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.
Red Sox GM Search & Other Front Office Moves
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 13, 2019 12:32:30 GMT -5
Someone finally got it rigth, Peter Abarham. Winning the World Series is all that matters. The Dodgers have won seven consecutive division championships and assembled a player development machine that churns out high-end talent. But they still haven’t won a championship since 1988. The Yankees have done everything right under Brian Cashman, investing in analytics and building up their farm system. But they have one championship in the last 18 seasons. For all the cognoscenti who laud the Athletics for their enlightened frugality, their last World Series was in 1990. The poor Twins have managed to lose 16 postseason games in a row since 2004. But that’s better than the Mariners, who were last in the postseason in 2001. Jamie Moyer, who won 20 games for that team, turns 57 next month. The point is that championships are precious and the opportunity to win another one can’t be treated casually. So how in the world are the Red Sox even considering the idea of trading Mookie Betts? Championships may be all that matters, but team builders can only put teams in a position to win them (by winning divisions), they cannot ever guarantee it. 2018 playoffs wRC+: Mookie Betts: 53 Xander Bogaerts: 62 Steve Pearce: 187 2019 playoffs: Cody Bellinger: 52 Didi Gregorius: 216 2018 George Springer: 247 2019 George Springer: -13 I guess if you could predict that, you'd win all the championships. But no one can. That is one way of looking at it, it's just luck. Yet I hate the if your good enough to win the division your GM has done his job. Friedman wasn't paid 35 million to win division titles. At some point you need to decide if your OK with having a bunch of very good teams long-term versus going for a championship. Friedman gets all the credit for not trading his young players, but he also deserves the questions being asked, did he cost them a championship or two by not making some big moves? DD didn't add Pearce and Eovaldi because we needed them to win the division. He did it to create the best team he could that had the best chance at winning a Championship. It's one of the big reasons I like DD, he's old school. He built a team so deep that you didn't need certain players like Sale, Betts, and Kimbrel to be great to win. He deserves the credit for that. Heck he had a last minute deal for an impact reliever fall through. He doesn't believe in overkill and it created the best Red Sox team in history.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Oct 13, 2019 13:00:36 GMT -5
He is. And I would have hoped we've got by this long before now. Nobody wants to trade Betts. That said nobody thinks he should be made the highest payed player in the game. It's pretty simple.
If staying in Boston means he's going to want to be compensated that way, the RS shouldn't do it. Like Gammons has said it may not be possible to move Betts, he may just have to play out his deal.
As for the new GM with all this time to consider things I wonder if ownership would consider naming their selection prior to the WS? Let's get on with it. This the classic "glass half-full or half-empty?" Gammons said the Red Sox "could" trade Betts. www.12up.com/posts/peter-gammons-hints-red-sox-could-trade-mookie-betts-this-offseason-without-extension-01dh50bprmsw I wouldn't trade him either because I think all the Sox need is three players to perform like they are capable of playing "big"-- Sale, Eovaldi and Beni. I'm not taking the the Owner going under the threshold into account. But if these guys perform Sox are one tough team. But with that said-- if you don't believe Sox are contenders -- I don't understand how anyone can think they should keep him. You are going to get something better than a 4th rd pick for him. A lot better than that.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 13, 2019 16:51:06 GMT -5
Championships may be all that matters, but team builders can only put teams in a position to win them (by winning divisions), they cannot ever guarantee it. 2018 playoffs wRC+: Mookie Betts: 53 Xander Bogaerts: 62 Steve Pearce: 187 2019 playoffs: Cody Bellinger: 52 Didi Gregorius: 216 2018 George Springer: 247 2019 George Springer: -13 I guess if you could predict that, you'd win all the championships. But no one can. That is one way of looking at it, it's just luck. Yet I hate the if your good enough to win the division your GM has done his job. Friedman wasn't paid 35 million to win division titles. At some point you need to decide if your OK with having a bunch of very good teams long-term versus going for a championship. Friedman gets all the credit for not trading his young players, but he also deserves the questions being asked, did he cost them a championship or two by not making some big moves? DD didn't add Pearce and Eovaldi because we needed them to win the division. He did it to create the best team he could that had the best chance at winning a Championship. It's one of the big reasons I like DD, he's old school. He built a team so deep that you didn't need certain players like Sale, Betts, and Kimbrel to be great to win. He deserves the credit for that. Heck he had a last minute deal for an impact reliever fall through. He doesn't believe in overkill and it created the best Red Sox team in history. He gave up almost nothing for Pearce and Eovaldi. And then Pearce went absolutely insane in the playoffs along with JBJ, which no one including DDo could have possibly predicted, while the stars were pretty silent. JDM was ok, but not nearly as good as the regular season and not really in big spots either. If Pearce and JBJ and Joe Kelly played as they usually play, would they have won? Maybe, but not definitely. Crazy, crazy things happen in small samples. Tell me how great of a job the Nationals GM did by almost getting a no-hitter from Anibal Sanchez and getting lights out performances from Daniel Hudson? Each had xFIPs over 5 this year. I really hope the Nationals win just to get you guys to realize how much of a crap shoot the playoffs usually are.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Oct 13, 2019 19:47:08 GMT -5
