DD fired

YTF

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
As to the Sale extension and resigning of Eovaldi, where does ownership's responsibility lie here here? I'm assuming they were all in on these and signed off on them considering the $$$ involved as well as being aware as to where this placed them concerning the ever important luxury tax and the potential to handcuff the organization moving forward. Henry and company seem to be very aware of of their teams finances so I'm guessing they were all in on repeating this year. I'm curious if DD sold them on these moves or if they sold him on these moves. Either way it may have been time for him to move on, but he there's a shit ton of scapegoating going on here and I'm wondering if he was acting on instructions from above.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,587
As to the Sale extension and resigning of Eovaldi, where does ownership's responsibility lie here here? I'm assuming they were all in on these and signed off on them considering the $$$ involved as well as being aware as to where this placed them concerning the ever important luxury tax and the potential to handcuff the organization moving forward. Henry and company seem to be very aware of of their teams finances so I'm guessing they were all in on repeating this year. I'm curious if DD sold them on these moves or if they sold him on these moves. Either way it may have been time for him to move on, but he there's a shit ton of scapegoating going on here and I'm wondering if he was acting on instructions from above.
I have to believe that given where the team's payroll was, the Sox ownership team was very interested in at least hearing the justification of these signings before they were made official. I'm skeptical that Dombrowski was given a blank check. It was probably more like "Dave, here is the money you can spend this offseason. And here is the expected budget for 2020. How you spend it is up to you, but we want to know why, and you will be held accountable for it."

I tend to fall on the side that departures such as Dombrowski's have a number of reasons, not just one or two. Speculation alert: it could very well be that as DD was putting together the Sale deal, he was asked about his plans for 2020 and beyond, and Henry didn't like what he heard. Maybe Dombrowski didn't like what he heard in response.

And it is correct that ownership cannot in the fans eyes wash their hands completely of the situation they are in. Ownership signed off on bringing in Bobby Valentine as well. However, they are the owners, and they aren't going to fire themselves anytime soon.
 

BJBossman

lurker
Dec 6, 2016
209
Sold. Raquel Ferreira gets the job.
Mookie hasn't had any interest in an extension because he's wanted to go year to year and hit FA.

This is wild speculation at best.

I'm a big Bloom fan. I posted my list of favorites a few post above. There are significantly better external than internal candidates.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
27,831
I'd disagree. He rebuilt the Marlins core that won in 03. And rebuild the Tigers from one of the worst teams ever to winning 2 Pennants. He's proven he can do that job. But my guess is he wasn't on the same page with ownership for how to do THIS rebuild.
I agree.

Ownership defines the mission. DD’s was to win. Now. He did.

(So, by the way was the earlier DD’s. He came here with great fanfare, led by Gammons, about rebuilding our barren farm system. Harrington said, win, now — something Duquette’s defenders here will never, ever let you forget.)

That does not mean Dombrowski is incapable of a different mission. The available evidence from a lengthy career is that DD is good at that too.

Ownership prerogative — Henry is entitled to his guy or gal or, God help us all if this happens — his general management by Committee. But for better or worse, he now owns this. Through some heavy seas — the magic post-Theo bailout comes but once a lifetime.
 

Buck Showalter

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 26, 2002
5,750
704 Houser Street Queens, NY
I agree.

Ownership defines the mission. DD’s was to win. Now. He did.

(So, by the way was the earlier DD’s. He came here with great fanfare, led by Gammons, about rebuilding our barren farm system. Harrington said, win, now — something Duquette’s defenders here will never, ever let you forget.)

That does not mean Dombrowski is incapable of a different mission. The available evidence from a lengthy career is that DD is good at that too.

Ownership prerogative — Henry is entitled to his guy or gal or, God help us all if this happens — his general management by Committee. But for better or worse, he now owns this. Through some heavy seas — the magic post-Theo bailout comes but once a lifetime.
I love this post.....this is where I sit as well....with both DD1 and DD2.

