Dave Dombrowski: The Right Man For The Job?

Nice work. Assuming the estimate of a bottom-third farm system is right, I wonder about the following: How many teams with top-third (or even top-half) farm systems are also legitimate contenders AND have a young, cost-controlled core of really good players? Its sort of a backhanded way of suggesting that if those are three legs of a stool (farm, MLB contender, young core) maybe its not possible to have all 3 at the same time for very long.

joe dokes said:

Nice work. Assuming the estimate of a bottom-third farm system is right, I wonder about the following: How many teams with top-third (or even top-half) farm systems are also legitimate contenders AND have a young, cost-controlled core of really good players? Its sort of a backhanded way of suggesting that if those are three legs of a stool (farm, MLB contender, young core) maybe its not possible to have all 3 at the same time for very long.

Click to expand...

The Rays are a good example of that. You have to keep making adjustments on the fly and without those high draft picks it gets a lot harder to restock the farm.

The new CBA is going to make it almost impossible to pull this off.

That's really well written and argued. Kudos.

Good start to what should be a doozy of a thread Snod.

I'd like to say that the Eaton deal yesterday and the praise that was heaped on the White Sox and immediate picking apart of actually very solid Adam Eaton provides some solid context. Additionally, Soxprospects noted the Red Sox had traded 10 of their top 20 prospects from 2015.

So for 10 of the top 20 the Red Sox acquired:
Sale- A top 5 pitcher in baseball in the end of prime years on cheap. Objectively one of most valuable assets in game with the always bothersome reality that pitchers break especially ones that throw like he does.
Pomeranz- Probably the trade that generated the most angst but was the most fascinating. Drew Pomeranz is the major league realized version of all the SP prospects that prospect lovers project. Has he put 200ip up contended for Cy Youngs and become a horse ? No. But he also went to colorado which is death for pitchers. Additionally, he was the second best SP acquired last season ( after M.Moore) and the Rays reportedly wouldn't deal with the Red Sox. He was acquired very early and they likely don't win division without him. The Red Sox ran into a pitching buzzsaw in the playoffs with young guys not hitting. He's still under control and at the point in his career where depending on what you look at can say yeah he's put it together let's see him for a whole year on one team, healthy etc.

The Relief Market- Perhaps the players/acquisitions where the DD school of thought and Theo/analytics are most in conflict. However, obviously the game is becoming more RP oriented. Objectively it's better to avoid paying a fortune or locking up long term. Though it's also a reality that the analytical way of GMing hasn't cracked the bullpen nut. Theo paid Foulke who was a needed godsend. He also went in and traded a fortune for Chapmen.
Kimbrel - Many of the key prospect pieces were blocked. Kimbrel may give you a heart attack but he is filthy and the experience and numbers are tough to ignore. Guerra had an abysmal season. Ultimately given the spot on the win curve for these Red Sox and the escalating cost of RP the deal hardly looks terrible.
Smith/Thornburg- Two controllable electric arms that the Red Sox are hoping/need to stay on the mound. The acquisition price in both cases ( Miley) and ( Dubon/ Shaw/ A ball guy) are hardly significant blows.

Finally to the prospects. I will admit I believe Moncada lost untouchable status when he looked far away from being able to handle MLB pitching. It's sad because 99 percent of analysts and scouts predicted and knew he wasn't ready. If he turns into Cano it's a huge loss. If he's Alfonso Soriano less so but the Sox better have chosen the right bat to bet on ( Devers). Kopech is the other obvious one that could burn. If he becomes Syndagarrd 2.0 yeah it's less than ideal and damaging. But the reality is not every prospect is linear and hits it big. The CHW needed to do what they are doing because their farm was atrocious.Same with the Braves and Padres( after Preller set fire to/emptied the system). They are seemingly collecting pitching like the Mets and hoping Moncada is the position player stud ala Russell in CHC.

In sum under DD the Red Sox have put a premium on young players that have risen to the top of their class and performed. Benintendi was preferred over Moncada. Eddie Rodriquez v Kopech. Espinoza is the other huge unknown. Naturally when trafficking in ceilings and pitching assets things could go wrong. However, I think it is fair to say Theo and CHC hit the jackpot of performance with Arrieta and Hendricks as well as having the Stros pass up on Bryant. In a sense the Sox hit a similar jackpot with the Stros picking high school Tucker over Benintendi.

DD has built an objective behemoth for the next 2-3 years with the necessity of JBJ X Swihart performing up to their projected hit tools consistently. The reasons for optimism are there. Price and Porcello best years are this and next. I wasn't on board with Sale because I though it would require MLB assets. It didn't and I think the Sox will reap the rewards. Now go pray to the pitching health gods.

Yes, very nicely done.

This does put added importance on scouting and drafting in the coming years -- presumably because we'll be drafting near the bottom of the rounds -- to restock the system. But I have zero problem with these moves. Prospects are meant to do only two things: matriculate to the MLB team or be traded to help the MLB team. We've done both in recent years. If we were the mid-2000 NYY with a veteran-heavy team going out and getting other veteran pieces, I'd be concerned. But we're not an old team. We have kids playing in C, SS, LF, CF and RF.

