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.
Breaking News - Dombrowski out
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 14, 2019 20:25:20 GMT -5
Yeah amazing how he didn't make another big trade once the Red Sox had no top 100 guys left. Chavis has made top 100 list for the last two years. What's your point? He clearly could have made a bunch of big trades and tons of guys in our top 20 could be gone. It's what he did in Detroit, he never stopped. Cool like which trades?
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Sept 14, 2019 21:20:05 GMT -5
Yeah amazing how he didn't make another big trade once the Red Sox had no top 100 guys left. Chavis has made top 100 list for the last two years. What's your point? He clearly could have made a bunch of big trades and tons of guys in our top 20 could be gone. It's what he did in Detroit, he never stopped. Chavis was not on a top 100 the last two years. That's a false narrative. So, again, a case of Dombrowski in a no win situation. We want to consistently trade away top prospects, but blame him when the coffers are empty. So far he's given up an MLB regular and a platoon player.
|
|
|
Post by soxfaninnj on Sept 14, 2019 22:02:34 GMT -5
For those who haven’t listened to the latest soxprospects podcast yet, check it out the Chris and Ian do a fantastic job of putting things in perspective.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 15, 2019 0:42:19 GMT -5
Off the top of my head: Margot, Buttrey, Logan Allen, Shaun Anderson, Beeks, and Dubon are all players who would be on the team right now and have some upside. The Basabes, Kopech, Nogosek, and Espinal all could help in the future. I would have Kopech ranked 2nd if he were still in the system. That's not a commentary on the trades those players were involved in, as the got value when they needed to and won because of it. He got talent back! But he has traded a fair amount of talent, and the 2019 team us weaker because of it. The mediocre 2019 team is worth the 2016 to 2018 run, but also invites fair questions as to whether he was the right guy going forward. For the umpteenth time, this team was not mediocre, and anyone who views them that way will be incapable of rationally assessing what should be done in the off-season. They have a mediocre won/loss record. That's not anything like the same thing, and history is littered with GM's who made atrocious decisions by confusing the two. The 2019 Red Sox, compared to last year as of 9/8, were down 13.5 wins of clutch, situational performance. I could re-run my figures and verify they'd they'd lost some more ground since then, but let's just round that 13.5 up to 14 ... if the Sox had pitched as well with runners on as they did last year, and hit as well when tied or just behind in the late innings (great at both instead of awful), they'd be 4 games up for the first W/C.
The Yankees have had problems with their starting pitching nearly as bad as we have. Are they a mediocre team? They've gained about 6 wins of clutch relative to last year.
You have to understand this. You are not an 85-win team with a super-star in his walk year. You are a 93-win team that spent all year failing to get the job done when it counted.
Since the same players were the best team in MLB the previous year at doing exactly that, this obviously has no predictive year-to-year value at all.
An 85-win team with a shaky rotation should seriously think about trading their walk-year superstar. For one thing, if you're an 85-win team, you probably have other areas you need to improve in. A 93 win team -- even with a rotation filled with question marks-- has no business trading their walk-year superstar. A team that actually did that would be mocked. The rotation currently ranks 17th in MLB in Win Probability Added, but it ranks 10th in SIERA, 11th in xFIP-, and 11th in WPA/LI.
The Yankees rotation ranks 1st in MLB in FanGraph's "Clutch" statistic and the Red Sox rank last, the difference being 6.4 wins.
The Yankees rank 4th in MLB in "Clutch" hitting and the Red Sox rank 29th, the difference being 7.3 wins.
(The bullpens rank 7th and 17th, the difference being 1.4 wins.) We're 19.5 games behind the Yankees, which, if it represented the talent, would indeed call for a rebuild, which would begin with trading Mookie. But it's 4.5 wins of talent and 15 wins of clutch.
You have a single known weakness. You can work on it in the off-season. There's no reason you can't go into next season as a 95-win team on paper.
