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.
The Book On Dave Dombrowski
|
Post by wskeleton76 on Aug 26, 2015 21:06:34 GMT -5
His durability is a big issue. Also he tends to struggle after DL.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Aug 26, 2015 21:19:18 GMT -5
We need more of Clay, not less. If we are making pottery...yes. If we are making starts...no
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 26, 2015 21:24:18 GMT -5
We need more of Clay, not less. If we are making pottery...yes. If we are making starts...no You don't like 3.1 fWAR in 20 starts for $13 million?
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Aug 26, 2015 21:32:27 GMT -5
If we are making pottery...yes. If we are making starts...no You don't like 3.1 fWAR in 20 starts for $13 million? I love watching the guy pitch, he's obviously good when he's on, but I've had enough of the half years/inconsistancy. I'd rather use his 13 million to sign Price, Greinke or Cueto or any number of other pitchers that could improve the staff.
|
|
|
Post by benogliviesbrother on Aug 26, 2015 21:53:15 GMT -5
You don't like 3.1 fWAR in 20 starts for $13 million? ... I'd rather use his 13 million to sign Price, Greinke or Cueto or any number of other pitchers that could improve the staff. You good with adding another 200 big bills on top of that 13?
|
|
|
Post by congusgambler33 on Aug 26, 2015 21:54:12 GMT -5
We need more of Clay, not less. We always want more but always get less. that is the Buchholz saga
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Aug 26, 2015 21:57:52 GMT -5
... I'd rather use his 13 million to sign Price, Greinke or Cueto or any number of other pitchers that could improve the staff. You good with adding another 200 big bills on top of that 13? Absolutely...Unequivocally....Without a doubt. For while it's money we have, it's stud pitching we don't.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Aug 26, 2015 22:27:19 GMT -5
This article is a farce:
(1) If Dombrowski has raped and pillaged the Tigers, where are all the former Tiger prospects he traded away? The reality is he managed to acquire Miguel Cabrera, Max Scherzer, Doug Fister, Anibal Sanchez, Austin Jackson and Jose Iglesias without giving up anywhere near an equal amount of talent. He appears to be both a strong judge of talent and a shrewd negotiator (things Ben Cherington probably isn't).
(2) Was he accepting offers from other teams? Probably. Let's not pretend it doesn't happen all the time. The Cubs tampered with Theo; the Red Sox tampered with Farrell; the Blue Jays tampered with Duquette. I, personally, think tampering with other teams executives is worse than PEDs in that it could arguably influence executives, especially GMs, whose job includes balancing the present and future needs of a club. However, if MLB isn't going to do anything about it, you can hardly blame executives for allowing themselves to be tampered with.
Nonetheless, I have strong reservations about Dombrowski's hiring, or, perhaps more accurately, about Cherington's leaving and what that might mean. We don't know why Cherington left:
(1) It could be all about Ben. He might just see Dombrowski's hiring as the signal that it's time to move and look for different and potentially better opportunities.
(2) It could be a misunderstanding, which might yet be resolved. It could be that John Henry really did want Cherington to stay. I have argued on this site for some weeks that Cherington needed augmentation not replacement, and Dombrowski would have been the perfect complement. John Henry does have a reputation for mishandling interactions, and this could just be a badly handled situation and an unintended consequence.
(3) It could also be, and this is what I fear, that Dombrowski's hiring signals a major change in direction for the franchise, and they offered Cherington the opportunity to keep his job, but weren't all that upset when he left.
It is number 3 which worries me. Among other things, I suspect and fear that John Henry has become a bit bored with the whole owning a baseball team thing, and he may be looking to sell the club in the not too distant future, in which case, he may be more interested in the here and now than in preserving the team's future. Specifically:
(1) I think he might be willing to give up too much of the team's future to win in 2016. I don't think the current Red Sox are really that far away from contending, at least for a wild card. I believe if they were to sign a top of the rotation starter and acquire a couple of bullpen arms, they would be good enough to compete in 2016 and 2017, and by 2018, with the arrival of Margot and Benintendi and Moncada, (with Devers and a couple others on the brink) they could be frighteningly good (and fun to watch) for a sustained period of time. Theo seems to be pursuing a similar path in Chicago -- he shows no inclination to trade any of his top prospects -- with very promising results.