It seems to me, we were in a situation where we could keep Cherington, or hire Dombrowski. Cherington was a master at building farms. He took a farm in 2012 that had 3 top 100's (Middlebrooks, Bogaerts, Swihart, none of which were in the top 50) and turned it into the best farm in baseball in a mere 3 years. But, he also set the Sox up with a rotation of Buchholz - Porcello - Masterson - Miley - Kelly and had a team that finished in last place in 2 of the 3 seasons under his watch.

While Dombrowski raids the farm, he also puts a team on the field that wins, and wins now. Where Cherington made mistakes by being too passive with the MLB team, Dombrowski's mistakes come with being overly aggressive with the MLB team.

It's all about what you can stomach. I, for one, got awfully tired of watching the Red Sox get trounced every night and, by the 3rd inning, start checking my MiLB app to see how the kids were doing in Salem and Portland.

DD has 3 solid years to generate talent before the Sox enter into the death period. Keep in mind, this is the guy who saw and stole JD Martinez, stuck with Nick Castellanos, insisted that Michael Fulmer was included in the Cespedes (I think?) trade. He's got a keen eye for talent and just because he trades prospects to put a better big league team on the field doesn't mean he can't put together a solid farm.

It's the lesser of the two evils. I choose DD. And I used to be a massive prospect hugger myself.

I like the fact that DD was able to insert both Beni and Yoan in the big league lineup last year, while we were competing for the division, and get a test run on which of the two was truly untouchable. If we were sitting here examining their minor league numbers only and deciding which one we love more and which one could go in a trade for Sale, I'm not sure Beni is our starting left fielder this year. That's a small part of what led to the moves this week, but very important.

SoxFanForsyth said:

It seems to me, we were in a situation where we could keep Cherington, or hire Dombrowski. Cherington was a master at building farms. He took a farm in 2012 that had 3 top 100's (Middlebrooks, Bogaerts, Swihart, none of which were in the top 50) and turned it into the best farm in baseball in a mere 3 years. But, he also set the Sox up with a rotation of Buchholz - Porcello - Masterson - Miley - Kelly and had a team that finished in last place in 2 of the 3 seasons under his watch.

While Dombrowski raids the farm, he also puts a team on the field that wins, and wins now. Where Cherington made mistakes by being too passive with the MLB team, Dombrowski's mistakes come with being overly aggressive with the MLB team.

It's all about what you can stomach. I, for one, got awfully tired of watching the Red Sox get trounced every night and, by the 3rd inning, start checking my MiLB app to see how the kids were doing in Salem and Portland.

DD has 3 solid years to generate talent before the Sox enter into the death period. Keep in mind, this is the guy who saw and stole JD Martinez, stuck with Nick Castellanos, insisted that Michael Fulmer was included in the Cespedes (I think?) trade. He's got a keen eye for talent and just because he trades prospects to put a better big league team on the field doesn't mean he can't put together a solid farm.

It's the lesser of the two evils. I choose DD. And I used to be a massive prospect hugger myself.

Click to expand...

Part of this was why I was hoping the Sox would look at Logan White. Look at what he's been a part of in LAD (the Keshaw, Kemp, Broxton,etc. years) and then in Washington. That's another guy who can build the farm.

But your points are solid.

It will be interesting to see how the Sox rebuild their farm at this point with the new shackles the CBA has given.

Trading Buchholz almost should be to rebuild the farm system (mostly with competitive balance picks and/or international dollars to make up for last year's non-existent class).

Unless he wants to go all in, and use Buch to get another cheaper piece for this team. Just not sure who that would be at this point.

Great post Snod. The cumulative effect of DD now looms pretty large over the Sox Farm system. Bottom third is a good guess. What I am counting on is his long track record of dealing the "right" prospects. Without knowing what the Chisox were thinking I guess we assume that we really did not want to deal Benintendi.
Espinoza feels like the one that might hurt the most, but that move was made at a time when the asking price for Sale was reportedly beyond outrageous.
The great point has been made upthread that this is not an old bloated team torching the farm, this is a young dynamic team dealing away positional redundancies in many cases.
I just hope that Devers and Groome (and probably Dalbec) are off the table now.

IpswichSox said:

Yes, very nicely done.

This does put added importance on scouting and drafting in the coming years -- presumably because we'll be drafting near the bottom of the rounds -- to restock the system. But I have zero problem with these moves. Prospects are meant to do only two things: matriculate to the MLB team or be traded to help the MLB team. We've done both in recent years. If we were the mid-2000 NYY with a veteran-heavy team going out and getting other veteran pieces, I'd be concerned. But we're not an old team. We have kids playing in C, SS, LF, CF and RF.

Click to expand...

It is going to be hard to keep that up with the new age draft and now the international rules in place.

Step 1 are making these moves that let the team keep the pick.

Can you imagine if they had given up a 1st last winter and missed out on Groome?

It's just a key thing now with all these news limitations, keeping the chances to acquire premium young talent needs to be protected when possible.

SoxVindaloo said:

Great post Snod. The cumulative effect of DD now looms pretty large over the Sox Farm system. Bottom third is a good guess. What I am counting on is his long track record of dealing the "right" prospects. Without knowing what the Chisox were thinking I guess we assume that we really did not want to deal Benintendi.
Espinoza feels like the one that might hurt the most, but that move was made at a time when the asking price for Sale was reportedly beyond outrageous.
The great point has been made upthread that this is not an old bloated team torching the farm, this is a young dynamic team dealing away positional redundancies in many cases.
I just hope that Devers and Groome (and probably Dalbec) are off the table now.