And the Sox with Mookie and Xander are one of the teams in MLB that project to do best in the post-season relative to their won-lost record, while the Yankees are one of the worst. Of the best hitters in MLB, Betts and Bogaerts have been two of the three best at hitting good pitching (again, relatively), while Judge, Stanton, and Sanchez are the three worst. Just a nitpick here, but James Dunne is right. When he referred to the 2019 Red Sox as "mediocre" he is correct. Virtually all of us know that the Red Sox underachieved this year, that their pythag number puts them in to the 90s in victories for the year. But James is referring to the reality of the 2019 Red Sox. Your referral of the Red Sox as a 93 win team is the virtual world version of the Red Sox where the Red Sox should have won 93 games. Their results are highly mediocre and that's really what ultimately matters. Or as Bill Parcells famously said, "You are what your record says you are." In the same vein you referred to the 2018 Red Sox as the best team in baseball for 2018. In reality, happily that is a true statement, but if we want to go back into your virtual world of 2018 the Houston Astros projected to have the best team. The Red Sox didn't have a healthy Chris Sale in the playoffs, but Houston had bigger issues. Altuve and Correa were banged up and Morton was coming off an injury, rendering him, like Sale, a shell of himself. And those factors helped swing the playoffs in Boston's favor. So if you're going by your virtual world view than yes Boston should have been in the 90s based on their roster talent, etc., but the 2018 Red Sox would not have been the best team in baseball. Houston would have been. But in the real world who cares? The 2018 World Championship flag still flies over Fenway which is what ultimately mattered and the 2019 Red Sox wound up being highly mediocre, which may or may not have been a big factor or gave them the excuse that helped lose Dave Dombrowski his job. It's easier to fire somebody when you win 85 games than 93 or 108. As far as your point about predictive value, I'd tend to agree, except at this point with the Red Sox, we have no idea what we can really project going forward. If you want to predict luck or karma beyond whatever talent base they have next season, you can say that they had really good luck in 2018 and really bad luck in 2019 and odds are good that luck factor will be somewhere in the middle next year. But to what talent base, who knows at this point? We have no idea who the next GM is or if Mookie and/or JD will still be on next year's team. And even if the roster stayed almost entirely the same, we have no idea about Chris Sale's health in 2020. We thought he'd be fine in 2019 and he wasn't. We don't know if his injuries are a precursor to TJS or if he reverts back, based on his still excellent K/BB ratio to the Chris Sale we all know and love. That's a big swing in expectations. And we don't know if Price will have another injury marred season, and if Eovaldi can actually make it through a season healthy and if he does will he resemble that pitcher the Sox saw in Sept/Oct 2018. And how are they replacing Porcello? You can say that's just one problem area they need to work on, but that area might prove tougher to fix than just throwing guys against the wall like they did for the pen and hoping for the best. The point is that I'd like to think we're looking at 93 win talent base next year and average luck at least, but at this point given what little we know about next year's roster I don't think there's a ton of predictive value to come out of this year for next year thereby making the reality of 2019 more impactful than than the virtual world status. Or at least I think the Red Sox think it is, because if they didn't, you'd think they just do the status quo thing, but I don't know/think they go down that path.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Sept 15, 2019 14:00:34 GMT -5
Chavis has made top 100 list for the last two years. What's your point? He clearly could have made a bunch of big trades and tons of guys in our top 20 could be gone. It's what he did in Detroit, he never stopped. Chavis was not on a top 100 the last two years. That's a false narrative. So, again, a case of Dombrowski in a no win situation. We want to consistently trade away top prospects, but blame him when the coffers are empty. So far he's given up an MLB regular and a platoon player. www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=chavis000micPre-2018 season Baseball America and MLB.com, pre-2019 MLB.com, not even close to a false narrative!
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Sept 15, 2019 14:10:10 GMT -5
Chavis was not on a top 100 the last two years. That's a false narrative. So, again, a case of Dombrowski in a no win situation. We want to consistently trade away top prospects, but blame him when the coffers are empty. So far he's given up an MLB regular and a platoon player. www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=chavis000micPre-2018 season Baseball America and MLB.com, pre-2019 MLB.com, not even close to a false narrative! You're right. On January 27th 2018, Chavis was ranked 79th. On the same date this year, Baseball America and Baseball Prospectus had 0 Red Sox prospects in the top 100, but MLB Pipeline had Chavis at 79. Still, not exactly highly touted and it turned out they needed him anyways.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Sept 15, 2019 14:11:00 GMT -5
Chavis has made top 100 list for the last two years. What's your point? He clearly could have made a bunch of big trades and tons of guys in our top 20 could be gone. It's what he did in Detroit, he never stopped. Cool like which trades? I'm not a mind reader, but the narrative that he stopped trading because he has nothing to trade is crazy. If our owner was all in this year and told DD to go for it, you think he can't make any trades because we have nothing to trade? DD from Detroit gets Marcus Stroman, not Andrew Cashner and yes we had plenty to make that happen given what he was traded for.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Sept 15, 2019 19:26:42 GMT -5
Please, keep going. Tell us who he'd trade. That has to be a two-sided affair, no? And give us your team salary projection while you're at it.
