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.
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 31, 2015 9:29:16 GMT -5
One reason to hang onto both Margot and Benintendi for the time being: as good as some of us think JBJ is going to be, you may still be better off eventually dealing him to make room for both M & B, alongside Betts. There's some evidence that Margot's low-K approach plays better in the post-season (and against elite pitching in general) than Bradley's high-K approach. Two years from now, Bradley's trade value plus Margot's value for us over six years, adjusted for the post-season effect, may well exceed Bradley's remaining three years of value for us plus Margot's trade value. It might still represent a bit of a downgrade in CF, but the idea is that the downgrade would be significantly lessened in the post-season. Can't help but just scream "but let's make the postseason before talking about that!"
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Oct 31, 2015 9:53:43 GMT -5
One reason to hang onto both Margot and Benintendi for the time being: as good as some of us think JBJ is going to be, you may still be better off eventually dealing him to make room for both M & B, alongside Betts. There's some evidence that Margot's low-K approach plays better in the post-season (and against elite pitching in general) than Bradley's high-K approach. Two years from now, Bradley's trade value plus Margot's value for us over six years, adjusted for the post-season effect, may well exceed Bradley's remaining three years of value for us plus Margot's trade value. It might still represent a bit of a downgrade in CF, but the idea is that the downgrade would be significantly lessened in the post-season. I agree with this and as much as I like JBJ and his upside, the high K's are a concern especially long term. He's 25 already and will be 26 next April. If we have him for the next 3 (not 2) years, ages 26, 27 & 28 we'll have him for his prime years and yet could trade him with 1.5 years (in reality 2) of arbitration eligible years left and he'd be in the highly desired pre-30 age bracket. His defense would still being close to his prime, exceptionally good. All of this would make him still very desirable even if his offense remained league average. Eric I'd go with 3 years as an assumption and not 2 yrs. as it hedges your bets on the ETA for AB and in addition to what I previously stated I believe the most common time to trade a home grown player is either before they reach the majors or with 1.5 years left of Arbitration (this is a guesstimate on my part). In addition I expect to be a much more competitive team in 2017 and don't expect alot out of any rookie. I'm hoping for league average production at best from any rookie no matter how highly they are rated. So even if AB makes it here late 2017 (the ETA from this site which seem to be consistently accurate) he should get some at bats (via a platoon,etc) under his belt before he's handed a position and counted on for a team with serious aspirations.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Nov 2, 2015 9:28:27 GMT -5
Anyone can be traded for the right price. I think people are looking at position too much in this exercise. A lot of these minor leaguers are not going to be good players, that's just the nature of the game. Keeping the ones who are going to succeed is more important than keeping the ones who play an obvious position of need. Anyway, where I'm at is something like this. Disclaimer I'm not a scout!
PRACTICALLY UNTOUCHABLE: Betts - The game is so easy for him.
Bogaerts - I'm not sold on his hitting improvement as sustainable, but the defensive growth makes him too valuable to part with.
LISTENING ON OFFERS: Swihart - What impresses me about Blake is that he was very visibly overmatched when he arrived in Boston, and despite having relatively pedestrian MiLB production for a young callup, he settled in a bit. That said.... I've come around on the prospect of trading Blake if Vazquez is ready to go.
Margot - The "Royalz and contact!!!!!!!" angle keeps coming up but befor the Royals did it, our boy Brock Holt did it. Iggy as well. Baseball is at a very fundamental level about putting a bat on a ball, and I think a lot of success stories start with that. I don't think of MM as surplus like some do.
Benintendi - I am more excited about him than I am most prospects, just less so than I am about Margot. The combination of his swing and batting eye seems like the real deal.
WILLING TO PART WITH:
Bradley - I think Jackie is a 90-95 wRC+ elite defensive OF. That is a hell of a player but if someone thinks he's more than that, then we have a fit. We have a very good CF in Betts, an defensively strong OF man in Castillo and two stud prospects in the minors (three if you include Moncada). It could happen.