Click to expand...

I wonder if I'm the only one who really liked Dalbec as an arm.

He's a very interesting guy. Could be a Glaus type, or he could be Kyle Russell (the old Univ of Texas OF from the late 2000s).

SoxFanForsyth said:

It seems to me, we were in a situation where we could keep Cherington, or hire Dombrowski. Cherington was a master at building farms. He took a farm in 2012 that had 3 top 100's (Middlebrooks, Bogaerts, Swihart, none of which were in the top 50) and turned it into the best farm in baseball in a mere 3 years. But, he also set the Sox up with a rotation of Buchholz - Porcello - Masterson - Miley - Kelly and had a team that finished in last place in 2 of the 3 seasons under his watch.

While Dombrowski raids the farm, he also puts a team on the field that wins, and wins now. Where Cherington made mistakes by being too passive with the MLB team, Dombrowski's mistakes come with being overly aggressive with the MLB team.

Click to expand...

I take minor issue with these two. Yes, Cherington's Red Sox finished in last place twice, but they also won a World Series. I'd trade 9 last place finishes for a World Series title every 10th. You can hold the bad seasons against him but you also have to acknowledge the good.

This also depends on your definition of win. I lived in Ann Arbor for ~8 years and most Tigers fans were glad to shift away from the DD school and towards the Avila school. Now, they were in contention every year, and this is all about entertainment, so points there, but there is some harbored resentment that they didn't get over the top and feel the Tigers have been blundering the last few years and will for a few more.

I, like Snod, and am also generally OK with these things, although I would consider myself more of a "build a sustainable team" instead of a "prospect humper." I will not deny that a little part of me is a bit worried that in 4-5 years we might have teams that we just have to suck it up and say "they are rebuilding for 3-4 years," which is something we haven't seen a lot of in the last 10-15 years. I guess a lot of that depends on what kind of extensions you can get Betts, JBJ, X, etc. to agree to.

czar said:

I take minor issue with these two. Yes, Cherington's Red Sox finished in last place twice, but they also won a World Series. I'd trade 9 last place finishes for a World Series title every 10th. You can hold the bad seasons against him but you also have to acknowledge the good.

This also depends on your definition of win. I lived in Ann Arbor for ~8 years and most Tigers fans were glad to shift away from the DD school and towards the Avila school. Now, they were in contention every year, and this is all about entertainment, so points there, but there is some harbored resentment that they didn't get over the top and feel the Tigers have been blundering the last few years and will for a few more.

I, like Snod, and am also generally OK with these things, although I would consider myself more of a "build a sustainable team" instead of a "prospect humper." I will not deny that a little part of me is a bit worried that in 4-5 years we might have teams that we just have to suck it up and say "they are rebuilding for 3-4 years," which is something we haven't seen a lot of in the last 10-15 years. I guess a lot of that depends on what kind of extensions you can get Betts, JBJ, X, etc. to agree to.

Click to expand...

Completely fair. You're right, he won a WS, and you can't take that away from him. Maybe I have a bias against BC, but I do find myself thinking "That team shouldn't have won a WS. They just put together a special year". So, he won the WS, and that's phenomenal and nobody can take it away from him, but I just wonder if he thought he was putting a WS caliber team together when he signed all those guys.

That said, I think any GM runs his course over 8-10 years. Even Theo was getting his fair share of criticism before leaving. Same with Tito (I know, manager, not GM).

Either way, the bigger point I wanted to get to was the fear that we may have to suck it up and say "Ok we're rebuilding for 3-4 years". Isn't that what we were essentially halfway through doing before DD got here? It had been 2 years of trying to win with fill in the gap players, no big signings, let the prospects develop. I don't think BC would have traded for Kimbrel or signed Price, and I think 2016 would have been closer to an 84 win team than a 93 win team, with the hopes that the team could keep developing talent and turn into a WC team by 2017.

SoxFanForsyth said:

It seems to me, we were in a situation where we could keep Cherington, or hire Dombrowski. Cherington was a master at building farms. He took a farm in 2012 that had 3 top 100's (Middlebrooks, Bogaerts, Swihart, none of which were in the top 50) and turned it into the best farm in baseball in a mere 3 years. But, he also set the Sox up with a rotation of Buchholz - Porcello - Masterson - Miley - Kelly and had a team that finished in last place in 2 of the 3 seasons under his watch.

While Dombrowski raids the farm, he also puts a team on the field that wins, and wins now. Where Cherington made mistakes by being too passive with the MLB team, Dombrowski's mistakes come with being overly aggressive with the MLB team.

It's all about what you can stomach. I, for one, got awfully tired of watching the Red Sox get trounced every night and, by the 3rd inning, start checking my MiLB app to see how the kids were doing in Salem and Portland.

DD has 3 solid years to generate talent before the Sox enter into the death period. Keep in mind, this is the guy who saw and stole JD Martinez, stuck with Nick Castellanos, insisted that Michael Fulmer was included in the Cespedes (I think?) trade. He's got a keen eye for talent and just because he trades prospects to put a better big league team on the field doesn't mean he can't put together a solid farm.

It's the lesser of the two evils. I choose DD. And I used to be a massive prospect hugger myself.

