|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 13, 2015 9:01:50 GMT -5
Was the 1997 Marlins bullpen a major issue? Certainly didn't stop them from winning the Series. Your'e going back 18 years. The "rookie" got lucky. A seasoned Dombrowski with Time,Talent and Money failed to build a first rate bullpen in 10 years while at Detroit. Yeah, he got to the WS twice but his bullpens cost the team 2 more appearances. The Tigers should have had 4 WS appearances, which should have yielded at least one World Championship. This Red Sox team is already starting to look like thoseTiger teams under Dombrowski. I can only hope that he learns from his mistakes and concentrates on building a knock down bullpen, a-la the Royals and Giants. If past performance is a guarantee of future results, I'll take the chance of making the playoffs so often. But it's not, and there's no reason to believe Dombrowski can't do it. Building a great bullpen is not some great mystery that is impossible for a guy who traded for Miguel Cabrera and Max Scherzer to figure out.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Sept 13, 2015 9:02:46 GMT -5
And we need a bullpen, and Dombrowski has Never built a good one. Even if true baseball has evolved and so do each of us. The bullpens today are viewed as much more important, especially with the advent of power arms, then they were 10 years ago. Dombroski impresses me with his intellect and presence. I'll give you odds that no more than one or two of our current guys are here next year and that our pen is a helluva lot better. Dombrowski's tenure as a front office executive has been entirely under the "power arm' bullpen era. He had power arms (Rodney). He had money and passed on Chapman (whom I considered to be the missing piece to the Tiger puzzle) . I will be very curious to see if Dombrowski carries on the recent RED SOX "tradition" of building bullpens on the cheap or if he makes a serious investment for a proven bullpen arm(s). I'm also curious to see who stays and who goes from this years crop of bullpen arms. I hope Dombrowski is smart. I'm just not convinced, given his track record with Detroit, that he "gets" it. Hope
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Sept 13, 2015 9:07:30 GMT -5
Your'e going back 18 years. The "rookie" got lucky. A seasoned Dombrowski with Time,Talent and Money failed to build a first rate bullpen in 10 years while at Detroit. Yeah, he got to the WS twice but his bullpens cost the team 2 more appearances. The Tigers should have had 4 WS appearances, which should have yielded at least one World Championship. This Red Sox team is already starting to look like thoseTiger teams under Dombrowski. I can only hope that he learns from his mistakes and concentrates on building a knock down bullpen, a-la the Royals and Giants. If past performance is a guarantee of future results, I'll take the chance of making the playoffs so often. I have greater expectations than you, then. Two WS appearances (and no championships) over 10 years just doesn't do it for me when the team has Betts, Bogaaerts, Pedroia, Swihart (and soon Benentindi and Moenada)
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 13, 2015 9:10:50 GMT -5
If past performance is a guarantee of future results, I'll take the chance of making the playoffs so often. I have greater expectations than you, then. Two WS appearances (and no championships) over 10 years just doesn't do it for me when the team has Betts, Bogaaerts, Pedroia, Swihart (and soon Benentindi and Moenada) It's a crapshoot at that point. Any team can beat any other team in a short series no matter what the difference in talent is.
|
|
|
Post by bostonfanct on Sept 13, 2015 9:18:59 GMT -5
As with these discussions it all depends upon what you get back. If it takes a package that includes Swihart to get a pitcher like Archer from the Rays, you do it knowing you have Vasquez to plug in next year. I don't believe in untouchable players. It isn't a matter of should you trade a C, or CF, prospect, or veteran. It is what makes the team better, they need pitching. I suspect that the Sox will be taking the free agency path and trading the prospects to get pitching. All set in the OF, C, SS, 2nd, if they move Hanley to 1B set there too. Pablo ain't going any where with that contact. so, where do you play the prospects? I say they keep Moncada, and will have to find a place for him next year. will be an interesting off season.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Sept 13, 2015 9:35:36 GMT -5
Your'e going back 18 years. The "rookie" got lucky. A seasoned Dombrowski with Time,Talent and Money failed to build a first rate bullpen in 10 years while at Detroit. Yeah, he got to the WS twice but his bullpens cost the team 2 more appearances. The Tigers should have had 4 WS appearances, which should have yielded at least one World Championship. This Red Sox team is already starting to look like thoseTiger teams under Dombrowski. I can only hope that he learns from his mistakes and concentrates on building a knock down bullpen, a-la the Royals and Giants. If past performance is a guarantee of future results, I'll take the chance of making the playoffs so often. But it's not, and there's no reason to believe Dombrowski can't do it. Building a great bullpen is not some great mystery that is impossible for a guy who traded for Miguel Cabrera and Max Scherzer to figure out. I would disagree. "Stealing" Cabrera from a low budget Marlin team (for whom you previously worked for) was a no brainer. Scherzer was a good deal. Letting Scherzer go, betting the farm on Verlander and not keeping Price remain to be seen. I have some serious doubts. Building a bullpen is akin to the corporate culture of a team. Yes, you "can" get lucky on the cheap (somehow the Rays always seem to do this). The Giants, Yankees and more recently the Royals have bullpen development in their DNA. I've always thought that an elite bullpen is a mix of homegrown talent who get tagged early on (Pabelpon comes to mind) with a blend of fearless free agents (Timlin comes to mind). I had thought that Barnes has homegrown potential to be an end of game (8th-9th) stalwart. Not so sure now. I can say with conviction that Breslow should not have been a fixture on the 25 man roster this year. Going forward will prove interesting. Assuming that Dombrowski will do a better job in 2016 than Cherrington did in putting together the 2015 bullpen if only because the Cherrington version was so hopelessly flawed is a logical expectation. Given that Dombrowski failed to build good bullpens in Detroit, for ten years doesn't indicate to me that he knows how to do this. Will Dombrowski's 2016 bullpen be superior to Sherrington's 2015 bullpen, damn well better be. Will it be championship caliber? We shall have to wait and see.
|
|
|
Post by justinp123 on Sept 15, 2015 8:37:52 GMT -5
I'm kind of curious as to why Swihart's small sample size is brought up in cons against him, yet Vasquez's aren't even mentioned when talking about his pros. Like CV's great pitch framing, yet he hasn't even played a full season in the bigs yet. But we start to mention BS's hitting and he gets critisized for not having enough time in the bigs, to believe that it's sustainable yet.
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Sept 15, 2015 9:12:22 GMT -5
I'm kind of curious as to why Swihart's small sample size is brought up in cons against him, yet Vasquez's aren't even mentioned when talking about his pros. Like CV's great pitch framing, yet he hasn't even played a full season in the bigs yet. But we start to mention BS's hitting and he gets critisized for not having enough time in the bigs, to believe that it's sustainable yet. Because pitch framing has been shown to be a very quickly "stabilizing" statistic (a catcher gets many framing chances a game), while Swihart's numbers are held up by a BABIP 30-40 points higher than the *highest* true talent BABIP of any player in major league baseball.
|
|
|
Post by justinp123 on Sept 15, 2015 10:03:12 GMT -5
Understandabl. But how do we know that CV's defense is sustainable?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 15, 2015 10:04:17 GMT -5
Understandabl. But how do we know that CV's defense is sustainable? Because he has been scouted the same exact way for many years. The only question is recovering from TJS, which every single person is in agreement with.
|
|