DD fired

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,834
Boston, NY
The storyline for many will be that the Sox fired DD even though they won in 2018 and had a historic season.

My own view is that while DD did many good things that contributed to the glorious result, that he also got a bit lucky and did things that could have doomed last season.

It all worked out. Huzzah!

But DD is fortunate that Kelly was way better than he'd been heading into October and Cora got so much out of the starters.

Both things were not insanely surprising but still, broke just right.

DD should have augmented the pen, like this year, and was bailed out to some extent.

I am grateful for 2018 and his part in it. I will not miss him.
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
18,537
"a significant desire to get under the luxury tax threshold sometime in the next two years to reset the penalty structure " - Speier's article

that's currently 206M, yes? so they need to slash 40 million?
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,600
St. Louis, MO
Speier raises an interesting point that I overlooked: it not so much that he traded prospects who turned out to be too good; it's -- at least with respect to the Kimbrel deal -- that he included 4 guys, where it might have only taken 2, and the other two could have been used elsewhere. And similarly that he bid against himself for Price. I suppose neither were egregious overpays, but a few in each category can have an impact on future flexibility.

The Price part isn’t remotely true. He was going to agree with the Cardinals that day before DD swooped in with a higher offer.
 

BornToRun

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 4, 2011
11,835
I’ll always be thankful to DD for helping to assemble arguably the greatest Red Sox team ever. 2018 was incredible and he had his fingerprints all over it.

That said, I trust that this ownership group knows what they are doing. The franchise has seen an unprecedented run of success since they took over and if this is what Henry and Co. feels is the best path forward for the team then I trust their judgement.

I’m shocked by this news but this is the new reality and I’m now very interested in what the plan is for the future.
 

canderson

Fomenting voting confusion and angst since 2016
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
23,310
Harrisburg, Pa.
I'm also curious if Henry, et al are upset about the contracts given to injury-prone guys that have cost them this year. Eovaldi, Sale, a bit Price. Lots of money put into arms that have historically been damaged.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
5,881
Devils in the details. I expect we're going to hear this a lot, but I think it's fairly evident that DD brought more value to the ML club via the farm system than just sitting on all the prospects and hoping they mature would have. Nobody we traded away was a first rank ML starting pitcher, or looks like they'll become one. In terms of what we got back, it's hard to argue that DD got fleeced. Sure there were injuries, but let's not forget the rotation when DD was hired:

Miley, Porcello, J.Kelly, Buchholz, E-Rod, Henry Owens.​

The non-pitching roster was more recognizable; there were gaps and Ortiz was aging, but it's worth nothing he inherited Sandoval, H.Ram, and Castillo. So it's not like he had a completely fungible roster.

If DD has done any harm to the Sox, it will be their being saddled with long term contracts: Sale, Price, Martinez, Eovaldi. But we don't yet know how that will play out.
Great post. DD took a team that was coming off back-to-back seasons of 71-91 and 78-84, made some big moves (and some small ones) and the Sox promptly won two straight division titles and then put together one of the greatest seasons in MLB history to win the WS. This year has been a struggle, but honestly, it's a struggle most franchises would love to have (they're still 9 games over .500...).

The baseball issue moving forward (I say "baseball issue" because who knows if there were massive personality conflicts or whatever) is these big contracts to Sale, Price, Martinez, and Eovaldi. I suspect JD's will be fine. Eovaldi may never be what we hope it can be, but his price tag isn't THAT much in today's game (4/68, $17m per). I mean it's not chump change but it's not crazy money. Having two starters with salaries north of $30m a year, however...those are pretty major contracts. If those guys aren't CHRIS SALE and DAVID PRICE, but rather are shells of themselves, and if those contracts make it really difficult to keep Betts, then that's a massive problem.

Let's not forget too that DD got the Bogaerts extension signed, which may end up being one of the best contracts in club history.
 