Click to expand...

Wasn't JBJ (2011 Theo pick) ranked as high as 31 in 2012?

Snodgrass'Muff said:

When news broke of the Sale trade, the confirmed price of Moncada, Kopech, Basabe and Diaz stung and forced me to face up to the fact that Dombrowski had, in fact, decimated the best farm system in the game in the course of roughly one year. We were left with Devers, Groome and a whole lot of hopes and dreams. After the shock of the trade wore off and some analysis of the deal started pouring in, I started asking myself: Was it worth it?

Considering I'm one of the bigger prospect humpers around these parts, you might be surprised if where I landed with it:



This is a topic where there isn't going to be one right answer (despite my firm stance), so I imagine there will be plenty of back and forth on it. If you come down on the side that is sobbing quietly into your cheerios every morning since the news broke, at least take solace in the fact that the team already has a fantastic young core in place and that the next three years are going to be one of the most exciting sustained periods Fenway park has seen in its history, outside of 2003-2005.

Click to expand...

I enjoyed reading this. I think any successful big market team needs to find a balance between the two. Listened to his interview with McAdams yesterday and I think DD does get this. He has a pretty damn good track record of trading the right prospects. Although I think he did trade Randy Johnson once but you'll never win every deal. Sale gives this team an edge they lacked in the rotation and Moncada is probably another year away as he needs help on curveballs. Kopech profiles as a really good closer or 3rd starter. Right now he's the right guy for the job.

How he will be judged isn't even so much on the Sale trade or Price signing as much as his ability to keep the young core together. Very happy he didn't trade Benetendi. Kid looks like he's going to be special.

LL traded Hanley. DD traded Moncada. I am ready. But how about two in a row this time? That'd be something...

SoxFanForsyth said:

Completely fair. You're right, he won a WS, and you can't take that away from him. Maybe I have a bias against BC, but I do find myself thinking "That team shouldn't have won a WS. They just put together a special year". So, he won the WS, and that's phenomenal and nobody can take it away from him, but I just wonder if he thought he was putting a WS caliber team together when he signed all those guys.

That said, I think any GM runs his course over 8-10 years. Even Theo was getting his fair share of criticism before leaving. Same with Tito (I know, manager, not GM).

Either way, the bigger point I wanted to get to was the fear that we may have to suck it up and say "Ok we're rebuilding for 3-4 years". Isn't that what we were essentially halfway through doing before DD got here? It had been 2 years of trying to win with fill in the gap players, no big signings, let the prospects develop. I don't think BC would have traded for Kimbrel or signed Price, and I think 2016 would have been closer to an 84 win team than a 93 win team, with the hopes that the team could keep developing talent and turn into a WC team by 2017.

Click to expand...

BC made some nice moves for the 2013 team (Napoil's one year deal, year 1 of Victorino's deal, Koji!!) I was more bothered by some of the things after.

Panda for one (never made sense for even a second after getting Hanley), the 2 year deal for Napoli over Jose Abreu.

Not to mention many of the prospects he hung onto were acquired by Theo. His 2012 draft was a trainwreck and his 2 best picks were guys they ended up not signing (Carson Fulmer and THE Alex Bregman).

2013 wasn't really that good either (the Trey Ball over Austin Meadows draft). They did take Jordan Sheffield, but didn't sign him either.

2014 he gets some nice props for Kopech and Travis. I still hold out some hope for Chavis, i liked him coming out, but that doesn't look good right now either. (side note: can't believe how fast Karsten Whitson fell off the map. That kid was a STUD as a HS pitcher).

2015 Obviously he got the Sox Beni and Logan Allen (traded in Kimbrell deal). so he found some good guys as of late.

But the reason the Cubbard looks really bare outside of Groome and Devers right now is that 2012 and 2013 dead period.

Flunky said:

ready

Click to expand...

Tyrone Biggums said:

I enjoyed reading this. I think any successful big market team needs to find a balance between the two. Listened to his interview with McAdams yesterday and I think DD does get this. He has a pretty damn good track record of trading the right prospects. Although I think he did trade Randy Johnson once but you'll never win every deal. Sale gives this team an edge they lacked in the rotation and Moncada is probably another year away as he needs help on curveballs. Kopech profiles as a really good closer or 3rd starter. Right now he's the right guy for the job.

How he will be judged isn't even so much on the Sale trade or Price signing as much as his ability to keep the young core together. Very happy he didn't trade Benetendi. Kid looks like he's going to be special.

Click to expand...

Yeah, DD doesn't lose many trades.

Even with RJ, the odds are against guys like that. Look at all the guys after RJ who never put it all together. Guys like Ryan Anderson.

Is balance achievable, though? How many teams outside of the 90s/00s Yankees and recently the Giants have had any kind of sustained success that has led to championships? And which of those teams do you believe have a good balance of farm and big club talent? It would be interesting to see what the success rates are for organizations that could be classified in the two models: consistent balance vs ebb and flow.

BillMuellerFanClub said:

Is balance achievable, though? How many teams outside of the 90s/00s Yankees and recently the Giants have had any kind of sustained success that has led to championships? And which of those teams do you believe have a good balance of farm and big club talent? It would be interesting to see what the success rates are for organizations that could be classified in the two models: consistent balance vs ebb and flow.

Click to expand...

The Giants are all about great player development.

