|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 28, 2015 15:13:29 GMT -5
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. I'd seriously doubt it, since it would be a conscious decision to exercise the option while they knew he was hurt. And it would still count against the luxury tax.
|
|
|
Post by sammo420 on Aug 28, 2015 15:19:08 GMT -5
To the people who don't like the Dombrowski move, exactly what are you afraid he's going to do? The closest I've heard to anything is that he never won a title in Detroit. There are a lot of GM's who haven't won a title. Ben got lucky and dropped us one. He also wrapped some horrible seasons and decisions around it.
This is a prospect site, so I'll assume trading away our binkies is part of it. Look at the rankings history for the last ten years and see how many of our binkies panned out. DD's track record with getting rid of players at the right time and acquiring the right ones in return is pretty damn good. Keep in mind that it's what you do at the major league level that counts and not how big of a prospect you were in the minors.
He's made a bad signing or two, but so have we. Maybe Pablo Sandoval can pitch? It looks like innings are the only thing he isn't eating.
I've heard complaints about Dombrowski, I haven't heard reasons behind them.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Aug 28, 2015 15:29:08 GMT -5
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. I'd seriously doubt it, since it would be a conscious decision to exercise the option while they knew he was hurt. And it would still count against the luxury tax. Insurance can be bought, and most big contracts are insured. The cost is prohibitive in Clay B's case. And if he throws one pitch in anger in 2016 it wouldn't pay out. jimed is right about the luxury tax. Hatfield won't like this conversation.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Aug 28, 2015 15:39:10 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. Right. Just to make clear, I think it's germane if it's discussed in relation to the GMs. It's just that if we're going to start talking generally about what Dombrowski should do, there are multiple other threads that are talking about that right now.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 28, 2015 16:02:42 GMT -5
I'd seriously doubt it, since it would be a conscious decision to exercise the option while they knew he was hurt. And it would still count against the luxury tax. Insurance can be bought, and most big contracts are insured. The cost is prohibitive in Clay B's case. And if he throws one pitch in anger in 2016 it wouldn't pay out. jimed is right about the luxury tax. Hatfield won't like this conversation. My last post. He doesn't have a contract for next year until they actually pick the option up. I guess it's possible to buy insurance on two option years, but the option is actually more the insurance, not an insurance policy.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Aug 28, 2015 16:08:48 GMT -5
OK. I think what Dombrowski does with Clay over what Ben would do is germane to the thread , but will drop it. Right. Just to make clear, I think it's germane if it's discussed in relation to the GMs. It's just that if we're going to start talking generally about what Dombrowski should do, there are multiple other threads that are talking about that right now. I get it. But you were responding to a conversation between two long time posters. I've debated jimed many times. It's always been civil. I think leeway should be given.
|
|
|
Post by sammo420 on Aug 28, 2015 18:19:01 GMT -5
I don't think it was the conversation as much as the location of it.
|
|
|
Post by pasadenasox on Aug 28, 2015 22:43:51 GMT -5
My concern about DD is that it may represent a significant shift in organizational philosophy away from sustainably towards short-term-ism. The fact that Cherrington's plans didn't pan out doesn't automatically mean that the plans were bad plans, they just didn't work out. That and I'm sabermetrically inclined and somewhat fear the "old school" approach which DD is associated with/
|
|
|
Post by pasadenasox on Aug 28, 2015 22:46:58 GMT -5
And please don't trade my binkies.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 29, 2015 3:32:22 GMT -5
My concern about DD is that it may represent a significant shift in organizational philosophy away from sustainably towards short-term-ism. The fact that Cherrington's plans didn't pan out doesn't automatically mean that the plans were bad plans, they just didn't work out. That and I'm sabermetrically inclined and somewhat fear the "old school" approach which DD is associated with/ This was noted on the latest version of the ProJo podcast, but when Dombrowski was brought on board in Montreal, Florida, and Detroit, all teams that were coming off bad seasons at the major league level, he did not actually make immediate win-now moves (i.e., trading prospects for veterans, throwing around cash in free agency). Instead, his first few years at each stop were about evaluation and building from within, and his major moves were only made a few years into his tenure at each stop. In other words, this isn't A.J. Preller we're talking about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2015 12:11:28 GMT -5
|
|