That is one way of looking at it, it's just luck. Yet I hate the if your good enough to win the division your GM has done his job. Friedman wasn't paid 35 million to win division titles. At some point you need to decide if your OK with having a bunch of very good teams long-term versus going for a championship. Friedman gets all the credit for not trading his young players, but he also deserves the questions being asked, did he cost them a championship or two by not making some big moves? DD didn't add Pearce and Eovaldi because we needed them to win the division. He did it to create the best team he could that had the best chance at winning a Championship. It's one of the big reasons I like DD, he's old school. He built a team so deep that you didn't need certain players like Sale, Betts, and Kimbrel to be great to win. He deserves the credit for that. Heck he had a last minute deal for an impact reliever fall through. He doesn't believe in overkill and it created the best Red Sox team in history. He gave up almost nothing for Pearce and Eovaldi. And then Pearce went absolutely insane in the playoffs along with JBJ, which no one including DDo could have possibly predicted, while the stars were pretty silent. JDM was ok, but not nearly as good as the regular season and not really in big spots either. If Pearce and JBJ and Joe Kelly played as they usually play, would they have won? Maybe, but not definitely. Crazy, crazy things happen in small samples. Tell me how great of a job the Nationals GM did by almost getting a no-hitter from Anibal Sanchez and getting lights out performances from Daniel Hudson? Each had xFIPs over 5 this year. I really hope the Nationals win just to get you guys to realize how much of a crap shoot the playoffs usually are. Sure "no one could've predicted." In baseball we all learned that as kids, haven't we? I also loved the Cinci Reds as a kid and I saw Gene Tenace destroy the Reds. Unsung heroes come up huge a lot uin these games as well as superstars. I'm hoping the Nats win too. IMO it just highlights yet again going after a superstar in someone like "Mad Max" can pay off. The Dodgers have the opportunity to go big-- and imo they have with Manny and Darvish. And actually Pollock appeared to be good too when they made it buts as you say there are no assurances -- so a prior post you made "they will eventually win" is nothing more than a wild guess. There are potentially the next "Pearce and Eovaldi's" that the Dodgers will get beaten by. Or a Nats team that surprises them. They have tried with Darvish and Manny types no reason for them not to keep on trying and maybe get a Betts. If Nats win as you hoe - it would have meant Mad Max was a huge reason why they got there. And we know with the Sox we've lived off of FA's and Trades to get us to titles. The Cubs sold a potential superstar to get Chapman. It now going on year 32 for a big market team like the Dodgers. They have the depth-- maybe they just need one more superstar to get them over the hump? If you don;t win a World Series after 31 years and the last 6 or so you've had strong teams, imo that's not a "success." Not after not winning over 31 years.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 13, 2019 21:04:45 GMT -5
He gave up almost nothing for Pearce and Eovaldi. And then Pearce went absolutely insane in the playoffs along with JBJ, which no one including DDo could have possibly predicted, while the stars were pretty silent. JDM was ok, but not nearly as good as the regular season and not really in big spots either. If Pearce and JBJ and Joe Kelly played as they usually play, would they have won? Maybe, but not definitely. Crazy, crazy things happen in small samples. Tell me how great of a job the Nationals GM did by almost getting a no-hitter from Anibal Sanchez and getting lights out performances from Daniel Hudson? Each had xFIPs over 5 this year. I really hope the Nationals win just to get you guys to realize how much of a crap shoot the playoffs usually are. Sure "no one could've predicted." In baseball we all learned that as kids, haven't we? I also loved the Cinci Reds as a kid and I saw Gene Tenace destroy the Reds. Unsung heroes come up huge a lot uin these games as well as superstars. I'm hoping the Nats win too. IMO it just highlights yet again going after a superstar in someone like "Mad Max" can pay off. The Dodgers have the opportunity to go big-- and imo they have with Manny and Darvish. And actually Pollock appeared to be good too when they made it buts as you say there are no assurances -- so a prior post you made "they will eventually win" is nothing more than a wild guess. There are potentially the next "Pearce and Eovaldi's" that the Dodgers will get beaten by. Or a Nats team that surprises them. They have tried with Darvish and Manny types no reason for them not to keep on trying and maybe get a Betts. If Nats win as you hoe - it would have meant Mad Max was a huge reason why they got there. And we know with the Sox we've lived off of FA's and Trades to get us to titles. The Cubs sold a potential superstar to get Chapman. It now going on year 32 for a big market team like the Dodgers. They have the depth-- maybe they just need one more superstar to get them over the hump? If you don;t win a World Series after 31 years and the last 6 or so you've had strong teams, imo that's not a "success." Not after not winning over 31 years. I don't disagree with you for the most part. There IS no guarantee that the Dodgers will win soon, but my feeling is if the Dodgers are set up with a serious shot at winning most