Guys like Crawford and Duffy and even Panik were not good minor league hitters, at all. And now look at some of the seasons those guys have had.

Also, of those guys, only Panik was a first round pick.

Not to mention they got really lucky that 2 guys not expected to fall to them in the draft ended up doing so (Lincecum and Bumgarner).

Snodgrass'Muff said:

This is absolutely true, but there are a number of ways to achieve that balance. One is to maintain it constantly and never push too hard on sending prospects out while rarely or never quite going far enough to land the Chris Sale types of the world.

The other is to go hard in one direction for a few years, then hard in the other for a few after that. The three years that follow the next three or four seasons are going to be fascinating to see unfold. The Sox should be able to maintain a competitive roster even without a big rush of young talent like they just had since they should be able to extend most of the young core as veteran contracts run out (or are opted out of) freeing up some money, and there are going to be a few prospects graduating in that time. How Dombrowski maneuvers to keep the team in the playoff hunt and for how long he attempts to do so before hitting the reset button should be fun to watch.

At some point they're going to have to enter another period like 2012-2015 where they'll have to sell off vets and turn to player development to set up the next core. Probably minus the unexpected championship that Cherington got. If the team is a serious threat to win a title for the next three years, and then good enough to be in playoff contention deep into September for another 2 or 3 following it, I'll be happy with that run even without them hanging another World Series Banner. I won't be thrilled with it, but it will have been a great ride either way.

Click to expand...

Hopefully there's a little more emphasis on actually rebuilding the farm than Cherington did.

czar said:

I take minor issue with these two. Yes, Cherington's Red Sox finished in last place twice, but they also won a World Series. I'd trade 9 last place finishes for a World Series title every 10th. You can hold the bad seasons against him but you also have to acknowledge the good.

Click to expand...

Kenny Williams also won a World Series and I was talking with a friend of mine who's a White Sox fan (I was trying to talk up Moncada to him) and he was talking about how frustrated he was with the KW era, World Series win notwithstanding. 9 last place finishes is maybe palatable if you feel like there's an underlying process, like what the 76ers had (for better or for worse) but rooting year after year for a team that is consistently mediocre and disappointing is difficult to maintain.

I guess what I'm saying is that we shouldn't give a GM a free pass just because of a random World Series win. That being said, I don't think BC was the cotton-headed ninnymuggins that some thought him to be.

Seems like the fork in the road is to have a great farm system that keeps the team in constant contention (like the Patriots?) or to spend on a team that is poised to get over the top for a shorter time. Cafardo, I think, likened them to the Big Red Machine -- but even the Reds won just two titles for all their talent. And I think the competition is a good bit more intense now than it was then.

Snodgrass'Muff said:

Your assertion that Cherington didn't actually do much to rebuild the farm is a bit silly. You looked at his drafts and basically ignored his IFA activity.

2012: Wendell Rijo, both Basabe brothers

2013: Rafael Devers, Dalier Hinojosa

2014: Yoan Moncada, Anderson Espinoza, Roniel Raudes, Victor Diaz

2015: Too early to tell, but with the penalties, not likely to yield much.

That's all of the players that have been used in trades or have seen the majors from those classes that I could find with a quick five minute search. Add to them Kopech, Sam Travis, Benintendi etc... and that's a lot of pieces that made up what was arguably the best system in the game when Dombrowski took over.

Click to expand...

I was going to get to IFA later (I am at work lol).

I was mostly referring Cherington's limited rebuild efforts in 2014 and 2015. No making those veteran for prospect moves that you referred to in your post. The Miller move in 2014 was nice. We needed more moves like that.

Great read.

A good portion of the prospects traded were in A ball. When you can trade lottery tickets like them for proven talent you do that every day and twice on Sunday.

Snodgrass'Muff said:

It would have been impossible to look ahead at the time and see what Sale was going to actually cost this winter, or to see that he was even still available since it was possible another team would have traded for him last July after the Pomeranz trade had happened, but if there's one Dombrowski move I'd go back and undo, with the benefit of hindsight, it's that one. I'm guessing most would.

Click to expand...

I'm one of the minority here I think then.

Espinoza has great potential, to be sure, and he is very young for his competition level. But not so young as to entirely excuse a lack of actual production. The walk rate is high, the K rate doesn't match the all world stuff, and the guys he's playing against, while older, are supposed to be significantly less talented than he.

The hype and value for Espinoza is largely tied to traditional scouting mechanisms where a great young phenom is estimated to outgrow mediocre production with maturity. This is firmly in the wheelhouse of Dave Dombrowski.

Add that while I'm not a diehard TINSTAAPP guy there is an increased risk factor that should find it's way into the equation, and by the Red Sox, Padres, and MLB's own admission we didn't see a truly healthy Pomeranz the last half of 2016. I don't think that deal is nearly as tilted, even in hindsight, as many on this board suggest it is.

As for the Sale trade: this is what clubs ultimately play for. Maximizing a window. The Red Sox have three years of more or less this same core with the young cost controlled position players and the elite pitchers all together. By the time they exit that window they'll be leaving the big money obligations of Sandoval, Ramirez, Castillo, etc. behind with really only Price still under contract (if he doesn't opt out). They've maximized the shit out of the cost controlled years of Bogaerts, Betts, JBJ, Benintendi, and EdRo. Dombrowski's job now is much different than the past 12 months. Instead of getting the headliners now he needs to spend three years filling in the secondary gaps that emerge at the ML level while rebuilding a farm system that can handle losing some of that young core to FA.