It's their team.....they can do what they want with it.

However, there wasn't much more DD2 could have done.....he built an outstanding infrastructure that included LaRussa (one of the great baseball minds of all-time) and Wren, hired a very good young manager, won a WS.

I mean c'mon......

You want to fire him? Go ahead (10 months after the victory parade I might add).

But good luck replacing this situation.

Can it be done? I guess. Would I be surprised if the move backfired? Not in the least.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
44,681
I don't think you have just one mission as a top GM these days, you can be going for it with the big league roster, but you always need to be doing everything you can to replenish the minor league system and it seems fairly clear that this is not a strength of DD. He assembled the best team in franchise history, he brought them back mostly intact for a chance to repeat (contrary to all the secondguessing, IMO if a team is that successful, as GM you basically have to give them a chance to repeat their success), and now it's clear (to me anyway) that he is not the best suited to rebuild them for future success. I don't follow the Sox as closely as the Yankees, but there has to be real consideration for drastically cleaning house at this point, the major league roster, the front office, and trying to build a group of young talent that can compete with NY and TB and even TOR, all of whom seem to have a lot more in the pipeline right now than BOS. This kind of thing can flip quickly, in 2016, it seemed like NY had no chance of catching BOS for maybe 6-8 years at least, but there's no guarantee it's cyclical.
 

oumbi

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 15, 2006
2,345
Welcome Cmax. Congratulations on your first post and yes, the relationship between GM and manager is worth considering in this thread.

As for "periscope back down", I think the opposite. Make posts. Make good posts. Make great posts. Make lots of them. That is what we all welcome here.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
27,831
I don't think you have just one mission as a top GM these days, you can be going for it with the big league roster, but you always need to be doing everything you can to replenish the minor league system and it seems fairly clear that this is not a strength of DD. He assembled the best team in franchise history, he brought them back mostly intact for a chance to repeat (contrary to all the secondguessing, IMO if a team is that successful, as GM you basically have to give them a chance to repeat their success), and now it's clear (to me anyway) that he is not the best suited to rebuild them for future success. I don't follow the Sox as closely as the Yankees, but there has to be real consideration for drastically cleaning house at this point, the major league roster, the front office, and trying to build a group of young talent that can compete with NY and TB and even TOR, all of whom seem to have a lot more in the pipeline right now than BOS. This kind of thing can flip quickly, in 2016, it seemed like NY had no chance of catching BOS for maybe 6-8 years at least, but there's no guarantee it's cyclical.
The Cashman reload is the best case scenario, and a successful execution of something like that is the only thing that will make people happy. Good luck.

An Astros (now Orioles) tear down is not warranted — but even if it were, is impossible in this market.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
3,571
Boston, MA
I hope the Red Sox sincerely consider her as the overall GM. Maybe it ends up a committee behind the scenes but with her as the face of it. She’s been with the team for 21 years, obviously knows her shit and I think it would be a bold move for a team whose history shows a lot of the opposite.
The problem with that (and with Dana Levangie becoming pitching coach) is that you're promoting a long time loyal employee into a position where they're definitely going to be fired. Levangie took the job anyway, but someone who wants more long term security might not want to.
 

DanoooME

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2008
15,626
South Jersey
Different people have different strengths and different weaknesses. Sometimes the mission of the organization conflicts with the skills of those working for them. At that point you need to make a change, otherwise it won't work.

Best example I can think of is Billy Martin. His strengths were getting the most out of his team, identifying talent and motivating and playing them. Unfortunately his huge weakness was his inability to get along with anyone for any length of time. He could turn around a team and get them playing well, but eventually he wore out his welcome at a personal level. When the team starts to tune him out, he has to go.

