DD fired

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
5,881
I wasn't talking to you actually, another misreading by you.
In post #295 (which is what I was replying to), you literally quoted ME and then said, "The past isn't the point, the answer to your question is obvious but the real question is the next seven seasons." How am I supposed to read that as anything other than you addressing me?
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
44,681
In post #295 (which is what I was replying to), you literally quoted ME and then said, "The past isn't the point, the answer to your question is obvious but the real question is the next seven seasons." How am I supposed to read that as anything other than you addressing me?
OK, now I am addressing you, to be totally clear. WE ALL KNOW WHAT HAPPENED ALREADY AND YOU ARE ADDING NOTHING BY POINTING IT OUT MULTIPLE TIMES.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,587
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.
I don't think the bolded is necessarily true. It would be really strange for a GM to be able to build a team that wins the division but is horrible at building a playoff team. Or vice versa. The predictors of success in the playoffs have been analyzed, and they are not much different than those for the regular season. Cora counted on nearly all of his pitchers in the 2018 playoffs. Sure, the 5th starter normally goes to the bullpen, but the bullpen usage increases, especially these days.

Playoff success is very random. In 2016, the Sox Cy Young award winner gave up 3 home runs (something he hadn't done all season), and then Price had a bad start. Suddenly, they were basically as good as dead. In 2017, Sale was hurt and ineffective in Game 1, which again put the team in a hole they could not dig out of in a best-of-5 series. Similar examples abound across baseball.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
11,859
Would you rather have the Dodgers' last seven seasons or the Red Sox' last seven seasons?
My answer in 2019 is different from what my answer would have been in 2003.

That is really a non-sequiter though. If you accept common wisdom that there’s no secret ingredient that makes a statistically significant difference in playoff odds, then winning a division championship should be the achievable management goal, thereby avoiding an additional coin flip that cuts your odds of winning the World Series in half, and the playoffs are gravy.

If you think that “going the extra mile to win it all” is actually a thing, then you’d have a different opinion.
 
Jul 5, 2018
172
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.
I believe people on SOSH get a little carried away with effects of coaching. Last year, Mookie's success was attributed to meeting that batting whisperer guy, Doug Latta and JD, but this year Mookie dropped off a bit. And JD, himself, has had a decrease in OPS+ from 172 to 143.

Houston's high strikeout rate in the minors could be a result of going after power arms more than other organisations. As far as a development breakthrough, MLB has been around for over 100 years so I'm skeptical that the Stros have some revolutionary approach to coaching pitching. If someone hacks into their computer or there is "pillow talk" between a Houston coach and a girlfriend planted by another team, will MLB go back to 1968?
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
11,859
You made your obvious point multiple times already, please stop.
I actually think it’s more debatable than others apparently do. In 2003, I viewed the Red Sox season as the 84th consecutive failure. In 2008 I viewed the Red Sox season as a highly enjoyable ride that came up a few outs/hits short of the World Series.

In 2019, I just want to watch as many Red Sox games each year as I can. If they make the playoffs I get to watch more games. If they lose game 7 of the World Series, then at least the offseason is a month shorter than it would have been otherwise. This season was effectively over in the second week of April. That sucked.
 

bosox79

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
10,220
I believe people on SOSH get a little carried away with effects of coaching. Last year, Mookie's success was attributed to meeting that batting whisperer guy, Doug Latta and JD, but this year Mookie dropped off a bit. And JD, himself, has had a decrease in OPS+ from 172 to 143.

Houston's high strikeout rate in the minors could be a result of going after power arms more than other organisations. As far as a development breakthrough, MLB has been around for over 100 years so I'm skeptical that the Stros have some revolutionary approach to coaching pitching. If someone hacks into their computer or there is "pillow talk" between a Houston coach and a girlfriend planted by another team, will MLB go back to 1968?
I think at the Major league level that's true. I think coaching plays a large part in the minors though, especially at the lower levels. Do you think players will develop regardless?
 

InsideTheParker

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
25,466
Pioneer Valley
I believe people on SOSH get a little carried away with effects of coaching. Last year, Mookie's success was attributed to meeting that batting whisperer guy, Doug Latta and JD, but this year Mookie dropped off a bit. And JD, himself, has had a decrease in OPS+ from 172 to 143.

