Let's Talk about Dave

Status
Not open for further replies.

chicubs

lurker
Dec 4, 2015
7
So, here's a pretty decent article about how DD has leveraged the Red Sox's resources better than Cherington in acquiring Young, Price, and Kimbrel.

Do you guys agree?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

chicubs

lurker
Dec 4, 2015
7
Also, was the amount given for Kimbrel too high? I think it was a bit of an overpay but the Sox could afford it.
 

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Staff member
Dope
Apr 9, 2007
13,629
Washington
How the fuck can anyone say DD has done anything better than Cherington when the Sox haven't even played yet?
 

chicubs

lurker
Dec 4, 2015
7
How the fuck can anyone say DD has done anything better than Cherington when the Sox haven't even played yet?
Acquisition-wise you can say he has done better.

Cherington got Rameriz and Sandavol and no starting pitching. You saw how that turned out.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
27,256
The article presumes that Cherington had the same authority to spend money that DD does. Also, the situations and available free agents are (obviously) different.
 

chicubs

lurker
Dec 4, 2015
7
The article presumes that Cherington had the same authority to spend money that DD does. Also, the situations and available free agents are (obviously) different.
Ah yes, good catch. Though, the Red Sox FO said relatively the same and it's still surprisingly they allowed DD to shell out a huge contract like that.
 

buzzard21

lurker
Jul 15, 2005
125
NW CT
I know Miley & Porcello are not of the caliber of Price, but they were acquired by Cherington last off season, so you cant with a straight face say no starting pitching..
 

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Staff member
Dope
Apr 9, 2007
13,629
Washington
Acquisition-wise, the Sox were awesome in December 2010. It doesn't mean much until games are won or lost.
 

kieckeredinthehead

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
8,168
How the fuck can anyone say DD has done anything better than Cherington when the Sox haven't even played yet?
Acquisition-wise, the Sox were awesome in December 2010. It doesn't mean much until games are won or lost.
Ah yes, the Monday Morning Quarterback approach to judging management decisions. Decisions can be good even if they don't work out. We can also learn why they were bad decisions in retrospect based on why the didn't work out. Both are valid ways of assessing performance.
 

The Allented Mr Ripley

holden
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2003
12,241
South Shore, MA
Ah yes, good catch. Though, the Red Sox FO said relatively the same and it's still surprisingly they allowed DD to shell out a huge contract like that.
I'm sure DD came on board with assurances he had final say over all baseball ops decisions, including financial ones. He wouldn't have accepted the job otherwise.
 

rembrat

Member
SoSH Member
May 26, 2006
36,343
Ah yes, good catch. Though, the Red Sox FO said relatively the same and it's still surprisingly they allowed DD to shell out a huge contract like that.
New figureheads tend to get free reign early on in their tenures so it's really not surprising.

I'll bet you anything if Price bombs, Kimbrel blows, and a few more blue chip prospects get shipped out and they still rack up last place finishes you'll see DD resort to dumpster diving for starting pitching just like Ben had to do.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
12,797
Seattle, WA
It's not a zero-sum game. Both men can be good or bad at certain things. I don't understand the need for comparison, particularly at this early stage.

Furthermore, the article goes on to rave about the farm system, but gives no credit to the previous regime for developing it.

It's also got this bullshit line:

Without a doubt, past Red Sox executives Theo Epstein and Ben Cherington would have never made this deal, much less even consider it.
What do they think Epstein and Cherington were doing with the farm? Hoarding players to keep in the farm-bank? Their whole strategy behind having a deep system was to combine keeping some cost-controlled players and trading some others. The writer has no idea what he's talking about and that quote is 100% crap speculation.

Lastly, the writers include a homerun overlay for Young and state, without qualification:

All of his 2015 homeruns would have cleared the Green Monster easily.
Really? Have they done the analysis that includes a 30+ foot wall sticking it's head up out of the turf? Every one of those homeruns would have "easily cleared the wall"? Prove it. I'm not going to waste my time.

Poorly written and researched article.
 

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,619
Mid-surburbia
Ah yes, good catch. Though, the Red Sox FO said relatively the same and it's still surprisingly they allowed DD to shell out a huge contract like that.
This is just Theo in disguise testing the waters for a possible return now that we've got Price and Kimbrel, isn't it?