|
|
|
Post by juanpena on Sept 15, 2019 21:02:36 GMT -5
I think Margot, Guerra and Asuaje for Kimbrel was fair. Putting Logan Allen in was the problem for me. The Padres had gone into rebuild mode, and the last thing a team in rebuild mode needs is a closer who's owed $39 million over the next three years. In trades, it's usually one of two things: You take on all the money and give up fewer in the trade, or the other team pays part of the contract and you give more pieces. Dombrowski took on all the money AND give up a haul. He should have said something like, "If you want to say you got 4 for 1, you can have Teddy Stankewicz, but not Logan Allen." Are the Padres really going to walk away from a deal that takes them off the hook for $39 million and gives them a major-league-ready center fielder if the Sox don't include Logan Allen? I doubt it.
But here's the real problem I see with Dombrowski. He does something that people routinely used to do, but virtually no one else does anymore: He pays for past performance. He did it with Miguel Cabrera, in Detroit and he did it with Chris Sale, Nathan Eovaldi and Steve Pearce in Boston.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Sept 15, 2019 21:14:30 GMT -5
I think Margot, Guerra and Asuaje for Kimbrel was fair. Putting Logan Allen in was the problem for me. The Padres had gone into rebuild mode, and the last thing a team in rebuild mode needs is a closer who's owed $39 million over the next three years. In trades, it's usually one of two things: You take on all the money and give up fewer in the trade, or the other team pays part of the contract and you give more pieces. Dombrowski took on all the money AND give up a haul. He should have said something like, "If you want to say you got 4 for 1, you can have Teddy Stankewicz, but not Logan Allen." Are the Padres really going to walk away from a deal that takes them off the hook for $39 million and gives them a major-league-ready center fielder if the Sox don't include Logan Allen? I doubt it. But here's the real problem I see with Dombrowski. He does something that people routinely used to do, but virtually no one else does anymore: He pays for past performance. He did it with Miguel Cabrera, in Detroit and he did it with Chris Sale, Nathan Eovaldi and Steve Pearce in Boston.I am not arguing with you but are you saying Chris Sale and Eovaldi are done? If they are not done then what is the problem? And do we forget what he did last year? Last year he got Eovaldi and Pearce before they peaked. He got a very good 1 year out of Pomeranz and a decent enough half year. So he has some recognition skills. So this upcoming 2020 year the recognition skills are no longer required? Why? Are we going to rebuild or think we can contend?
|
|
|
Post by juanpena on Sept 15, 2019 21:27:00 GMT -5
I'm not saying Sale and Eovaldi are done, but there were HUGE red flags with Sale's last year. Giving him a huge extension before the season was a bad move. If he's healthy and pithing well, try to sign him after the season, and if someone else beats you on the deal, so be it.
And Eovaldi is a guy who's had injury problems throughout his career. He's made more than 27 starts once (in 2014) and has an ERA+ of 95 for his career. I still think he might be good for next year, but 4/68 was too many years and too much money. Try to get him for two years, and go 3/40 or so if needed. If someone tops that -- not sure who would have -- let him go, don't go overboard because of a great October.
I think the trades for Sale, Eovaldi and Pearce were fine. The new contracts weren't.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Sept 15, 2019 22:05:20 GMT -5
I'm not saying Sale and Eovaldi are done, but there were HUGE red flags with Sale's last year. Giving him a huge extension before the season was a bad move. If he's healthy and pithing well, try to sign him after the season, and if someone else beats you on the deal, so be it. And Eovaldi is a guy who's had injury problems throughout his career. He's made more than 27 starts once (in 2014) and has an ERA+ of 95 for his career. I still think he might be good for next year, but 4/68 was too many years and too much money. Try to get him for two years, and go 3/40 or so if needed. If someone tops that -- not sure who would have -- let him go, don't go overboard because of a great October. I think the trades for Sale, Eovaldi and Pearce were fine. The new contracts weren't. It might not be a problem though, right? And do you think we're in rebuild?