Houston's high strikeout rate in the minors could be a result of going after power arms more than other organisations. As far as a development breakthrough, MLB has been around for over 100 years so I'm skeptical that the Stros have some revolutionary approach to coaching pitching. If someone hacks into their computer or there is "pillow talk" between a Houston coach and a girlfriend planted by another team, will MLB go back to 1968?
This is a minor point, but wasn't Latta hired by the Dodgers, who disallowed contact with players on other teams?
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
44,681
I actually think it’s more debatable than others apparently do. In 2003, I viewed the Red Sox season as the 84th consecutive failure. In 2008 I viewed the Red Sox season as a highly enjoyable ride that came up a few outs/hits short of the World Series.

In 2019, I just want to watch as many Red Sox games each year as I can. If they make the playoffs I get to watch more games. If they lose game 7 of the World Series, then at least the offseason is a month shorter than it would have been otherwise. This season was effectively over in the second week of April. That sucked.
Right, if you are the Red Sox pre-2004 or the Cubs pre-2016 or the Indians now, the answer is somewhat different, which is why the Cubs and Indians gave up so much for Chapman and Miller in 2016.

Houston's high strikeout rate in the minors could be a result of going after power arms more than other organisations. As far as a development breakthrough, MLB has been around for over 100 years so I'm skeptical that the Stros have some revolutionary approach to coaching pitching.
Technology is the difference now, and it's only in recent years that its use as far as baseball has exploded. I highly recommend the recent book 'The MVP Machine' for anyone interested in this, they jump around baseball to show a bunch of organizations and players that are utilizing technology to help improve themselves as well as figuring out who to target on other teams because of the skills they think are being underutilized in their current organization.

View: https://www.amazon.com/MVP-Machine-Baseballs-Nonconformists-Players/dp/1541698940/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=the+mvp+machine&qid=1568142685&s=gateway&sr=8-1
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
18,537
what made me bring that age old argument up again about the optimal objective is that I think the Sox are transitioning from the "all-in, one small window of contention and hope for playoffs to go well one time" mentality to the other one.

if the Red Sox had fallen to the 2013 Tigers as they probably should have, or Kimbrel gave up the whole enchilada in ALDS game 4 last year then Sale was bad in game 5, this would be a much more irate fanbase right now. but such is the fickleness of October baseball.

would you rather have the following odds of winning the WS, based on regular season results / perceived team strength, in a 10 year span (imagine 2016-25 under DD): 12%, 16%, 24%, 12%, 4%, 0%, 0%, 0%, 2%, 5%? that was the DD way.
or what I think the Red Sox are going to try to do now for the 2020s: 5-10% minimum every year, but 15% max?
 
Last edited:
Aug 11, 2019
64
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 if you looked at what I posted in the MLB Discussion about the 538 article on minor leagues, you will see that Houston has their approach to minor league ball. Indeed, they have actually cut the number of minor league clubs they sponsor, so perhaps they are coming up with a way to have their cake and eat it, too. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/do-we-even-need-minor-league-baseball/
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
12,963
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.
He was on the field....was told during the game....they told Cora after the game....Cora told the players.....Cora said he spoke to DD and thanked him for the oportunity to manage...........some sideye at the team for not having a management type at Cora's side when he was being asked about it.....
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
16,831
Technology is the difference now, and it's only in recent years that its use as far as baseball has exploded. I highly recommend the recent book 'The MVP Machine' for anyone interested in this, they jump around baseball to show a bunch of organizations and players that are utilizing technology to help improve themselves as well as figuring out who to target on other teams because of the skills they think are being underutilized in their current organization.

View: https://www.amazon.com/MVP-Machine-Baseballs-Nonconformists-Players/dp/1541698940/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=the+mvp+machine&qid=1568142685&s=gateway&sr=8-1
I haven't read the book other than some excerpts I've seen on the web but I've understand what HOU (and now BAL) are trying to do.

My question is this: do we currently have any evidence that player drafting/development is a repeatable skill (i.e., has any study been able to show this)?

I know that as of circa 2010 or even later, it seems to me that the studies that analyzed drafting/development found that there was no skill to drafting/development. From the football side, I know the Ravens and I believe the Patriots subscribe to this theory - which is why they stockpile so many draft picks (i.e., the only real way to improve one's odds is to add extra picks).