Edit: "Theo Incognito" would have been an amazing handle circa 2010
 

Maximus

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
5,563
DD has done a nice job so far of identifying needs/priorities and executing in filling those needs with elite talent (Price, Kimbrel). He also understands that he has a good core of young, cost controlled talent with more talent on the way ( Moncada, Benitendi, etc.). I like his approach.
 

twothousandone

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 18, 2001
3,976
Without a doubt, past Red Sox executives Theo Epstein and Ben Cherington would have never made this deal, much less even consider it.
Shouldn't the phrasing be changed? They wouldn't have considered it, much less made it? Of course they would have considered it.
 

chicubs

lurker
Dec 4, 2015
7
Shouldn't the phrasing be changed? They wouldn't have considered it, much less made it? Of course they would have considered it.
I doubt it. Many people across the basebal world saw Margot for Kimbrel a fair enough trade. Adding in three more pieces is something only DD would do, in my opinion.
 

Adrian's Dome

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2010
4,424
How the fuck can anyone say DD has done anything better than Cherington when the Sox haven't even played yet?
Because DD came in, identified the team's biggest weaknesses, said what he was going to do to address them, then did exactly that? If the moves don't work so be it, but that doesn't make them incorrect ones. This isn't Crawford and Lackey, much as you may hope it is.

Ben could've easily fielded a similarly competitive team without throwing a boatload of cash at Castillo, Sandoval, and Hanley, all of whom were unnecessary pieces. Ben using that money from those three on Scherzer and Miller with Holt at 3B and an OF of Betts, Bradley Jr, and Nava/Victorino would've surely been a better use of his available resources, no? Not to mention it's not all that dissimilar from DD acquiring Kimbrel and Price.

Ben built a fantastic farm system. His track record with the major league squad was suspect.
 

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Staff member
Dope
Apr 9, 2007
13,629
Washington
It's your position that a correct decision can't have a bad outcome?
Of course not. But when evaluating the decision making of a professional sports team, assessments that include zero inputs from the field of play aren't worth much at all. Do you really think a reasonable assessment of Dave Dombrowski and comparison with Cherington can be made right now? Just based on the signing of a few players?
 

czar

fanboy
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
4,217
Ann Arbor
I seem to remember a decent chunk of folks (both here, and in the baseball media) being very on board with the Hanley signing. Many (feels like less so) were also on board with Sandoval. Some of us weren't (particularly Sandoval), but I think it's the epitome of MMQBing to call out Cherington for those moves and laud DD for others.
 

czar

fanboy
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
4,217
Ann Arbor
Because DD came in, identified the team's biggest weaknesses, said what he was going to do to address them, then did exactly that? If the moves don't work so be it, but that doesn't make them incorrect ones. This isn't Crawford and Lackey, much as you may hope it is.

Ben could've easily fielded a similarly competitive team without throwing a boatload of cash at Castillo, Sandoval, and Hanley, all of whom were unnecessary pieces. Ben using that money from those three on Scherzer and Miller with Holt at 3B and an OF of Betts, Bradley Jr, and Nava/Victorino would've surely been a better use of his available resources, no? Not to mention it's not all that dissimilar from DD acquiring Kimbrel and Price.

Ben built a fantastic farm system. His track record with the major league squad was suspect.
Hindsight. Again, I'm not in the mood to dig up the threads or other articles, but there was a lot of talk about how RH power is way down (in both the Sox system and baseball as a whole) and, particularly Castillo and Hanley, were ways to address that deficiency w/o dipping into the farm.

Looking back, they turned out to be at best tepid (Castillo) or terrible (Hanley/Sandoval). But like Price/Kimbrel this offseason, at the time, a lot of people liked some of Ben's signings, FBOFW.

I can't think of one reputable group of folks that had the Sox tanking last year in the preseason...
 

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Staff member
Dope
Apr 9, 2007
13,629
Washington
Because DD came in, identified the team's biggest weaknesses, said what he was going to do to address them, then did exactly that? If the moves don't work so be it, but that doesn't make them incorrect ones. This isn't Crawford and Lackey, much as you may hope it is.

Ben could've easily fielded a similarly competitive team without throwing a boatload of cash at Castillo, Sandoval, and Hanley, all of whom were unnecessary pieces. Ben using that money from those three on Scherzer and Miller with Holt at 3B and an OF of Betts, Bradley Jr, and Nava/Victorino would've surely been a better use of his available resources, no? Not to mention it's not all that dissimilar from DD acquiring Kimbrel and Price.

Ben built a fantastic farm system. His track record with the major league squad was suspect.
Holy shit. You want to evaluate Cherington based on how some of his decisions played out on the field against how you think Dombrowski's will do.

A guy shows up here to pimp his blog and some of you just go crazy.