MakeMineMoxie

Well-Known Member
Bronze Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
700
The floor of Punter's Pub
Shades of the Kubs Kollege of Koaches!

While I was surprised at the timing, I wasn't surprised he's gone. He did what he was supposed to do, take a very strong farm system & win the WS. I have no issues with any of his trades. Maybe he over-paid in some cases but he got the guy he wanted & an historic championship team was the result.

It's not surprising that there were behind the scenes confrontations, that's what happens when you have a roomful of large egos clashing & the boss always wins. Maybe this stuff was the deciding factor or maybe ownership thought DD wasn't the guy to build the next great RS team.

The Sox have a huge question facing then, namely, what to do with Mookie. I was of the opinion that if the Sox were really a top of the heap organization, they would have to sign him to a long-term deal but now I'm not so sure. They run the chance of losing him as a FA with nothing but a draft pick to show for it so it wouldn't surprise me to see him traded this off-season for a fairly good haul. I'd hate it but that's the reality. Too much money devoted to a few players leaves you with little financial flexibility in the short term & less roster flexibility down the road when their performance tails off.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
60,466
Oregon
Shades of the Kubs Kollege of Koaches!
Sorry to pick on you specifically, but you're just the latest of several posters who answered this initial tweet w/o bothering to read further. This isn't "GM by committee" or anything of the kind. Those three are handling their specific areas for the rest of the season, while the Red Sox look for the next head of state.

Maybe we can stop with the false narrative and move forward
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
3,770
"a significant desire to get under the luxury tax threshold sometime in the next two years to reset the penalty structure " - Speier's article

that's currently 206M, yes? so they need to slash 40 million?
If they are serious about this, then they are going to do a full teardown. They currently are at $115m in salaries for 2022 without accounting for Mookie, Devers, Benintendi, and a bunch of other arb-eligible guys. You can't have two pitchers account for over $56m and expect to stay under the cap and field a competitive team.
 

Trautwein's Degree

a Connecticut bicycle attorney in General Motor's
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
11,301
My Desk
Great post. DD took a team that was coming off back-to-back seasons of 71-91 and 78-84, made some big moves (and some small ones) and the Sox promptly won two straight division titles and then put together one of the greatest seasons in MLB history to win the WS. This year has been a struggle, but honestly, it's a struggle most franchises would love to have (they're still 9 games over .500...).

The baseball issue moving forward (I say "baseball issue" because who knows if there were massive personality conflicts or whatever) is these big contracts to Sale, Price, Martinez, and Eovaldi. I suspect JD's will be fine. Eovaldi may never be what we hope it can be, but his price tag isn't THAT much in today's game (4/68, $17m per). I mean it's not chump change but it's not crazy money. Having two starters with salaries north of $30m a year, however...those are pretty major contracts. If those guys aren't CHRIS SALE and DAVID PRICE, but rather are shells of themselves, and if those contracts make it really difficult to keep Betts, then that's a massive problem.
One of the theories in business is there are wartime CEOs and peacetime CEOs. Wartime CEOs are good at rescuing companies from the brink by being able to make the necessary cuts and rally the organization to a cause. Peacetime CEOs tend are builders - they are able to take good to great. CEOs hardly ever possess both skill sets.

It's quite likely that Dombrowski was viewed by ownership as a peace time CEO. It's certain that ownership knows they are on the cusp of war. If you have reached those 2 conclusions the best course of action is to make the move now. We have seen how not having a GM or changing a GM during the offseason puts the team on defense when signings and trades open up. A position that the Sox can ill afford.
 

chawson

Well-Known Member
Bronze Supporter
Aug 1, 2006
1,555
Andrew Friedman’s contract is up in two months. Mark Shapiro’s is up after 2020, but he was reported to be one of the candidates for the Mets’ GM job. Maybe we lure back Josh Byrnes or Amiel Sawdaye. Eddie Romero or Chaim Bloom would be great options too.