(2) But, perhaps more importantly, I worry about what Dombrowski's arrival signifies with regards to player development. Over the last fifteen years (and arguably to some extent over the last five decades), the Red Sox have been ridiculously good at player development. In fact, they've been almost too good, in the sense that they have convinced a large cross-section of their fan base that prospects grow on trees, and that prospects are highly fungible assets that can be easily replaced. There are a number of aspects of the Red Sox baseball operations that could withstand major change and come out equal or better. It is virtually impossible to imagine a revamped player development organization even approaching the success of the current one. If Dombrowski tries to make major changes to the Red Sox player development or if a significant number of its personnel decide it's time to move on (as Cherington apparently has), the Red Sox will lose their greatest and most irreplaceable asset.
And that is what I worry about.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Aug 27, 2015 8:36:42 GMT -5
This article is a farce: (1) If Dombrowski has raped and pillaged the Tigers, where are all the former Tiger prospects he traded away? The reality is he managed to acquire Miguel Cabrera, Max Scherzer, Doug Fister, Anibal Sanchez, Austin Jackson and Jose Iglesias without giving up anywhere near an equal amount of talent. He appears to be both a strong judge of talent and a shrewd negotiator (things Ben Cherington probably isn't). (2) Was he accepting offers from other teams? Probably. Let's not pretend it doesn't happen all the time. The Cubs tampered with Theo; the Red Sox tampered with Farrell; the Blue Jays tampered with Duquette. I, personally, think tampering with other teams executives is worse than PEDs in that it could arguably influence executives, especially GMs, whose job includes balancing the present and future needs of a club. However, if MLB isn't going to do anything about it, you can hardly blame executives for allowing themselves to be tampered with. Nonetheless, I have strong reservations about Dombrowski's hiring, or, perhaps more accurately, about Cherington's leaving and what that might mean. We don't know why Cherington left: (1) It could be all about Ben. He might just see Dombrowski's hiring as the signal that it's time to move and look for different and potentially better opportunities. (2) It could be a misunderstanding, which might yet be resolved. It could be that John Henry really did want Cherington to stay. I have argued on this site for some weeks that Cherington needed augmentation not replacement, and Dombrowski would have been the perfect complement. John Henry does have a reputation for mishandling interactions, and this could just be a badly handled situation and an unintended consequence. (3) It could also be, and this is what I fear, that Dombrowski's hiring signals a major change in direction for the franchise, and they offered Cherington the opportunity to keep his job, but weren't all that upset when he left. It is number 3 which worries me. Among other things, I suspect and fear that John Henry has become a bit bored with the whole owning a baseball team thing, and he may be looking to sell the club in the not too distant future, in which case, he may be more interested in the here and now than in preserving the team's future. Specifically: (1) I think he might be willing to give up too much of the team's future to win in 2016. I don't think the current Red Sox are really that far away from contending, at least for a wild card. I believe if they were to sign a top of the rotation starter and acquire a couple of bullpen arms, they would be good enough to compete in 2016 and 2017, and by 2018, with the arrival of Margot and Benintendi and Moncada, (with Devers and a couple others on the brink) they could be frighteningly good (and fun to watch) for a sustained period of time. Theo seems to be pursuing a similar path in Chicago -- he shows no inclination to trade any of his top prospects -- with very promising results. (2) But, perhaps more importantly, I worry about what Dombrowski's arrival signifies with regards to player development. Over the last fifteen years (and arguably to some extent over the last five decades), the Red Sox have been ridiculously good at player development. In fact, they've been almost too good, in the sense that they have convinced a large cross-section of their fan base that prospects grow on trees, and that prospects are highly fungible assets that can be easily replaced. There are a number of aspects of the Red Sox baseball operations that could withstand major change and come out equal or better. It is virtually impossible to imagine a revamped player development organization even approaching the success of the current one. If Dombrowski tries to make major changes to the Red Sox player development or if a significant number of its personnel decide it's time to move on (as Cherington apparently has), the Red Sox will lose their greatest and most irreplaceable asset. And that is what I worry about. See, I disagree about the waiting, and here's why. Right now, Bogaerts, Betts, Swihart and Rodrgiuez ARE major leaguers. You're wasting their cost controlled years if you wait. By 2018, Bogaerts will be in his 2nd to last year of his contract, and Boras is his agent. This team has nearly a 200mm dollar payroll which means we can buy 28 WAR from free agency. That means we only need 15 WAR from our homegrown players to get to 90 wins. Bogaerts, Betts, Swihart, Rodriguez, Vazquez, and Pedroia's below market contract can absolutely do that and more. We don't need to wait. The future is now.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Aug 27, 2015 8:48:37 GMT -5
Dombrowski already has shown his value by setting in motion the move of Hanley to 1B, or maybe to another team - something that almost the whole world knew had to be done except for the previous Sox management.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Aug 27, 2015 12:39:09 GMT -5
Soxfan1615,
The Red Sox have already received approximately 12 fWAR from their young players (Bogaerts, Betts,Holt, Swihart, Bradley Jr, Shaw, Rodriguez), 13 if you add Castillo.
