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
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2015 21:25:01 GMT -5
Say goodbye to some of your favorite prospects now. Oh and if you thought Ben was bad at building bullpens... Good side is major league personel decisions might get better. Things will change and the farm will never be the same. 3 horrible teams in 4 years will usually do it. I am sorry to see Ben go. Most prospects never amount to anything. The whole point is to commoditize them - not fall in love with them.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 18, 2015 21:25:23 GMT -5
Let's not get carried away with hyperbole about DD trading the entire farm system. I'm sure he and JWH had lengthy discussions and I doubt JWH would have hired him if DD didn't express respect for the development process. Ben's mistake (well, one of them anyways) was a reluctance to trade from the farm system. Prospects that may have had some value at one time were kept around until they had no value. Remember all the hype about Renaudo after Boras extracted a big bonus from his buddy Theo? The kid reached the bigs last year and it was striking how pedestrian his stuff was. He ended up bringing us Robbie Ross Jr. Garin Cecchini, Deven Marrero, Bryce Brentz are also among those who could have been at least pot sweeteners in a trade at one time but whose value has plummeted. One of the strengths of a good organization is sage evaluation of its own young players and making the right judgments about which ones to keep and which ones to cash in. That's what we need DD to bring. Ben also could have traded Xander, Mookie and Brock for some 30 year old that needed to be signed for $300 million. But he didn't.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 18, 2015 21:27:38 GMT -5
I have very mixed feelings.
On one hand, I like Dave Dombrowski's overall track record. He has been flexible enough to go for it when he has an ancient owner who isn't looking to build, he's built up strong farm systems, and he's contributed to teams that consistently win, even if they haven't won the big one.
I had thought that, from reading Gammons, that the idea was to surround Ben C. with more analytical help with DiPoto and make his boss somebody with a big scouting background such as Pat Gillick.
If the Sox can't have Gillick, who is as old school as they come, I'm fine with them having Dombrowski, or at least I think I am.
But when I hear Frank Wren's name, I get very disappointed. I was hoping the Sox would have a statistically oriented GM who would surround himself with guys who can evaluate major league talent (AKA get rid of Allard Baird) as well as minor league talent (which the Sox have done well) as well as international talent (please stay Ed Romero Jr.)
One question to ask would be is WHY did Ben C step down? It doesn't sound like he was fired. It sounds like he didn't want to work with Dombrowski because either he doesn't like him (not likely) or Dombrowski's plans differ from Cherington's ideals.
If so, then I am really worried. I hated Cherington's major league talent evaluations, as I think he gave Baird way too much rope, but his philosophies for the most part were sound. At the end of the day I think Cherington was shooting for a core of:
C: Swihart, an infield of Travis/Pedroia/Bogaerts/Moncada, and OF consisting of Betts/Bradley/Castillo, and eventually Margot and Benintendi, and Devers either DHing or perhaps at 1b.
Rodriguez, Owens, Johnson, and eventually Kopeck and Espinoza down the road would be part of the rotation.
I think this was along the lines of what he was planning, and I think he had the core to restore the Sox. He would have needed more pitching help, but he was on the right track.
Now I fear they will trade these guys away because having a 3rd bad year in a row or a 4th out of 5 would be considered unacceptable so I do now have fears they will make a lot of shortsighted moves that bite them in the butt.
And I have to ask - Henry is making this hire, yes? He is very statistically inclined? Will this be incorporated into the GM role? I worry with Wren that it won't, and with Dombrowski, while I like his talent evaluations, the Sox could fall further behind the statistical evolution.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 18, 2015 21:28:06 GMT -5
Remember: he traded Randy Freaking Johnson for Mark Langston. Expect history to repeat itself. He's going to trade Randy Johnson again? I doubt that's the point. Probably more like Espinoza.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Aug 18, 2015 21:28:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Aug 18, 2015 21:28:44 GMT -5
I thought it was common knowledge that Mike Illich had all of the Tigers upper management under strict orders to win now? As he wanted to win a title before he passed away. Unless, I'm clearly mistaken, the whole freaking out over him is a bit silly. Just like it's "common knowledge" that Lucchino made all the terrible moves the Sox have made over the past 10 years? Come on. John Henry isn't about to die, but it's quite fair to say the Red Sox are a "win-now" type of organization too. I don't think anybody is "freaking out" over him. I think it's quite fair to have reason not to partake in the general Dombrowski excitement.