There’s going to need to be a really different systemwide approach than what has benefited the Sox the last few decades, because today’s game leaves very little utility for players older than 32 or 33, and thus even less value to be wrung from free agents than there was when Theo, Cherington, Cashman and others first figured that out years ago.
 
Last edited:

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
21,763
I have zero basis whatsoever for this, but I have a gut instinct Theo is going to come back to close the loop.

I'm not sure if that is good or bad. Well, I guess it's good relative to another few years of the current approach....
 

donutogre

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
1,743
Philadelphia
I have zero basis whatsoever for this, but I have a gut instinct Theo is going to come back to close the loop.

I'm not sure if that is good or bad. Well, I guess it's good relative to another few years of the current approach....
I think "we" (as a fanbase) are more sentimental for such things that Theo might be. He obviously is young and has a long career ahead of him still, so I'd expect him to go to another new destination rather than tread old ground again, personally. But, you also can't discount the hometown factor.
 

barbed wire Bob

crippled by fear
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
I have zero basis whatsoever for this, but I have a gut instinct Theo is going to come back to close the loop.

I'm not sure if that is good or bad. Well, I guess it's good relative to another few years of the current approach....
Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t Theo sign a five-year contract with the Cubs in 2016?
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,834
Boston, NY
TheoShmeo.

I kid.

I had the same thought as PKB. Seems like a natural choice.

He's been there and done that, but now he could do tackle the job without his mentor in the wings.

The contract might be a deal killer, however.

And if not Theo, perhaps Jed Hoyer or Mike Hazan (who one writer, at least, mentioned as a possibility).
 

BCsMightyJoeYoung

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
5,178
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
Andrew Friedman’s contract is up in two months. Mark Shapiro’s is up after 2020, but he was reported to be one of the candidates for the Mets’ GM job. Maybe we lure back Josh Byrnes or Amiel Sawdaye. Eddie Romero or Chaim Bloom would be great options too.

There’s going to need to be a really different systemwide approach than what has benefited the Sox the last few decades, because today’s game leaves very little utility for players older than 32 or 33, and thus even less value to be wrung from free agents than there was when Theo, Cherington, Cashman and others first figured that out years ago.
Friedman would be my first choice

Stay far, far away from Shapiro - his stay in TO has been a disaster - the Blue Jays press corp (and fan base) hates him - mainly because his regime has been completely opaque and non communicative - not to mention the tear down resulted in practicaly nothing coming back.

My sentimental choice would be Theo as well.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
10,770
Maine
If they are serious about this, then they are going to do a full teardown. They currently are at $115m in salaries for 2022 without accounting for Mookie, Devers, Benintendi, and a bunch of other arb-eligible guys. You can't have two pitchers account for over $56m and expect to stay under the cap and field a competitive team.
I was about to post to ask, if the ownership is looking to get under the luxury tax and that will require a full teardown like you suggest, why did they authorize all the spending last winter and this spring? There were cheaper ways to fill gaps last winter than re-signing Eovaldi and Pearce. There was no rush to extend Sale or Bogaerts in the spring. Shitcanning Dombrowski for overspending (if that's their reasoning) seems an overreaction to how this season shook out.
“A $145 million extension for Chris Sale this spring required a push from Dombrowski to ownership in order to get done, a push that, The Athletic has learned, Dombrowski did not handle smoothly.” - Evan Drellich

If this is true though, then I can see why they might be ready to move on from Dombrowski.


Let's be honest about one thing though...Dombrowski was never going to be a long term fixture. He was old when he came on board, and to me, he always felt like a temporary steward of the franchise. He was brought in to convert the bounty of prospects Cherington collected into a championship team. Mission accomplished.

They were going to move on from him at the conclusion of his contract. Dombrowski decided he didn't want to be done at that point, and if he wasn't going to be kept on long-term, he didn't want to stay at all. At least that's my read on things until some other proof-positive reason is revealed.
 