BJBossman said:

the 2 year deal for Napoli over Jose Abreu.

Click to expand...

Abreu was signed on October 29, 2013...the day before Game 6 of the World Series. Quibble about BC's efforts in pursuit of Abreu, but it certainly wasn't a matter of choosing Napoli over him. They missed out on Abreu long before they re-signed Nap.

Snodgrass'Muff said:

Your assertion that Cherington didn't actually do much to rebuild the farm is a bit silly. You looked at his drafts and basically ignored his IFA activity.

2012: Wendell Rijo, both Basabe brothers

2013: Rafael Devers, Dalier Hinojosa

2014: Yoan Moncada, Anderson Espinoza, Roniel Raudes, Victor Diaz

2015: Too early to tell, but with the penalties, not likely to yield much.

That's all of the players that have been used in trades or have seen the majors from those classes that I could find with a quick five minute search. Add to them Kopech, Sam Travis, Benintendi etc... and that's a lot of pieces that made up what was arguably the best system in the game when Dombrowski took over.

Click to expand...

And he also didn't trade guys like Bradley and Betts at moments when it must have been very, very tempting to do so.

So this means there's not really a simple moral. You hold onto promising prospects so that if a bunch of them pan out together, you can deal other prospects just as promising as they were to time-shift value onto a narrow window of contention. I guess?

Snodgrass'Muff said:

Considering I'm one of the bigger prospect humpers around these parts, you might be surprised if where I landed with it:

Click to expand...

I was disappointed. The article correctly cited the prospect lovers' argument of "more WAR for less money". I expected a rebuttal based on things such as comps for strikeout heavy prospects who failed in their first cup of coffee, the likelihood of pitchers in the low minors becoming significant pieces etc. Instead it was a long article that added little to "yes they sold the farm but they're stacked now."

Thanks, Red(s)Hawksfan. Timing screwed the Sox's pursuit of Abreu. I'm sure they would have offered him more, two weeks later, but there was no way they were going to sign their new firstbaseman while asking their current firstbaseman to help them win a World Series. That's not how life works.

As for the suggestion upthread of trading Pomeranz, I'm sure DD will listen to offers for his pitching "surplus," but I doubt he'll get one to his liking for Pom. He'd be selling a bit low, given the injury concern and (hopefully related) performance drop-off in the 2d half. He could get a decent prospect or two back, but it wouldn't likely be an Espinoza level guy. For that reason, I'd rather hold onto Pom and see what he brings in spring training. If it's first half 2016 Pomeranz, then we've got what we traded for.

Minneapolis Millers said:

Thanks, Red(s)Hawksfan. Timing screwed the Sox's pursuit of Abreu. I'm sure they would have offered him more, two weeks later, but there was no way they were going to sign their new firstbaseman while asking their current firstbaseman to help them win a World Series. That's not how life works.

As for the suggestion upthread of trading Pomeranz, I'm sure DD will listen to offers for his pitching "surplus," but I doubt he'll get one to his liking for Pom. He'd be selling a bit low, given the injury concern and (hopefully related) performance drop-off in the 2d half. He could get a decent prospect or two back, but it wouldn't likely be an Espinoza level guy. For that reason, I'd rather hold onto Pom and see what he brings in spring training. If it's first half 2016 Pomeranz, then we've got what we traded for.

Click to expand...

I do agree.

But re: Abreu, they still came in 2nd in the bidding.

As for Pom, I think you gotta hold him now. Buch's salary should be moved. Whether they can get a useful bullpen piece and some amateur spending money or not is my question.

Snodgrass'Muff said:

That's because the article wasn't about the value of prospects versus the value of major leaguers. While that would make for an interesting piece on its own, the point of this article was Dombrowski's selling of the farm was meant to capitalize on a 3 to 4 year window where the team had a chance to be truly great, and at the end of the day, that's what prospects exist for. They either feed the major league roster through promotions, or the feed it through trades.

The major league roster was brimming with young talent locked up for a number of years. Cashing in a bunch of prospects to put the finishing touches on that major league roster was the logical move. I'm not sure that any of the prospects Dombrowski has traded away could have been used in a way that would have maximized their value over the next 3 or 4 years had they stayed with the Red Sox, so why not convert that value into something more useful?

I look at it sort of like the inverse of how we project player performance. We look back at 3 or 4 years and we weigh those years according to proximity. Last year is worth more than two years ago, which is worth more than three years ago. Likewise, next year is more important than the year after, which is more important than the year after that. Sure, all of those years matter, but you can't weigh them equally and when faced with the opportunity to maximize your chances of winning in the short term... especially when that window is 3 or 4 years, you have to jump on it.

Unless you think the Red Sox's chances of winning a title in the next 3-4 years is not appreciably different than it was a couple of weeks ago, or a year ago, I don't see the argument for avoiding these kinds of moves. If it was all for a one year push, sure... that's short sighted and a bad approach. That's not what we're looking at, though.

Click to expand...

I think the number of years for your "window" is an interesting discussion. I think we agree the window is 3 years (despite Hanley and Price being able to leave after 2 more years).