|
|
|
Post by benogliviesbrother on Aug 18, 2015 21:30:58 GMT -5
At the time he traded Randy Johnson, Randy was just a big malfunctioning unit. He was a tall, gangly goober with no control (minor league BB/9 numbers: 7.9, 7.1, 8.2, 5.7, 4.5) and there was no way to project that he would become one of the top 2-3 LH SP of all time. Small-market Montreal was trying to cash in on a rare chance to win, so DD traded for a solid veteran SP. It's easy to criticize the move 300 wins and one HOF plaque later but a lot of GMs would have done the same thing. Right. Because while he was walking all those guys he wasn't also blazing guys. Couldn't possibly see any possibility in that guy. For 24 (good) starts. Ugh.
|
|
|
Post by arzjake on Aug 18, 2015 21:31:44 GMT -5
Thanks to Ben Cherington. I'm sure it wasn't easy working for the 3 stooges and NESN..
Leyland in the teams future?
Please Dave, deal sandoval on the 31st!
|
|
|
Post by benogliviesbrother on Aug 18, 2015 21:31:55 GMT -5
Say goodbye to some of your favorite prospects now. Oh and if you thought Ben was bad at building bullpens... Good side is major league personel decisions might get better. Things will change and the farm will never be the same. 3 horrible teams in 4 years will usually do it. I am sorry to see Ben go. Most prospects never amount to anything. The whole point is to commoditize them - not fall in love with them. But many prospects amount to something: cheap productive labor. Which allows a team to spend elsewhere, in some cases with impunity.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Aug 18, 2015 21:33:06 GMT -5
14 seasons in Detroit: — seasons w/more than 90 wins: 3 — titles: zero Why is 90 wins a meaningful number? Why not discuss the five playoff appearances and two AL pennants? I wouldn't put to much into it.. Not going to name names, but someone was also saying don't hire Earl Weaver.. Realize Earl passed away a few years back, but Earl won 90+ games in 11 of his 15 162 (full) seasons as a manager, 3 Pennants, a WS title, regularly took small budget Orioles teams H2H against budget busted Yankees and Red Sox, often winning when there was NO WC teams.. Earl was one of the top 1-2 managers when alive and could have kept on longer than he did.. For those that either remember him, or simply bother to look up his numbers.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Aug 18, 2015 21:33:42 GMT -5
Let's not get carried away with hyperbole about DD trading the entire farm system. I'm sure he and JWH had lengthy discussions and I doubt JWH would have hired him if DD didn't express respect for the development process. Ben's mistake (well, one of them anyways) was a reluctance to trade from the farm system. Prospects that may have had some value at one time were kept around until they had no value. Remember all the hype about Renaudo after Boras extracted a big bonus from his buddy Theo? The kid reached the bigs last year and it was striking how pedestrian his stuff was. He ended up bringing us Robbie Ross Jr. Garin Cecchini, Deven Marrero, Bryce Brentz are also among those who could have been at least pot sweeteners in a trade at one time but whose value has plummeted. One of the strengths of a good organization is sage evaluation of its own young players and making the right judgments about which ones to keep and which ones to cash in. That's what we need DD to bring. Ben also could have traded Xander, Mookie and Brock for some 30 year old that needed to be signed for $300 million. But he didn't. Or he could have held onto those guys and traded the guys who flamed out. That was the point of my post. The most important scouting a team does is the scouting of its own kids - knowing who to sell high on and who to keep. Did I mention Lars Anderson? Also, I quite frankly don't think Ben (and I'm not a Ben hater by any means) gets big props for holding onto Xander and Mookie. Xander was a primo prospect for a couple of years before hitting the ML and Mookie's rapid ascent through the system made it clear he had a chance to be something special too. Holding onto them - barring being blown away by an offer - was an easy decision, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 18, 2015 21:34:33 GMT -5