OilCanShotTupac

Sunny von Bulow
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2004
17,012
The 718
Maybe owning a European soccer club has rubbed off on Henry. Those guys don't think twice about firing management after disappointing seasons.
or a third of the way through.

There's a bigger potential pool, since most of the world plays the game. Unless we're going to start bringing in executives from Japan.
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
5,842
Springfield, VA
I think what bugs me here is that, if the Sox's record were more like their second-order win % (record based solely on the stat lines on both sides of the ball) of 82-61, would this move have still happened? That'd only be 1.5 games out of the wild cared

Lots'of thing went wrong this year (I"m sure there'll be a postmortem thread after mathematical elimination) but some of this is just dumb luck.
 

OilCanShotTupac

Sunny von Bulow
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2004
17,012
The 718
It's just for the rest of the season or until they find a permanent replacement.
I know. Still smells bad - like an ownership punt. How hard is it to name one interim?

If three are in charge, then no one is in charge (akin to the old saw that if you say you have two quarterbacks, you really don't have one).
 

ledsox

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 14, 2005
245
Gammons was on MLB this morning and told a story of how he had a friend from the NL in Boston earlier this year hanging around the Sox. The quote from the friend was..."they all just got their rings and everyone is miserable".

It's kind of a shock but not a surprise. Time to move on. Gammons also thought there was no way Hoyer or Hazen would come back, that the job and market was just too difficult. He had very good things to say about Eddie Romero.

I'm glad I got to thank DD personally in Baltimore a few months ago when he was front row in the press box.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
2,920
Florida
Speier raises an interesting point that I overlooked: it not so much that he traded prospects who turned out to be too good; it's -- at least with respect to the Kimbrel deal -- that he included 4 guys, where it might have only taken 2, and the other two could have been used elsewhere. And similarly that he bid against himself for Price. I suppose neither were egregious overpays, but a few in each category can have an impact on future flexibility.

Speculating that it "should' have ideally only taken X amount of trade chip pieces to land a guy isn't any less of a speculative reach now then it was then. Since at the end of the day, and regardless how much people would love to be able to break down a trade package's perceived value into a universally worth X static amount, the surrounding variables going into that behind closed doors stuff is just never going to be that simple. Only the receiving end really knows what they would or wouldn't have settled on.

Summing up the Nunez and Pearce re-signs as "costly" mistakes in relationship to going over 3rd tier tax limits is coming across as a little pile on'ish and tick tacky there too imo. There is a lot of moving parts in what ultimately ends up contributing to the formation of these albatross payrolls, and those quite simply aren't the real killers. In fact, and as long as any spending is being done with an accompanying amount of serious contention expectations, you can even argue those are pretty much poster child fill-a-need-on-the-cheap rolls of the dice we'll now be expecting out of the next GM (with the hope that they land in pan out category, of course).

You also can't write in those LT narrative points while not connecting such to the much bigger elephant in room. Having a payroll that is already slamming up against a cap, and then expecting a trying to win GM to micro manage his way through a regular season with those kind of limitations, was never the foundation of a good stay under plan from the start. Nor will it ever be for any other GM after DD. If people are going to harp on these paying the top tier tax outcomes, the most reasonable expectation fork in the road leading to that alternative destination (by far) emerged 2 winters ago with the decision on whether or not to sign JD Martinez. That needs to be the primary focal point when launching into any solid ground criticism there. Otherwise anything beyond that essentially just amounts to hindsight cherry picking out of the big picture that played itself imo.
 
Aug 9, 2019
19
Boston
Going forward, Dombrowski may not have been a path-clearer, quite likely was not—which means they intended his leadership stint to be a short one when they hired him—but Cora strikes me as far more culpable in terms of writing the inscription on the tombstone of this edition of the Boston Red Sox. I don’t fault Dombrowski for this season. Or very negligibly, anyway. True, this season might not be the point.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
26,518
AZ
I think what bugs me here is that, if the Sox's record were more like their second-order win % (record based solely on the stat lines on both sides of the ball) of 82-61, would this move have still happened? That'd only be 1.5 games out of the wild cared.
I bet the answer to that is no. In fact, for all the questions about the timing this one doesn't actually seem that confusing to me.