But what if it was a 2 year window...is that enough? (I don't have the answer, I'm just asking the question).

I think that's right, and I think much the same thing is happening in Washington, which is proceeding on the assumption that it may not resign Harper, against the backdrop of greater post-season disappointment than we have endured in 13 years. And if one compares the levels of fleecing -- if one insists on using that term, DD emerged from the two big deals this week in significantly better shape than Rizzo, a proven shrewd and tough trade negotiator.

EDIT -- responding to SM's post #35.

dcmissle said:

I think that's right, and I think much the same thing is happening in Washington, which is proceeding on the assumption that it may not resign Harper, against the backdrop of greater post-season disappointment than we have endured in 13 years. And if one compares the levels of fleecing -- if one insists on using that term, DD emerged from the two big deals this week in significantly better shape than Rizzo, a proven shrewd and tough trade negotiator.

EDIT -- responding to SM's post #35.

Click to expand...

Idk. I like what the Nats did with Eaton.

It lets Turner play short. Gets Espinosa off the field more. It's a nice domino effect.

Me personally would play Murphy more at 1B than 2B simply for defensive purposes and because I have no idea what you can expect from Zimm at this point in his career.

Snodgrass'Muff said:

I honestly don't know and I'm not sure I can wrap my head around the scenario where the window is 2 years and with the moves all being the same.

Click to expand...

That was more hypothetical than Red Sox specific. You said 1 year window would be too short sighted, but what about 2, 3 etc?

What is the shortest window to make a move like that? (lets ignore the rental market the Randy Johnson or Carlos Beltran deals and the like).

BJBossman said:

That was more hypothetical than Red Sox specific. You said 1 year window would be too short sighted, but what about 2, 3 etc?

What is the shortest window to make a move like that? (lets ignore the rental market the Randy Johnson or Carlos Beltran deals and the like).

Click to expand...

It seems to me that there is no absolute number, too many variables, but I'd like to hear from those who do, and why.

Snodgrass'Muff said:

Unless you think the Red Sox's chances of winning a title in the next 3-4 years is not appreciably different than it was a couple of weeks ago, or a year ago, I don't see the argument for avoiding these kinds of moves. If it was all for a one year push, sure... that's short sighted and a bad approach. That's not what we're looking at, though.

Click to expand...

I think the key point is that people tend to create narratives that really don't do justice to underlying reality (I'm making a very Sons of Sam Horny point here). Baseball is not basketball, where the best team usually wins. There is a lot of luck, even in a seven game series. The Cubs were mostly lucky in the playoffs.

The most reasonable baseline for the playoffs is that you should expect a 50% chance of winning each series. So you should win the WS one out of every 8 times you win the division and one out of 16 times you win the wild card. The Sox are trying to improve over that baseline but what kind of improvement can they realistically expect?

In 2016 they won 93 games. How many games are their prospects worth? Let's say six games. That would improve their winning percentage from .574 to .611. Head to head, that means that the "Cashed-in" Sox would have a 51.6% chance of beating the "hold steady" Sox (.611 / (.611 + .574)). Use a binomial calculator and the "cashed in Sox" have a 53.0% chance of winning a five game series and a 53.5% chance of winning a 7 game series against the "hold steady" Sox. Assuming the 2016 Sox are fairly typical of teams in the playoffs, then the "cashed in" Sox would have a 15.1% chance of winning the World Series next year versus a 12.5% chance for the "hold steady" Sox.

So let's compare 8 years of the two possible teams. "Cashed in" Sox have a 15.1% chance of winning the WS for the first four years then miss the playoffs for four years while they rebuild. "Hold steady" Sox have a 12.5% chance every year for 8 years. Using a binomial calculator:

"hold steady" Sox have a .65% chance of winning at least one WS in the 8 years.
"cashed in" Sox have .48% chance of winning at least one WS in the 8 years.

I admit this last calculation is rigged in favor of "hold steady" Sox, but even so, looking at the numbers, it's hard to see the case for cashing in prospects.

Otis Foster said:

It seems to me that there is no absolute number, too many variables, but I'd like to hear from those who do, and why.

Click to expand...

This was really my reason for asking it.

Hagios said:

I think the key point is that people tend to create narratives that really don't do justice to underlying reality (I'm making a very Sons of Sam Horny point here). Baseball is not basketball, where the best team usually wins. There is a lot of luck, even in a seven game series. The Cubs were mostly lucky in the playoffs.

The most reasonable baseline for the playoffs is that you should expect a 50% chance of winning each series. So you should win the WS one out of every 8 times you win the division and one out of 16 times you win the wild card. The Sox are trying to improve over that baseline but what kind of improvement can they realistically expect?

In 2016 they won 93 games. How many games are their prospects worth? Let's say six games. That would improve their winning percentage from .574 to .611. Head to head, that means that the "Cashed-in" Sox would have a 51.6% chance of beating the "hold steady" Sox (.611 / (.611 + .574)). Use a binomial calculator and the "cashed in Sox" have a 53.0% chance of winning a five game series and a 53.5% chance of winning a 7 game series against the "hold steady" Sox. Assuming the 2016 Sox are fairly typical of teams in the playoffs, then the "cashed in" Sox would have a 15.1% chance of winning the World Series next year versus a 12.5% chance for the "hold steady" Sox.