Owens - I just have a hard time believing in Henry based on what we've seen. Getting ahead seems to be an issue for him and I'm not convinced its going to change. He's never been a stud "location" pitcher and I have a hard time dreaming in him suddenly turning into one. Its hard to part with a young homegrown pitcher when we've had so few of late but if someone else is more bullish on his prospects then you work out a deal.
Moncada - I'm going to ignore the signing bonus aspect of this for the purpose of the exercise. Yoan is a stud prospect but when you're looking to engineer a trade you want to find a case of the other party valuing the player more than you do. I think most are higher on Moncada than I am, so I'd put him in this group.
I'm not sure if he's really an infielder, or a corner outfielder - the actions at 2B are the issue for him and he's got straight line speed and a strong arm. People talk about him as a 3rd basemen but he supposedly isn't comfortable playing the ball in front of him at 2B. How is he going to take to charging balls at 3rd? What is his position?
Devers - Sounds like he has considerable downside. There's alot that can go wrong between the bat not developing, his body not sticking at 3rd. I'm not a scout but as an observer it sounds like his hit tool is overrated to me. His youth is a double-edged sword - it makes what he's doing at the plate more impressive but it also means there's a lot more time/growth left for his body to go south.
I want to see the Sox turn into a glorious homegrown dynasty as much as the next guy, but if I had to pick players out of their heralded crop that will disappoint I'd go with Moncada and Devers. That's just where I'm at.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 10, 2015 12:36:38 GMT -5
One reason to hang onto both Margot and Benintendi for the time being: as good as some of us think JBJ is going to be, you may still be better off eventually dealing him to make room for both M & B, alongside Betts. There's some evidence that Margot's low-K approach plays better in the post-season (and against elite pitching in general) than Bradley's high-K approach. Two years from now, Bradley's trade value plus Margot's value for us over six years, adjusted for the post-season effect, may well exceed Bradley's remaining three years of value for us plus Margot's trade value. It might still represent a bit of a downgrade in CF, but the idea is that the downgrade would be significantly lessened in the post-season. Looking only at K rate and saying Margot's might be better in post season because there is some evidence that a lower k rate playing better is a little crazy. Come on, there is so much more to hitting then just K's. I think Bradley is just flat out a better hitter. I don't think Margot does anything right now better as a hitter then Bradley besides maybe strikeouts. But even that has to be looked at, how was the quality of the pitching for the two years that you compared? If Bradley and Margot were equal hitters and Margot had less K's then maybe, but that's just not the case. Like people has said a lot of Margot value is in D and base running. Only problem is that Bradley is better defensive CF then Margot.
Who knows maybe Margot turns a corner and starts to hit more and his power comes around, he does have upside. Until that happens Bradley is clearly our best option. Now I would trade Bradley in the right package, but it has nothing to do with Margot who is not close to being major league ready in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Nov 10, 2015 14:32:24 GMT -5
One reason to hang onto both Margot and Benintendi for the time being: as good as some of us think JBJ is going to be, you may still be better off eventually dealing him to make room for both M & B, alongside Betts. There's some evidence that Margot's low-K approach plays better in the post-season (and against elite pitching in general) than Bradley's high-K approach. Two years from now, Bradley's trade value plus Margot's value for us over six years, adjusted for the post-season effect, may well exceed Bradley's remaining three years of value for us plus Margot's trade value. It might still represent a bit of a downgrade in CF, but the idea is that the downgrade would be significantly lessened in the post-season. Can't help but just scream "but let's make the postseason before talking about that!" I really believe most of the top teams assume they will make the postseason unless they are clearly rebuilding. Why else would we sign Sandoval. I don't think there's anything wrong with the assumption you'll make it. It's more of a surprise when you don't. I don't want to call this a bridge year or anything, but at least there is something to bridge to. Many teams don't have what we have, solid core, & solid prospects. If it were MY team, I'd keep all the prospects, knowing that 2 or 3 won't pan out, while having least 3 or 4 solid guys to join our young core now, then have 3 or 4 great years 2017 till 2021 or so.....sign what you can from the b list (Kazmir, O'Day, Lowe, ect) & roll the dice this year
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 11, 2015 12:32:45 GMT -5
One reason to hang onto both Margot and Benintendi for the time being: as good as some of us think JBJ is going to be, you may still be better off eventually dealing him to make room for both M & B, alongside Betts. There's some evidence that Margot's low-K approach plays better in the post-season (and against elite pitching in general) than Bradley's high-K approach. Two years from now, Bradley's trade value plus Margot's value for us over six years, adjusted for the post-season effect, may well exceed Bradley's remaining three years of value for us plus Margot's trade value. It might still represent a bit of a downgrade in CF, but the idea is that the downgrade would be significantly lessened in the post-season. Looking only at K rate and saying Margot's might be better in post season because there is some evidence that a lower k rate playing better is a little crazy. Come on, there is so much more to hitting then just K's. I think Bradley is just flat out a better hitter. I don't think Margot does anything right now better as a hitter then Bradley besides maybe strikeouts. But even that has to be looked at, how was the quality of the pitching for the two years that you compared? If Bradley and Margot were equal hitters and Margot had less K's then maybe, but that's just not the case. Like people has said a lot of Margot value is in D and base running. Only problem is that Bradley is better defensive CF then Margot.