years as opposed to a team that blows its wad on a year or two window, the Dodgers are more likely to break thru and win the whole damn thing, but it's certainly no guarantee. You take your chances and the more chances you have the better. I'm glad that the Red Sox capitalized on their chances this century. They did a lousy job of that last century. They had 1 pennant in a 49 year stretch (no wild card of course) an didn't win, then it took them 8 years to win in 1975 and they lost and another 11 years in 1986 and they lost again. I mean in the last 25 years the Dodgers have been a much better team than the Marlins but the Marlins capitalized on their only 2 chances and have 2 championships while the Dodgers are still looking. The Yankees have a much higher winning pct this century than the Red Sox, but if you count 2000 as part of this century the Red Sox lead the Yankees in World Championships 4 to 2 (soon to be 3), which is the bottom line, as Yankees fans are quick to remind us. You mentioned the Reds of the 1970s. They kept giving themselves more chances and they finally broke through. They won the pennant in 1970 but were swept by a hungry Orioles team that had been upset the year before, they lost the Series to Oakland in 1972 amd were beaten by the suddenly hot Mets in 1973. Finally in 1975 they were able to overwhelm in the season and squeak by in the Series and then repeat easier in 1976.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 13, 2019 21:35:05 GMT -5
I'm not sure that the Nats get credit for going for it with Scherzer in the same year that they let Harper go for nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 14, 2019 6:49:02 GMT -5
I'm not sure that the Nats get credit for going for it with Scherzer in the same year that they let Harper go for nothing. They attempted to sign him. They didn't give him the mega contract the Phillies did. It isn't like they sold him off to rebuild. If a player chooses to play elsewhere that doesn't mean that the teams that didn't sign the player didn't try hard enough. They still had a very good team and added Corbin. This isn't some random surprise team like when the Braves were ready way before anyone thought they'd be last year.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Oct 14, 2019 10:26:20 GMT -5
That is one way of looking at it, it's just luck. Yet I hate the if your good enough to win the division your GM has done his job. Friedman wasn't paid 35 million to win division titles. At some point you need to decide if your OK with having a bunch of very good teams long-term versus going for a championship. Friedman gets all the credit for not trading his young players, but he also deserves the questions being asked, did he cost them a championship or two by not making some big moves? DD didn't add Pearce and Eovaldi because we needed them to win the division. He did it to create the best team he could that had the best chance at winning a Championship. It's one of the big reasons I like DD, he's old school. He built a team so deep that you didn't need certain players like Sale, Betts, and Kimbrel to be great to win. He deserves the credit for that. Heck he had a last minute deal for an impact reliever fall through. He doesn't believe in overkill and it created the best Red Sox team in history. He gave up almost nothing for Pearce and Eovaldi. And then Pearce went absolutely insane in the playoffs along with JBJ, which no one including DDo could have possibly predicted, while the stars were pretty silent. JDM was ok, but not nearly as good as the regular season and not really in big spots either. If Pearce and JBJ and Joe Kelly played as they usually play, would they have won? Maybe, but not definitely. Crazy, crazy things happen in small samples. Tell me how great of a job the Nationals GM did by almost getting a no-hitter from Anibal Sanchez and getting lights out performances from Daniel Hudson? Each had xFIPs over 5 this year. I really hope the Nationals win just to get you guys to realize how much of a crap shoot the playoffs usually are. I’m rooting for the Nats too, but mostly because I don’t much like the two possible AL entries.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Oct 14, 2019 10:29:06 GMT -5
Having watched Soto last year, I thought they'd do exactly what Hatfield pointed out: offer him a reasonable deal on a take it or leave it basis. They knew exactly what they had in the 19 year old so they felt comfortable with our without Harper. That worked out quite well.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Oct 14, 2019 10:38:51 GMT -5
I'm not sure that the Nats get credit for going for it with Scherzer in the same year that they let Harper go for nothing. They attempted to sign him. They didn't give him the mega contract the Phillies did. It isn't like they sold him off to rebuild. If a player chooses to play elsewhere that doesn't mean that the teams that didn't sign the player didn't try hard enough. They still had a very good team and added Corbin. This isn't some random surprise team like when the Braves were ready way before anyone thought they'd be last year. I would argue that they made the smart play: they made an offer to Harper (better than what he signed for in some ways), he didn’t take it, and so they pivoted with those $ and, as you note, signed Corbin for similar AAV but only 40% of the years, and got something like 30% more production, depending on the comparison. I think that WS “luck” is in some large part construction: offseason foundation, mid season finishing work, late-season “furnishing.” As Soxchamps notes, more chances improves your odds at breaking through; I'd add to that, so does gestalt approach. High-end pitching and defense and high-OBP (vs power-based) offense, and team depth (finding a hot hand) all tip the balances a little more in your favor.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 14, 2019 11:09:42 GMT -5