I don't have a dog in the fight between BC and DD. Just calling out silliness when I see it.
 

pokey_reese

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jun 25, 2008
15,059
Eugene, OR
I seem to remember a decent chunk of folks (both here, and in the baseball media) being very on board with the Hanley signing. Many (feels like less so) were also on board with Sandoval. Some of us weren't (particularly Sandoval), but I think it's the epitome of MMQBing to call out Cherington for those moves and laud DD for others.
I was just about to post this, so I'm glad that I read all the way to the bottom before replying. The Hanley signing, as I recall, was seen as a coup largely because it was for fewer years than most people had assumed he would get, and because the FO was being creative in trying to get his bat into the lineup by trying him in LF. Obviously, it failed spectacularly, but remember April? When he was absolutely destroying the ball and was the hitter everyone assumed he would be? No one was criticizing Ben for the move at that point, and Porcello looked great in his first start, too. I'm not saying that Price is likely to fail out of the gate, just that the hindsight arguments aren't useful.
 

Adrian's Dome

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2010
4,424
Hindsight. Again, I'm not in the mood to dig up the threads or other articles, but there was a lot of talk about how RH power is way down (in both the Sox system and baseball as a whole) and, particularly Castillo and Hanley, were ways to address that deficiency w/o dipping into the farm.

Looking back, they turned out to be at best tepid (Castillo) or terrible (Hanley/Sandoval). But like Price/Kimbrel this offseason, at the time, a lot of people liked some of Ben's signings, FBOFW.

I can't think of one reputable group of folks that had the Sox tanking last year in the preseason...
Hindsight is 20/20, but I remember many of us, myself included, questioning those moves. That team was far from universally loved. There was a lot of backlash over Sandoval's 5-year decline, Hanley's inexperience in the OF (when the OF was already logjammed,) the Breslow signing (and bullpen depth in general,) the Porcello and Miley extensions, and the lack of a true front-end starter.

This season, it's hard to admit DD didn't look squarely at the team, identify the issues, and go hard to address them. If it works out or not will be hindsight, but the theory behind the moves isn't.
 

Adrian's Dome

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2010
4,424
Holy shit. You want to evaluate Cherington based on how some of his decisions played out on the field against how you think Dombrowski's will do.

A guy shows up here to pimp his blog and some of you just go crazy.

I don't have a dog in the fight between BC and DD. Just calling out silliness when I see it.
Holy shit? I'm evaluating Cherington based on years of results and his methodology when it came to his past moves.

We've already stated twice over that we're not talking about the results of DD's moves, we're talking about the motivations behind them. Everything he's done to this point has made perfect sense (trading from minor league excess in areas of strength to address the bullpen, using the financial resources to patch the biggest issue on the team with a #1 starter and solid backup depth in the OF.) Nothing he's done has been head-scratching, you cannot say the same for Ben's moves, and no, that's not in retrospect.
 

kieckeredinthehead

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
8,168
Of course not. But when evaluating the decision making of a professional sports team, assessments that include zero inputs from the field of play aren't worth much at all. Do you really think a reasonable assessment of Dave Dombrowski and comparison with Cherington can be made right now? Just based on the signing of a few players?
The fundamental premise when we talk about sports is that events aren't entirely predictable. There is tension between what could have happened and what did happen. There is ultimately no way to resolve the difference, which leads to the existence of this message board. You'll note that there's no sub forum for the 100m dash. Take the Hanley example. Yes we can blame Cherington for his on field performance in 2015. But we don't for sure know how much was a poor evaluation of his ability to play left field and how much was due to the shoulder injury sapping his power. (Those are confounded because the poor fielding led to the injury). We can blame Cherington for not resigning Lester and going with the rotation of #2s, but we don't know for sure how much is based on Clay underperforming his peripherals and then getting injured; or how much of the pitcher decline was related to poor fielding. We judge GMs on both side of the decision because it's not possible or fair to judge them independent of either.

If we are going to judge GMs purely on team results then I am much more confident Dombrowski will be a better GM this year than Cherington was last year. If we are judging them based on the wisdom of their moves, well, that's why we're here.
 

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Staff member
Dope
Apr 9, 2007
13,629
Washington
Holy shit? I'm evaluating Cherington based on years of results and his methodology when it came to his past moves.

We've already stated twice over that we're not talking about the results of DD's moves, we're talking about the motivations behind them. Everything he's done to this point has made perfect sense (trading from minor league excess in areas of strength to address the bullpen, using the financial resources to patch the biggest issue on the team with a #1 starter and solid backup depth in the OF.) Nothing he's done has been head-scratching, you cannot say the same for Ben's moves, and no, that's not in retrospect.
DD's biggest move has been to sign a 30 year old pitcher to a 7 year contract. Previous to this decision, we've all read tons of posts here, and articles/pundit commentary elsewhere about Boston cracking the code on player acquisition and how smart they were not to assume the risks inherent in signing 30 year old pitchers to such deals. People lauded that methodology then, but not now. Why? Results of course. And now some of you want to extol the virtues of DD's methodology without waiting for results to see how it works out. You aren't comparing BC's methodology sans results with DD's. It isn't an honest assessment.

