Alex Verdugo - on-field discussion thread

mwonow

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 4, 2005
6,145
So if Verdugo gets injured tomorrow and Jeter Downs never plays a MLB game but the Sox go on to win 3 WS during Mookie's contract and the Dodgers only win 1, the Sox win the deal?

(snip)
Yes.

The point is to win.

Verdugo and Downs and Mookie all get hurt, but the Sox use the cap space to get players who deliver a title, the Sox are winners.

LAD are already winners, as SJH pointed out.

The second half of your post postulated Mookie being hurt, which as a Mookie fanboy, I don't want to discuss.
 

Ramon AC

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 19, 2002
2,975
What?
If the Sox won the WS in 1990, would they have "won" the Bagwell trade? (this quote was a jumping off point, not directed to the poster her/himself)
A thousand times yes. Andersen presumably would have played a big role in keeping the Oakland offense at bay and knocking off Cincinnati, and I dare anyone to say they wouldn’t have given up Bagwell AND Cooper for a bag of balls to win a title four years after the 86 disaster.
 

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
732
Chicago, IL
A thousand times yes. Andersen presumably would have played a big role in keeping the Oakland offense at bay and knocking off Cincinnati, and I dare anyone to say they wouldn’t have given up Bagwell AND Cooper for a bag of balls to win a title four years after the 86 disaster.
Well. This is interesting. What is a justified cost for a championship? That is the question.

Of course, if you are in a decades long drought then the willingness to pay an arm and leg makes a great deal of sense. I know as a fan, pre-2004, I wanted the Red Sox to do ANYTHING in the short term if a championship was in reach. After a few recent WS under their belt? Well, I think, then, the orientation changes to building an organization that can SUSTAIN success year in and year out, subsequently balancing present and future needs.

I think many folks on this site had some raised eyebrows at DD's approach building toward the 2018 championship (and his subsequent moves in the 2018-19 off season). He just DECIMATED the farm, and overextended salary resources. Which, again, I would have appreciated in 2003. But in 2018? I dunno. I think we all saw what the aftermath of his short term thinking strategy might have been (see: Detroit Tigers). Thankfully, the manic-depressive Sox ownership saw the error of their ways and hired Chaim Bloom, who has a much more balanced and intelligent approach than Dombrowski.

Would you trade the 2018 WS for Moncada, Kopech, Benintendi and Betts being on the team right now ...? I'm not saying I would or the answer is obvious. But that's my point ... maybe the answer, after WS victories in 2004, 2007, and 2013 isn't obvious.

Vazquez, Dalbec, Moncada, Bogaerts, Devers, Benintendi, Duran, Betts .... could have an entire diamond of homegrown players, and the best line up in baseball ...

I know hindsight is 20/20 ... just having some fun in imagining alternate realities ....
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
6,264
New York City
Well. This is interesting. What is a justified cost for a championship? That is the question.

Of course, if you are in a decades long drought then the willingness to pay an arm and leg makes a great deal of sense. I know as a fan, pre-2004, I wanted the Red Sox to do ANYTHING in the short term if a championship was in reach. After a few recent WS under their belt? Well, I think, then, the orientation changes to building an organization that can SUSTAIN success year in and year out, subsequently balancing present and future needs.

I think many folks on this site had some raised eyebrows at DD's approach building toward the 2018 championship (and his subsequent moves in the 2018-19 off season). He just DECIMATED the farm, and overextended salary resources. Which, again, I would have appreciated in 2003. But in 2018? I dunno. I think we all saw what the aftermath of his short term thinking strategy might have been (see: Detroit Tigers). Thankfully, the manic-depressive Sox ownership saw the error of their ways and hired Chaim Bloom, who has a much more balanced and intelligent approach than Dombrowski.

Would you trade the 2018 WS for Moncada, Kopech, Benintendi and Betts being on the team right now ...? I'm not saying I would or the answer is obvious. But that's my point ... maybe the answer, after WS victories in 2004, 2007, and 2013 isn't obvious.

Vazquez, Dalbec, Moncada, Bogaerts, Devers, Benintendi, Duran, Betts .... could have an entire diamond of homegrown players, and the best line up in baseball ...

I know hindsight is 20/20 ... just having some fun in imagining alternate realities ....
Probably not much point in rehashing this again but I don't take issue with DD's moves that got us the 2018 championship. DD's moves that killed the team and sealed his fate were the ones he made after the 2018 WS - namely, re-signing Eovaldi, extending Sale when there was really no need to, and not doing whatever was necessary to extend Mookie.

As for the Dodgers, I can't imagine any Dodger fan, if you asked them, saying that they regret the trade. It was the necessary price to be paid to get the final key piece for a team that was already a contender. The Mookie trade for the Dodgers was basically the Sale trade for us - and are there really any Sox fans who would go back in time and undo the Sale trade if they could, even knowing how Moncada and Kopech have panned out? (That trade, like the Mookie trade, is another excellent example of a clear "win-win" trade.)
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
13,671
Ugh. The Sale extension...man it was so unnecessary at the time. There was no reason for it at all. I love Sale and can't wait for him to pitch again, but it was just a really bad unforced error.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
2,307
Probably not much point in rehashing this again but I don't take issue with DD's moves that got us the 2018 championship. DD's moves that killed the team and sealed his fate were the ones he made after the 2018 WS - namely, re-signing Eovaldi, extending Sale when there was really no need to, and not doing whatever was necessary to extend Mookie.