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 15, 2019 22:13:31 GMT -5
I'm not saying Sale and Eovaldi are done, but there were HUGE red flags with Sale's last year. Giving him a huge extension before the season was a bad move. If he's healthy and pithing well, try to sign him after the season, and if someone else beats you on the deal, so be it. And Eovaldi is a guy who's had injury problems throughout his career. He's made more than 27 starts once (in 2014) and has an ERA+ of 95 for his career. I still think he might be good for next year, but 4/68 was too many years and too much money. Try to get him for two years, and go 3/40 or so if needed. If someone tops that -- not sure who would have -- let him go, don't go overboard because of a great October. I think the trades for Sale, Eovaldi and Pearce were fine. The new contracts weren't. Or an alternate view would be say Sale did have his normal usual ace-like season in 2019 and became a free agent. Say the Sox lost him through free agency. You said if somebody else beats you on the deal, so be it, but is it really that casual? I mean, you lose your ace, you're hard pressed to replace him. Pitchers like Chris Sale don't grow on trees. Usually you lose your ace and struggle to replace him, you're in trouble. Two examples of this would be the "He's the ace" season of 2015 the year after Lester left and 1997 when the Sox lost Roger Clemens and acquired Steve Avery to front the staff. Again, this is an alternate reasonable view. I don't think you're being unreasonable with the cautious wait and see approach as far as how his injuries from late 2018 would impact his 2019 season. It's just that you run the risk of losing him and so you weigh his consistent acelike performance over the past 6 seasons including 2018 versus coming back from an injury toward the end of the year, a year he did end in spectacular fashion. And if you're hesitant to give out a contract to a veteran player coming off an injury that raised perhaps a question or two going forward, then perhaps you're hesitant to give out a deal to Charlie Morton, who clearly wasn't himself in the post-season. If so, then you're looking at Eovaldi, but if you offer him that 3/40 deal, you probably do lose him to his hometown Houston team and the alternate options weren't pretty. Ironically Lance Lynn, who was atrocious in the post-season and mostly mediocre last season, actually had a good season this year, but it was pretty slim pickings in the free agent market this past offseason, and we know there was nothing coming through the pipeline to supplement the starting pitching this season. Brian Johnson, Hector Velazquez, and Steve Wright weren't viable alternatives.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 16, 2019 7:54:10 GMT -5
Just a nitpick here, but James Dunne is right. When he referred to the 2019 Red Sox as "mediocre" he is correct. Virtually all of us know that the Red Sox underachieved this year, that their pythag number puts them in to the 90s in victories for the year. But James is referring to the reality of the 2019 Red Sox. Your referral of the Red Sox as a 93 win team is the virtual world version of the Red Sox where the Red Sox should have won 93 games. Their results are highly mediocre and that's really what ultimately matters. Actually I think mediocre was a poor word choice and, being in a position where I'm in charge of communicating the correct words, I am fine being called out on it. I'll stand by the rest of my post, but I was really thinking more "frustrating" or "underachieving" rather than mediocre but I didn't use those words. There are clear holes on the team, but they're going to finish with like 87 wins and 90 or so Pythag wins, which is probably already better than mediocre, and there has been some obvious bad luck and some sequencing issues that are hard to separate from bad luck. They went from a team I'd probably expect to win 104 games that won 108 to a team I'd expect to win 93 but will win like 87. When a team's talent level (or whatever you want to call it) drops off by 11 games (which is quite steep as it is), AND you go from being lucky to unlucky, it's going to overemphasize the dropoff. In some ways, though, that's good. As great as the team was last year, they had holes and didn't do enough to address them. A lot has been said whether than was just audacious overconfidence or just the resource allocation realities, but they're in a position to fix the problems they have and re-center around what is still a championship-level core.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Sept 16, 2019 8:19:35 GMT -5
Please, keep going. Two us who he'd trade. That has to be a two-sided affair, no? And give us your team salary projection while you're at it. So let me get this right, three of you can make this claim and provide zero evidence that he couldn't make trades because he didn't have top 100 prospects. Not a single example, yet if I don't agree and point to Detroit and all his trades there it means nothing without examples? Seems rather clear by things like our owner reducing payroll as revenue increases that DD marching orders were different this year and he adjusted. Something half the board thinks he's incapable of doing. In Detroit he emptied that system to levels we haven't come close to seeing in Boston. There was zero I can't make a ton of trades because I have no top 100 prospects. In Boston he's spent the last two years not trading our top guys and rebuilding the system. Honest question, do you really believe if DD marching orders were win at all Costs like in Detroit, he can't make more or wouldn't have made more impactful trades? It's what he does, reason they call him trader Dave. He makes things happen if that is what the owner wants. You can for sure criticize him including a Logan Allen as a 4th piece, yet that's what he does to get his guy. So the notion he couldn't make deals just blows my mind.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,830