That is one way of looking at it, it's just luck. Yet I hate the if your good enough to win the division your GM has done his job. Friedman wasn't paid 35 million to win division titles. At some point you need to decide if your OK with having a bunch of very good teams long-term versus going for a championship. Friedman gets all the credit for not trading his young players, but he also deserves the questions being asked, did he cost them a championship or two by not making some big moves? DD didn't add Pearce and Eovaldi because we needed them to win the division. He did it to create the best team he could that had the best chance at winning a Championship. It's one of the big reasons I like DD, he's old school. He built a team so deep that you didn't need certain players like Sale, Betts, and Kimbrel to be great to win. He deserves the credit for that. Heck he had a last minute deal for an impact reliever fall through. He doesn't believe in overkill and it created the best Red Sox team in history. He gave up almost nothing for Pearce and Eovaldi. And then Pearce went absolutely insane in the playoffs along with JBJ, which no one including DDo could have possibly predicted, while the stars were pretty silent. JDM was ok, but not nearly as good as the regular season and not really in big spots either. If Pearce and JBJ and Joe Kelly played as they usually play, would they have won? Maybe, but not definitely. Crazy, crazy things happen in small samples. Tell me how great of a job the Nationals GM did by almost getting a no-hitter from Anibal Sanchez and getting lights out performances from Daniel Hudson? Each had xFIPs over 5 this year. I really hope the Nationals win just to get you guys to realize how much of a crap shoot the playoffs usually are. You make it sound like Sanchez and Hudson sucked and bam were lights out in the playoffs and it's some huge surprise. Hudson was worth 2.0 bwar and Sanchez was worth 3.7 bwar during the regular season. The Nationals are a legit good team. 5th best run differential in Baseball playing in hardest division in the game. The 4th team in the division was the Phillies at 81-81, only division in Baseball with four teams at .500 or above. They have top of the line players in the pitching staff and among their hitters. Nevermind what 2nd highest payroll in the game? I just don't see why you think the playoffs are some crap shoot if they win. Few teams can match that starting pitching, Sanchez is the 4th guy at 3.7 bwar. It's a perfect example of why it's not just about winning your division, but planning for the Postseason. The Yankees can't match that pitching. Yet Houston making a move for Grienke can. The Dodgers play in a crappy division, have unreal depth, but keep playing crazy young inexperienced players in the postsesson. That pitching staff might be the deepest in the league. Yet matched up in a short series that depth doesn't matter. Those 6, 7, and 8th starters that helped the Dodgers so much in the regular season mean very little in the postseason. It's like the world series when they had a crap load of guys on the bench versus us that had hit 20 plus homers. That depth doesn't do you any good sitting on the bench in the playoffs, but really helps during a long season. I'm really not surprised the Dodgers lost to the Nationals, it's not some shocking upset.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 14, 2019 11:21:30 GMT -5
He gave up almost nothing for Pearce and Eovaldi. And then Pearce went absolutely insane in the playoffs along with JBJ, which no one including DDo could have possibly predicted, while the stars were pretty silent. JDM was ok, but not nearly as good as the regular season and not really in big spots either. If Pearce and JBJ and Joe Kelly played as they usually play, would they have won? Maybe, but not definitely. Crazy, crazy things happen in small samples. Tell me how great of a job the Nationals GM did by almost getting a no-hitter from Anibal Sanchez and getting lights out performances from Daniel Hudson? Each had xFIPs over 5 this year. I really hope the Nationals win just to get you guys to realize how much of a crap shoot the playoffs usually are. You make it sound like Sanchez and Hudson sucked and bam were lights out in the playoffs and it's some huge surprise. Hudson was worth 2.0 bwar and Sanchez was worth 3.7 bwar during the regular season. The Nationals are a legit good team. 5th best run differential in Baseball playing in hardest division in the game. The 4th team in the division was the Phillies at 81-81, only division in Baseball with four teams at .500 or above. They have top of the line players in the pitching staff and among their hitters. Nevermind what 2nd highest payroll in the game? I just don't see why you think the playoffs are some crap shoot if they win. Few teams can match that starting pitching, Sanchez is the 4th guy at 3.7 bwar. It's a perfect example of why it's not just about winning your division, but planning for the Postseason. The Yankees can't match that pitching. Yet Houston making a move for Grienke can. The Dodgers play in a crappy division, have unreal depth, but keep playing crazy young inexperienced players in the postsesson. That pitching staff might be the deepest in the league. Yet matched up in a short series that depth doesn't matter. Those 6, 7, and 8th starters that helped the Dodgers so much in the regular season mean very little in the postseason. It's like the world series when they had a crap load of guys on the bench versus us that had hit 20 plus homers. That depth doesn't do you any good sitting on the bench in the playoffs, but really helps during a long season. I'm really not surprised the Dodgers lost to the Nationals, it's not some shocking upset. It is a crapshoot to a point. Anything can happen in a short series but you have to hedge your bets. A team like Washington has dominating starting pitching. The