DD has his own strength/weakness mix and it's come to a point where the weaknesses are hurting the team more than the strengths help. It makes me wonder if Henry and company were aware of this fact and didn't extend him because of it. They knew after DD built that winner that they were going to need to shift priorities based on where in the life cycle the team was. And they've probably been planning this all year. Now they'll bring in a younger GM with more of a development focus to rebuild the farm system and work within the salary constraints they currently have, but still try to be competitive. I would think the farm rebuild will be the first priority and if the team slips into mediocrity for a year or two, well, that will suck, but it's necessary to get back to the top.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
27,831
Hit my maximum free peeks at the Globe for this month. Has anyone read Abraham’s piece on how the firing came down and be willing to provide short summary, esp of anything over the top, if anything?

Thanks
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,600
St. Louis, MO
The Cashman reload is the best case scenario, and a successful execution of something like that is the only thing that will make people happy. Good luck.

An Astros (now Orioles) tear down is not warranted — but even if it were, is impossible in this market.
Cashman also had a generational, once in a lifetime trade opportunity with a Cubs team that had to win that season. He extracted a possible HOF player in Torres plus other pieces for 3 months of Chapman. I’m not knocking him for it, he closed the deal. But that opportunity will never present itself again and should be considered an outlier in terms of rebuilds.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,587
Hit my maximum free peeks at the Globe for this month. Has anyone read Abraham’s piece on how the firing came down and be willing to provide short summary, esp of anything over the top, if anything?

Thanks
Nothing much new; likely confirms what people have thought. He pointed out how Dombrowski was on the field during the pre-game ceremonies on Sunday evening, then by the 2nd inning he was told he was being let go. Cora and the players were surprised. Notable quotes:

“I don’t know if there is an expected timing. However, with all the speculation taking place about my position, I think it was better sooner than later,” he [Dombrowski] told the Globe.
“Just to thank him for trusting me and giving me a chance to become a big league manager,” he [Cora] said. “This guy with 40 years of experience decided, ‘Go ahead, kid. I think you can do this.’ Now here I am because of him.”
...
Cora dutifully defended the executives for not taking questions.

“I think the organization decided to move in a different direction,” Cora said. “I don’t think they have to go into details. The organization just decided it was time to move on.”
Sources said the ownership felt that Dombrowski had done what was asked, and that now they needed a leader with a different set of skills to reshape the roster. Once the decision was made, Dombrowski was told rather than let media speculation continue through the end of the season.
...
Beyond the vague notion of changing direction, sources said, the Sox were troubled by a lack of cohesion within baseball operations. Dombrowski retained much of the staff he inherited but often operated independently or dependent on advice from the two vice presidents he hired, Tony La Russa and Frank Wren.
And, yes, Henry & Co. own this going forward. The new GM is not going to be allowed to "blow it up" or "tear it down", which, IMO, is not needed, at least in 2020.
 
Last edited:
Jul 5, 2018
172
I'd disagree. He rebuilt the Marlins core that won in 03. And rebuild the Tigers from one of the worst teams ever to winning 2 Pennants. He's proven he can do that job. But my guess is he wasn't on the same page with ownership for how to do THIS rebuild.
How do they accomplish a rebuild? With Sale, Price, X, Benintendi, Devers and Eovaldi, they aren't going to be anywhere near a top 10 pick. Even if they're willing to trade Mookie he's going to have a hefty salary next year and won't bring much. I doubt if Red Sox Nation could stomach a bunch of salary dumps and some last place finishes.

It's not possible to go all out to win the WS and rebuild the farm system at the same time.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
27,831
Cashman also had a generational, once in a lifetime trade opportunity with a Cubs team that had to win that season. He extracted a possible HOF player in Torres plus other pieces for 3 months of Chapman. I’m not knocking him for it, he closed the deal. But that opportunity will never present itself again and should be considered an outlier in terms of rebuilds.
And he closed that deal with the Boy Wonder on the other side, which underscores that the owner drives the bus. If the short term mandate is strong enough, it prevails.