Who knows maybe Margot turns a corner and starts to hit more and his power comes around, he does have upside. Until that happens Bradley is clearly our best option. Now I would trade Bradley in the right package, but it has nothing to do with Margot who is not close to being major league ready in my opinion.
You're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that Margot's approach vs. Bradley's makes Margot project as the better hitter. I'm just saying that when you get to the post-season and face elite pitching, Margot loses less of his game than Bradley, and that therefore, relative to even a reasonably sophisticated assessment, Margot has a bit more value. I agree that dealing JBJ and keeping Margot seems likely to be a downgrade in CF, but if you're getting relatively more for Bradley (relative to true value), plus paying Margot a lot less, plus being set in CF with a good player for several more years, trading JBJ might well make sense.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 11, 2015 13:04:31 GMT -5
Looking only at K rate and saying Margot's might be better in post season because there is some evidence that a lower k rate playing better is a little crazy. Come on, there is so much more to hitting then just K's. I think Bradley is just flat out a better hitter. I don't think Margot does anything right now better as a hitter then Bradley besides maybe strikeouts. But even that has to be looked at, how was the quality of the pitching for the two years that you compared? If Bradley and Margot were equal hitters and Margot had less K's then maybe, but that's just not the case. Like people has said a lot of Margot value is in D and base running. Only problem is that Bradley is better defensive CF then Margot.
Who knows maybe Margot turns a corner and starts to hit more and his power comes around, he does have upside. Until that happens Bradley is clearly our best option. Now I would trade Bradley in the right package, but it has nothing to do with Margot who is not close to being major league ready in my opinion.
You're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that Margot's approach vs. Bradley's makes Margot project as the better hitter. I'm just saying that when you get to the post-season and face elite pitching, Margot loses less of his game than Bradley, and that therefore, relative to even a reasonably sophisticated assessment, Margot has a bit more value. I agree that dealing JBJ and keeping Margot seems likely to be a downgrade in CF, but if you're getting relatively more for Bradley (relative to true value), plus paying Margot a lot less, plus being set in CF with a good player for several more years, trading JBJ might well make sense. I don't seem to understand your way of thinking. When you face elite pitching you want your best hitters out there. I think everyone will agree that at this point Bradley is a much better hitter then Margot. How does Margot lose less of him game then Bradley? If Margot could turn his less strikeouts into a better on base % you might have a point, but I don't think Margot has better on base skills then Bradley. Only when runners are on base does a ground out or pop out differ from a strikeout.
As for trading Bradley because you have Margot and he's only a slight drop off, I just don't agree. For one Margot is not even close to ready. I don't see him as an option this year, next year maybe but not this year. He has yet to play a game at triple A. Second I just see Bradley as a much better player. He is a better hitter, better defender, better on base skills and has shown more power. Only thing Margot does better is run the bases.