|
Post by nomar on Sept 16, 2019 10:07:41 GMT -5
You say that like he can turn water into wine, or even further that he did so in Detroit.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 16, 2019 10:35:08 GMT -5
Please, keep going. Two us who he'd trade. That has to be a two-sided affair, no? And give us your team salary projection while you're at it. So let me get this right, three of you can make this claim and provide zero evidence that he couldn't make trades because he didn't have top 100 prospects. Not a single example, yet if I don't agree and point to Detroit and all his trades there it means nothing without examples? It's harder to make trades with a weak farm system than it is a strong one. Are you really disputing that?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 16, 2019 10:56:20 GMT -5
Or an alternate view would be say Sale did have his normal usual ace-like season in 2019 and became a free agent. Say the Sox lost him through free agency. You said if somebody else beats you on the deal, so be it, but is it really that casual? I mean, you lose your ace, you're hard pressed to replace him. Pitchers like Chris Sale don't grow on trees. Usually you lose your ace and struggle to replace him, you're in trouble. Two examples of this would be the "He's the ace" season of 2015 the year after Lester left and 1997 when the Sox lost Roger Clemens and acquired Steve Avery to front the staff. The Red Sox are in a salary crunch if you haven't noticed. If Sale had a great season and left for free agency... great, thank him for his service, close the book on a successful trade, and sign Mookie Betts. Or spread the money around and do like Devers/Benny/E-Rod. Or go after Gerrit Cole. Or get creative, make a trade were you take on a bad contract instead of giving up a prospect. $150m could be used for anything. The Red Sox didn't have to spend it on an aging pitcher who was hurt the last time we saw him.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 16, 2019 11:03:27 GMT -5
Seems pretty clear to me. We should be looking for a GM with 20/20 hindsight.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Sept 16, 2019 11:26:07 GMT -5
So let me get this right, three of you can make this claim and provide zero evidence that he couldn't make trades because he didn't have top 100 prospects. Not a single example, yet if I don't agree and point to Detroit and all his trades there it means nothing without examples? It's harder to make trades with a weak farm system than it is a strong one. Are you really disputing that? Nope, but that wasn't what you said or implied. It was the two years with no big trades was because he didn't have top 100 guys to trade and that DD didn't change, adjust or do anything different he just didn't have the ammo. Yet the Mets who everyone had ranked below us made two of the bigger trades all year. You can debate it, but you could say a team with a worst farm system acquired the best reliever and starter to hit the market and be traded. It might have been harder for the Mets to make those deals than say the Padres or Braves, doesn't mean they couldn't make them obviously.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 16, 2019 11:37:45 GMT -5
Just a nitpick here, but James Dunne is right. When he referred to the 2019 Red Sox as "mediocre" he is correct. Virtually all of us know that the Red Sox underachieved this year, that their pythag number puts them in to the 90s in victories for the year. But James is referring to the reality of the 2019 Red Sox. Your referral of the Red Sox as a 93 win team is the virtual world version of the Red Sox where the Red Sox should have won 93 games. Their results are highly mediocre and that's really what ultimately matters. Actually I think mediocre was a poor word choice and, being in a position where I'm in charge of communicating the correct words, I am fine being called out on it. I'll stand by the rest of my post, but I was really thinking more "frustrating" or "underachieving" rather than mediocre but I didn't use those words. There are clear holes on the team, but they're going to finish with like 87 wins and 90 or so Pythag wins, which is probably already better than mediocre, and there has been some obvious bad luck and some sequencing issues that are hard to separate from bad luck. They went from a team I'd probably expect to win 104 games that won 108 to a team I'd expect to win 93 but will win like 87. When a team's talent level (or whatever you want to call it) drops off by 11 games (which is quite steep as it is), AND you go from being lucky to unlucky, it's going to overemphasize the dropoff. In some ways, though, that's good. As great as the team was last year, they had holes and didn't do enough to address them. A lot has been said