Thanks lex for the Abraham content. It looks like DD is taking the high road, and that Cora will be eternally grateful.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
11,859
Different people have different strengths and different weaknesses. Sometimes the mission of the organization conflicts with the skills of those working for them. At that point you need to make a change, otherwise it won't work.

Best example I can think of is Billy Martin. His strengths were getting the most out of his team, identifying talent and motivating and playing them. Unfortunately his huge weakness was his inability to get along with anyone for any length of time. He could turn around a team and get them playing well, but eventually he wore out his welcome at a personal level. When the team starts to tune him out, he has to go.

DD has his own strength/weakness mix and it's come to a point where the weaknesses are hurting the team more than the strengths help. It makes me wonder if Henry and company were aware of this fact and didn't extend him because of it. They knew after DD built that winner that they were going to need to shift priorities based on where in the life cycle the team was. And they've probably been planning this all year. Now they'll bring in a younger GM with more of a development focus to rebuild the farm system and work within the salary constraints they currently have, but still try to be competitive. I would think the farm rebuild will be the first priority and if the team slips into mediocrity for a year or two, well, that will suck, but it's necessary to get back to the top.
This sounds like a spot on take to me as well. Gammons on MLB radio yesterday really pounded on the “brain drain,” that a lot of people the owners valued had already left and more were planning to leave because the Dombrowski-Wren-LaRussa triumvirate ruled the roost.

Your point about the need to rebuild the farm is really instructive here. They’re going to need a top notch TEAM of talent evaluators to do that. So, no matter how good Dombrowski was at major league talent acquisition and how well he did trading off prospects that were acquired, developed, and evaluated for him by the brain trust he inherited, if he was losing that brain trust then he’s got to go. There’s only 30 GM positions out there, and a lot more than 30 people qualified for the job. I’m sure you can get someone who can make good trades and convince free agents to take John Henry’s money, while also building a team of evaluators and scouts that can sustain that success.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
11,859
How do they accomplish a rebuild? With Sale, Price, X, Benintendi, Devers and Eovaldi, they aren't going to be anywhere near a top 10 pick. Even if they're willing to trade Mookie he's going to have a hefty salary next year and won't bring much. I doubt if Red Sox Nation could stomach a bunch of salary dumps and some last place finishes.

It's not possible to go all out to win the WS and rebuild the farm system at the same time.
Given the way the market has soured on established veterans in their early 30s, you can put together a pretty good supporting cast in free agency for pennies on the dollar if you have payroll space and patience. There was an entire team of people out there last January who had been starters for their team in 2018.

You don’t have to field a team a AAAA all-stars like the Orioles are doing and the Cubs and Astros did. You can try to replicate 2013.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
27,831
Just give me one person of the more than 30 who are qualified. GM by Committee, a remote possibility, is what scares me right now. I don’t care who is doing it, even if it’s Tampa.

The minute more than 1 person is accountable, nobody is. The natural human impulse of any member of this gang of 4 would be to gain primacy, which means crapping on some other gang member’s idea if you think it’s a good one — precisely because it’s someone else’s idea. Finally, you need to be nimble. It may have been tough to get JH on the same page. Imagine the gang having to reach consensus first.

If JH really is process focused, this interim situation will be short lived.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
5,881
Let's say for hahas that Betts and Bradley moved this offseason, saving the Sox a ton of money in 2020 and, of course, beyond. Can they field a good offensive team without Betts especially? Well that depends on what they get for him, but this team would still be anchored by:

Player - This year's stats
Devers - 116 r, 29 hr, 107 rbi, .314/.364/.564/.929, 135 ops+
Bogaerts - 102 r, 31 hr, 105 rbi, .304/.380/.562/.942, 139 ops+
Martinez - 90 r, 35 hr, 94 rbi, .306/.383/.574/.957, 143 ops+
Benintendi - 65 r, 13 hr, 66 rbi, .274/.350/.450/.800, 105 ops+

And they'd also have
Vazquez - 19 hr, .769 ops+
Chavis - 18 hr, .766 ops+

That's three GREAT offensive players, three solid offensive players (especially for their positions), leaving three question marks: CF, 1b, RF. I'd assume that with the money saved and the trade return for Betts that they'd have competent major leaguers in RF and CF while saving money and adding prospects. That team should still have a pretty solid offense. Not the best in the AL, but solid nonetheless.