Seems more like a measurement of fan excitement.

If we are going to judge GMs purely on team results then I am much more confident Dombrowski will be a better GM this year than Cherington was last year. If we are judging them based on the wisdom of their moves, well, that's why we're here.
Are you going to judge them based on the wisdom of their moves with zero consideration of how those individual players play? You have data on how players Cherington acquired performed for Boston. You'll get even more next season. You don't have any of that for DD's acquisitions yet.
 

kieckeredinthehead

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
8,168
Are you going to judge them based on the wisdom of their moves with zero consideration of how those individual players play? You have data on how players Cherington acquired performed for Boston. You'll get even more next season. You don't have any of that for DD's acquisitions yet.
No, which is why I said in my original post that both parts were important. Remember the part you left out of your quote?
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
12,982
I hate the comparisons already. For one, it's not Dombrowski vs. Cherington, it's Dombrowski/Hazen vs. Lucchino/Cherington. We can only speculate among the dribs and drabs of press clippings on how much influence Lucchino had vs. Cherington into baseball decisions. But we know for one important decision, finding a manager for 2012, it was almost 100% Lucchino's decision to bring on Bobby Valentine.


Because DD came in, identified the team's biggest weaknesses, said what he was going to do to address them, then did exactly that? If the moves don't work so be it, but that doesn't make them incorrect ones. This isn't Crawford and Lackey, much as you may hope it is.

Ben could've easily fielded a similarly competitive team without throwing a boatload of cash at Castillo, Sandoval, and Hanley, all of whom were unnecessary pieces. Ben using that money from those three on Scherzer and Miller with Holt at 3B and an OF of Betts, Bradley Jr, and Nava/Victorino would've surely been a better use of his available resources, no? Not to mention it's not all that dissimilar from DD acquiring Kimbrel and Price.

Ben built a fantastic farm system. His track record with the major league squad was suspect.
I don't know about that. Victorino was hurting, and Nava was terrible last season. And Castillo's signing is a bit of a red herring here
 

Adrian's Dome

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2010
4,424
DD's biggest move has been to sign a 30 year old pitcher to a 7 year contract. Previous to this decision, we've all read tons of posts here, and articles/pundit commentary elsewhere about Boston cracking the code on player acquisition and how smart they were not to assume the risks inherent in signing 30 year old pitchers to such deals. People lauded that methodology then, but not now. Why? Results of course. And now some of you want to extol the virtues of DD's methodology without waiting for results to see how it works out. You aren't comparing BC's methodology sans results with DD's. It isn't an honest assessment.

Seems more like a measurement of fan excitement.
So, at first, only results matter, and now they don't. Great argument.

Garbage hyperbole at its finest. All we're talking about is the wisdom of identification of the issues on the major league squad and how he went about filling those holes. You're the one standing there flailing your arms yelling about how it's probably just Lackey/Crawford 2.0.

I don't know about that. Victorino was hurting, and Nava was terrible last season. And Castillo's signing is a bit of a red herring here
They were pretty much the perfect platoon. Nava hit RHP, Shane hit LHP. When utilized correctly, both could be played to their strengths and rested aptly.
 
May 30, 2014
383
You know the world has gone upside down when you've got a Yankee fan being the voice of reason (in my opinion), while Sox fans fall over themselves to laud the genius of giving the highest contract ever to a 30+ year old pitcher. On SOSH. The irony is blinding, and I'm a Sox fan.
 

Pilgrim

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2006
2,296
Jamaica Plain
DD's biggest move has been to sign a 30 year old pitcher to a 7 year contract. Previous to this decision, we've all read tons of posts here, and articles/pundit commentary elsewhere about Boston cracking the code on player acquisition and how smart they were not to assume the risks inherent in signing 30 year old pitchers to such deals. People lauded that methodology then, but not now. Why? Results of course. And now some of you want to extol the virtues of DD's methodology without waiting for results to see how it works out. You aren't comparing BC's methodology sans results with DD's. It isn't an honest assessment.

Seems more like a measurement of fan excitement.



Are you going to judge them based on the wisdom of their moves with zero consideration of how those individual players play? You have data on how players Cherington acquired performed for Boston. You'll get even more next season. You don't have any of that for DD's acquisitions yet.
I'd like to introduce you to the 15 page complaint thread about trading prospects for an elite reliever.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.