You seem to be in love with Margot's upside and not the player he currently is.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Nov 11, 2015 14:18:46 GMT -5
I was just looking at Toronto's ML team & that they have traded all their top prospects for Donaldson, Price, Lowe, ect.....they have no farm system now, they have about a 2 yr window to win (having Bautista & Encanation) & even that seems questionable with their rotation looking thin & shallow, ....they'll still be good this year offensively. I just think we need to keep our future in mind while not selling out for this year. I can't fathom the empty feeling of having a stripped farm system & the pressure of having to draft perfectly for the next few years.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,839
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Nov 11, 2015 14:28:21 GMT -5
I was just looking at Toronto's ML team & that they have traded all their top prospects for Donaldson, Price, Lowe, ect.....they have no farm system now, they have about a 2 yr window to win (having Bautista & Encanation) & even that seems questionable with their rotation looking thin & shallow, ....they'll still be good this year offensively. I just think we need to keep our future in mind while not selling out for this year. I can't fathom the empty feeling of having a stripped farm system & the pressure of having to draft perfectly for the next few years. When/if they have to rebuild, they'll still be able to get a good return for Donaldson and a great one for Stroman if they want. The Donaldson package was light, and as high as Norris was ranked this year, he only has had one great year as a pro so far. This year was disappointing and prior to 2014 he looked like a complete bust. They could be in a way worse spot. What really killed them is the Dickey trade. Syndergaard and D'Arneaux (probably butchered his name) are studs. Many smelled Dickey getting rocked in this division from a mile away.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater on Nov 11, 2015 14:29:30 GMT -5
I'm all for trading anyone not named Moncada or Benintendi. I think these two will be studs. Might even sniff a September call-up this year. Deanlefebvre, the system is so loaded I find it hard that the Sox could get to where Toronto is right now in one offseason.
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Nov 11, 2015 14:42:05 GMT -5
I'm all for trading anyone not named Moncada or Benintendi. I think these two will be studs. Might even sniff a September call-up this year. Deanlefebvre, the system is so loaded I find it hard that the Sox could get to where Toronto is right now in one offseason. Totally agree. And its not just the farm but also the cast of young controllable roster players. There is no reason to think that next year will not be the year.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Nov 11, 2015 14:52:37 GMT -5
I'm all for trading anyone not named Moncada or Benintendi. I think these two will be studs. Might even sniff a September call-up this year. Deanlefebvre, the system is so loaded I find it hard that the Sox could get to where Toronto is right now in one offseason. I agree on the loaded part as in Quality AND Quantity which is a rare thing these days for a farm system. It's just a weird deal as in most of that Quality/Quantity has only succeeded in Low A. A lot if these guys can be Sydergaards or Lars Anderson's. I know they have more sophisticated scouting/video/stats ect, & they probably could have seen Lars Anderson's ceiling as being lower as they did with Anthony Renaudo. We may not know for several years to see this offseason's trade work out.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Nov 11, 2015 17:09:55 GMT -5
Waiting for a tweet from Cafardo stating that Dombrowski has traded every prospect in the system. That seems to be the next progression in his building narrative.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 12, 2015 2:35:32 GMT -5
Guys that can be traded: All of them
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Nov 12, 2015 2:37:57 GMT -5
Bogaerts, Betts, Espinoza, Moncada, & Devers are the only guys I'd be pissed about losing. There are certain guys I'd be annoyed losing depending on the return, Owens, Margot,