whether than was just audacious overconfidence or just the resource allocation realities, but they're in a position to fix the problems they have and re-center around what is still a championship-level core. I can see that. Usually the word "mediocre" is a 75 - 80 win team in my thought process. I mean the Seattle Mariners would have killed for an 85 win team back in the 1980s as I'm sure Orioles fans or Marlins fans would love to see their team be as mediocre as the 2019 Red Sox. Using the word "mediocre" on the Red Sox is more of a reflection upon how badly they've slid, more than just the luck factors involved. That core win expectation went down about 10 wins which is mostly a reflection of the starting pitching imploding. The "luck" factors are more likely things like lack of clutch hitting and clutch pitching - I could be wrong but I feel like the Sox gave up a lot of 2 out hits that hurt this year compared to last year where they seemed to wiggle out of a lot of jams. And the baserunning fell off a bit, too. One of my favorite features of the 2018 Red Sox was their stolen base capabilities and efficiencies. No they weren't the 1976 A's, but they were one of the few teams that could really distract their opponents with their speed and ability to take the extra base. If you ever get a chance, re-watch the 4th inning of the Steve Pearce 3 HR game against the Yankees in early Aug 2018. While that was the headline, that 8 run inning illustrates my point. The way JBJ was able to score on a ball he should have been out on. The way Benintendi stole Holder blind and it unnerved him and Pearce's 2nd HR of the game soon followed. Little things like that which were missing this year.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 16, 2019 11:43:31 GMT -5
It's harder to make trades with a weak farm system than it is a strong one. Are you really disputing that? Nope, but that wasn't what you said or implied. It was the two years with no big trades was because he didn't have top 100 guys to trade and that DD didn't change, adjust or do anything different he just didn't have the ammo. Yet the Mets who everyone had ranked below us made two of the bigger trades all year. You can debate it, but you could say a team with a worst farm system acquired the best reliever and starter to hit the market and be traded. It might have been harder for the Mets to make those deals than say the Padres or Braves, doesn't mean they couldn't make them obviously. Wait what? The Mets were definitely not ranked below the Red Sox at any point from the 2018 season to the 2019 deadline. Red Sox might be ahead now, after those trades and with some good upward movement from Boston guys this year, but they definitely weren't matching Kelenic/Dunn. FG Before draft: blogs.fangraphs.com/pre-draft-farm-system-rankings/FG after 2018 season blogs.fangraphs.com/post-2018-farm-system-rankings/MLB before season: www.milb.com/milb/news/farm-system-rankings-overall-30-21/c-304615150; www.milb.com/milb/news/farm-system-rankings-overall-20-11/c-304727346
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 16, 2019 11:49:28 GMT -5
It's harder to make trades with a weak farm system than it is a strong one. Are you really disputing that? Nope, but that wasn't what you said or implied. Yeah, it was. Also, in the future, if what someone is saying doesn't make sense to you, maybe just ask them to clarify instead of going full lawyer mode on the semantics of something that probably wasn't meant to be taken entirely literally in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Sept 16, 2019 11:50:55 GMT -5
You say that like he can turn water into wine, or even further that he did so in Detroit. www.masslive.com/redsox/2016/12/boston_red_sox_dave_dombrowski_5.htmlThat's really not what I'm trying to say. Yeah overall he has a very good track record on big trades. He's certainly not perfect. The point being he doesn't need top 100 elite prospects to make big trades and that DD does what the owner wants. I hate the narrative DD can do only one thing and he's now useless to the Red Sox because we have no elite prospects for him to trade. It doesn't match up with his career overall. It just focuses on the last few Detroit seasons and his first couple Red Sox seasons. While acting like his time with the Expos, Marlins and when he fully rebuilt Detroit never happened. He's spent the last two years rebuilding the system, not gutting it to the bone like in Detroit. I truly believe that is because of our owner and the marching orders he gave DD. He'll allow him to make trades, but he won't allow him to completely gut the system year in and year out either. DD does what the owner wants.
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Sept 16, 2019 12:06:48 GMT -5
Seems pretty clear to me. We should be looking for a GM with 20/20 hindsight. Maybe one with 20/50 vision then? I mean, Sale has had arm issues at some point every year in Boston. Last year he finished the season with a shoulder injury. Was it that hard to see this was a risk? Go back to the signing thread and you can see about a 50/50 split of concern there, kind of high for getting your ace under contract long-term. I remember my personal reaction to the news literally being one of excitement because I knew he had to pass a physical to sign and, coming off the injury last year, figured it'd mean a great year for him.
|
|
|