Mike Hazen new ARZ GM, Amiel Sawdaye New ARZ senior VP and assistant GM

uncannymanny

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2007
9,097
To me the only thing that DD has done for the Red Sox since he came to Boston is maneuvering all the talent that Cherington, Romero, Sawdaye and Epstein got into the Red Sox organization.
None of the guys he's drafted have even made the show! Seriously, a) you have no idea what DD has or hasn't done b) he hasn't even been here a full year.

Now the Red Sox are losing young and progressive thinking FO personnel that is very highly regarded in the baseball industry.
Possibly, just possibly, because they are highly regarded in the industry?

The Red Sox are quietly but surely moving away from being the scouting and developing machine that Epstein once envisoned them to be. This cannot be good.
Surely! Tell me more about your time around the conference table on Yawkey way.
 

BestGameEvah

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 21, 2012
1,089
Since this seems like the place to discuss the restructuring of the organization:


Is Tewksbury paying the price for the seeming lack of mental focus in the team's approach versus the Indians?
No, of course not. Were the Cub's unfocused last night? Or did Kluber do it again?
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,186
The Cubs lost 91 games in 2011. After Theo Epstein took over as GM, the Cubs proceeded to lose 101, 96, and 89 games in his first 3 seasons. I think folks need to realize that it takes a few years for the impact of a new GM to be felt.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
The Cubs lost 91 games in 2011. After Theo Epstein took over as GM, the Cubs proceeded to lose 101, 96, and 89 games in his first 3 seasons. I think folks need to realize that it takes a few years for the impact of a new GM to be felt.
I think that depends on what they are walking into and what their approach to that situation is. Theo walked into a wreck of an organization with a plan to rebuild it from the ground up. That takes time, and when done well yields some spectacular long term results, even if those results are delayed a few years.

Dombrowski walked into an organization that had already spent a few seasons doing just that. He's not here to rebuild from the ground up. He's here to take a roster that is close, and go those last few steps. 2016 is encouraging in that regard, IMO.

What's funny is that the Cubs under Theo essentially walked the same path as the Red Sox under Cherington/Dombrowski. Both teams focused on developing internal assets through the draft and IFA signings, then started supplementing those assets as they cracked the major league level with expensive free agents and trade acquisitions.

You can certainly make a very convincing argument that the Cubs did it better, but they had a slight advantage in draft position to lean on.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,692
For me, it ultimately comes down to one question:

Has Dave Dombrowski successfully adapted to the world of analytic-driven baseball?

It is a little troubling to look back and read that Al Avila, his successor in Detroit, listed 'hiring an analytics department' as one of his first tasks when he took over as Tigers GM. So, too, is Dombrowski's announcement yesterday that Frank Wren and Allard Baird will have increasing responsibility (and, presumably, increased influence) in the Boston front office going forward. I can hope that Dombrowski stepped into his role at the Red Sox and immediately appreciated the value of having a top-notch baseball analytics department at his command. A Red Sox front office that successfully marries the best of Dombrowski's player-acquisition talents with a state-of-the-art data-gathering and analysis operation would certainly be among the best in baseball. I have to think that a guy like John Henry isn't just going to sit back and let DDski bring the front office back to 1995. But will Trader Dave use the tools at his disposal?
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
What's funny is that the Cubs under Theo essentially walked the same path as the Red Sox under Cherington/Dombrowski. Both teams focused on developing internal assets through the draft and IFA signings, then started supplementing those assets as they cracked the major league level with expensive free agents and trade acquisitions.

You can certainly make a very convincing argument that the Cubs did it better, but they had a slight advantage in draft position to lean on.
Wait... how do you make that argument? You cannot ignore 2013, and that simply torpedoes any argument the "Cubs did it better" unless your criteria somehow makes winning a WS in the midst of the time frames a negative. ;-)

The Cubs bottomed out - unlike any Red Sox team in our lifetime - and leveled the entire structure before rebuilding, using a brand new foundation. Meanwhile, the Red Sox had a few bad seasons sandwiched around a season with some epic luck and career-years, but never bottomed out and built their current incarnation atop the foundation of previously successful teams (Pedroia & Ortiz, most prominently).

ETA: I see any comparisons better the Sox and Cubs as... forced, and not very interesting, or useful. The only similarity is Theo, and Theo-in-Boston inherited a core filled with Hall of Fame caliber talent and some useful pieces. He built a winner atop the wreckage of the House Duke Built. And he carried on when Lou Gorman's excellent run finally went to lunch, who picked up the pieces of the last gasp of the Yawkey tenure.