As for the Dodgers, I can't imagine any Dodger fan, if you asked them, saying that they regret the trade. It was the necessary price to be paid to get the final key piece for a team that was already a contender. The Mookie trade for the Dodgers was basically the Sale trade for us - and are there really any Sox fans who would go back in time and undo the Sale trade if they could, even knowing how Moncada and Kopech have panned out? (That trade, like the Mookie trade, is another excellent example of a clear "win-win" trade.)
To me the most egregious move was not trading Benintendi, then seen as one of the most valuable assets in baseball (despite being functionally a platoon player), after 2018. Imagine if DD had signed Brantley (at the 2/$36M Houston did) and traded Beni for a pre-breakout arm like Woodruff or Bieber, thus averting one or both of the Eovaldi and Sale deals.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
5,166
Boston, MA
Are the Sale and Eovaldi deals even that bad? Eovaldi is currently the team's best pitcher and Sale is poised to come back and help by the end of the year. Sale's deal only started last year and he was only paid for 60 games of it, so they haven't even lost much money on it yet.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
14,931
Maine
Are the Sale and Eovaldi deals even that bad? Eovaldi is currently the team's best pitcher and Sale is poised to come back and help by the end of the year. Sale's deal only started last year and he was only paid for 60 games of it, so they haven't even lost much money on it yet.
They're only bad in the context that by not signing one or both of those deals, it would have created enough cap space to magically make Mookie decide to sign a long term deal here.
 

sean1562

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 17, 2011
3,334
A lot of the Sale handwringing seems to come with the baked in assumption that he is going to be a shadow of his former self when he returns. He only has 3 guaranteed years after this one and will get paid 30 mil, 27.5 and 27.5. He was on track for a no doubt HoF career before the injury and seems to be in good shape for his rehab starts. Do people not see him as a potential Cy Young caliber pitcher when he returns to full health?
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
3,434
To me the most egregious move was not trading Benintendi, then seen as one of the most valuable assets in baseball (despite being functionally a platoon player), after 2018. Imagine if DD had signed Brantley (at the 2/$36M Houston did) and traded Beni for a pre-breakout arm like Woodruff or Bieber, thus averting one or both of the Eovaldi and Sale deals.
IIRC, a lot of the discussion at the time was to deal 10D to Miami for Christian Yellich who at the time didn't have as good an overall batting line as 10D.
It would have been a hell of a steal- as he had two consecutive seasons of +1.000 OPS before getting injured. He had a terrible 2020 (who cares?!?!) and isn't quite as All Star caliber as those two seasons, but is still looking like he'd be a great hitter in the leadoff spot.
I actually argued against people advocating for that deal, as I really did think 10D would be able to turn into a consistent .850-.900 OPS player with above average defense in LF. I just wish Dombroski hadn't listened to me.....
 

AlNipper49

Huge Member
Dope
Apr 3, 2001
41,468
Mtigawi
By the World Series measure the Sox also won. They would not have won their most recent WS without Price and selling their farm off. We had to pay the cost of the pretty bloated long term contracts after the fact, but those moves did get us one of the great teams in MLB history.
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
6,264
New York City
A lot of the Sale handwringing seems to come with the baked in assumption that he is going to be a shadow of his former self when he returns. He only has 3 guaranteed years after this one and will get paid 30 mil, 27.5 and 27.5. He was on track for a no doubt HoF career before the injury and seems to be in good shape for his rehab starts. Do people not see him as a potential Cy Young caliber pitcher when he returns to full health?
I don't really agree. The Sale handwringing is because he was extended at a time when he already had injury concerns, and then promptly injured himself in 2019 and has provided zero value since then. Obviously extending a player prior to free agency carries the risk that the player will become injured but in this instance in particular that risk was heightened. Had they just waited until he hit actual free agency, they would have been able to either sign him for less or just decide that given the injury issues the money would be better spent on someone else.

Instead, the Sox have so far paid him something like $45 million under the new contract for absolutely nothing in return. That is a big hole to dig out of in terms of whether the contract as a whole will have been worth it. Of course, that's a sunk cost so going forward I obviously hope he does revert to that Cy Young-contender form.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
5,166
Boston, MA
Instead, the Sox have so far paid him something like $45 million under the new contract for absolutely nothing in return. That is a big hole to dig out of in terms of whether the contract as a whole will have been worth it. Of course, that's a sunk cost so going forward I obviously hope he does revert to that Cy Young-contender form.
They only paid him $11 million last year. The 60 game season worked out great for the Red Sox. Sale didn't eat up much money, Mookie only missed 60 games and wouldn't have made a bit of difference, and they reset the tax penalties during a season very few were paying attention.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
14,931
Maine
They only paid him $11 million last year. The 60 game season worked out great for the Red Sox. Sale didn't eat up much money, Mookie only missed 60 games and wouldn't have made a bit of difference, and they reset the tax penalties during a season very few were paying attention.
I find it hard to get too worked up over paying him for "nothing" the last year and a half considering the value the team derived from his fairly cheap previous contract (3/29.5M). Fangraphs $ value isn't the best metric, but according to it, he's been worth about $140M since he arrived in Boston. It's paying for past performance but they're still coming out ahead so far.
 

scottyno

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
8,284
I don't really agree. The Sale handwringing is because he was extended at a time when he already had injury concerns, and then promptly injured himself in 2019 and has provided zero value since then. Obviously extending a player prior to free agency carries the risk that the player will become injured but in this instance in particular that risk was heightened. Had they just waited until he hit actual free agency, they would have been able to either sign him for less or just decide that given the injury issues the money would be better spent on someone else.

Instead, the Sox have so far paid him something like $45 million under the new contract for absolutely nothing in return. That is a big hole to dig out of in terms of whether the contract as a whole will have been worth it. Of course, that's a sunk cost so going forward I obviously hope he does revert to that Cy Young-contender form.
Or he could have easily put up another 6 win season in 2019 going into free agency and waiting would have burned them big time
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Well. This is interesting. What is a justified cost for a championship? That is the question.

Of course, if you are in a decades long drought then the willingness to pay an arm and leg makes a great deal of sense. I know as a fan, pre-2004, I wanted the Red Sox to do ANYTHING in the short term if a championship was in reach. After a few recent WS under their belt? Well, I think, then, the orientation changes to building an organization that can SUSTAIN success year in and year out, subsequently balancing present and future needs.

I think many folks on this site had some raised eyebrows at DD's approach building toward the 2018 championship (and his subsequent moves in the 2018-19 off season). He just DECIMATED the farm, and overextended salary resources. Which, again, I would have appreciated in 2003. But in 2018? I dunno. I think we all saw what the aftermath of his short term thinking strategy might have been (see: Detroit Tigers). Thankfully, the manic-depressive Sox ownership saw the error of their ways and hired Chaim Bloom, who has a much more balanced and intelligent approach than Dombrowski.

Would you trade the 2018 WS for Moncada, Kopech, Benintendi and Betts being on the team right now ...? I'm not saying I would or the answer is obvious. But that's my point ... maybe the answer, after WS victories in 2004, 2007, and 2013 isn't obvious.

Vazquez, Dalbec, Moncada, Bogaerts, Devers, Benintendi, Duran, Betts .... could have an entire diamond of homegrown players, and the best line up in baseball ...