Astros have dominating starting pitching and is all around great. I do believe depth can matter in a short series. The Red Sox used a lot of their depth to win the World Series they won, particularly in 2004 and 2018, depth they really didn't have in 1986 outside of Dave Henderson of course. A lot of unpredictable stuff does happen. I hate saying this, but what has really hurt the Dodgers is that they have a HOF pitcher in Kershaw who leads them to the post-season year in and year out and he becomes a totally different pitcher in the post-season and it deflates that team. I can only wonder how well the Dodgers would do if Kershaw pitched in October the way he does the rest of the year. It's not all on him, but he's a big part of it as he is one of their key pitchers. It's like how tough it was to win when David Price was in your post-season rotation - until he finally got that huge monkey off his back. What I did want to say about Washington is that they got off to a horrendous start - the first third of the season they were abysmal. What were they, 19-31? That's a lot of games under .500. Since that point, they were 74-38. That's a long stretch of dominance. They got in as a 93 win wild card team, but they've been playing a lot better than that. Their arrow was pointing up, as I believe the team they have become is clearly different than the team they were. I know that's a bit of cherry picking, but I think the only reason I was surprised that they beat LA was because the Montreal Expos/Washington Nationals have a history of falling short in the playoffs. That really has nothing to do with the individual 2019 Washington team that is playing now, but history is a tough thing to kick - until you actually do it. This Washington team played the last 2/3 of the season as well as LA did and not only pulled off a comeback just to get into the playoffs, but pulled off another one against Milwaukee in a sudden death playoff game and then another one at in the NLDS. This is a tough Nats team, and while I could be completely wrong (again!), I really do think they'll finish off the job against the Cardinals. Don't think they'll win the World Series. I think either NY or Houston will beat them, but I'll be rooting for them.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 14, 2019 12:46:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 14, 2019 12:55:04 GMT -5
I hate saying this, but what has really hurt the Dodgers is that they have a HOF pitcher in Kershaw who leads them to the post-season year in and year out and he becomes a totally different pitcher in the post-season and it deflates that team. I can only wonder how well the Dodgers would do if Kershaw pitched in October the way he does the rest of the year. It's not all on him, but he's a big part of it as he is one of their key pitchers. It's like how tough it was to win when David Price was in your post-season rotation - until he finally got that huge monkey off his back. That's also why it's such nonsense when people try to construct some narrative about how the Dodgers haven't won a World Series because there's some fatal flaw in how they build their teams, that they haven't fully "gone for it". You're basically saying "if these fools were serious about winning they'd ditch that Kershaw bum". In the last couple years you can argue they've relied on him too heavily (particularly this year) but for the most part there was no other decision to be made other than handing that guy the ball.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 14, 2019 14:15:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Oct 14, 2019 21:07:17 GMT -5
... Sure "no one could've predicted." In baseball we all learned that as kids, haven't we? I also loved the Cinci Reds as a kid and I saw Gene Tenace destroy the Reds. Unsung heroes come up huge a lot uin these games as well as superstars. ... Gene Tenace, for those who don't know the name was for at least a few seasons the best player on the Athletics. Anyone watching him through 1970s baseball eyes might have discounted the guy because of his avg. Ignore that. He was on base at a nearly .390 clip and he had power. From 1973 to 1979 he averaged 5 wins. He was unsung because he played in Oakland. Reds fans got a rude awakening that wasn't all that much of surprise to those he knew the team.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Oct 14, 2019 21:27:09 GMT -5
And we know with the Sox we've lived off of FA's and Trades to get us to titles. The Cubs sold a potential superstar to get Chapman. It now going on year 32 for a big market team like the Dodgers. They have the depth-- maybe they just need one more superstar to get them over the hump? If you don;t win a World Series after 31 years and the last 6 or so you've had strong teams, imo that's not a "success." Not after not winning over 31 years. I don't disagree with you for the most part. There IS no guarantee that the Dodgers will win soon, but my feeling is if the Dodgers are set up with a serious shot at winning most years as opposed to a team that blows its wad on a year or two window, the Dodgers are more likely to break thru and win the whole damn thing, but it's certainly no guarantee. You take your chances and the more chances you have the better. I'm glad that the Red Sox capitalized on their chances this century. They did a lousy job of that last century. They had 1 pennant in a 49 year stretch (no wild card of course) an didn't win, then it took them 8 years to win in 1975 and they lost and another 11 years in 1986 and they lost again. I mean in the last 25 years the Dodgers have been a much better team than the Marlins but the Marlins capitalized on their only 2 chances and have 2 championships while the Dodgers are still looking. The Yankees have a much higher winning pct this century than the Red Sox, but if you count 2000 as part of this century the Red Sox lead the Yankees in World