The problem is that much of the $200 million payroll is already committed for the near future and isn't likely to achieve anything near the 28 WAR required in your calculation. The Red Sox are going to need more than 15 WAR from cost-controlled players.
Oh and if you really think the future is now, you need more than 43 WAR unless you're proposing mortgaging the future for a shot at the wild card (which you can probably achieve without trading prospects).
One out of every three teams make the playoffs each year, and half the teams in baseball are still arguably in contention this year. With the Red Sox plethora of young talent -- and Bogaerts is the only one with less than five years of control remaining -- they should be looking at lots of trips to playoffs over the next decade. Why would you want to shorten the window of opportunity by trading prospects?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2015 1:36:16 GMT -5
Dombrowski already has shown his value by setting in motion the move of Hanley to 1B, or maybe to another team - something that almost the whole world knew had to be done except for the previous Sox management. You see it in workplaces in every industry - A resistance by management to deviate from the status quo, even when the business model is clearly failing. Common sense would suggest change. And yet, they instead hunker down. It's baffling. Maybe it's ego. Maybe it's lack of imagination. Whatever the case, it's always depressing to watch an organization fail due to human error - Unless, of course, you're the management consultant eventually hired to rectify the situation. Maybe that's what Dombrowski is to the Red Sox - A management consultant of sorts.
|
|
|
Post by tomhouse on Aug 28, 2015 2:37:39 GMT -5
The comments to the article are telling.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 28, 2015 6:32:15 GMT -5
I wish McLain would have been caught betting on baseball. There is no doubt in my mind. He makes Pete Rose look like a good guy.
|
|
Smittyw
Veteran
Posts: 1,263
Member is Online
|
Post by Smittyw on Aug 28, 2015 6:54:53 GMT -5
His durability is a big issue. Also he tends to struggle after DL. The second part is what bothers me the most. Obviously I'd sign up for even half a season of 2013 or 2015 Clay for $13 million in an instant, but in reality it's just as likely you'll get something more like 2012 or 2014 Clay. I'd probably still make the gamble, but I don't know that it's a slam dunk.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2015 12:44:41 GMT -5
With the Mariners' firing of Zduriencik, that's one more place Dombrowski could have gone had the Red Sox not struck fast.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Aug 28, 2015 12:59:53 GMT -5
I wish McLain would have been caught betting on baseball. There is no doubt in my mind. He makes Pete Rose look like a good guy. So does Ty Cobb.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Aug 28, 2015 13:09:00 GMT -5
I know plenty of stat guys would Pick up Clay's option even if he can't pitch next year. I hope Dave lets him walk or signs and trades him. I use to mention he never pitched a whole season, or made 30 starts, or 200 innings. Doubt it changes any stat heads but he has 113.1 innings this year. He has 3 other seasons with more innings. Another year older and I'll take the under.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 28, 2015 13:25:06 GMT -5
I know plenty of stat guys would Pick up Clay's option even if he can't pitch next year. I hope Dave lets him walk or signs and trades him. I use to mention he never pitched a whole season, or made 30 starts, or 200 innings. Doubt it changes any stat heads but he has 113.1 innings this year. He has 3 other seasons with more innings. Another year older and I'll take the under. And even in those 113.1 innings this year, he was by far the most valuable starter on the team. I'll take those innings and extra wins. By fWAR: Buchholz 3.1 Miley 1.8 Rodriguez 0.8 Kelly 0.8 Porcello 0.5 Owens 0.2 Masterson 0.1 There is no planet where Buchholz option isn't picked up unless he needs TJS. You don't just give away the best pitcher in the rotation for nothing to improve it. He's worth close to double his salary even when he pitches a half season. If he did pitch 200 innings, he'd be worth $30 million a year or more.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Aug 28, 2015 13:55:58 GMT -5