I know hindsight is 20/20 ... just having some fun in imagining alternate realities ....
Not picking on you cantor, but the capitalization of the word decimated got my attention. That word has been used here and other places to describe Dombroski's handling of the farm system. I looked up all of the trades that DD made (link below) and there are only a couple of Sox farmhands there of any great note. IMO there are a couple other factors to be considered when looking at the decimation of the Sox farm system and tops on that list is the homegrown talent that was promoted shortly before and during Dombroski's tenure in Boston. Having the good fortune to promote the likes of Bogaerts, Betts, JBJ, Benintendi, Vasquez in a fairly short period of time will deplete the system especially if subsequent drafts don't bare much fruit. That in itself might have been DD's greatest failing concerning the farm system. Not so much what he traded away, but the failure to adequately restock.

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2020/04/revisiting-dave-dombrowskis-red-sox-trades.html
 

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
732
Chicago, IL
Not picking on you cantor, but the capitalization of the word decimated got my attention. That word has been used here and other places to describe Dombroski's handling of the farm system. I looked up all of the trades that DD made (link below) and there are only a couple of Sox farmhands there of any great note. IMO there are a couple other factors to be considered when looking at the decimation of the Sox farm system and tops on that list is the homegrown talent that was promoted shortly before and during Dombroski's tenure in Boston. Having the good fortune to promote the likes of Bogaerts, Betts, JBJ, Benintendi, Vasquez in a fairly short period of time will deplete the system especially if subsequent drafts don't bare much fruit. That in itself might have been DD's greatest failing concerning the farm system. Not so much what he traded away, but the failure to adequately restock.

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2020/04/revisiting-dave-dombrowskis-red-sox-trades.html
Don't feel picked on at all! I may be being hyperbolic indeed. Though the Carson Smith and Tyler Thornburg trades cost a lot. Overall, he used a ton of assets for relief pitchers (aside from Kimbrel I'm not sure any of those moves was all that wise ...). And certainly, the promotion of lots of great prospects also depletes the system (no capitalization). I agree with comments above - DD's extension of Sale and Eovaldi seemed like a poor use of resources even at the time to many folks (some comments above noted as much better than I can now).

Suffice it to say: DD pushed in ALL his chips to create a stacked team that likely wasn't sustainable longer term (and that kind of foreclosed the possibility of extending Betts). And that did in fact win the Red Sox a WS. But then painted the organization in terrible corner (so much so that they FIRED him ... during the season!). So the question is - when your team is coming off multiple WS wins in recent years, is this a strategy, as fans, we most want the organization to pursue? Or would we give up a single championship created with a boom bust approach, for a slightly more prudent approach that builds year-in-year-out quality and regular contention.

I much prefer the Bloom approach and was disgruntled when DD was hired actually. But, I will admit - the 2018 season was a total JOY as a fan. Then again we have Cherington and Epstein to thank for a lot of those guys, too.
 

Apisith

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2007
2,697
Bangkok
If we had to decimate the farm to win this year, I'd do it. But DD did what he did because we were already good, the floor was high, and he just gave away the farm to put the team over the top. I'd do it again, easily. This year the team's floor isn't that high.

It's different this year because the team now has clear holes (starting pitching, bottom of the lineup). The fixes are internal (Sale, Houck and Duran). Until we see whether the internal fixes are enough, there's no reason to spend prospects. And anyway, by the time we know whether the internal fixes are enough, it'll be way past the trade deadline.
 

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
732
Chicago, IL
If we had to decimate the farm to win this year, I'd do it. But DD did what he did because we were already good, the floor was high, and he just gave away the farm to put the team over the top. I'd do it again, easily. This year the team's floor isn't that high.

It's different this year because the team now has clear holes (starting pitching, bottom of the lineup). The fixes are internal (Sale, Houck and Duran). Until we see whether the internal fixes are enough, there's no reason to spend prospects. And anyway, by the time we know whether the internal fixes are enough, it'll be way past the trade deadline.
Yes, this is a good articulation of the difference between 2018 and 2021 and the subsequent degree of GFIN mode. And why and when you push in more chips.

Wondering though, in regard to the general defense of DD in this thread by a few folks - if he was doing what he should have done/had to do, why did the Sox brass fire him? And before season's end, too? Was it just his mismanagement of the 2018 off season? Or did they realize he overplayed the organization's hand, and he wasn't equipped to get them a new hand? Or something else?
 

Apisith

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2007
2,697
Bangkok
Yes, this is a good articulation of the difference between 2018 and 2021 and the subsequent degree of GFIN mode. And why and when you push in more chips.

Wondering though, in regard to the general defense of DD in this thread by a few folks - if he was doing what he should have done/had to do, why did the Sox brass fire him? And before season's end, too? Was it just his mismanagement of the 2018 off season? Or did they realize he overplayed the organization's hand, and he wasn't equipped to get them a new hand? Or something else?
It's mentioned upthread but I think the key reason is that he didn't restock the farm. Cashman was awake to what was happening and plowed money into international free agents before the limits came in. Dombrowski didn't bother and so the farm became barren. That's the key difference. If we had two or three legit (2-4 WAR) prospects that would have been promoted in 2019 and 2020, Dombrowski would still have a job.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
If we had to decimate the farm to win this year, I'd do it. But DD did what he did because we were already good, the floor was high, and he just gave away the farm to put the team over the top. I'd do it again, easily. This year the team's floor isn't that high.