Playoff appearances are a much more meaningful benchmark. Every single GM in the league will tell you they would rather win 89 and make the playoffs as opposed to 91 and missing out. Since the turn of the decade, the Indians, Twins, and White Sox have all had successful runs. I'd guess Dombrowski's 27-year-run of being one of the most highly-regarded GMs in baseball will play just fine in Boston. 91+ wins three freaking times in 14 years. If that makes someone "highly-regarded" it's more testament to the intellectual laziness of those doing the regarding than the accomplishment of the regardee. All this with a large payroll in a weak division. And that you would even argue "perception of" as if it is any sort of evidence is embarrassing. I mean, surely Nick Cafardo will be leading the applause — does this make it a sound choice? Prefer hard numbers? What about this: grantland.com/features/dave-dombrowski-detroit-tigers/
|
|
|
Post by thegoo13 on Aug 18, 2015 21:35:03 GMT -5
Say goodbye to some of your favorite prospects now. Oh and if you thought Ben was bad at building bullpens... Good side is major league personel decisions might get better. Things will change and the farm will never be the same. 3 horrible teams in 4 years will usually do it. I am sorry to see Ben go. Most prospects never amount to anything. The whole point is to commoditize them - not fall in love with them. Not all "top prospects" are created equal. I can't rember a top 10 system, for the Sox anyway,like this one. Minus Johnson IMO they are all ceiling and high floor. This is not the Jason Place system of days past. If you consider this group as "most prospects" than good luck to you. It has taken a long time to get to this point. To get this many star caliber players. Would suck to see them go.
|
|
|
Post by libertine on Aug 18, 2015 21:36:46 GMT -5
Change was/is needed but I am not sure DD is the correct answer for the problem. The pressure will be on to make this team a contender again post haste. And the only way to do that is to trade away some of our top prospects (i.e. Swihart, Owens, Johnson, Devers, Margot, Moncada, etc.). And the better some of these young players do down the stretch the better the chances they will be moved. Not sure I have the heart to watch the rest of the season rooting for young players to do well to increase their chances of being traded...
|
|
|
Post by benogliviesbrother on Aug 18, 2015 21:37:22 GMT -5
I like the Appendix for FA signings that had him ranked behind Steve Phillips, and way behind Omar Minaya.
|
|
|
Post by curiousle on Aug 18, 2015 21:38:41 GMT -5
PUKE>>>>>>>
|
|
|
Post by benogliviesbrother on Aug 18, 2015 21:39:14 GMT -5
Why is 90 wins a meaningful number? Why not discuss the five playoff appearances and two AL pennants? I wouldn't put to much into it.. Not going to name names, but someone was also saying don't hire Earl Weaver.. Realize Earl passed away a few years back, but Earl won 90+ games in 11 of his 15 162 (full) seasons as a manager, 3 Pennants, a WS title, regularly took small budget Orioles teams H2H against budget busted Yankees and Red Sox, often winning when there was NO WC teams.. Earl was one of the top 1-2 managers when alive and could have kept on longer than he did.. For those that either remember him, or simply bother to look up his numbers. I said Earl Weaver. They were talking about Frank Wren — they worked together in B'More, no? It was a joke. I've nothing but respect for that little pr*ck, RIP.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 18, 2015 21:39:03 GMT -5
Ben also could have traded Xander, Mookie and Brock for some 30 year old that needed to be signed for $300 million. But he didn't. Or he could have held onto those guys and traded the guys who flamed out. That was the point of my post. The most important scouting a team does is the scouting of its own kids - knowing who to sell high on and who to keep. Did I mention Lars Anderson? Also, I quite frankly don't think Ben (and I'm not a Ben hater by any means) gets big props for holding onto Xander and Mookie. Xander was a primo prospect for a couple of years before hitting the ML and Mookie's rapid ascent through the system made it clear he had a chance to be something special too. Holding onto them - barring being blown away by an offer - was an easy decision, IMO. Why do you assume that any GM in the majors would have ever given up anything whatsoever for Lars Anderson? Because other teams are stupid when we're smart? They still ended up ahead with Stephen Wright.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Aug 18, 2015 21:40:11 GMT -5