Championships 4 to 2 (soon to be 3), which is the bottom line, as Yankees fans are quick to remind us. You mentioned the Reds of the 1970s. They kept giving themselves more chances and they finally broke through. They won the pennant in 1970 but were swept by a hungry Orioles team that had been upset the year before, they lost the Series to Oakland in 1972 amd were beaten by the suddenly hot Mets in 1973. Finally in 1975 they were able to overwhelm in the season and squeak by in the Series and then repeat easier in 1976. Just saying a front office move of trading a superstar like Betts to Dodgers is not "off-the-wall" if one were to believe the Sox didn't have a chance to contend and ofc depending on Sox plans for team salary. I've said the Dodgers might win it all in the near future. But I've also said is getting superstars does increase your chances of winning it all or hitting on trades/ free agency - not just assuming your farm will pull you through. I'm just disputing "they will eventually win." Or "their past actions/ philosophy does not support them from going "big" in a tarde or maybe FA. As for the Reds (they weren't swept but I know that don't matter. I'm still though obviously a huge fan of those 70's Reds teams though. DOn't take away the one W/S game they won that year! It was my 1st year following baseball a bit - Sox and Reds! Damn Brooks Robinson! ) -- they made a blockbuster deal to get Joe Morgan.See the link below and the quote made in the article. All I'm saying is over the last 40+ years we've seen how Free Agents and Trades have changed clubs dramatically. First-hand we've seen it with our Sox in a huge huge way. Why should we throw these examples away for the Dodgers who haven't won in 31 years? They are a big market team. IMO it's a bit of a slap in the face if any small market team has gotten more championships in this window. Though Marlins 1st title they spent like a big market. baseballhall.org/discover/inside-pitch/blockbuster-trade-sends-morgan-to-reds"“If the United States had traded Dwight Eisenhower to the Germans during World War II, it wouldn’t have been much different than sending (Lee) May and (Tommy) Helms to Houston,” wrote Enquirer sports reporter Bob Hertzel that day." *****In baseball I think we can point to - nearly every team that has won over past 40+ years has had - a lot of luck, and/or big production in trades and/or big production in Free Agency. Yes I agree "to knock at the door more often" is a great chance. . . But for it to mean much they have to do better . . .
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Oct 14, 2019 22:23:03 GMT -5
... Sure "no one could've predicted." In baseball we all learned that as kids, haven't we? I also loved the Cinci Reds as a kid and I saw Gene Tenace destroy the Reds. Unsung heroes come up huge a lot uin these games as well as superstars. ... Gene Tenace, for those who don't know the name was for at least a few seasons the best player on the Athletics. Anyone watching him through 1970s baseball eyes might have discounted the guy because of his avg. Ignore that. He was on base at a nearly .390 clip and he had power. From 1973 to 1979 he averaged 5 wins. He was unsung because he played in Oakland. Reds fans got a rude awakening that wasn't all that much of surprise to those he knew the team. If my numbers are right-- In 1972 when Gene Tenace destroyed my Reds he had 227 reg. season ab's with a slash line of .225/.307/.339/.646. They did turn over the catching duties to him from AUg 27th on-- he was pretty good he had 100 ab's and was the reg catcher. His slash numbers were .270/.381/.380/.761. Conversely his WS in 72 numbers were .348/.400/.913/1.313. The slugging of reg season was .380 when he turned into a regular and his postseason was .913. That's extreme and unexpected. Before 1972 he never even got more than 200 AB's. His best career OPS numbers for 400 AB's or more were .859 and .848. That W/S in 1972 his performance was definitely a surprise. He never even came close ever again for a reason looking at his reg seasons and other posts season series. Because it was a shock. Other than his post season World Series vs my Reds in 1972 he never hit above .235 in any post season series while his OPS tops was .677. He had that one super series vs my Reds - take away that and his post season slash numbers if I calculated right were -- .110/.325/.121/446.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Oct 14, 2019 22:43:02 GMT -5
I hate saying this, but what has really hurt the Dodgers is that they have a HOF pitcher in Kershaw who leads them to the post-season year in and year out and he becomes a totally different pitcher in the post-season and it deflates that team. I can only wonder how well the Dodgers would do if Kershaw pitched in October the way he does the rest of the year. It's not all on him, but he's a big part of it as he is one of their key pitchers. It's like how tough it was to win when David Price was in your post-season rotation - until he finally got that huge monkey off his back. I know some will try to change the narrative here. But the narrative has always been at least for me -- the Dodgers goal is to win the World Series. I highly doubt management and the players overall are satisfied. Red Sox fans and other fans can be satisfied. We don't care much if they lose or win. The Dodgers have shown they have gone for it. Can't we agree that it hasn't been good enough regardless if it's been Kershaw or other?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 14, 2019 23:02:54 GMT -5