It's different this year because the team now has clear holes (starting pitching, bottom of the lineup). The fixes are internal (Sale, Houck and Duran). Until we see whether the internal fixes are enough, there's no reason to spend prospects. And anyway, by the time we know whether the internal fixes are enough, it'll be way past the trade deadline.
Apisith, this isn't so much directed at you, but the general notion of DD giving away the farm. Of the minor leaguers that DD traded away, who not named Moncada, Kopech or Margot helps this team? The jury may still be out a couple of the younger players, but can we please stop with Dombrowski giving away the farm? Bang on him for handing out extensions sooner than necessary if you like, rake him over the coals for not being able to find good young players to bring into the farm system, but of all of the players he "gave away" those other than the three I mentioned have been pretty unremarkable so far.
 

pjheff

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2003
859
Wondering though, in regard to the general defense of DD in this thread by a few folks - if he was doing what he should have done/had to do, why did the Sox brass fire him? And before season's end, too? Was it just his mismanagement of the 2018 off season? Or did they realize he overplayed the organization's hand, and he wasn't equipped to get them a new hand? Or something else?
He was a war-time consigliere, and the Sox were about to enter a different phase of restructuring which he was I’ll-suited to lead.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/bruins/2019/09/09/red-sox-felt-they-needed-leader-with-different-skills-going-forward/8qtyAjW1TYSAd2Yy4hzaRL/story.html
 

BringBackMo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
149
Apisith, this isn't so much directed at you, but the general notion of DD giving away the farm. Of the minor leaguers that DD traded away, who not named Moncada, Kopech or Margot helps this team? The jury may still be out a couple of the younger players, but can we please stop with Dombrowski giving away the farm? Bang on him for handing out extensions sooner than necessary if you like, rake him over the coals for not being able to find good young players to bring into the farm system, but of all of the players he "gave away" those other than the three I mentioned have been pretty unremarkable so far.
Focusing on how the prospects DD traded have or have not panned out is an incomplete method of evaluating his approach.

In a vacuum we can look back and say, ‘See, he only got rid of the dead weight! None of them amounted to much of anything!” But that is true of most prospects. Teams understand that they’re buying not outcome certainty but a range of outcome possibilities when they trade for a minor leaguer. So at least some of most prospects’ value is tied to, for lack of a better term, luck. Teams know this and factor it into their decisions, of course. And that’s why the better organizations include as few of their own dice throws as possible in trades—the better to have them for additional deals—and insist on as many of them as possible from their trade partners.

DD’s real failing with the farm, in my opinion, was often throwing in extra prospects in his deals for major leaguers. Was dealing prospects for Kimbrel brilliant? YES! Was including Logan Allen as a fourth prospect necessary? A lot of analysis has suggested it may not have been. (I can’t say for sure that it wasn’t. I’m simply repeating what has been reported/speculated elsewhere.) Again, the point isn’t what Allen has or hasn’t developed into. It’s that Allen wasn’t available to be used in other deals. And that is just one example. DD’s reputation has always been: He’ll do what’s necessary to close the deal quickly, even if it means giving up a bit more than other teams are willing to. That bit more just may be the margin within which the better organizations find their advantage.

Bloom appears to understand this. In the Benintendi, Mookie, and other deals, he has prioritized bringing in lots of prospects. Now to be fair, he’s trading from a different position than DD was. He’s actively working to rebuild a farm system and, to some degree, a major league roster rather than put the finishing touches on one. But he has also talked often about how a major league organization is its entire roster of players, from its lowest rungs all the way to the big leagues. So my guess is that he will continue to prioritize overall organizational health and depth even as the Sox enter their win-now window. I think he’ll always strive to be a guy to give less and get more.

Dombrowski, for all his talents—and I think he’s a tremendous baseball executive—never quite seemed to share this priority and I think that was his failing with the Sox.
 

shaggydog2000

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
8,703
Focusing on how the prospects DD traded have or have not panned out is an incomplete method of evaluating his approach.

In a vacuum we can look back and say, ‘See, he only got rid of the dead weight! None of them amounted to much of anything!” But that is true of most prospects. Teams understand that they’re buying not outcome certainty but a range of outcome possibilities when they trade for a minor leaguer. So at least some of most prospects’ value is tied to, for lack of a better term, luck. Teams know this and factor it into their decisions, of course. And that’s why the better organizations include as few of their own dice throws as possible in trades—the better to have them for additional deals—and insist on as many of them as possible from their trade partners.

DD’s real failing with the farm, in my opinion, was often throwing in extra prospects in his deals for major leaguers. Was dealing prospects for Kimbrel brilliant? YES! Was including Logan Allen as a fourth prospect necessary? A lot of analysis has suggested it may not have been. (I can’t say for sure that it wasn’t. I’m simply repeating what has been reported/speculated elsewhere.) Again, the point isn’t what Allen has or hasn’t developed into. It’s that Allen wasn’t available to be used in other deals. And that is just one example. DD’s reputation has always been: He’ll do what’s necessary to close the deal quickly, even if it means giving up a bit more than other teams are willing to. That bit more just may be the margin within which the better organizations find their advantage.

Bloom appears to understand this. In the Benintendi, Mookie, and other deals, he has prioritized bringing in lots of prospects. Now to be fair, he’s trading from a different position than DD was. He’s actively working to rebuild a farm system and, to some degree, a major league roster rather than put the finishing touches on one. But he has also talked often about how a major league organization is its entire roster of players, from its lowest rungs all the way to the big leagues. So my guess is that he will continue to prioritize overall organizational health and depth even as the Sox enter their win-now window. I think he’ll always strive to be a guy to give less and get more.

Dombrowski, for all his talents—and I think he’s a tremendous baseball executive—never quite seemed to share this priority and I think that was his failing with the Sox.
So you're saying Dombrowksi's failing was not winning trades by more?

I think his trades were very good. He didn't give away much except for Moncada. Margot would not have started here over Bradley, and they wouldn't have kept him around until now so that he could become a starter. Kopech is having a great season so far, but it's been 5 years since the trade and he only started 4 games in the majors before now.

His main issue was not having a pipeline of talent coming into the franchise. Part of that is going to be luck with their draft picks, and some could be the scouting department not doing a great job, but it's hard to know how much blame to put on Dombrowski for that. They definitely signed less international players, but part of that was a change in rules around that, but also a penalty the franchise got hit with for actions from before he was in charge.

He definitely went crazy resigning guys on terms that were too generous, and we can definitely blame him for that, but the shortage of ready players in the minors most likely had something to do with that.
 

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
732
Chicago, IL
Focusing on how the prospects DD traded have or have not panned out is an incomplete method of evaluating his approach.

In a vacuum we can look back and say, ‘See, he only got rid of the dead weight! None of them amounted to much of anything!” But that is true of most prospects. Teams understand that they’re buying not outcome certainty but a range of outcome possibilities when they trade for a minor leaguer. So at least some of most prospects’ value is tied to, for lack of a better term, luck. Teams know this and factor it into their decisions, of course. And that’s why the better organizations include as few of their own dice throws as possible in trades—the better to have them for additional deals—and insist on as many of them as possible from their trade partners.