Note: This is not me wishing or hoping for a Betts trade. I'm just wondering what they can do IF they end up moving him.
 

BJBossman

lurker
Dec 6, 2016
209
How do they accomplish a rebuild? With Sale, Price, X, Benintendi, Devers and Eovaldi, they aren't going to be anywhere near a top 10 pick. Even if they're willing to trade Mookie he's going to have a hefty salary next year and won't bring much. I doubt if Red Sox Nation could stomach a bunch of salary dumps and some last place finishes.

It's not possible to go all out to win the WS and rebuild the farm system at the same time.
I wasn't recommending they do, but someone said that a rebuild wasn't in his playobook but his history proves that to be false. He's done it multiple times before.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,587
Just give me one person of the more than 30 who are qualified. GM by Committee, a remote possibility, is what scares me right now. I don’t care who is doing it, even if it’s Tampa.

The minute more than 1 person is accountable, nobody is. The natural human impulse of any member of this gang of 4 would be to gain primacy, which means crapping on some other gang member’s idea if you think it’s a good one — precisely because it’s someone else’s idea. Finally, you need to be nimble. It may have been tough to get JH on the same page. Imagine the gang having to reach consensus first.

If JH really is process focused, this interim situation will be short lived.
I really do not believe a GM by Committee is under any serious consideration. It's in place now because it's the best approach for a month in which GM responsibilities are fairly minimal.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
5,881
You looked at Houston?
Houston built this fantastic farm system and championship team on the back of some godawful seasons in a row:

2011: 56-106
2012: 55-107
2013: 51-111
2014: 70-92

And that horrendous stretch followed a 76-86 season in 2010 and a 74-88 season in 2009. So they were consistently drafting at the top of the MLB draft. Are they good at drafting and developing players? Obviously yes. But in order to get where they are, they've spent YEARS in absolute baseball hell.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
27,831
Houston built this fantastic farm system and championship team on the back of some godawful seasons in a row:

2011: 56-106
2012: 55-107
2013: 51-111
2014: 70-92

And that horrendous stretch followed a 76-86 season in 2010 and a 74-88 season in 2009. So they were consistently drafting at the top of the MLB draft. Are they good at drafting and developing players? Obviously yes. But in order to get where they are, they've spent YEARS in absolute baseball hell.
And were fortunate to make it work, even conceding first-rate people, and were operating in a market environment where this was possible. It’s not remotely possible in Boston.

Hell, if the next somebody sensibly reaches the conclusion that Betts should be dealt, that will be a struggle.
 

trotswalk

lurker
Apr 24, 2010
4
A couple of points that have been references, but I think need to be highlighted:

- It is entirely possible that Mookie's future had a lot to do with this firing. As people have mentioned, DD has built teams up from the ground before. He has that skill. However, the future of Mookie is a huge decision for this org and management and DD not seeing eye to eye on that front could be a major reason for this firing. If, for example, DD was dead set on signing Mookie to a deal at $37M per and management wanted no part of that, it could explain a lot (or vice versa, if DD wanted to trade Mookie).

- The reported dysfunction in the front office combined with what is being perceived as high turnover rate (win a WS and you're out) may not impact the number of younger GM wanna-be's (who may be very qualified), but it likely will dissuade folks in other organizations who are happy with their current set-up, GM or otherwise.
 