Studies have also shown that the top picks in each draft are far more likely to provide value than the rest of the picks.

You (and others) have pointed on multiple occasions to the farm systems built up by LAD, HOU, STL, and MFY as examples of skilled drafting/development but I am wondering if that's just small sample size.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,587
I'm not sure DD did anything (intentionally, anyway) that was different in terms of reaching the playoffs.

The 2015 team was heading towards a last place finish when DD took over. He signed Price and traded for Kimbrel, addressing two of the team's biggest needs (starting pitching and bullpen). He made other, lesser trades, some of which failed, but those were the two headliners. And he was aggressive mid-season when he traded for Pomeranz. The Sox won the division in 2016.

After the 2016 team won the division but flailed in the playoffs, he added starting pitching depth by trading for Sale, bolstering a rotation that was basically Price, Porcello, Pomeranz, and little else. And he signed Moreland to help replace some of Papi's production.

The big GFIN move in 2018 was signing JD. The trades for Eovaldi and Pearce and Kinsler were relatively minor, and are the types of trades nearly any GM in a similar situation would make.

If we are looking at some alternate universe where the Sox emphasize making the playoffs on a more regular basis, which of the above moves would be undone? Or am I misunderstanding the argument?
 
Jul 5, 2018
172
This is a minor point, but wasn't Latta hired by the Dodgers, who disallowed contact with players on other teams?
The story was that Latta met with Mookie for one day and Mookie hit 3 homers against the Angels the following day. It would be impossible for Latta to have done much more than give Mookie 1-2 things to think about. If it was more than that, Mookie would have taken three pitches right down the middle in his next AB, so he should remember the tip(s) he received from Latta.

I'm old and believe in talent and repetition and that Latta's advice could have been coincidence. Mookie's success is due to phenomenal quickness which is not something he learned.

On another note, I couldn't find the story as to why Mookie was a 172nd pick. I would have expected scouts to consider him a 1st round pick. Were the Sox the only team which thought they could talk him out of going to Tennessee?
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
44,681
I haven't read the book other than some excerpts I've seen on the web but I've understand what HOU (and now BAL) are trying to do.

My question is this: do we currently have any evidence that player drafting/development is a repeatable skill (i.e., has any study been able to show this)?

I know that as of circa 2010 or even later, it seems to me that the studies that analyzed drafting/development found that there was no skill to drafting/development. From the football side, I know the Ravens and I believe the Patriots subscribe to this theory - which is why they stockpile so many draft picks (i.e., the only real way to improve one's odds is to add extra picks).

Studies have also shown that the top picks in each draft are far more likely to provide value than the rest of the picks.

You (and others) have pointed on multiple occasions to the farm systems built up by LAD, HOU, STL, and MFY as examples of skilled drafting/development but I am wondering if that's just small sample size.
It's a good question, and actually I think it's partly about stockpiling depth as much as it is specific development. I will stick to NY since that is the team I know by far the most about, they traded probably 20 players in 2017-18, then they had an insane amount of injuries this year, but still they had the system depth to fill in when needed.

I think since the CBAs have changed and big revenue teams like NYY and LAD haven't been able to spend as much on salary without big penalties, they have poured a lot of that money into scouting and analytics. Not just potential draft picks, but other team's fringe players (Tauchman, Urshela), the opposing teams they're going to face (this is just my own conclusion but I think this is part of the reason why NY has been so good in the AL East this year, 51-17 in the division and 44-33 against everyone else).

Teams of course try to keep as much as they can to themselves about this, but here's an article from last October in The Athletic (pay wall) where you can see that the Yankees and Dodgers had more analytics employees than anyone else in MLB, and NY had three times as many as BOS:

[TH]
Team​
[/TH] [TH]
Analysts​
[/TH] [TH]
Team​
[/TH] [TH]
Analysts​
[/TH]
American League​
National League​
Yankees​
20​
Dodgers​
20​
Astros​
15​
Braves​
15​
Rays​
15​
Brewers​
11​
Angels​
10​
Reds​
11​
Tigers​
9​
Phillies​
10​
Rangers​
8​
Nationals​
8​
Mariners​
7​
Pirates​
8​
Royals​
7​
Padres​
7​
Twins​
7​
Cardinals​
6​
Blue Jays​
6​
Cubs​
6​
Red Sox​
6​
Giants​
6​
Indians​
5​
Marlins​
6​
Orioles​
5​
Dbacks​
5​
Athletics​
3​
Rockies​
4​
White Sox​
2​
Mets​
3​