We (Boston fans) have never experienced a bottom out, and we probably never will. This is why Kansas City hates us.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,872
Maine
What's funny is that the Cubs under Theo essentially walked the same path as the Red Sox under Cherington/Dombrowski. Both teams focused on developing internal assets through the draft and IFA signings, then started supplementing those assets as they cracked the major league level with expensive free agents and trade acquisitions.

You can certainly make a very convincing argument that the Cubs did it better, but they had a slight advantage in draft position to lean on.
The big difference is that the Sox never really hit bottom the way the Cubs did, so while the rebuild notions were similar, the Sox started from a stronger position. Then the Sox interrupted their "bottoming out" phase with a championship largely because they had a significant portion of the previous core (Lester, Ortiz, Pedroia, Ellsbury, Buchholz, etc) still around.

If anything, I think that somewhat accidental championship interrupted what otherwise would have been a slow and steady rebuild like the Cubs did. The championship gave the impression that the team was more ready to compete than it was, leading to spending on those supplemental pieces too early in the process and firing expectations up instead of keeping them tempered. Good or bad results, a team on the slow rise (rather than trying to build off a title) probably is less pressured into filling holes and "competing" before the kids have established themselves properly. The Cubs had no such pressure as they rebuilt and, for the moment, look like the ones that "did it better" as a result.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Wait... how do you make that argument? You cannot ignore 2013, and that simply torpedoes any argument the "Cubs did it better" unless your criteria somehow makes winning a WS in the midst of the time frames a negative. ;-)
I mean in getting from the point where Theo left to their current rosters. It's comment on right now. I'd obviously take the Sox path given the choice because it includes a championship along the way. That said, the Cubs currently have what I would (and I imagine many others) argue is the better one for the next 3-5 years.

The Cubs bottomed out - unlike any Red Sox team in our lifetime - and leveled the entire structure before rebuilding, using a brand new foundation. Meanwhile, the Red Sox had a few bad seasons sandwiched around a season with some epic luck and career-years, but never bottomed out and built their current incarnation atop the foundation of previously successful teams (Pedroia & Ortiz, most prominently).
Now you're just repeating my argument (from the first two paragraphs that you didn't quote). :)

ETA: I see any comparisons better the Sox and Cubs as... forced, and not very interesting, or useful. The only similarity is Theo, and Theo-in-Boston inherited a core filled with Hall of Fame caliber talent and some useful pieces. He built a winner atop the wreckage of the House Duke Built. And he carried on when Lou Gorman's excellent run finally went to lunch, who picked up the pieces of the last gasp of the Yawkey tenure.

We (Boston fans) have never experienced a bottom out, and we probably never will. This is why Kansas City hates us.
Even still, the plan in Boston when Theo started in Chicago, and when Cherington came up to the trade deadline later that same season was basically the same. Build a long term sustainable core from within, then use some financial muscle to supplement it. They didn't take exactly the same steps in exactly the same order, but the general path was the same.

The interesting question in all of this, for me at least, is whether Theo would have basically done as Ben did, or would he have punted on 2013 before it began with an eye on that draft class (Bryant Schwarber, Rodon)?

Edit: Bryant was drafted in 2013, not 2014.
 
Last edited:

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,747
I don't think Theo would have been allowed to "punt" away multiple years in Boston

Edit: I mean, the Red Sox finished last a bunch of times but never meant to.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
I don't think Theo would have been allowed to "punt" away multiple years in Boston
Sure. That may be a big part of why he left, actually. That wasn't the point, though, and is why I mentioned earlier in that post that I'd still choose the Sox over the Cubs even after acknowledging that the Cubs are set up slightly better for the next 3-5 years, since it may have meant the Sox don't win it all in 2013.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
Build a long term sustainable core from within, then use some financial muscle to supplement it. They didn't take exactly the same steps in exactly the same order, but the general path was the same.
Isn't this the same (general) plan for every organization, in every sport, in every season, ever?

The two teams both play baseball and the same guy named Theo was in charge (well, mostly) of both. The similarities end right about there.

The interesting question in all of this, for me at least, is whether Theo would have basically done as Ben did, or would he have punted on 2013 before it began with an eye on that draft class (Bryant)?
Until proven otherwise, I'm going to continue to believe that Cherington was tasked by the guy who "runs the Red Sox" (aka Larry Lucchino) to follow the plan that Lucchino approved in prior years when Epstein was "in charge". Cherington gets no credit from me on 'implementing an organizational direction / plan' because that was never part of his responsibilities. BC gets all the credit for signing Napoli and Victorino, etc. - because that was his job function. He never had big picture direction as part of this job - that was Larry's, then Dombrowski's job.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Isn't this the same (general) plan for every organization, in every sport, in every season, ever?