I hate saying this, but what has really hurt the Dodgers is that they have a HOF pitcher in Kershaw who leads them to the post-season year in and year out and he becomes a totally different pitcher in the post-season and it deflates that team. I can only wonder how well the Dodgers would do if Kershaw pitched in October the way he does the rest of the year. It's not all on him, but he's a big part of it as he is one of their key pitchers. It's like how tough it was to win when David Price was in your post-season rotation - until he finally got that huge monkey off his back. I know some will try to change the narrative here. But the narrative has always been at least for me -- the Dodgers goal is to win the World Series. I highly doubt management and the players overall are satisfied. Red Sox fans and other fans can be satisfied. We don't care much if they lose or win. The Dodgers have shown they have gone for it. Can't we agree that it hasn't been good enough regardless if it's been Kershaw or other? The problem in this discussion is that when people say that only championships matter, they are implying but not outright saying that only decisions that were correct using hindsight are good enough to win championships and have no answer for figuring out what those decisions should be when they don't have that benefit. So instead it's implied that the only way to try to win is to sign everyone for a billion dollars and trade all the prospects as if that's any more likely to work than a team that scores 3 runs in the bottom of the 8th inning to win a Wild Card game and then goes on to win the championship. If people can separate what has happened in the past from what is likely to happen in the future and judge them completely separately, then we can have a reasonable conversation. Otherwise, we just argue about how everyone should have used hindsight to win championships.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 15, 2019 8:18:56 GMT -5
I don't disagree with you for the most part. There IS no guarantee that the Dodgers will win soon, but my feeling is if the Dodgers are set up with a serious shot at winning most years as opposed to a team that blows its wad on a year or two window, the Dodgers are more likely to break thru and win the whole damn thing, but it's certainly no guarantee. You take your chances and the more chances you have the better. I'm glad that the Red Sox capitalized on their chances this century. They did a lousy job of that last century. They had 1 pennant in a 49 year stretch (no wild card of course) an didn't win, then it took them 8 years to win in 1975 and they lost and another 11 years in 1986 and they lost again. I mean in the last 25 years the Dodgers have been a much better team than the Marlins but the Marlins capitalized on their only 2 chances and have 2 championships while the Dodgers are still looking. The Yankees have a much higher winning pct this century than the Red Sox, but if you count 2000 as part of this century the Red Sox lead the Yankees in World Championships 4 to 2 (soon to be 3), which is the bottom line, as Yankees fans are quick to remind us. You mentioned the Reds of the 1970s. They kept giving themselves more chances and they finally broke through. They won the pennant in 1970 but were swept by a hungry Orioles team that had been upset the year before, they lost the Series to Oakland in 1972 amd were beaten by the suddenly hot Mets in 1973. Finally in 1975 they were able to overwhelm in the season and squeak by in the Series and then repeat easier in 1976. Just saying a front office move of trading a superstar like Betts to Dodgers is not "off-the-wall" if one were to believe the Sox didn't have a chance to contend and ofc depending on Sox plans for team salary. I've said the Dodgers might win it all in the near future. But I've also said is getting superstars does increase your chances of winning it all or hitting on trades/ free agency - not just assuming your farm will pull you through. I'm just disputing "they will eventually win." Or "their past actions/ philosophy does not support them from going "big" in a tarde or maybe FA. As for the Reds (they weren't swept but I know that don't matter. I'm still though obviously a huge fan of those 70's Reds teams though. DOn't take away the one W/S game they won that year! It was my 1st year following baseball a bit - Sox and Reds! Damn Brooks Robinson! ) -- they made a blockbuster deal to get Joe Morgan.See the link below and the quote made in the article. All I'm saying is over the last 40+ years we've seen how Free Agents and Trades have changed clubs dramatically. First-hand we've seen it with our Sox in a huge huge way. Why should we throw these examples away for the Dodgers who haven't won in 31 years? They are a big market team. IMO it's a bit of a slap in the face if any small market team has gotten more championships in this window. Though Marlins 1st title they spent like a big market. baseballhall.org/discover/inside-pitch/blockbuster-trade-sends-morgan-to-reds"“If the United States had traded Dwight Eisenhower to the Germans during World War II, it wouldn’t have been much different than sending (Lee) May and (Tommy) Helms to Houston,” wrote Enquirer sports reporter Bob Hertzel that day." *****In baseball I think we can point to - nearly every team that has won over past 40+ years has had - a lot of luck, and/or big production in trades and/or big production in Free Agency. Yes I agree "to knock at the door more often" is a great chance. . . But for it to mean much they have to do better . . . I agree that the Dodgers dealing for Mookie Betts wouldn't be out of line and that a team who hasn't won in 31 years should try to deal for him if the price isn't too ridiculous and getting Mookie for 1 year shouldn't wreck the core of your team. Plus with their $, there's no reason why the Dodgers could not only get that 2020 season but re-sign him if they give him the money he wants. I think it's possible to make deals like this and still maintain the proper balance to compete for championships on a consistent basis. It's just a matter of 1) making the right deal and 2) not making too many of these deals. That said, obtaining Mookie doesn't win the Dodgers the 2020 World Series, but I would think it