 

Green Monster

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2000
2,003
CT
The story was that Latta met with Mookie for one day and Mookie hit 3 homers against the Angels the following day. It would be impossible for Latta to have done much more than give Mookie 1-2 things to think about. If it was more than that, Mookie would have taken three pitches right down the middle in his next AB, so he should remember the tip(s) he received from Latta.

I'm old and believe in talent and repetition and that Latta's advice could have been coincidence. Mookie's success is due to phenomenal quickness which is not something he learned.

On another note, I couldn't find the story as to why Mookie was a 172nd pick. I would have expected scouts to consider him a 1st round pick. Were the Sox the only team which thought they could talk him out of going to Tennessee?
Agree completely......no way one meeting is going to fundamentally change a swing after 15+ years of repetition with the previous method.

Would assume that Mookie slipped as a result of being 5'-9" with teams more willing to take a chance with a 6"-2" prospect.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
16,831

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
16,831
Teams of course try to keep as much as they can to themselves about this, but here's an article from last October in The Athletic (pay wall) where you can see that the Yankees and Dodgers had more analytics employees than anyone else in MLB, and NY had three times as many as BOS:
Kind of shocking that Red Sox have so people, particularly when DD was saying he wanted to rebuild BOS's analytics department.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
44,681
Kind of shocking that Red Sox have so people, particularly when DD was saying he wanted to rebuild BOS's analytics department.
That was last October, so things may have changed in the past year also, but at the least it is a snapshot of how BOS and other teams were behind at that point.

Of course hiring more analysts doesn't guarantee anything, but it is interesting that the 5 teams there with at least 15 analysts are all really well positioned both currently (4 division leaders, 1 #1 WC) and going forward with youth.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
16,168
where I was last at
I think the knock on DD is that he ignored the analytics and the in-house quants and became increasingly isolated with his band of loyalists. Reinvigotating analytics will likely be relatively quick with a GM who values their input.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,587
There was some chattering a couple of years ago (not long after Dombrowski was hired) about how the Sox analytics department was hit a number of departures. At least one blogger was fairly critical, although there were some questions about how much he really knew. Anyway, as noted, the number of analysts is just one metric; a department that consists of 10 Eric Van's and 10 Voros's is unlikely to produce any useful info.

Sam Kennedy on WEEI now won't get into why they fired DD. Very weird.
Standard operating procedure. I would not expect Kennedy to disclose the private reasons behind the Dombrowski firing on a talk radio station. They didn't disclose why Theo was allowed to leave in 2011, or why Cherington was being replaced in 2015 (other than that they were hiring Dombrowski).
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
39,262
deep inside Guido territory
There was some chattering a couple of years ago (not long after Dombrowski was hired) about how the Sox analytics department was hit a number of departures. At least one blogger was fairly critical, although there were some questions about how much he really knew. Anyway, as noted, the number of analysts is just one metric; a department that consists of 10 Eric Van's and 10 Voros's is unlikely to produce any useful info.


Standard operating procedure. I would not expect Kennedy to disclose the private reasons behind the Dombrowski firing on a talk radio station. They didn't disclose why Theo was allowed to leave in 2011, or why Cherington was being replaced in 2015 (other than that they were hiring Dombrowski).
Why go on the radio and say nothing?
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,199
The wrong side of the bridge....
As a fan, I would take the Sox WS 2 titles any day. Payroll efficiency titles mean nothing to me.
Isn't this a straw man? Is there anyone here who seriously would advocate that the primary focus of the FO should be payroll efficiency for its own sake? The point of payroll efficiency is that it helps prevent teams from painting themselves into strategic corners, so that there's always a viable path to remaining competitive. In other words, WS titles and payroll efficiency can only be conflicting priorities in the short term. In the long term, they align. The tricky part is navigating a workable course between short-term and long-term strategy.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
16,168
where I was last at
"Anyway, as noted, the number of analysts is just one metric; a department that consists of 10 Eric Van's and 10 Voros's is unlikely to produce any useful info."