I would guess that ownership took a hard look and decided that this is not the guy for the job, given the team we have. That seems like a sound decision. But then you have a question of when. I don't think you can fire your GM when you're looking at making the playoffs and have a team that has enough talent that if you catch fire you could actually be a threat. I think ownership simply waited until it was clear that we were not going to make the playoffs.

Yes, that all seemed clear to us after the Twins series and maybe even a little earlier, but there's no shame in being conservative about that. You don't really want to fire your GM and then see the team go 21-4 and sneak in. The timing seems right to me.

They fired him pretty much as soon as possible but no sooner.

Whether ownership has secretly been hoping not to make the playoffs so they could get rid of the guy they have decided is not right for the job is a kind of interesting question. We'll never know.

As for the decision itself, I see no reason to clobber the guy on his way out of town just because we found ourselves with a team that is in a state that does not dovetail with his strengths. Whether he got us here or not doesn't make a bit of difference to me really. I could actually see a compelling case that he's earned a thank you DD thread here. Yeah, he got a little lucky. But winning championships is like finding gold in the street on your way to work and everyone who wins one gets a bit lucky. 2018 was magic.
 

MakeMineMoxie

Well-Known Member
Bronze Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
700
The floor of Punter's Pub
Sorry to pick on you specifically, but you're just the latest of several posters who answered this initial tweet w/o bothering to read further. This isn't "GM by committee" or anything of the kind. Those three are handling their specific areas for the rest of the season, while the Red Sox look for the next head of state.

Maybe we can stop with the false narrative and move forward
Admonishment accepted. It was the first thing that popped into my head where it quickly died of loneliness!
 

ookami7m

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,579
Mobile, AL
I was about to post to ask, if the ownership is looking to get under the luxury tax and that will require a full teardown like you suggest, why did they authorize all the spending last winter and this spring? There were cheaper ways to fill gaps last winter than re-signing Eovaldi and Pearce. There was no rush to extend Sale or Bogaerts in the spring. Shitcanning Dombrowski for overspending (if that's their reasoning) seems an overreaction to how this season shook out.
Gonna have to stop you once it gets to the X extension. That's going to go down as one of his better moves during his tenure.
 

8slim

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
12,694
Unreal America
I will forever be appreciative of Dave Dombrowski for giving me the 2018 season. That year was pure joy, from the hiring of Alex Cora, to the World Series victory. 2004 was a higher peak, but I have never enjoyed a 12 month stretch of baseball more than I did last season.

That being said, his firing doesn't stun me, and I suspect he tied his fate to the extension he gave Sale. That *had* to work, and year one (which obviously isn't even year one of the actual extension) has not worked. Like, at all. I'm not treading any new ground here, but obviously the calculus for this franchise's future has changed radically over just a few months. Dombrowski is not best suited to lead the baseball operation for what needs to be done for 2020 and beyond. It's not exactly a unique tale, happens all the time.
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
18,537
I think what bugs me here is that, if the Sox's record were more like their second-order win % (record based solely on the stat lines on both sides of the ball) of 82-61, would this move have still happened?
based on what's come out today, I think they would have. they seem very concerned about resetting the luxury tax, some of the big money deals that are returning poorly at the moment, and establishing the next core in the draft.

get ready for a lot of "JWH is cheap" takes when JDM and/or Mookie leave.

The Red Sox' goal is to be on the same level as the Yankees, Astros and Dodgers, being elite teams at the ML level every year while being tax-compliant. They do not think DD could accomplish that.
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
18,537
the idea with Theo is he'd be fired after this season. the Cubs are struggling just to get in as the 2nd WC in a division they should have won handily with the Brewers reverting to having no pitching.