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 12, 2015 2:50:39 GMT -5
Bogaerts, Betts, Espinoza, Moncada, & Devers are the only guys I'd be pissed about losing. There are certain guys I'd be annoyed losing depending on the return, Owens, Margot, Depends on the package. I wouldn't be too torn parting with Devers. Despite his elite extremely high ceiling bat, there's just lots of chances for him to go awry without any other standout parts of his game. Skillset sort of reminds me of Dominic Brown. Though on the flip side, also Miguel Sano. But, if he can be a large piece in a trade for a 1 or 2 starter, I'm game.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Nov 12, 2015 9:10:45 GMT -5
Bogaerts, Betts, Espinoza, Moncada, & Devers are the only guys I'd be pissed about losing. There are certain guys I'd be annoyed losing depending on the return, Owens, Margot, Depends on the package. I wouldn't be too torn parting with Devers. Despite his elite extremely high ceiling bat, there's just lots of chances for him to go awry without any other standout parts of his game. Skillset sort of reminds me of Dominic Brown. Though on the flip side, also Miguel Sano. But, if he can be a large piece in a trade for a 1 or 2 starter, I'm game. That doesn't leave to much to trade.....Swihart, AB, Guerra, Kopech.......personally I'd trade Swihart for a Carrasco type. I know a lot of people will piss & moan on this. Hanigan can start for a month with Leon as a back up. Then go 50/50 with Hanigan & CV. You have to admit, Swihart had some holes in his game. CV hitting .240 w/better D + Carrasco (or similar SP) > Swihart @ .280 & less D.....I know we'd be banking on CV coming back from TJ....but you'd also be banking on Swihart IMPROVING & that may not happen as well.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Nov 12, 2015 9:43:27 GMT -5
I'd say the only real rule is that you have to be VERY reluctant to deal from your core. Sure, there's some crazy fake scenario where everyone can be traded (Mike Trout is available!), but in reality, it's really difficult to deal from your inner core, the players that can be the lead actors on a championship team, or have too much potential to be that to justify what you'd get for them. To me, that only fits four players for sure - Bogaerts, Betts, Moncada, and Espinoza - with a strong possibility for a fifth (Rodriguez). Now, it *may* include Swihart, but I don't really know for sure, and Vazquez is so extraordinary at what he does that it complicates the analysis considerably. Other than that, folks are dealable at varying degrees ... but, the potential for a good deal would look a lot better if Cecchini, Marrero, Coyle, etc had better years last year, enough to be the second piece in a major deal.
- JBJ: If he can be the centerpiece of a major deal, I chip in for his airfare. I love JBJ, but he just has too much swing-and-miss in his game and too many promising guys behind him. He's going to be a very good player, so you need to get a good return, but I don't think he's going to be a star. The growing buzz in the Boston papers seems like an attempt by the Sox to build up the vision of him as a centerpiece in a trade, but maybe I'm being too cynical.
- Margot: The thing about Margot is that he's also a plus defender in center. I really doubt he'll be as good as JBJ, but that's just because guys as good as JBJ don't come around that often. But Margot scouts very, very well defensively, and I like his offensive game better than JBJ. I'd be pretty unhappy to see him go.
- Benintendi: Also scouts really well. I'm a little more cautious on him than most, but not for any failing of his, just that we need to see more from him. But I doubt he'll be valued more highly by others than by the Sox (or me), so I don't really see him part of a deal. But maybe ... one of these three CFers will have to be part of any major deal.
- Owens: He's like Margot to me. I like him a lot and think he showed some real ability in his call-up. His change is an elite pitch (a best-in-baseball kind of pitch), and you can build a fine career as a left-hander with an elite change. And his fastball was fairly effective, too. But, hey, for the right price ...
- Devers: Tough to say. I think he's probably too far away to center a deal around, and I think his bat showed up well last year.