You can have an army of Einsteins but if the general ignores the intel...

IIRC there was study 4-5 years ago that ranked pro sports teams and their reliance on analytics and as I recall the Sox were ranked 1st among MLB teams in using data to make personnel decisions. So the intel exodus brought on by DD, and opportunities elsewhere, is relatively short-lived and can probably be reversed quickly.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,587
Isn't this a straw man? Is there anyone here who seriously would advocate that the primary focus of the FO should be payroll efficiency for its own sake? The point of payroll efficiency is that it helps prevent teams from painting themselves into strategic corners, so that there's always a viable path to remaining competitive. In other words, WS titles and payroll efficiency can only be conflicting priorities in the short term. In the long term, they align. The tricky part is navigating a workable course between short-term and long-term strategy.
It was a tongue-in-cheek comment. It was made in reaction to multiple posts that were mentioning Oakland and the Rays as franchise models to mimic, two franchises that always seem to win the Payroll Efficiency Title, and not much else. In the real world, I don't disagree that GM's do need to look at payroll; no team has infinite budget. As Red Sox fans, we were fortunate that the owners were willing to basically consider the Sandoval and Ramirez and Castillo contracts as sunk costs. But there is only so much money in the till, and the owners are certainly justified if they don't feel comfortable about the possibility of treating Sale's contract the same way in a couple of years.

The main point of my post was to contrast the viewpoint and desires of a fan from that of a GM. As a fan, I like seeing championships. Over the course of 7 years, I would happily take 3 DNQ's, 4 Division titles, and 2 World Series rings over 7 division titles and no rings. I don't have much use for a banner that says my team participated in the AFC Title Game. Also, that is a subjective opinion; other fans have different desires.

GM's, OTOH, will typically shoot for playoff appearances as their first priority, for reasons stated in this thread. As they should.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
12,963
"Anyway, as noted, the number of analysts is just one metric; a department that consists of 10 Eric Van's and 10 Voros's is unlikely to produce any useful info."

You can have an army of Einsteins but if the general ignores the intel...

IIRC there was study 4-5 years ago that ranked pro sports teams and their reliance on analytics and as I recall the Sox were ranked 1st among MLB teams in using data to make personnel decisions. So the intel exodus brought on by DD, and opportunities elsewhere, is relatively short-lived and can probably be reversed quickly.
My sense is that LaRussa and Wren were his closest confidantes. Nothing wrong with having trusted consiglieres, but those two would be likely to reinforce any non-analytical bent, rather than create pathways for its expansion. We know (because they've said so) that the coaching staff gets info straight from the analytic horse's mouth. Maybe DD and his people just weren't putting the info to use sufficiently in their part of the job. So it may not have been the size of the department, so much as how its work was being deployed. Almost like the reverse of Theo and Grady (although let me be clear...DD is a better GM than Grady was a manager...that's clearly (I hope) not my point).
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,587
While your peeps are feeding Dan Shaughnessy. Same as it ever was.
No different than any other MLB Team. People talk and gossip everywhere. And if the worst dirt that comes out is that (a) the franchise was worried that DD wasn't the right answer for the future; and (b) DD was spending all his time with LaRussa and Wren, that's hardly earth shattering.
 

cheech13

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2006
1,283
There was some chattering a couple of years ago (not long after Dombrowski was hired) about how the Sox analytics department was hit a number of departures. At least one blogger was fairly critical, although there were some questions about how much he really knew. Anyway, as noted, the number of analysts is just one metric; a department that consists of 10 Eric Van's and 10 Voros's is unlikely to produce any useful info.
Wait, I'm admittedly a bit out of the loop on some of the modern advancements in baseball analytics, but when did we turn on Voros McCracken? Wasn't he one of the foremost minds in developing good pitching analytics?
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,587
Wait, I'm admittedly a bit out of the loop on some of the modern advancements in baseball analytics, but when did we turn on Voros McCracken? Wasn't he one of the foremost minds in developing good pitching analytics?
The Francona book had some anecdotes about some of the lineups that he would receive from EV and Voros. I admittedly didn't know about McCracken's contributions, but I saw enough EV posts back in the day to convince myself that those stories had credibility.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,199
The wrong side of the bridge....
Well, that should be a strong selling point for a new GM.
Why wouldn't it be? Trying to rebuild a contender while retrenching financially with a weak farm system is a daunting task. But you're doing it in the context of a committed ownership with a record of success plus a hugely engaged fanbase. If I were a talented front office professional I would salivate at that challenge. Wouldn't you?
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
44,681
Why wouldn't it be? Trying to rebuild a contender while retrenching financially with a weak farm system is a daunting task. But you're doing it in the context of a committed ownership with a record of success plus a hugely engaged fanbase. If I were a talented front office professional I would salivate at that challenge. Wouldn't you?
Yeah, SF got Zaidi this past winter under similar circumstances, and that was a worse situation overall.
 