I know plenty of stat guys would Pick up Clay's option even if he can't pitch next year. I hope Dave lets him walk or signs and trades him. I use to mention he never pitched a whole season, or made 30 starts, or 200 innings. Doubt it changes any stat heads but he has 113.1 innings this year. He has 3 other seasons with more innings. Another year older and I'll take the under. And even in those 113.1 innings this year, he was by far the most valuable starter on the team. I'll take those innings and extra wins. By fWAR: Buchholz 3.1 Miley 1.8 Rodriguez 0.8 Kelly 0.8 Porcello 0.5 Owens 0.2 Masterson 0.1 There is no planet where Buchholz option isn't picked up unless he needs TJS. You don't just give away the best pitcher in the rotation for nothing to improve it. He's worth close to double his salary even when he pitches a half season. If he did pitch 200 innings, he'd be worth $30 million a year or more. I don't argue with the numbers jimed. I disagree with what to do going forward. There is a real chance Clay doesn't throw again this year. Sox would have to decide if they pick up the option not knowing if he can pitch next year. I think Ben would have picked it up regardless. I hope Dave thinks otherwise.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,651
|
Post by gerry on Aug 28, 2015 14:03:23 GMT -5
As several have stated upthread and in other threads, the team is already in very good shape to contend in 2016 and beyond (C, 2B, 3B, SS, LF, CF, RF, DH, bench) with Hanley/Shaw viable and maybe valuable at 1B. Other than Hanley/Panda, the only real issue is the rotation and pen.
Buch's $13M will not mean the difference between getting an "Ace", a cost controlled #2, and an additional closer. But 120 solid innings from Buch (and solid depth remaining) could be the difference between contending and not. If the doctors concur he will NOT need TJ for 2016, I'd extend Buch and see what happens. Assuming adding one "Ace" a rotation of Ace + Buchholz + Porcello + ERod + Miley > Ace + Porcello + ERod + Miley + ? .
Is it possible Dski will move one or more of Porcello/Miley/Owens/Wright to acquire Ace # and Ace #2? If so, we can only sit here and wait.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 28, 2015 14:04:21 GMT -5
And even in those 113.1 innings this year, he was by far the most valuable starter on the team. I'll take those innings and extra wins. By fWAR: Buchholz 3.1 Miley 1.8 Rodriguez 0.8 Kelly 0.8 Porcello 0.5 Owens 0.2 Masterson 0.1 There is no planet where Buchholz option isn't picked up unless he needs TJS. You don't just give away the best pitcher in the rotation for nothing to improve it. He's worth close to double his salary even when he pitches a half season. If he did pitch 200 innings, he'd be worth $30 million a year or more. I don't argue with the numbers jimed. I disagree with what to do going forward. There is a real chance Clay doesn't throw again this year. Sox would have to decide if they pick up the option not knowing if he can pitch next year. I think Ben would have picked it up regardless. I hope Dave thinks otherwise. Then you're also hoping for endless criticism and b*tching on this board. It would be a terrible move unless he's not pitching at all next year, in which case you'd be paying $26 million for 2017.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Aug 28, 2015 14:30:38 GMT -5
Since we already have a thread about fixing the Red Sox, let's keep this from turning into another one and focus on Dombrowski.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Aug 28, 2015 14:43:57 GMT -5
Since we already have a thread about fixing the Red Sox, let's keep this from turning into another one and focus on Dombrowski. OK. I think what Dombrowski does with Clay over what Ben would do is germane to the thread , but will drop it.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Aug 28, 2015 14:53:09 GMT -5
I don't argue with the numbers jimed. I disagree with what to do going forward. There is a real chance Clay doesn't throw again this year. Sox would have to decide if they pick up the option not knowing if he can pitch next year. I think Ben would have picked it up regardless. I hope Dave thinks otherwise. Then you're also hoping for endless criticism and b*tching on this board. It would be a terrible move unless he's not pitching at all next year, in which case you'd be paying $26 million for 2017. If Buch can't pitch at all in '16 wouldn't Sox have injury insurance for that. If so does the salary still count v Lux? Clearly this doesn't really solve the option pick up.
|
|
|