Jul 5, 2018
172
Given the way the market has soured on established veterans in their early 30s, you can put together a pretty good supporting cast in free agency for pennies on the dollar if you have payroll space and patience. There was an entire team of people out there last January who had been starters for their team in 2018.

You don’t have to field a team a AAAA all-stars like the Orioles are doing and the Cubs and Astros did. You can try to replicate 2013.
Yes, you can sign some 2nd tier players and put together a championship team. There was some luck though, for the 2013 team; both Victorino and Uehara had career years. I doubt if the Sox were smarter than everyone else in their evaluations of them.

A successful team built on 2nd tier free agents will save some money, but it won't have the top 10 picks needed to rebuild the farm system.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,587
Yes, you can sign some 2nd tier players and put together a championship team. There was some luck though, for the 2013 team; both Victorino and Uehara had career years. I doubt if the Sox were smarter than everyone else in their evaluations of them.

A successful team built on 2nd tier free agents will save some money, but it won't have the top 10 picks needed to rebuild the farm system.
There are multiple ways of rebuilding the farm system that don't require top 10 picks in a draft that is notorious for finding gems well past the 10th pick.
 

Danny_Darwin

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
1,313
It's not possible to go all out to win the WS and rebuild the farm system at the same time.
Piling on at this point, but the Dodgers have been consistently in the top-10 for system rankings, haven't finished below .500 once this decade, and haven't made a pick in the top ten since they drafted Clayton Kershaw in 2006. They've gone to the last two World Series and they currently have the best record in baseball.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,587
In the FWIW department, the Red Sox had the 7th pick in the 1993 draft, with whom they picked Trot Nixon. Since then, they've had a Top 10 pick twice: 2013 (Trey Ball) and 2015 (Benintendi). Both were coincidentally as the 7th pick in the round.
 
Jul 5, 2018
172
Piling on at this point, but the Dodgers have been consistently in the top-10 for system rankings, haven't finished below .500 once this decade, and haven't made a pick in the top ten since they drafted Clayton Kershaw in 2006. They've gone to the last two World Series and they currently have the best record in baseball.
Obviously not every team has had that type of success. There are 30 teams so there is going to be a wide range of success from draft picks. It could just be that the Dodgers have had the best luck.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
5,881
Piling on at this point, but the Dodgers have been consistently in the top-10 for system rankings, haven't finished below .500 once this decade, and haven't made a pick in the top ten since they drafted Clayton Kershaw in 2006. They've gone to the last two World Series and they currently have the best record in baseball.
And haven't won a WS since Orel Hershiser pitched for them. No doubt they've been a consistently good team; so have the Yankees, but the Yanks haven't won it all since 2009, and only once since 2000 (that 2009 season).
 

chawson

Well-Known Member
Bronze Supporter
Aug 1, 2006
1,555
The Dodgers, Yankees and Astros all share what seems to be an unbelievable knack for identifying or optimizing latent, unrecognized talent on other teams.

On the hitting side, the Dodgers have gotten good production out of Muncy, Taylor, and Turner, while the Yankees have had it with Voit, Tauchman, Urshela, Maybin, and to some extent Didi and LeMahieu. On the pitching side, the Astros completely rebuilt Peacock, Miley, and Morton, and more or less doubled the effectiveness of Pressly, Verlander and Cole.

I can’t tell if it’s organizational player development or scouting+analytics or what, but the Red Sox examples of these have been fewer. Josh Taylor looks to be an example this year and Brasier last year, the Sox haven’t acquired and then ‘optimized’ a player into a breakout like that since Koji.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
5,881
The Dodgers, Yankees and Astros all share what seems to be an unbelievable knack for identifying or optimizing latent, unrecognized talent on other teams.

On the hitting side, the Dodgers have gotten good production out of Muncy, Taylor, and Turner, while the Yankees have had it with Voit, Tauchman, Urshela, Maybin, and to some extent Didi and LeMahieu. On the pitching side, the Astros completely rebuilt Peacock, Miley, and Morton, and more or less doubled the effectiveness of Pressly, Verlander and Cole.

