree, is that, like Billy Beane can do, Dombrowski is known to focus on specific partners when he is looking to trade players from his team or for players from other teams. Or, put another way, he doesn't open it up when it puts certain players on the block. He wants Player A B or C from Team X, Y or Z. I remember this being mentioned with a few of his deals, including Smily and Price. Of course this is balanced by his great record on trades, so I would defer to him initially, but I've always been a big fan of opening the bids on a commodity to all parties who may be interested because you never know who will get a little stupid/lustful and overpay. There's actually a robust body of literature which suggests that the auction model (which is essentially what you're pushing for here) is not the ideal method of negotiation in many instances. One good example can be found here. If you read through that linked article and think about the dynamics at play in the context of baseball trades, you'll see that, in a lot of situations, trying to auction a guy off is not the best way to go.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Sept 10, 2015 13:59:59 GMT -5
In all the media interviews, columns and stories I've been able to find the praise of Dombrowski has been effusive from other GMs and baseball ops people. One concern that I have not seen, and I would have as a fan, at least to a degree, is that, like Billy Beane can do, Dombrowski is known to focus on specific partners when he is looking to trade players from his team or for players from other teams. Or, put another way, he doesn't open it up when it puts certain players on the block. He wants Player A B or C from Team X, Y or Z. I remember this being mentioned with a few of his deals, including Smily and Price. Of course this is balanced by his great record on trades, so I would defer to him initially, but I've always been a big fan of opening the bids on a commodity to all parties who may be interested because you never know who will get a little stupid/lustful and overpay. There's actually a robust body of literature which suggests that the auction model (which is essentially what you're pushing for here) is not the ideal method of negotiation in many instances. One good example can be found here. If you read through that linked article and think about the dynamics at play in the context of baseball trades, you'll see that, in a lot of situations, trying to auction a guy off is not the best way to go. On the flip-side you have the Donaldson situation where Cherington reportedly asked early in the off season and Beane said no, but then Toronto kept pushing and Beane cut a deal. Sheraton implied he would've upped his offer had he known, and - Billy Beane being Billy Beane aside - who knows what Cherington could've been motivated to offer. I understand that is anecdotal, and perhaps a bit of sour grapes, but at the same time Beane did not avail himself to a wider range of possibilities.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 10, 2015 15:05:56 GMT -5
There's actually a robust body of literature which suggests that the auction model (which is essentially what you're pushing for here) is not the ideal method of negotiation in many instances. One good example can be found here. If you read through that linked article and think about the dynamics at play in the context of baseball trades, you'll see that, in a lot of situations, trying to auction a guy off is not the best way to go. On the flip-side you have the Donaldson situation where Cherington reportedly asked early in the off season and Beane said no, but then Toronto kept pushing and Beane cut a deal. Sheraton implied he would've upped his offer had he known, and - Billy Beane being Billy Beane aside - who knows what Cherington could've been motivated to offer. I understand that is anecdotal, and perhaps a bit of sour grapes, but at the same time Beane did not avail himself to a wider range of possibilities. I can envision scenarios where a GM wouldn't take another one seriously in an auction format and then with so many more moving parts that it would be much more difficult to actually finalize a deal. You still have to take a GMs word for it if he said some other GM offered more over and over. How do you know he's not just continually lying trying to drive up the price? I'd personally just set the price I'm willing to pay for a trade and not move on it at all and then just back out when a GM seems like they're playing auction games.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 12, 2015 19:45:13 GMT -5
Per Rosenthal, if Hazen isn't named GM it could lead to a "mass exodus" in the front office. Ugh.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 12, 2015 22:07:43 GMT -5
Per Rosenthal, if Hazen isn't named GM it could lead to a "mass exodus" in the front office. Ugh. Then hopefully Hazen does get named GM, although I'd also be cool with DiPoto but anticipate that DiPoto will get another GM job with more autonomy elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Sept 15, 2015 15:43:33 GMT -5
“@mikedigiovanna: Source: #Angels will interview #RedSox asst. GM Mike Hazen for GM job, probably today.”
|
|
mobaz
Veteran
Posts: 2,780
|
Post by mobaz on Sept 15, 2015 16:10:53 GMT -5
I really hope they keep Hazen. Love this team and the guys coming up, and the two new FO positions for pitching can only help shore up that weakness.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,667
|
Post by gerry on Sept 16, 2015 1:51:31 GMT -5
Dave recently repeated his desire for continuity. He also has praised the kids and farm system. He is well aware that the kids are playing competitve ball with promise to be better, and that the farm is top ranked. He is also starting to promote from within, even creating a new FO position. He and the team and the kids and the farm and the FO are much better served keeping (and augmenting) Hazen and his team. He is too smart to do a 180 on all he has said and blow up this highly productive FO.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 16, 2015 6:08:17 GMT -5
Well, the GM of the Angels has to report to the meddling owner and to the manager, so hopefully that's not much of a promotion from GM under Dombrowski if they wanted to keep Hazen.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Sept 16, 2015 14:01:53 GMT -5
Interesting detail from Badler's chat, although one can't say definitively that Dombrowski was pushing Det to promote players on an accelerated pace, but as the GM I'm thinking he had a more or less final say on the quick risers:
Jim (Massachusetts): What's a reasonable timetable for Yoan Moncada and Andrew Benintendi to progress through the minors?
Ben Badler: This partly depends on the organization, which is one of the things that will be worth monitoring now that Dombrowski is in charge. In Detroit, their premium prospects would often race through the system. Boston was definitely more on the conservative side. They're both the types of talent that could explode and race through the system next year, but I'd say 2017 is a realistic expectation for having them become meaningful contributors.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 16, 2015 14:09:14 GMT -5
I respectfully disagree with him on saying Boston had been on the conservative side. Mookie Betts, Xander Bogaerts, and Jackie Bradley blew through the system, for example, and they typically push guys to age advanced assignments (see, for example, Wendell Rijo, Rafael Devers, Javier Guerra, Anderson Espinoza, and a number of other guys this season).
That said, I agree with the projection and think that's pretty safe, really, so long as you don't mean opening day.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Sept 16, 2015 14:13:30 GMT -5
I respectfully disagree with him on saying Boston had been on the conservative side. Mookie Betts, Xander Bogaerts, and Jackie Bradley blew through the system, for example, and they typically push guys to age advanced assignments (see, for example, Wendell Rijo, Rafael Devers, Javier Guerra, Anderson Espinoza, and a number of other guys this season). That said, I agree with the projection and think that's pretty safe, really, so long as you don't mean opening day. I thought the same thing. You could make the argument too that they were also aggressive with E-Rod and Swihart this year.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Sept 16, 2015 15:42:15 GMT -5
I respectfully disagree with him on saying Boston had been on the conservative side. Mookie Betts, Xander Bogaerts, and Jackie Bradley blew through the system, for example, and they typically push guys to age advanced assignments (see, for example, Wendell Rijo, Rafael Devers, Javier Guerra, Anderson Espinoza, and a number of other guys this season). That said, I agree with the projection and think that's pretty safe, really, so long as you don't mean opening day. I thought the same thing. You could make the argument too that they were also aggressive with E-Rod and Swihart this year. Agree in the mean, though I think with Swihart, and to a degree, Rodriguez, they were backed into a bit of a corner.
|
|
|