Hank Scorpio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 1, 2013
5,254
I'm skeptical of the source. It's obviously not coming from Henry or Werner, and I can't see it coming from Kennedy. I'm not sure who else is in the position to make such assertions while having credible knowledge of why DD was let go. And I'm also not seeing any executive that high up openly admitting that the Red Sox are willing to let JDM and Mookie walk, a decision that would be massively unpopular with the fans.

My guess? Frank Wren is upset and is mouthing off.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,199
The wrong side of the bridge....
And I'm also not seeing any executive that high up openly admitting that the Red Sox are willing to let JDM and Mookie walk, a decision that would be massively unpopular with the fans.
The departure of at least one of those two, if not both, seems almost inevitable. It seems to me the question is less whether it will happen than how effective a strategy you can come up with for building around it.

I mean, if JWH & co. thought it would be possible to get through the next few years while keeping all their stars on board, why fire DD? That's the kind of situation he's good at.
 

Green Monster

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2000
2,003
CT
Sam Kennedy on WEEI now won't get into why they fired DD. Very weird.
I caught most of this interview and some things that stood out for me are as follows:
  • "Decided not to have a press conference because we weren't going to answer questions"
  • "Unfortunately Cora was asked questions....he is obligated to do pre-game and post-game"......Did they not expect him to be asked or did they knowingly throw him to the wolves?
  • When pressed about organizations willingness to face questions about future transactions...."Will make case by case decision"
  • When asked what is the goal of the organization? ......"We want to win at ALL levels of the organization".......I took this to mean rebuild the farm
  • When asked if Cora's job is safe....."Yes, we Love Cora. We couldn't ask for a better manager"....Perhaps the only question he answered and did not appear to be dancing.
  • When asked why Papi first pitch was only announced 30 min beforehand....."Papi requested to throw out the first pitch two days ago and they all wanted to be a surprise"
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
11,859
I'm skeptical of the source. It's obviously not coming from Henry or Werner, and I can't see it coming from Kennedy. I'm not sure who else is in the position to make such assertions while having credible knowledge of why DD was let go. And I'm also not seeing any executive that high up openly admitting that the Red Sox are willing to let JDM and Mookie walk, a decision that would be massively unpopular with the fans.

My guess? Frank Wren is upset and is mouthing off.
Or Dombrowski himself?
 

scottyno

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
4,892
Letting Betts walk without even trying to keep him would be an absolutely insane decision, I can't possibly believe that's on the table.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,587
I have trouble believing the Sox ownership team would make such specific strategies public. The end result may be the same, but I don't see the team openly saying they will go into tank mode.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
25,744
I caught most of this interview and some things that stood out for me are as follows:
  • "Decided not to have a press conference because we weren't going to answer questions"
  • "Unfortunately Cora was asked questions....he is obligated to do pre-game and post-game"......Did they not expect him to be asked or did they knowingly throw him to the wolves?
  • When pressed about organizations willingness to face questions about future transactions...."Will make case by case decision"
  • When asked what is the goal of the organization? ......"We want to win at ALL levels of the organization".......I took this to mean rebuild the farm
  • When asked if Cora's job is safe....."Yes, we Love Cora. We couldn't ask for a better manager"....Perhaps the only question he answered and did not appear to be dancing.
  • When asked why Papi first pitch was only announced 30 min beforehand....."Papi requested to throw out the first pitch two days ago and they all wanted to be a surprise"

Thanks for the recap. The weasel score is off the charts.

View: https://youtu.be/LMFZGb4Mdgc?t=103