So let's compare 8 years of the two possible teams. "Cashed in" Sox have a 15.1% chance of winning the WS for the first four years then miss the playoffs for four years while they rebuild. "Hold steady" Sox have a 12.5% chance every year for 8 years. Using a binomial calculator:

"hold steady" Sox have a .65% chance of winning at least one WS in the 8 years.
"cashed in" Sox have .48% chance of winning at least one WS in the 8 years.

I admit this last calculation is rigged in favor of "hold steady" Sox, but even so, looking at the numbers, it's hard to see the case for cashing in prospects.

Click to expand...

True. sometimes the difference between winning and losing is just one play.

The Indians win this series in game 5 if Guyer doesn't misplay Rizzo's flyball into a double. \

Look at how many mistakes they made in game 7 and still got it to extra innings.

Most of those issues were not forced by the Cubs (unless suicidal baserunning counts...)

I don't know if DD has ever been in a situation quite like this. The baseball/developmental ops in place with Boston are much, much better than what Detroit had. JH isn't quite like Illich either, and we can't really know what kind of pressure he put on DD to "win now". The Fielder move always seemed exorbitantly excessive. Victor Martinez was signed as a DH/ backup C.
They already had their 1B in Cabrera, who was so terrible at 3B in 2008 he was moved off the position. It was as weird as some of the signings we saw with Theo and BC from 2008-2015.

As much love as the Theo/Ben reigns get, bad, at some times head scratching moves hurt this club a ton from 2010-2015. Not to mention some mostly lean drafts from 2007-2010.

2011 really puts it into perspective

• Let Adrian Belte walk after a GREAT season. Signs a 5/80 mil deal with Texas that turns out the be one of the best FA deals in recent memory. Was open to coming to Boston, great relationship with Ortiz.
• Traded Rizzo in part of Gonzalez deal. We now know that Gonzalez already had a bum shoulder and was in his decline phase at 28. Rizzo would have been ready by the time Youk was an FA and the Sox would of had a middle-order 1B to anchor the lineup for a very long time.
• Shifted the best defensive (and more than adequate offensively) 1B in the AL to 3B at the wrong side of 30. Weakens overall defense, likely hasten's Youk's decline from wear and tear.
• Signed Carl Crawford. Bad fit, defensive skills did not translate to Fenway's LF. Had injury concerns that were already known. Skillset was entirely based on elite fast-twitch athleticism, poor fundamentals.
• Pointlessly allocated 12 million to Bobby Jenks.

Everything changes with that idiotic offseason. If they resign Beltre, 3B is set and you have a middle-order HOF player with elite defense on the cheap. Sox probably still draft Blake Swihart at 24 overall instead of 26. No Gonzalez, have Rizzo. Maybe Kelly doesn't get hurt and becomes a useful piece. Instead of Crawford, sign/trade for a complementary RH OF to platoon with Reddick, who was ready. A cost-controlled Reddick would have been a great piece to have from 2012-2016 as well. They needed SP and it was clearly ignored. The only guy who had a history of health and performance was Lester. Beckett and Buchholz were wildcards, Lackey was coming off a subpar season and had (known) arm issues, Matsuzaka was toast after 2008. With Crawford money, the Sox could of signed Kuroda and Uehara and had plenty to spare. Or even splurged on Cliff Lee.

Instead, Sox had to hit the reset button in 2012, suffered through multiple losing seasons and lost cornerstone guys who would have helped this team out immensely. 2013 was great but it doesn't excuse bad moves. Failing to resign Lester when they had the window and opportunity, twice. Losing 12 months of cheap Lackey for negligible (so far) return. Less than ideal Sandoval and Hanley acquisitions. Castillo. I don't believe for a second that Donaldson was out of reach in 2014 and that's a failure on Ben's part as well. Hindsight is 20/20 but many of these moves were deservedly panned at the time here and other places.

I guess time will tell the trades will burn the Sox or not, but I seriously doubt it because every guy that DD has unloaded significant prospects for is:

• In their prime and under multiple years of team control.
• Young, and reasonably cheap.
  
• Fills a hole that couldn't be found internally.
• Has an elite skillset, top tier player.

If you're trading away prospects, these are absolutely the things you should target IMO.

If you want to find people who think that DD should lose his job, well, there's plenty over at SoxProspects who think that is too kind for him.

I love watching homegrown players develop and was/am a Ben supporter but I think one thing people forget is that guys like DD are wired to win it all and when they have a chance to do that, it doesn't matter what happens five years from now. DD has given the Red Sox the best chance to win a WS now without having to massively overpay for anything.

And while it's true that the Sox are going to be worse off five years from now, there are two things to think about. (1) The worst case scenario over the next ten years would be that the Sox were good enough to contend but never good enough to win it all. And being good means that they are unlikely to get the high draft picks that yield premium talent. (2) The way the CBA is set up it seems unlikely that any team is going to be able to leverage their financial strength into massive talent advantage, so being great for three years and then sucking for three years is a better way of going than being good (but not great) for six.

I absolutely agree with selling off prospects if someone is blocked. I've argued in other threads for trading JBJ for that reason. I think having three plus centerfielders in the outfield is a waste of defensive ability. But none of the traded players were blocked here unless you really do believe we can trust Sandoval to return to form.

I do think the wildcard vs divsion point is a good one in favor of selling prospects.