I say no thanks to Theo... the Heyward deal was horrible, Carl Crawford II just about. Jon Lester is tailing off fast, Yu Darvish looks like another albatross from year 1 too.

let's not forget he gave up a ransom for Chapman - it's all about knowing which guys to sell high and buy low on, and Gleyber Torres was not the guy to sell high on. fans will say the WS was worth so much for Chapman, but we don't know just how much the odds really changed for them with Chapman or without. I don't think 2016 Chapman was 2013 Koji out there, especially with Maddon using him every game that October.
 

snowmanny

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
10,256
It doesn’t seem that weird. Henry changes philosophies on team building every few years. This will be the seventh GM regime since they took over, I think. They went one way for a bit, now they are going in a different direction and they want someone else at the helm. It’s not how I’d prefer it as a fan but if the next man or woman who takes the job delivers me my usual title in 2-5 years I’ll be ok with it all.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
10,770
Maine
Gonna have to stop you once it gets to the X extension. That's going to go down as one of his better moves during his tenure.
Wasn't commenting on whether the deals are good or bad, only that they all represent significant outlays of money that came just before the guy(s) controlling the purse strings allegedly decided they may want to cut back on payroll. Just saying that if they really are concerned about being above the luxury tax threshold in 2-3 years, they probably should have considered that before green lighting extending three guys into that window.

While I understand the idea of wanting to stay below the second tier cap ($40M above the base cap), wanting to get below the base cap seems incompatible with giving multiple guys medium/big contracts, especially when all three deals could have waited (Sale and Bogaerts) or been replaced by something cheaper/shorter term (in Eovaldi's case).

FWIW, I totally agree that the Bogaerts deal is a highlight of DD's tenure.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
12,963
It doesn’t seem that weird. Henry changes philosophies on team building every few years. This will be the seventh GM regime since they took over, I think. They went one way for a bit, now they are going in a different direction and they want someone else at the helm. It’s not how I’d prefer it as a fan but if the next man or woman who takes the job delivers me my usual title in 2-5 years I’ll be ok with it all.
Not sure I'd call it changing philosophies so much as acknowledging that different people may be required at different times to implement the same general guiding philosophy.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,587
Wasn't commenting on whether the deals are good or bad, only that they all represent significant outlays of money that came just before the guy(s) controlling the purse strings allegedly decided they may want to cut back on payroll. Just saying that if they really are concerned about being above the luxury tax threshold in 2-3 years, they probably should have considered that before green lighting extending three guys into that window.

While I understand the idea of wanting to stay below the second tier cap ($40M above the base cap), wanting to get below the base cap seems incompatible with giving multiple guys medium/big contracts, especially when all three deals could have waited (Sale and Bogaerts) or been replaced by something cheaper/shorter term (in Eovaldi's case).

FWIW, I totally agree that the Bogaerts deal is a highlight of DD's tenure.
Is really correct the team wants to get below the base cap? That doesn't seem believable, and sounds like it could be incorrect reporting at this stage.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
27,831
the idea with Theo is he'd be fired after this season. the Cubs are struggling just to get in as the 2nd WC in a division they should have won handily with the Brewers reverting to having no pitching.

I say no thanks to Theo... the Heyward deal was horrible, Carl Crawford II just about. Jon Lester is tailing off fast, Yu Darvish looks like another albatross from year 1 too.

let's not forget he gave up a ransom for Chapman - it's all about knowing which guys to sell high and buy low on, and Gleyber Torres was not the guy to sell high on. fans will say the WS was worth so much for Chapman, but we don't know just how much the odds really changed for them with Chapman or without. I don't think 2016 Chapman was 2013 Koji out there, especially with Maddon using him every game that October.
Theo’s mission with the Cubs was not much different from DD’s here — just very significantly more urgent.