I can’t tell if it’s organizational player development or scouting+analytics or what, but the Red Sox examples of these have been fewer. Josh Taylor looks to be an example this year and Brasier last year, the Sox haven’t acquired and then ‘optimized’ a player into a breakout like that since Koji.
There's definitely something organizational going on with Houston. A few years ago a buddy of mine - huge Astros fan and pretty much knows everything about them - made the point that at every level of the organization, their clubs led their respective leagues in strikeouts (pitching). They were able to turn Verlander around. They made Morton great. Miley is suddenly terrific. So I think some of it is drafting well, but they definitely have, as my friend put it, "figured something out". I don't know what it is. I hope that Cora has picked up some of it from being with them but clearly they HAVE figured something out.

Remember a number of years ago when the Cardinals were caught tapping into the Astros' database? We all wondered why, given that Houston was pretty lousy at the time. Well maybe at that point the Cardinals figured out that the Astros were on to something and wanted to find out what it was. Of course they weren't punished for that but that's another conversation. The point being that Houston sure does seem to have made some sort of developmental break through. So even if they're not drafting great, they're turning these guys into great players.
 

Danny_Darwin

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
1,313
And haven't won a WS since Orel Hershiser pitched for them. No doubt they've been a consistently good team; so have the Yankees, but the Yanks haven't won it all since 2009, and only once since 2000 (that 2009 season).
I’m not sure I understand your point. Those teams have made the playoffs a few times in that span.
 
Last edited:

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
5,881
Patek's 3 Dingers said: "It's not possible to go all out to win the WS and rebuild the farm system at the same time."

You (@Danny_Darwin ) replied: "Piling on at this point, but the Dodgers have been consistently in the top-10 for system rankings, haven't finished below .500 once this decade, and haven't made a pick in the top ten since they drafted Clayton Kershaw in 2006. They've gone to the last two World Series and they currently have the best record in baseball."

I thought that was a comment against what P3D was saying, so I supported P3D point by replying: "And haven't won a WS since Orel Hershiser pitched for them. No doubt they've been a consistently good team; so have the Yankees, but the Yanks haven't won it all since 2009, and only once since 2000 (that 2009 season)."

In other words, yeah, the Dodgers and Yanks have been consistently really good, and have good farm systems, but haven't won it all for a long time. Which I think was P3D's point.

Well, now looking at it, he didn't say actually WIN the WS....he said "go all out to win the WS", and yeah, the Dodgers and Yanks have definitely tried for that. I have just been of the view that you can't find a team that is a consistently great team, with a consistently great farm system, that actually wins WS titles.
 

Danny_Darwin

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
1,313
If you're saying it's some kind of failure of the front office that the Dodgers didn't score (or prevent) two additional runs in the 2017 World Series to beat Houston in Games 2 and 5, then I don't know what to tell you.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
5,881
If you're saying it's some kind of failure of the front office that the Dodgers didn't score (or prevent) two additional runs in the 2017 World Series to beat Houston in Games 2 and 5, then I don't know what to tell you.
I didn't say that.

I'm saying that they didn't win a WS, try as they might. It's not a "failure". But the objective is to WIN the WS, and I've said that you can't point to a single team that is a consistently great team, with a consistently great farm system, that actually wins WS titles.
 

BJBossman

lurker
Dec 6, 2016
209
If you're saying it's some kind of failure of the front office that the Dodgers didn't score (or prevent) two additional runs in the 2017 World Series to beat Houston in Games 2 and 5, then I don't know what to tell you.
It was definitely the FO's fault that Taylor didn't tag up in game 5.
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
18,537
is the objective to win WS titles, or be a perennial division champion, which is the best you can do before the randomness of the playoffs begins?

I have a feeling most GMs would say the latter in today's game.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
5,881
is the objective to win WS titles, or be a perennial division champion, which is the best you can do before the randomness of the playoffs begins?