certainly wouldn't hurt. The question would be will Mookie be hot when they need him to be and how's the rest of the team playing? One player can't impact that much, although David Ortiz certainly made it look that way sometimes. Thanks for the link to that article on the Reds/Astros deal. Joe Morgan was probably underrated for the same reason Gene Tenace was. So-so batting average and a ton of walks for a sky high OBP which was not a highly regarded thing by the baseball establishment back then. But not only did the Reds walk away with Morgan, but they got a useful mainstay pitcher in Jack Billingham, a guy who was never really a star, but took his turn every 4th or 5th day, kept them in the game before his offense would win the game or his bullpen would do the job, and they got an everyday CF in Cesar Geronimo, plus the guy Red Sox fans from that era will remember, Ed Armbrister, who knew how to get in the way of Carlton Fisk, lol. Lee May was a really good player, as that shouldn't be forgotten, but the price to obtain him was way too steep. Tommy Helms was just a guy and the other guy never amounted to anything. What an amazing deal by Bob Howsam.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Oct 15, 2019 9:29:30 GMT -5
It’s been awfully quiet on the search. I was expecting to hear about some possible interviews since teams like the Dodgers and Rays are out.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 15, 2019 10:36:51 GMT -5
It’s been awfully quiet on the search. I was expecting to hear about some possible interviews since teams like the Dodgers and Rays are out. They are waiting until the Astros win it all so they can interview Luhnow.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 15, 2019 10:59:10 GMT -5
I know some will try to change the narrative here. But the narrative has always been at least for me -- the Dodgers goal is to win the World Series. I highly doubt management and the players overall are satisfied. Red Sox fans and other fans can be satisfied. We don't care much if they lose or win. The Dodgers have shown they have gone for it. Can't we agree that it hasn't been good enough regardless if it's been Kershaw or other? The problem in this discussion is that when people say that only championships matter, they are implying but not outright saying that only decisions that were correct using hindsight are good enough to win championships and have no answer for figuring out what those decisions should be when they don't have that benefit. So instead it's implied that the only way to try to win is to sign everyone for a billion dollars and trade all the prospects as if that's any more likely to work than a team that scores 3 runs in the bottom of the 8th inning to win a Wild Card game and then goes on to win the championship. If people can separate what has happened in the past from what is likely to happen in the future and judge them completely separately, then we can have a reasonable conversation. Otherwise, we just argue about how everyone should have used hindsight to win championships. How can you say that after your Sanchez comments? You get the #4 starter on the Nationals was only .3 bwar less than Kershaw the Ace of the Dodgers? You picked on Hudson a guy that had a 2 bwar season, the Dodgers top bullpen guy was .5 bwar. That whole Dodgers staff that looks so great benefits from playing in the weakest division in the game, playing in a crazy pitcher friendly park and 4\5 of the parks in the division are pitcher friendly, three of them are top 6. It helps explain Kershaw's ability to put up what look like very good regular season numbers when he's clearly not close to the same pitcher he was. He's down 4 mph on his fast ball from his peak. His average is now lower than Henry Owens was in the majors. Heck by next year he'll likely be below 90 mph average on his fastball. He's crafty as hell and with his other pitchers still rather effective, yet it was crazy for them to use him in relief. You can blame the manager or the GM for not having better options. I'll give credit when it's due, like in 2018 with Machado. Yet in 2019 what moves did he make to get better? The players he signed didn't play well and he never addressed those issues. The bullpen was an issue all year. Like go out and get an Yates type guy or even a guy like Hudson pitching crazy well. If it doesn't workout OKAY you tried. It's like with the Yankees if starting pitching kills them and prevents a Championship. It's not hindsight, it's the fact that even though those teams easily won their divisions they had big issues. Like what do you want more a Championship or not to make a Chapman type trade? Theo might hate losing Torres, but he has a championship. He didn't need him to win the division, he was the final piece on a great team. The Dodgers basically have your mindset, we'll eventually win a Championship in time. I don't buy that rational and after seven straight division titles really how could you? It's what I loved about DD, it wasn't about building a team to win the division. It was about building the best team in Baseball. The idea that building superteams isn't worth it per the stat community doesn't cross his mind. He's old school and it's a huge reason why he's won two Championships. He built a team so dominate that they won easily without Sale and Kimbrel pitching well or Betts and Bogaerts hitting that well. Yet everyone wants to blame the Dodgers mess on Kershaw. I don't know, maybe try building a team that doesn't need Kershaw to pitch lights out to win? He wasn't great in the playoffs when he was the most dominate pitcher on the planet, he's not going to get better when he's a fraction of what he once was.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 15, 2019 11:42:12 GMT -5
Well as long as you ignore all the Chapman types of trades that did not result in a championship, it looks so easy to win championships.
|
|
|