At the time he traded Randy Johnson, Randy was just a big malfunctioning unit. He was a tall, gangly goober with no control (minor league BB/9 numbers: 7.9, 7.1, 8.2, 5.7, 4.5) and there was no way to project that he would become one of the top 2-3 LH SP of all time. Small-market Montreal was trying to cash in on a rare chance to win, so DD traded for a solid veteran SP. It's easy to criticize the move 300 wins and one HOF plaque later but a lot of GMs would have done the same thing. Right. Because while he was walking all those guys he wasn't also blazing guys. Couldn't possibly see any possibility in that guy. For 24 (good) starts. Ugh. His minor league k/9 numbers were good but did not predict the next Lefty Grove. His highest was 10.5 in AA in 1987. For perspective, Henry Owens has had years of 11.5 and 11.3 k/9. RJ never had a k/BB ratio of 2-1.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Aug 18, 2015 21:40:42 GMT -5
Say goodbye to some of your favorite prospects now. Oh and if you thought Ben was bad at building bullpens... Good side is major league personel decisions might get better. Things will change and the farm will never be the same. 3 horrible teams in 4 years will usually do it. I am sorry to see Ben go. Most prospects never amount to anything. The whole point is to commoditize them - not fall in love with them. Actually most GM's are well aware of this -- which is why they will only give you pennies to the dollar on your prospects. They also value present wins over future wins, because future wins can make your successor look good -- just ask Ben Cherington. Over the last decade and a half, the prospects the Red Sox have traded have produced over double the WAR of the veterans returned (and that number is still growing, mostly thanks to Anthony Rizzo). What this move really signals is that John Henry has gotten old and he wants one more run at a pennant before he rides off into the sunset and he doesn't care what he leaves behind for Red Sox fans who plan on continuing to root for the team after he leaves (just like Theo in 2011). And every GM in baseball knows it. If the return on prospects over the last decade has been bad, it's about to get a lot worse.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 18, 2015 21:40:47 GMT -5
Say goodbye to some of your favorite prospects now. Oh and if you thought Ben was bad at building bullpens... Good side is major league personel decisions might get better. Things will change and the farm will never be the same. 3 horrible teams in 4 years will usually do it. I am sorry to see Ben go. Most prospects never amount to anything. The whole point is to commoditize them - not fall in love with them. Everyone in the Hall of Fame was once a prospect also.
|
|
|
Post by benogliviesbrother on Aug 18, 2015 21:42:01 GMT -5
91+ wins three freaking times in 14 years. If that makes someone "highly-regarded" it's more testament to the intellectual laziness of those doing the regarding than the accomplishment of the regardee. All this with a large payroll in a weak division. And that you would even argue "perception of" as if it is any sort of evidence is embarrassing. I mean, surely Nick Cafardo will be leading the applause — does this make it a sound choice? Prefer hard numbers? What about this: grantland.com/features/dave-dombrowski-detroit-tigers/I'm already reading the 80 page SABR paper linked upthread that shows (allegedly) what a savvy trader he is. How about synopsizing for us? Or, just explain how we should be thrilled over winning 91+ games in 3 of the next 14 years, with no Titles?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2015 21:41:51 GMT -5
I wonder what becomes of Cherington. The three last place finishes kind of make the World Series win seem like an outlier. Hopefully, he doesn't get labeled as "that guy who got lucky that one year."
|
|
|
Post by benogliviesbrother on Aug 18, 2015 21:43:22 GMT -5
Right. Because while he was walking all those guys he wasn't also blazing guys. Couldn't possibly see any possibility in that guy. For 24 (good) starts. Ugh. His minor league k/9 numbers were good but did not predict the next Lefty Grove. His highest was 10.5 in AA in 1987. For perspective, Henry Owens has had years of 11.5 and 11.3 k/9. RJ never had a k/BB ratio of 2-1. Let me know when Henry threw 98 with a wipeout slider.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 18, 2015 21:43:34 GMT -5
I wonder what becomes of Cherington. The three last place finishes kind of make the World Series win seem like an outlier. Hopefully, he doesn't get labeled as "that guy who got lucky that one year." There are probably 15 teams in MLB which would be super happy with the best minor league system in the majors if that's the worst he does for you.
|
|
|