I have a feeling most GMs would say the latter in today's game.
Would you rather have the Dodgers' last seven seasons or the Red Sox' last seven seasons?
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
44,681
is the objective to win WS titles, or be a perennial division champion, which is the best you can do before the randomness of the playoffs begins?

I have a feeling most GMs would say the latter in today's game.
And you got a lot of evidence on that at this year's deadline: NY really needed a SP and didn't deal for one and LAD really needed a stud reliever and didn't get one. Even the Greinke deal for HOU was I think more about 2020 and onward than it was this year, because they know they will lose Cole this winter, and they didn't give up the prospects they deem crucial (Tucker, Whitley) but instead guys from the next tier.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,587
Would you rather have the Dodgers' last seven seasons or the Red Sox' last seven seasons?
As a fan, I would take the Sox WS 2 titles any day. Payroll efficiency titles mean nothing to me.

As a GM (I'm not a GM, but bear with me), I have an indirect ability to control whether my team wins the division. The WC play-in is a consolation, but it is not my goal. I would then take my chances on the random chance that is the playoffs, although if I could do anything to help me in a potential ALDS/ALCS matchup, I would make that a secondary consideration as well.
 

Danny_Darwin

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
1,313
Would you rather have the Dodgers' last seven seasons or the Red Sox' last seven seasons?
This is a discussion of front offices and unless you're prepared to point out what it is that front offices can do to ensure a WS title beyond "get their teams into the tournament" (which the Dodgers and, since you brought them up, the Yankees have done an a reasonably consistent basis), then I don't know that the "COUNT THE RINGZ, BAY-BEE!" argument makes sense in this context.

Put a different way, would you rather have Andrew Friedman as your GM or Brian Sabean?
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
5,881
This is a discussion of front offices and unless you're prepared to point out what it is that front offices can do to ensure a WS title beyond "get their teams into the tournament" (which the Dodgers and, since you brought them up, the Yankees have done an a reasonably consistent basis), then I don't know that the "COUNT THE RINGZ, BAY-BEE!" argument makes sense in this context.

Put a different way, would you rather have Andrew Friedman as your GM or Brian Sabean?
It's a discussion of the front office. I jumped in when I misread P3D's comment about the World Series.

It's not about "ensuring" a WS title, but let's not pretend that's not their goal. Consistently winning division titles simply gives you more chances to win the WS. So yeah, that's a good thing. But it's not THE goal.

And let's also not pretend that there's not a difference between building a team for the regular season grind and one for the playoffs. In the regular season, you can generally win with a good pitching staff where everyone is pretty solid. But in the playoffs, you generally only use your top handful of pitchers, so you don't need to have a very deep pitching staff in order to win the WS. So long story short, it's entirely possible that certain GMs are good at building teams that can get through the regular season grind but which aren't really built for the playoffs, while other GMs are good at building teams for the playoffs. Those aren't necessarily the same skills.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
5,881
The past isn't the point, the answer to your question is obvious but the real question is the next seven seasons.
I'd rather have the next seven seasons be: 2 WS titles, 2 division titles that end in first round playoff losses, 1 mediocre season, and 2 last-place finishes, rather than have 0 WS titles and 7 division titles.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
44,681
I'd rather have the next seven seasons be: 2 WS titles, 2 division titles that end in first round playoff losses, 1 mediocre season, and 2 last-place finishes, rather than have 0 WS titles and 7 division titles.
You made your obvious point multiple times already, please stop.
 

bosox79

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
10,220
I'd rather have the next seven seasons be: 2 WS titles, 2 division titles that end in first round playoff losses, 1 mediocre season, and 2 last-place finishes, rather than have 0 WS titles and 7 division titles.
That's being results based to the max. The team who makes the playoffs 7 times is more likely to win more WS than the team who made it 4 times.