DD’s real failing with the farm, in my opinion, was often throwing in extra prospects in his deals for major leaguers. Was dealing prospects for Kimbrel brilliant? YES! Was including Logan Allen as a fourth prospect necessary? A lot of analysis has suggested it may not have been. (I can’t say for sure that it wasn’t. I’m simply repeating what has been reported/speculated elsewhere.) Again, the point isn’t what Allen has or hasn’t developed into. It’s that Allen wasn’t available to be used in other deals. And that is just one example. DD’s reputation has always been: He’ll do what’s necessary to close the deal quickly, even if it means giving up a bit more than other teams are willing to. That bit more just may be the margin within which the better organizations find their advantage.

Bloom appears to understand this. In the Benintendi, Mookie, and other deals, he has prioritized bringing in lots of prospects. Now to be fair, he’s trading from a different position than DD was. He’s actively working to rebuild a farm system and, to some degree, a major league roster rather than put the finishing touches on one. But he has also talked often about how a major league organization is its entire roster of players, from its lowest rungs all the way to the big leagues. So my guess is that he will continue to prioritize overall organizational health and depth even as the Sox enter their win-now window. I think he’ll always strive to be a guy to give less and get more.

Dombrowski, for all his talents—and I think he’s a tremendous baseball executive—never quite seemed to share this priority and I think that was his failing with the Sox.
I just want to second this entirely. Word.
 

jasail

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,117
Boston
DD's skillset is turning a farm system into a competitive MLB team in short order. He was brought into do this with Sox and he did it resulting in a WS win. He traded away much of the farm for players who contributed to that WS win in one way or another. As others have pointed out the problem was not that he used all the groceries to cook a darn fine meal, it's that he didn't restock the cupboard.

From his 2016 Draft, Groome has been a bust and only Dalbec has turned into a MLB-ish quality player. In 2017, only Houck has emerged and he appears to be a viable bullpen arm. His 2018 draft may be his highwater mark if both Casas and Durran pan out to be everyday players. 2019 is still a ways out, particularly with COVID, but it's looking to be more similar to 2016 than 2018. He also didn't push cash into the international market like Cashman did.

His biggest sin was trying to repeat and handing out big contracts after 2018, but again, he was being paid to "win now". Unfortunately, for the Sox, the worst case scenario unfolded and the big contracts got injured and they didn't have enough payroll to left to resign Mookie. As a result, DD lost his job. Chaim, being a guy with a reputation for building a farm and cobbling together a competitive MLB team on short money, was brought in for the retool.
 

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
732
Chicago, IL
DD's skillset is turning a farm system into a competitive MLB team in short order. He was brought into do this with Sox and he did it resulting in a WS win. He traded away much of the farm for players who contributed to that WS win in one way or another. As others have pointed out the problem was not that he used all the groceries to cook a darn fine meal, it's that he didn't restock the cupboard.

From his 2016 Draft, Groome has been a bust and only Dalbec has turned into a MLB-ish quality player. In 2017, only Houck has emerged and he appears to be a viable bullpen arm. His 2018 draft may be his highwater mark if both Casas and Durran pan out to be everyday players. 2019 is still a ways out, particularly with COVID, but it's looking to be more similar to 2016 than 2018. He also didn't push cash into the international market like Cashman did.

His biggest sin was trying to repeat and handing out big contracts after 2018, but again, he was being paid to "win now". Unfortunately, for the Sox, the worst case scenario unfolded and the big contracts got injured and they didn't have enough payroll to left to resign Mookie. As a result, DD lost his job. Chaim, being a guy with a reputation for building a farm and cobbling together a competitive MLB team on short money, was brought in for the retool.
I think this is all accurate but wonder this:

Did the Sox brass anticipate that they would use DD they way he uses his organization's resources building a team? Just suck him dry and leave by the side of the road? Did they know, and think, "Ya know DD has some success building talented teams. But he also tends to leave them high and dry after a while (see: Marlins, Tigers). He's gonna spend all our shit and build a powerful team that might win one, but then we'll be left with bare cupboards, and empty wallets and overextended contracts. And he's not really good at retooling teams from the ground up, so after he builds this talented yet unsustainable team and spends all our assets, we'll fire him (probably during the season), and hire a craftier executive who can build a farm and do more with less. We'll just get the most of DD for a short term fix, and then dump him."?

Did they anticipate they would wind up where he left them? Did they know he could put a team over the top but would burn its future in the process? Because I sure knew. And so did many many others (unfortunately I wasn't a SoSH member then to point to past posts as evidence, so I'll just ask y'all trust me on this). And so - was this ownership's plan? Get the short-term-chips-all-in-now guy for a while, let him do his thing for a bit, and once his utility is inevitably exhausted, fire him and get the longer-term-creative-foundation-building guy?

Sox ownership (god love 'em - four WS in 17 years - hallelujah!!) have been all over the MAP in their approach to organization and roster building. DD's excesses, blind spots, to many, were plainly evident in real time. Did the Sox recognize them, knowing he was just a quick fix guy? Or did they have more faith in him, and were surprised to discover the hole he eventually put them in? I mean, shit, they fired him less than one year after he helped them win a WS.
 

jasail

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,117
Boston
I think this is all accurate but wonder this:

Did the Sox brass anticipate that they would use DD they way he uses his organization's resources building a team? Just suck him dry and leave by the side of the road? Did they know, and think, "Ya know DD has some success building talented teams. But he also tends to leave them high and dry after a while (see: Marlins, Tigers). He's gonna spend all our shit and build a powerful team that might win one, but then we'll be left with bare cupboards, and empty wallets and overextended contracts. And he's not really good at retooling teams from the ground up, so after he builds this talented yet unsustainable team and spends all our assets, we'll fire him (probably during the season), and hire a craftier executive who can build a farm and do more with less. We'll just get the most of DD for a short term fix, and then dump him."?

Did they anticipate they would wind up where he left them? Did they know he could put a team over the top but would burn its future in the process? Because I sure knew. And so did many many others (unfortunately I wasn't a SoSH member then to point to past posts as evidence, so I'll just ask y'all trust me on this). And so - was this ownership's plan? Get the short-term-chips-all-in-now guy for a while, let him do his thing for a bit, and once his utility is inevitably exhausted, fire him and get the longer-term-creative-foundation-building guy?