Is the toolkit expansive enough for a different mission? Possibly, maybe probably. But I don’t see another round here as very satisfying for him, or the RS.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
2,436
Wow. Shocked... not shocked. And super late apparently hearing the news.
I don't fault the bullpen construction, but the Sale contract is an albatross. I don't even have the slightest idea of how to go about getting the team under the Luxury Tax with all the contracts they have, without a massive sell-off of the valuable guys to pair up with the expensive guys.
Not advocating this at all... but Sale+Devers.... Benintendi+Price.... Vazquez+Betts...... ? Even then.... Sox would likely have to pick up some $$$ and who would even send back a decent return? Is the JDM contract option player-only? Like I said... not advocating....
But bringing back Theo is a horrible idea. He made some terrible similar contracts at the end of his time here, along with some horrible trades. I'd like to see Kim Ng also (someone upthread mentioned it).... she's put in her dues and I'd love to see Boston break that stupid barrier.
 

budcrew08

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 30, 2007
5,780
upstate NY
MLB Now discussion compares it to when he left Detroit for Boston in 2015. Sale’s contract = Cabrera’s and etc. just a reminder that Detroit is 42-100 right now.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
12,963
Is really correct the team wants to get below the base cap? That doesn't seem believable, and sounds like it could be incorrect reporting at this stage.
I agree with this. There would have to Madoff-level losses combined with Marlin-level not-give-a-shitness somewhere in the JWH portfolio to demand that in the near-term. It's possible that the reporting could be somewhat right if ownership's mandate is to get to the base cap within 5(3? whatever)) years while also still being competetive, or somesuch.
 

snowmanny

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
10,256
Not sure I'd call it changing philosophies so much as acknowledging that different people may be required at different times to implement the same general guiding philosophy.
I think there have been a number of different guiding philosophies over the years. I believe they themselves acknowledged that at the time of the Lester negotiations they were trying to limit long-term deals for older pitchers and that they changed their minds on that. I thought Dombrowski rather aggressively trading prospects represented a change in philosophy.

I don’t know if signing Carl Crawford, who was nothing like the sort of player they typically acquired during the Theo years Part I or Part II, was a change in philosophy or just insanity.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
2,436
I think there have been a number of different guiding philosophies over the years. I believe they themselves acknowledged that at the time of the Lester negotiations they were trying to limit long-term deals for older pitchers and that they changed their minds on that. I thought Dombrowski rather aggressively trading prospects represented a change in philosophy.

I don’t know if signing Carl Crawford, who was nothing like the sort of player they typically acquired during the Theo years Part I or Part II, was a change in philosophy or just insanity.
It was horrible. Really, the Adrian Gonzalez trade was a pretty horrible trade at the time and it felt like rearranging the cards for the sake of it (just sign Adrian Beltre damnit and hold on to Rizzo!!!!)
 

budcrew08

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 30, 2007
5,780
upstate NY
If they are serious about this, then they are going to do a full teardown. They currently are at $115m in salaries for 2022 without accounting for Mookie, Devers, Benintendi, and a bunch of other arb-eligible guys. You can't have two pitchers account for over $56m and expect to stay under the cap and field a competitive team.
And if they do a full tear down, how bad do the next two years end up record-wise?
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
49,694
San Andreas Fault
Have to say that Henry and the rest of the top echelon do not wait around to shake things up. With 4 titles in 16 years now, I have no complaints. I’d buy stock in the company, still with some trepidation about what happens next.
 
Sep 1, 2019
13
As a lurker first-post attempt, I will say that it is notable how DD got no slack in comparison to Cora for this season. I'm not sure what that means in terms of backstage politics. Usually the manager and GM are a tandem package. Presumably Cora will be on a shorter leash with the new GM, unless he has Henry's ear. It may mean that Henry's primary complaint is the long-term financial structure of the team going forward rather than immediate on-the field results.

Periscope back down.