- Kopech: Like Devers ... too far away and in a tier below Moncada/Espinoza, so probably not going to line up on a cost/benefit basis to deal him
- Johnson/Barnes: don't think either of these guys bring a ton of value to the table. They're nice prospects for various reasons, but they are second pieces in a deal.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 12, 2015 10:38:00 GMT -5
The fact that Boston's top 7 prospects are all 21 or younger and all but Margot are likely to start the season in High-A or below makes trading them difficult. They all have high enough ceilings (and have a good enough shot at reaching those ceilings) that the Red Sox will need a real star-level return to move them, but they're far enough from the majors that teams (especially teams like the Indians or the Mets that aren't in complete teardown mode) might be reluctant to center a deal for a star-level player around guys in A ball.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Nov 12, 2015 11:05:56 GMT -5
The fact that Boston's top 7 prospects are all 21 or younger and all but Margot are likely to start the season in High-A or below makes trading them difficult. They all have high enough ceilings (and have a good enough shot at reaching those ceilings) that the Red Sox will need a real star-level return to move them, but they're far enough from the majors that teams (especially teams like the Indians or the Mets that aren't in complete teardown mode) might be reluctant to center a deal for a star-level player around guys in A ball. Yeah, I started to type more on my post above that I think only JBJ, Margot, and Owens are actually tradeable right now in any real sense (leaving aside the major league starters). The rest are all too young/good to line up that well as trade assets. As good as the system is, it's not all that fertile for trading purposes at this point in time. In a year or two, you might have guys like Guerra become real trade chips.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Nov 12, 2015 12:32:24 GMT -5
Brian, jmei,
Let me complicate things. Last weekend, I introduced the hypothesis that when you trade prospects for veterans you are trading two future wins for each present win you acquire. I have spent a fair amount time this week validating this hypothesis (if anyone is interested I would be happy to write a longer post on the subject with data this weekend). I have identified between 30 and 50 prospect for veteran trades since 2002 in which at least one significant player switched teams (30 to 50 reflects the range in reasonable definitions of significant). Two to one seems to be a reasonable conservative estimate of the exchange rate.
With that relationship in mind, does it change whom you would be willing to trade?
What drives this relationship iseems to be over-estimation of the risk associated with prospects. I believe JBJ's most likely future is the one suggested by his high OBP occasional power profile in AAA. I think his most likely future is as a 2.5 to 3.5 WAR player with 5 years of remaining control. I also think he will age well. I think he has as much chance of being better than this as being worse.
Do you think there is any chance the Red Sox could achieve a return similar to that for JBJ? As a thought exercise what do you think he will be and what kind of return do you think the Red Sox could get?
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 12, 2015 13:38:59 GMT -5
Bogaerts, Betts, Espinoza, Moncada, & Devers are the only guys I'd be pissed about losing. There are certain guys I'd be annoyed losing depending on the return, Owens, Margot, How do you feel about Benintendi?
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Nov 12, 2015 14:22:15 GMT -5
Before last night I thought Johnnie Cueto was someone to take a serious look at. After last night I'm sure about it.....but the competition has gone up with his complete game 2-hitter. I definitely like Price better, but I think Cueto will cost us $50 mill less. If, and that is a big if, Buchholz is healthy, with Cueto we could have 3 solid number 2's. Porcello IMO will be a good #3 next season. I'm fine with those guys with the depth we have in Pawtucket. The bull pen is another (huge) matter! For better or worse NEVER make a decision on a player based on the post season, (SSS).
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Nov 12, 2015 15:17:59 GMT -5
Bogaerts, Betts, Espinoza, Moncada, & Devers are the only guys I'd be pissed about losing. There are certain guys I'd be annoyed losing depending on the return, Owens, Margot, How do you feel about Benintendi? I'd probably put him in or below the level of annoyance if he's dealt with Margot, under the assumption that they're not both traded. It's a position of strength right now, with the only issue being real depth anywhere in the outfield. But given how the current outfield is 23, 25, and 28 years old, there are more pressing needs, in particular if either Benintendi or Margot are able to be the centerpiece to a top end SP acquisition
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Nov 12, 2015 17:01:24 GMT -5
Interesting comment by Keith Law about Dombrowski in his chat today:
Marshall: A team like Detroit seems to be stuck in a sort of purgatory – not going to win their division, not many good prospects, aging players signed to long contracts. Do they keep spending until the wheels fall off of Miggy, or make everyone (including Miggy) available right now?
Klaw: Sounds like they’ll spend to patch the major-league roster now while slowly trying to build the system back up. Dombrowski viewed the farm strictly as currency for trades. Avila views it as a real farm system, one that should produce players for the major-league roster too.
Granted, Dombrowski had a somewhat different charge when he was in Detroit, but counterweight is that this is the Dave Dombrowski that John Henry fired a GM he'd just signed to a long term deal to get. And it's Law's perception, but he knows Dombrowski better than any of us here (unless someone's been holding out) having dealt with him in a front office position and spoken to him over the years via the ESPN position.
|
|
|