Sox ownership (god love 'em - four WS in 17 years - hallelujah!!) have been all over the MAP in their approach to organization and roster building. DD's excesses, blind spots, to many, were plainly evident in real time. Did the Sox recognize them, knowing he was just a quick fix guy? Or did they have more faith in him, and were surprised to discover the hole he eventually put them in? I mean, shit, they fired him less than one year after he helped them win a WS.
Not to be glib, but why else would you sign him? That's his resume. If they hired him to do anything else, I'd question their organizational competency.
 

Niastri

Member
SoSH Member
I think this is all accurate but wonder this:

Did the Sox brass anticipate that they would use DD they way he uses his organization's resources building a team? Just suck him dry and leave by the side of the road? Did they know, and think, "Ya know DD has some success building talented teams. But he also tends to leave them high and dry after a while (see: Marlins, Tigers). He's gonna spend all our shit and build a powerful team that might win one, but then we'll be left with bare cupboards, and empty wallets and overextended contracts. And he's not really good at retooling teams from the ground up, so after he builds this talented yet unsustainable team and spends all our assets, we'll fire him (probably during the season), and hire a craftier executive who can build a farm and do more with less. We'll just get the most of DD for a short term fix, and then dump him."?

Did they anticipate they would wind up where he left them? Did they know he could put a team over the top but would burn its future in the process? Because I sure knew. And so did many many others (unfortunately I wasn't a SoSH member then to point to past posts as evidence, so I'll just ask y'all trust me on this). And so - was this ownership's plan? Get the short-term-chips-all-in-now guy for a while, let him do his thing for a bit, and once his utility is inevitably exhausted, fire him and get the longer-term-creative-foundation-building guy?

Sox ownership (god love 'em - four WS in 17 years - hallelujah!!) have been all over the MAP in their approach to organization and roster building. DD's excesses, blind spots, to many, were plainly evident in real time. Did the Sox recognize them, knowing he was just a quick fix guy? Or did they have more faith in him, and were surprised to discover the hole he eventually put them in? I mean, shit, they fired him less than one year after he helped them win a WS.
Without supporting evidence, they knew. I have to take on faith that the Red Sox brass is smarter than SoSH when it comes to baseball. And if they aren't, they at least spend more time and money trying to game out what's going to happen.

No way it's possible we look at DD's record and know basically how is going to play out while it catches the Sox by surprise.

Hell, even if they didn't figure it out on their own, we know they've read us at least since Theo was in charge. Isn't that how Eric Van got a job with them for a cup of coffee?

The thing I wonder is... "Did DD get caught by surprise, or was he in on the plan?"
 

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
732
Chicago, IL
Not to be glib, but why else would you sign him? That's his resume. If they hired him to do anything else, I'd question their organizational competency.
But did they anticipate that his use would be limited and they would fire him soon after the apex of whatever team he was building for them? Did they know ahead of time that the way he worked would force them to do that? That's my question.

If so, well, I mean, that's a way to go.

But that's certainly not how they regarded Theo when they hired him, and I don't think it's how they regard Chaim ... in each of those cases, I assume the door is open - sans fucking up - indefinitely.
 

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
732
Chicago, IL
Not to be glib, but why else would you sign him? That's his resume. If they hired him to do anything else, I'd question their organizational competency.
The subsequent question, then is ....why go this route? This is the path of the long starving franchise with a fan base desperate for just one championship before they die. Not the path of a franchise with recent championships, a winning tradition, and stable structures that put it in contention year in and year out.

If Cherington wasn't quite right, why pivot the entire organizational approach? Why not poach Friedman or some such? Why suddenly go old school and pursue a boom-bust approach?
 

jasail

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,117
Boston
But did they anticipate that his use would be limited and they would fire him soon after the apex of whatever team he was building for them? Did they know ahead of time that the way he worked would force them to do that? That's my question.

If so, well, I mean, that's a way to go.

But that's certainly not how they regarded Theo when they hired him, and I don't think it's how they regard Chaim ... in each of those cases, I assume the door is open - sans fucking up - indefinitely.
My view of the DD hiring was always that he was brought into turn the depth on the farm into a WS winning team. If he managed to keep the prospect train moving along in the process, all the better. If he didn't, then his day would come when the cupboard would be bare and he'd be shown the door. Can't speak for the org, but that day came sooner than I expected because his contract extensions trying to repeat in 2019 were putrid.

Edit: In response to your second post, bringing in DD seemed to me to be them pivoting to a win now approach. I agree it was an abrupt departure from 10+ years of an organizational approach under Theo and BC that they've now seemed to pivot back to with Chaim. I'm not exactly sure why it happened, but I think it's obvious that it happened. I'd assume the circumstances dictated the actions. In 2016, the Sox had a good young core and a bunch of younger prospects whose timelines didn't necessarily match up with the core. Cherrington was being criticized as being trigger shy and valuing potential over performance, and this ownership group (IMO) had become pathologically sensitive to criticism.
 
Last edited:

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
16,548
He set the team back maybe 2 years to win a WS. I'll take it. Retooling the farm and team with the Sox resources will never take long.
 

sean1562

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 17, 2011
3,334
DD didn't just create a WS contending team. That 2018 team is probably the best Red Sox team in history. They were 108-54 in the regular season and lost only 3 games in the entire postseason, steamrolling the Yankees, then the Astros, then the Dodgers. It is unfortunate that he did a poor job rebuilding the farm system but he used what we had to create an absolute juggernaut that gave us one of the most entertaining seasons of baseball any of us will ever see in our lives.
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
14,961
St. Louis, MO
DD didn't just create a WS contending team. That 2018 team is probably the best Red Sox team in history. They were 108-54 in the regular season and lost only 3 games in the entire postseason, steamrolling the Yankees, then the Astros, then the Dodgers. It is unfortunate that he did a poor job rebuilding the farm system but he used what we had to create an absolute juggernaut that gave us one of the most entertaining seasons of baseball any of us will ever see in our lives.
Absolutely. One of the top 5 teams ever probably. Completely worth it.
 

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
732
Chicago, IL
Absolutely. One of the top 5 teams ever probably. Completely worth it.
No arguing the outcome. Despite my critique of DD, that 2018 was an utter joy. A once-in-a-lifetime season as a sports fan (though in fairness I don't think anyone anticipated DD would build a top 5 team ever) ... and maybe Cesar is right ... he set the team back a couple years (or 3). Perhaps that's a price that's worth it ...
 