The two teams both play baseball and the same guy named Theo was in charge (well, mostly) of both. The similarities end right about there.
Not if you live in New York. :p (at least, not until recently)

If you think the similarities between the Cubs and the Sox in the last 4 seasons end at both being baseball teams and both having had Theo in charge at some point, well... we're not going to find common ground on this. The similarities look pretty obvious to me.

The degree to which these two teams have focused on developing draft talent and international signings is far greater than the average team. The big differences are that the Sox tried to compete in 2012 and 2014 before punting at the deadline.

Until proven otherwise, I'm going to continue to believe that Cherington was tasked by the guy who "runs the Red Sox" (aka Larry Lucchino) to follow the plan that Lucchino approved in prior years when Epstein was "in charge". Cherington gets no credit from me on 'implementing an organizational direction / plan' because that was never part of his responsibilities. BC gets all the credit for signing Napoli and Victorino, etc. - because that was his job function. He never had big picture direction as part of this job - that was Larry's, then Dombrowski's job.
This is a really silly objection. Whether you want to pin the blame/credit on Theo/Ben or Larry or maybe take a step back and acknowledge that in discussing organizational plans we are already discussing more than one man, the Red Sox were very clearly on board with a hard reset the moment they pulled off the Punto trade. That trade marks an unquestionable shift in the long term plan, at which point anything Larry and Theo (and whoever else was at the table) had decided went out the window.

So again, the question is whether or not, with Theo as the GM, the team would have pursued the same strategy in the 2012-2013 winter? He was free to pursue the full punt path in Chicago. He may have insisted on that had the Sox been willing to compromise with him to keep him in town.
 

Hee Sox Choi

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 27, 2006
6,134
Some "highlights" from the Dave Cameron Fangraphs chat. Ugh:

Rob: Most logical landing spots for Sale and Quintana (if traded)??
Dave Cameron: Well, the people with enough sense to talk Dombrowski out of making silly trades have all left, so you can pencil Boston in for some ridiculous overpays in an attempt to win now.

v2micca: If those same people had left Dombrowski a year earlier, it is likely that Benintindi would currently be wearing a Braves uniform and Teheran would be wearing a Boston Uniform?
Dave Cameron: Not sure Teheran is Dombrowski’s kind of guy. He likes velocity.

Disco Dan: should Bos be scared of all the old brain trust leaving?
Dave Cameron: The fact that so many highly respected front office people don’t want to work under Dombrowski is clearly a bad sign.
Dave Cameron: Especially letting Sawdaye leave because DD didn’t think he had enough experience to be a GM yet. That’s just silly.
Andy: Re: Dombrowski’s overpayments, which as a Sox fan I am also scared of, one silver lining is that Moncada seems destined for either 3B or a crowded OF, and Devers seems destined for 3B — so trading one of them for the right return not so crazy?
Dave Cameron: There’s nothing wrong with trading prospects if you’re getting a fair deal for them. This isn’t about trading prospects or not. It’s just that deals like the Kimbrel trade will wreck your franchise if you do them too many times.
 

IpswichSox

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
2,794
Suburbs of Washington, DC
Dave Cameron: The fact that so many highly respected front office people don’t want to work under Dombrowski is clearly a bad sign.
While I'm generally sympathetic to the concern about too many Theo/Ben-thinking front office personnel leaving, I don't think the above statement can be supported by the current evidence. If you're Hazen or Sawdaye, Dombrowski is entering year two of a multi-year contract. It's unlikely he is going to be fired or resign in the near-term. It's more likely Dombrowski gets hit by a bus crossing Ipswich Street.

I think the FO personnel moves have more to do with opportunities for professional development and career advancement than wanting to flee Dombrowski. Who knows, maybe Dombrowski is a monster who no one wants to report to, but I'm unaware of any real evidence from here or from his time in Detroit or Miami that would support that he's a bad boss and "people don't want to work under" him. That seemed like a gratuitous shot from Dave IMO.
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,422
While I'm generally sympathetic to the concern about too many Theo/Ben-thinking front office personnel leaving, I don't think the above statement can be supported by the current evidence. If you're Hazen or Sawdaye, Dombrowski is entering year two of a multi-year contract. It's unlikely he is going to be fired or resign in the near-term. It's more likely Dombrowski gets hit by a bus crossing Ipswich Street.

I think the FO personnel moves have more to do with opportunities for professional development and career advancement than wanting to flee Dombrowski. Who knows, maybe Dombrowski is a monster who no one wants to report to, but I'm unaware of any real evidence from here or from his time in Detroit or Miami that would support that he's a bad boss and "people don't want to work under" him. That seemed like a gratuitous shot from Dave IMO.
I didn't interpret it as "people want out because Dombrowski is unpleasant to work for." I interpreted it as "Dombrowski is intent on taking the team in a direction that a lot of smart people think is insane."
 

4 6 3 DP

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 24, 2001
2,377
Its funny he's focused on the Kimbrel deal; I think that deal is one of those that's always been defensible - the value of these shutdown closers is readily apparent.

It's dealing high value prospects for mediocrity like Pomeranz that to me adds up - we made the equivalent of Kazmir for Zambrano much as it isn't getting very much focus given Ortiz and the Patriots and Brady and all of the other things the media could focus on.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,692
I didn't interpret it as "people want out because Dombrowski is unpleasant to work for." I interpreted it as "Dombrowski is intent on taking the team in a direction that a lot of smart people think is insane."
Or perhaps it's just the change in managerial style. The way that Theo and Ben run a front office (based on various media reports) seems to have been very collaborative. I haven't read as much about Dombrowski's style since arriving in Boston, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if he functions as more of a top-down manager. It would hardly be surprising that these Epstein-Cherington proteges want to work in an environment that is more familiar and comfortable, especially with Hazen setting up yet another new outpost in Arizona.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
Its funny he's focused on the Kimbrel deal; I think that deal is one of those that's always been defensible - the value of these shutdown closers is readily apparent.

It's dealing high value prospects for mediocrity like Pomeranz that to me adds up - we made the equivalent of Kazmir for Zambrano much as it isn't getting very much focus given Ortiz and the Patriots and Brady and all of the other things the media could focus on.
It's literally years too early to make such an assessment of the Pomeranz trade.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,186
I think it's time to address some misinformation in this thread that was the Kimbrel deal as well as the Pomeranz deal.

For Kimbrel, the Sox gave up 4 prospects. 2 of those were rookie league/A-ball level. Logan Allen was unranked, and was an 8th round draft choice. Guerra was ranked in the 50's at the time, but took a major step back at the plate in his first year of high-A ball. Neither one is close to a certainty of making to the high minors, let alone the majors.

Asuaje projects likely as a utility player; he may end up as an everyday 2B for the Padres in 2017, but nothing about him indicates him turning into the next Dustin Pedroia.

Then there's Margot, who was the prize of the deal. There's a reasonably chance he'll be a decent player. But he was the one prospect the Sox could afford to deal, with Bradley and Betts on the major league team and Benintendi working his way up there. And with that trade, DD addressed a major weakness in the 2015 roster. And if you think bullpen aces are overrated, ask Cleveland. The prospect haul for Kimbrel was decidedly less than it was for either Chapman or Miller, but no one questions those deals. One should really ignore the ridiculous hot takez from someone by the name of Dave Cameron, who's not exactly known as a well-connected genius of a baseball journalist.

As for Pomeranz, the Sox gave up a single prospect. A highly rated one, but one still in A ball who is likely 3 or more years from reaching the majors. Pom was partially victimized by a spike in the HR rate, and that is something that can sometimes improve. He also had a 0.314 BABIP in September/October, another stat that is likely to improve in 2017. As PP notes above, we'll need to wait a few years before casting judgment.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
What's his take on what DD gave up for Kimbrel vs what St Theo gave up for Chapman?
Given his take on the trade at the time, I think it's fair to say that Cameron is criminally underrating the importance of dominant relievers in today's game, and of course, as a Fangraphs writer, his valuation of prospects is probably a bit too aggressive. They're writing for their audience, and prospect hype is the name of the game right now (and has been for a while). The future value ratings are, of course, interesting and a good approach for comparing prospects, but I think there is something fundamentally broken in the way we compare prospect value to major league value when these kinds of trades occur.

Further, without Kimbrel this year, I don't think the Sox win the division. In fact, they may not have made the playoffs considering how crushed the bullpen depth got at one point. This doesn't really show up when looking at WAR, which is one of the issues I have with WAR, as it's a cascading effect on the roster, but pulling Kimbrel from the roster this past season would have had an enormous effect on their record, IMO.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,186
One more comment: For those that think the Pomeranz trade represents some grand change in team philosophy, or contributed to staff departures, consider the following:

In 2013, Ben Cherington, worried about the health of his pitching rotation, traded for Jake Peavy. The Sox sent Jose Iglesias to Detroit, and Cleuluis Rondon, Frankie Montas, and JB Wendelken to the White Sox. We all know about Iglesias at the time. Rondon was a non-prospect in the low minors. Montas was a decent looking 20 year old pitcher for Greenville. Wendelken was a 20 year old reliever in single-A. The Sox also received 25 year old Brayan Villarreal, a career minor league pitcher who's career had appeared to be flaming out due to control issues.

Peavy helped the Sox win a World Series, and netted 2 B-level prospects the following year, one of whom, Heath Hembree, pitched in the pen for this year's Sox. Iglesias has been flashy fielder, but seems to be slipping lately in that department. His career OPS remains well below 0.700. Rondon never made the majors. Montas has looked decent in limited AAA action until he got hurt. Wendelken is in the A's system and has shown little in limited major league action. Villarreal is out of baseball.

In 2011, Theo Epstein acquired Erik Bedard and Josh Fields for 4 prospects. At the time, Fields was a 25 year old relief pitcher stuck in AA, and would eventually be claimed by Houston in the Rule 5 draft the following offseason. Rodriguez was a young starter in single-A, who had a K/9 of 13.4 for Greenville. Tim Federowicz, a former 8th round draft pick, was a catching prospect who had acquitted himself well in half a season in Portland (0.745 OPS). Stephen Fife, a former 3rd round draft pick, was a 24 year old starter who went 11-4 for Portland that year, but had control issues. Chih-Hsien Chiang, a former 2B, was tearing up Portland (1.050 OPS) as an outfielder.

Bedard was the definition of "meh" with the Sox, even more "meh" than Pomeranz. He was also a rental, unlike Pomeranz. Despite the serious pitching woes of the Sox at the time (Dice-K was in the minors, Buchholz was injured, and Lackey had no elbow left), the price was considered quite high for a rental.

The two prospect with the most impressive stats, Rodriguez and Chiang, never made the majors. Federowicz is a backup catcher with a career OPS of 0.538 (although he may win a ring this year). Fife has had 16 career major league starts and is now back in the minors for Epstein's Cubs. Josh Fields, the prospect the Sox got in return, has found a home as an anonymous middle reliever for the Houston Astros.

In 2007, Epstein was concerned that Papelbon, Okajima and the 41 year old Mike Timlin were in danger of being worn out by the end of the season. So the Sox traded 3 well regarded prospects for Eric Gagne. There were warning signs, as Gagne's K/9 numbers were way down from his career average. But he had acquitted himself reasonably well in Texas with a 2.16 ERA and 16 saves. Beltre was a 17 year old outfield in the rookie leagues. Kason Gabbard was a middling prospect who had slowly advanced up to the big club, but had pitched well in 7 starts for the Sox that season. 25 year old David Murphy was considered the prize, with 23 major league games under his belt already.

I'll pass on reliving the Gagne nightmare. Beltre's major league career consisted of 22 games. Gabbard would have 20 more major league starts after he left Boston. We all know that David Murphy become a decent everyday outfielder.

Not sure I would second guess any of these trades, even if the impact was mostly meh. As much as I hated Gagne, he at least took 18 innings away from the other relievers.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
Its funny he's focused on the Kimbrel deal; I think that deal is one of those that's always been defensible - the value of these shutdown closers is readily apparent.

It's dealing high value prospects for mediocrity like Pomeranz that to me adds up - we made the equivalent of Kazmir for Zambrano much as it isn't getting very much focus given Ortiz and the Patriots and Brady and all of the other things the media could focus on.
Kazmir made his major league debut in the same season as that trade, and struck out 41 in 33 innings. So the trade of a guy in A ball really isn't comparable to that.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,623
02130
Let me know when Dave Cameron gets hired by a FO.
I don't really agree with Cameron here but this isn't a good argument. Teams hire analysts all the time but my impression is that all but the best get paid crap and have to work insane hours. Cameron may or may not have had offers but he may just prefer to run a website and do other writing to having to work for an MLB team. Or he might not want to move. Etc.

I think he's right to express concern over the future and potential overpays. I disagree that Kimbrel is an example of one.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,543
No it's not. Process before outcome. If someone give you two to one odds on a coin flip and he wins, it was still a dumb bet on his part.
Is it really 50-50 that Espinoza becomes a good major league pitcher?