Bergs

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2005
15,877
DD didn't just create a WS contending team. That 2018 team is probably the best Red Sox team in history. They were 108-54 in the regular season and lost only 3 games in the entire postseason, steamrolling the Yankees, then the Astros, then the Dodgers. It is unfortunate that he did a poor job rebuilding the farm system but he used what we had to create an absolute juggernaut that gave us one of the most entertaining seasons of baseball any of us will ever see in our lives.
Yep. As others have said, DD took the (probably deserved) fall for the EOV and Sale contracts and the impact (perceived or real) they had on keeping Mookie. But I have no complaints about anything he did to get us through October of 2018. Firing Farrell and landing Cora delighted me at the time, and paid off spectacularly. Moving not-ready-for-primetime pieces for Kimbrel and Sale was exactly what you hire a guy like DD to do. That team was an absolute blast to follow.
 

shaggydog2000

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
8,703
My view of the DD hiring was always that he was brought into turn the depth on the farm into a WS winning team. If he managed to keep the prospect train moving along in the process, all the better. If he didn't, then his day would come when the cupboard would be bare and he'd be shown the door. Can't speak for the org, but that day came sooner than I expected because his contract extensions trying to repeat in 2019 were putrid.

Edit: In response to your second post, bringing in DD seemed to me to be them pivoting to a win now approach. I agree it was an abrupt departure from 10+ years of an organizational approach under Theo and BC that they've now seemed to pivot back to with Chaim. I'm not exactly sure why it happened, but I think it's obvious that it happened. I'd assume the circumstances dictated the actions. In 2016, the Sox had a good young core and a bunch of younger prospects whose timelines didn't necessarily match up with the core. Cherrington was being criticized as being trigger shy and valuing potential over performance, and this ownership group (IMO) had become pathologically sensitive to criticism.
They may have believed they could continue to use their financial advantages to continue to build their farm system. And then the rules on that changed, and they got caught for shenanigans in the DR, etc. So maybe they were trying to get the best of both and thought Dombrowski could be part of that. When it was clear they needed a different dude and philosophy, they moved on. But the owners may be realists who know that every coach, manager, GM, etc is just hired to be fired at some point, and that they're the only ones that will be there for the long haul.
 

richgedman'sghost

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2006
1,622
ct
I just want to second this entirely. Word.
Your thinking makes no sense. How else are we to evaluate trades except to go by what actually happened? I mean we can play the hypothetical game all day but it does no one any good. The only record we have is what actually happened.
Ps. All this GM talk is pretty far away from the topic of Alex Verdugo. Perhaps we can get back on track.
 

BringBackMo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
149
So you're saying Dombrowksi's failing was not winning trades by more?

I think his trades were very good. He didn't give away much except for Moncada. Margot would not have started here over Bradley, and they wouldn't have kept him around until now so that he could become a starter. Kopech is having a great season so far, but it's been 5 years since the trade and he only started 4 games in the majors before now.

His main issue was not having a pipeline of talent coming into the franchise. Part of that is going to be luck with their draft picks, and some could be the scouting department not doing a great job, but it's hard to know how much blame to put on Dombrowski for that. They definitely signed less international players, but part of that was a change in rules around that, but also a penalty the franchise got hit with for actions from before he was in charge.

He definitely went crazy resigning guys on terms that were too generous, and we can definitely blame him for that, but the shortage of ready players in the minors most likely had something to do with that.
This whole notion of winning or losing trades is silly. I do not believe that front offices view transactions this way at all. And Dombrowski, more than most executives, seems as though he could not care less about that kind of scorekeeping. He famously identifies a need and goes out to fill it, regardless of whether he is paying more to do so than others would. It worked very well for him with the Sox—as I said, he’s a tremendous baseball executive—until it didn’t. In any case, it’s an approach from a previous era of the game. The luxury tax, the draft slotting, the international signing pools…all of that has put a premium on zealously guarding your own prospects because you can’t just go out and outspend the other clubs and buy up the good prospects and players.

I am not saying that Dombrowski didn’t win trades by enough. I’m saying that he included more prospects in his trades than may have been necessary and that had the effect of leaving the cupboards more barren than they perhaps needed to be, thereby magnifying the consequences of his failure, as you pointed out, to build an effective prospect pipeline. Inputs and outputs, save too little and spend too much. It all puts pressure on your wallet.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
7,949
Focusing on how the prospects DD traded have or have not panned out is an incomplete method of evaluating his approach.

In a vacuum we can look back and say, ‘See, he only got rid of the dead weight! None of them amounted to much of anything!” But that is true of most prospects. Teams understand that they’re buying not outcome certainty but a range of outcome possibilities when they trade for a minor leaguer. So at least some of most prospects’ value is tied to, for lack of a better term, luck. Teams know this and factor it into their decisions, of course. And that’s why the better organizations include as few of their own dice throws as possible in trades—the better to have them for additional deals—and insist on as many of them as possible from their trade partners.

DD’s real failing with the farm, in my opinion, was often throwing in extra prospects in his deals for major leaguers. Was dealing prospects for Kimbrel brilliant? YES! Was including Logan Allen as a fourth prospect necessary? A lot of analysis has suggested it may not have been. (I can’t say for sure that it wasn’t. I’m simply repeating what has been reported/speculated elsewhere.) Again, the point isn’t what Allen has or hasn’t developed into. It’s that Allen wasn’t available to be used in other deals. And that is just one example. DD’s reputation has always been: He’ll do what’s necessary to close the deal quickly, even if it means giving up a bit more than other teams are willing to. That bit more just may be the margin within which the better organizations find their advantage.

Bloom appears to understand this. In the Benintendi, Mookie, and other deals, he has prioritized bringing in lots of prospects. Now to be fair, he’s trading from a different position than DD was. He’s actively working to rebuild a farm system and, to some degree, a major league roster rather than put the finishing touches on one. But he has also talked often about how a major league organization is its entire roster of players, from its lowest rungs all the way to the big leagues. So my guess is that he will continue to prioritize overall organizational health and depth even as the Sox enter their win-now window. I think he’ll always strive to be a guy to give less and get more.

Dombrowski, for all his talents—and I think he’s a tremendous baseball executive—never quite seemed to share this priority and I think that was his failing with the Sox.
Awesome post. DD deserves a ton of credit for knowing who not to trade away (particularly Devers), but yeah, I think rival GM's knw that Trader Dave was more willing than not to throw in extra prospects to get a deal done.
I think this is all accurate but wonder this:

Did the Sox brass anticipate that they would use DD they way he uses his organization's resources building a team? Just suck him dry and leave by the side of the road? Did they know, and think, "Ya know DD has some success building talented teams. But he also tends to leave them high and dry after a while (see: Marlins, Tigers). He's gonna spend all our shit and build a powerful team that might win one, but then we'll be left with bare cupboards, and empty wallets and overextended contracts. And he's not really good at retooling teams from the ground up, so after he builds this talented yet unsustainable team and spends all our assets, we'll fire him (probably during the season), and hire a craftier executive who can build a farm and do more with less. We'll just get the most of DD for a short term fix, and then dump him."?

Did they anticipate they would wind up where he left them? Did they know he could put a team over the top but would burn its future in the process? Because I sure knew. And so did many many others (unfortunately I wasn't a SoSH member then to point to past posts as evidence, so I'll just ask y'all trust me on this). And so - was this ownership's plan? Get the short-term-chips-all-in-now guy for a while, let him do his thing for a bit, and once his utility is inevitably exhausted, fire him and get the longer-term-creative-foundation-building guy?

Sox ownership (god love 'em - four WS in 17 years - hallelujah!!) have been all over the MAP in their approach to organization and roster building. DD's excesses, blind spots, to many, were plainly evident in real time. Did the Sox recognize them, knowing he was just a quick fix guy? Or did they have more faith in him, and were surprised to discover the hole he eventually put them in? I mean, shit, they fired him less than one year after he helped them win a WS.
Part of it had to have been ownership panic at two last-place finishes following the unexpected success in 2013. I also believe that there was a clear lack of attention to the Red Sox organization by Henry and company. How else can you explain the fact that Boston was a leader in the application of advanced statistics under Theo's stewardship, but the organization had let that advantage wither away precipitously in the following decade?
 

shaggydog2000

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
8,703
This whole notion of winning or losing trades is silly. I do not believe that front offices view transactions this way at all. And Dombrowski, more than most executives, seems as though he could not care less about that kind of scorekeeping. He famously identifies a need and goes out to fill it, regardless of whether he is paying more to do so than others would. It worked very well for him with the Sox—as I said, he’s a tremendous baseball executive—until it didn’t. In any case, it’s an approach from a previous era of the game. The luxury tax, the draft slotting, the international signing pools…all of that has put a premium on zealously guarding your own prospects because you can’t just go out and outspend the other clubs and buy up the good prospects and players.

I am not saying that Dombrowski didn’t win trades by enough. I’m saying that he included more prospects in his trades than may have been necessary and that had the effect of leaving the cupboards more barren than they perhaps needed to be, thereby magnifying the consequences of his failure, as you pointed out, to build an effective prospect pipeline. Inputs and outputs, save too little and spend too much. It all puts pressure on your wallet.
I agree that it is silly. Saying that someone entirely outside the process can judge how many prospects and the quality of the prospects a trade should actually have required seems equally absurd. It's basically they should have gotten a better deal when there is no true comparison for that deal.

But I agree with @richgedman'sghost that this conversation has veered away from the Verdugo talk and probably belongs elsewhere.
 

Sox Puppet

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2016
533
This is a tangential way to talk about Verdugo, but ...

So far in 2021, as of 7/4, he's hitting .271/.339/.461 for an OPS+ of 104. This is slightly below his career numbers, but he probably hasn't been playing long enough full-time to establish a clear baseline. Baseball Reference has him as a pretty good fielder in LF, below average in CF, and more or less neutral in RF.

My hypothetical question is -- if Jarren Duran turns out to be an exact clone of Verdugo, with those splits, would we be happy with that?
 

jmcc5400

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2000
3,209
I think Verdugo is better than those numbers. Last few weeks have dragged him down and it seems pretty clear that he is playing through something. I think 2020 and the first few months of 2021 are much more representative of who he is.
 

sean1562

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 17, 2011
3,334
That is what, a 2-3 WAR OF at the rookie minimum? Every starter we have that gets paid relative peanuts opens up payroll space for other areas of the roster. Verdugo/Duran/Renfroe over the next three years at a total cost around 4-6 million opens up a ton of payroll space for us to make sure that Xander and Devers are Red Sox lifers.

edit: Looking ahead at our payroll space, we are going to be in a decent spot to add a big time FA if Duran pans out. If Casas hits his 75th percentile outcome, we could invest a solid chunk of change into the rotation.
 
Last edited:

shanks

lurker
Feb 10, 2006
48
bk, ny
This is a tangential way to talk about Verdugo, but ...

So far in 2021, as of 7/4, he's hitting .271/.339/.461 for an OPS+ of 104. This is slightly below his career numbers, but he probably hasn't been playing long enough full-time to establish a clear baseline. Baseball Reference has him as a pretty good fielder in LF, below average in CF, and more or less neutral in RF.

My hypothetical question is -- if Jarren Duran turns out to be an exact clone of Verdugo, with those splits, would we be happy with that?
to answer your question: yea. i’d be perfectly pleased with that as i’m perfectly pleased w/ verdugo. i’d prefer better defense outta center but offensively, sure. i’d also expect of this we’re to be the case, we’d have our lead off hitter solved. and would expect more steals.
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
14,961
St. Louis, MO
That is what, a 2-3 WAR OF at the rookie minimum? Every starter we have that gets paid relative peanuts opens up payroll space for other areas of the roster. Verdugo/Duran/Renfroe over the next three years at a total cost around 4-6 million opens up a ton of payroll space for us to make sure that Xander and Devers are Red Sox lifers.

edit: Looking ahead at our payroll space, we are going to be in a decent spot to add a big time FA if Duran pans out. If Casas hits his 75th percentile outcome, we could invest a solid chunk of change into the rotation.
Or if we have Leiter/Rocker, Song, Mata, or Groome hitting the rotation we could flip Casas and some prospects for Matt Olsen who’ll be pricing out of Oakland.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
29,501
It's not pretty offensively right now. The left hamstring issues are limiting Verdugo's ability to drive off his back leg at the plate?


Addendum: Verdugo is batting 6th tonight in Cora's rejiggered lineup, per the game thread.
 
Last edited: