Red Sox announce Dave Dombrowski is their new president of baseball operations.

shepard50

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 18, 2006
8,167
Sydney, Australia
ehaz said:
That's a cool link, and the thesis it's grabbed from (Pollis's economics thesis at Brown: Rethinking the Market for Major League Baseball) is a great scan.

The rankings below (and which 538 reference) are combined trade and FA signingsfor GMs from 1995-2013. Dombrowski's positive ranking is based wholly on his trades score (his FA score is slightly negative). Cherington is 2/3rds of the way down the whole list and Baird is almost at the bottom.

http://sabr.org/sites/default/files/Pollis-Lewis-If_You_Build_It-2014-04.pdf
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
19,863
St. Louis, MO
Seems pretty evident that with DD's strength in trading, and Henry's aversion to long term FA deals for starters, that Henry wanted DD handling a crucial period where we will inevitably be moving key prospects for pitching.

Ben missed his window on selling high on Cecchini, Owens and others and the system is a bit swollen right now.

Not for long.
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
JimBoSox9 said:
 
None of those contracts are even close to having the book written on them.  Did everyone here just stop paying attention to Fielder after one down year, or do you realize he's murderizing the ball this year?
 
And the contracts for Ramirez, Porcello and Sandoval aren't even close to having the book written on them, but Ben Cherington took the hit for them, while Dombrowski gets a new job with Complete Control.  And all of the Sox "bad" contracts are shorter term, and, at least in the case of Panda and Porcello, you have two players under 30.  And, yes, I have paid attention to Fielder having a year as a full time DH, making $24 million per year, and having an OPS+ of 140 to David Ortiz with an OPS+ of 132.  And Fielder has 5 more years of $24 million.  That's not a great deal, even with the rebound year by Porky.
 

Laser Show

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 7, 2008
5,094
tomdeplonty said:
I've been thinking about the "three of the last four years" and "wild overreactions" narrative. It's actually six of the last seven years.
 
2009 and 2010 were lackluster seasons. Maybe you discount 2010 when the team was just decimated by injury. But 2011 must have come as a nasty shock. That team spent the summer destroying everything in sight, and we all know how it ended.
This is revisionist history. "Lackluster" seasons are winning 95 games and the wild card, 89 games despite injuries to Pedroia and Buchholz, and 90 games (missing the playoffs by 1 game)?
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
19,863
St. Louis, MO
Laser Show said:
This is revisionist history. "Lackluster" seasons are winning 95 games and the wild card, 89 games despite injuries to Pedroia and Buchholz, and 90 games (missing the playoffs by 1 game)?
A better way to say it might be that outside of 2013 they haven't won a playoff game since 2008.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,371
GreyisGone said:
This is a real strange article. You can't ignore the MLB team has sucked 3 of the last 4 years and basically every move made the last 2 years has been awful. It's the GMs job to win MLB games, not the top prospects rankings. The article basically says Ben should run a minor league scouting department not build an MLB roster.
 
It also paints the DD hire in the most reactionary terms, ignoring Henry's history with DD and that this is the guy he would have hired from Day 1 in Boston if the circumstances had allowed for it. Passan also harps on instability yet Cherrington was here forever.
 

SoxLegacy

New Member
Oct 30, 2008
629
Maryland
Laser Show said:
This is revisionist history. "Lackluster" seasons are winning 95 games and the wild card, 89 games despite injuries to Pedroia and Buchholz, and 90 games (missing the playoffs by 1 game)?
This. I like to see the Sox win, but have we become the Yankees in that a World Series championship is the only acceptable outcome?
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
shepard50 said:
While I agree with your assessment, I disagree with your language.

It might be more fair to say that "this is 100% UNPROVEN"

The Red Sox have finished last 3 out of 4 years, which is, in fact, perennial mediocrity.
 
Finishing last regularly isn't perennial mediocrity.  It's perennial suckitude.
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
bosockboy said:
Seems pretty evident that with DD's strength in trading, and Henry's aversion to long term FA deals for starters, that Henry wanted DD handling a crucial period where we will inevitably be moving key prospects for pitching.

Ben missed his window on selling high on Cecchini, Owens and others and the system is a bit swollen right now.

Not for long.
Good point. I don't look at it quite like that though. Remember that David Price is a guy who is available, will not cost a pick and someone who we know that will interest Dombrowski in free agency. I think this pretty much links Boston to him and might actually give them an advantage.

If they strike out on him Cueto or Zimmerman then yeah it's probably time to make a trade or two. I feel much more confident in DD trading prospects for a star than I would Ben. They need 400 dependable innings from somewhere and you can get by without having a true ace but you better have 2 borderline aces to fix the issue. 5 #3-4 obviously is not the answer.
 

dynomite

Member
SoSH Member
Wow.

Theo and Francona to Cherington and Farrell felt to me like a linear transition, ugly as it got at the end of 2011. So much of the rest of the organization remained in place.

This is a sea change.

Whatever happens from here on, I first and foremost want to express my deepest gratitude to the legions of front office and baseball ops folks who worked for the team in the Theo/Cherington era. If any of you are reading this, thank you so much for bringing me and this entire region more joy and contentment as a Red Sox fan than I would have ever thought possible. And if our paths should cross, let me know -- the beer's on me.
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
SoxLegacy said:
This. I like to see the Sox win, but have we become the Yankees in that a World Series championship is the only acceptable outcome?
 
Still, can you imagine if John Henry & Co had brought in Dombrowski to be GM when he purchased the team?  And after 13+ years of wild spending, 5 playoff appearances and 2 more WS losses, could you imagine the angst of Red Sox nation?  Hearing 1918, nearing 100 years without a Championship, and having a franchise in ruins with bloated, long-term contracts and a barren farm-system?  Dombrowski would be in the Red Sox Hall of Shame with Grady Little and Heywood Sullivan.
 

Laser Show

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 7, 2008
5,094
Toe Nash said:
Because Papelbon blew a save...this is stupid.
I agree. We all know the a large percentage of the playoffs is a crap shoot, right?

Losses in the playoffs don't mean anything as far as what the team's strengths and weaknesses are. At least not anything you shouldn't already know.
 

BeantownIdaho

New Member
Dec 5, 2005
481
Nampa, Idaho
For the amount of support for this change, which I do agree it was needed, what will happen when a beloved youngster gets traded (As it is very well known Dom will do to upgrade the ML roster)? Obviously it depends on who that is. Looking at things TODAY - Betts, Castillo, JBJ, Vasquez, and ERod should all be off-limits - this should have been in his contract. 
 

OCD SS

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
bosockboy said:
Ben missed his window on selling high on Cecchini, Owens and others and the system is a bit swollen right now.

Not for long.
 
He only missed on selling high if other GMs were offering actual value for these players. I've seen no real rumors swirling around them, and I doubt you have any inside info that he held on to them. I think it's more likely that they weren't traded because other teams saw them similarly as we do (most expendable) and the return wasn't enough that it was worth any more than extra depth.
 
The idea that Ben hoarded prospects and wouldn't deal them is baseless.
 

FanSinceBoggs

seantwo
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2009
937
New York
I like Dipoto but he isn’t the kind of guy you hire for a subordinate GM position with a baseball traditionalist (of sorts) as his superior.  Dipoto would handle that situation about as well as he handled his situation with the Angels.
 
The Red Sox are at a crucial juncture, they will need to make some big decisions regarding free agency and trades and Henry obviously didn't trust Cherington to make these moves.  I can't fault Henry for reaching that conclusion.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
bosockboy said:
Seems pretty evident that with DD's strength in trading, and Henry's aversion to long term FA deals for starters, that Henry wanted DD handling a crucial period where we will inevitably be moving key prospects for pitching.

Ben missed his window on selling high on Cecchini, Owens and others and the system is a bit swollen right now.

Not for long.
edit: nm
 

jscola85

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
1,305
FanSinceBoggs said:
I like Dipoto but he isn’t the kind of guy you hire for a subordinate GM position with a baseball traditionalist (of sorts) as his superior.  Dipoto would handle that situation about as well as he handled his situation with the Angels.
 
The Red Sox are at a crucial juncture, they will need to make some big decisions regarding free agency and trades and Henry obviously didn't trust Cherington to make these moves.  I can't fault Henry for reaching that conclusion.
 
Why do you say that?  Dave Dombrowski is not Arte Moreno.  Moreno was trying to do a George Steinbrenner impression in Anaheim, which is a lot different than working for a guy like Dombrowski with the track record he has.  I don't think there's this wide chasm between sabermetrics and Dombrowski.  He's no Ruben Amaro.  And given Henry's serious analytical bent as he built up his vast wealth, I don't think he's going to toss out the decade-plus focus on analytics that the current organization was built upon and generated 3 WS titles.
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
13,633
Springfield, VA
What people seem to be forgetting is thta Dombrowski isn't taking Cherington's place.  He's replacing Lucchino.  Do people here really think Lucchino to Dombrowski isn't an upgrade? 
 
LL did a great job with Fenway (bringing in Janet Marie Smith for example), but the rest of his tenure doesn't have much to show for it.  He basically forced Theo out the door.  He was singlehanded responsbile for the Bobby Valentine disaster.  I'll take Dombrowski's track record managing a franchise over LL's any day of the week.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,463
BeantownIdaho said:
For the amount of support for this change, which I do agree it was needed, what will happen when a beloved youngster gets traded (As it is very well known Dom will do to upgrade the ML roster)? Obviously it depends on who that is. Looking at things TODAY - Betts, Castillo, JBJ, Vasquez, and ERod should all be off-limits - this should have been in his contract. 
JBJ and Vasquez?
 

Redkluzu

tortures mice
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2007
2,651
Bostonish...see Wiki for "ish"
Still aghast that this happens when John Farrell goes in for cancer treatment. Obviously he must have known what was going on but the one two three punch feels just awful to me. I do hope he gets a job he wants although certainly, we won't really know yes or no.
 

Laser Show

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 7, 2008
5,094
AB in DC said:
What people seem to be forgetting is thta Dombrowski isn't taking Cherington's place.  He's replacing Lucchino.  Do people here really think Lucchino to Dombrowski isn't an upgrade? 
 
LL did a great job with Fenway (bringing in Janet Marie Smith for example), but the rest of his tenure doesn't have much to show for it. 
You know, besides the 3 world series wins.

Edit: As a baseball ops mind, Dombrowski is likely better yes. But Lucchino was no slouch.
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,599
NY
I don't really understand the very premature hand wringing over the possibility that DD trades some of the prospects.  Having a great farm system provides two advantages: 1)It allows the team to fill some of the roster with cheap but productive players; and 2)It allows the team to use some of those assets to acquire less risky players at positions of greater need.
 
No one is suggesting that they adopt the Yankees' approach of the 90s and 00s by trading pretty much every prospect for older, more expensive players.  But if you can turn some of the prospects, especially guys who are at least somewhat blocked, into relatively cost-controlled pitching upgrades or maybe a 1B, I don't see how that wouldn't be a good use of resources.  Boston isn't going to field a team comprised of 90% home grown, pre-arb and arb players.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
I don't really understand the very premature hand wringing over the possibility that DD trades some of the prospects.  Having a great farm system provides two advantages: 1)It allows the team to fill some of the roster with cheap but productive players; and 2)It allows the team to use some of those assets to acquire less risky players at positions of greater need.
 
No one is suggesting that they adopt the Yankees' approach of the 90s and 00s by trading pretty much every prospect for older, more expensive players.  But if you can turn some of the prospects, especially guys who are at least somewhat blocked, into relatively cost-controlled pitching upgrades or maybe a 1B, I don't see how that wouldn't be a good use of resources.  Boston isn't going to field a team comprised of 90% home grown, pre-arb and arb players.
 
 
Right.  Trading Buhner for Phelps when they already had Mattingly is not the same as trading some prospects for a pitcher who fills a glaring hole at pitcher that exists right now.
 

LuckyBen

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 5, 2012
3,396
glennhoffmania said:
I don't really understand the very premature hand wringing over the possibility that DD trades some of the prospects.  Having a great farm system provides two advantages: 1)It allows the team to fill some of the roster with cheap but productive players; and 2)It allows the team to use some of those assets to acquire less risky players at positions of greater need.
 
No one is suggesting that they adopt the Yankees' approach of the 90s and 00s by trading pretty much every prospect for older, more expensive players.  But if you can turn some of the prospects, especially guys who are at least somewhat blocked, into relatively cost-controlled pitching upgrades or maybe a 1B, I don't see how that wouldn't be a good use of resources.  Boston isn't going to field a team comprised of 90% home grown, pre-arb and arb players.
 
Not to mention people would fall over themselves for AA who just gutted his system.  I don't want to trade any of our young talent, but we are not getting a young stud without giving up substantial talent in trade. 
 

Jimy Hendrix

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 15, 2002
5,846
If this year's winning percentage holds, 2014/2015 will be the worst two consecutive years for the Red Sox by winning percentage since 1965/1966. The only stretch in between that even comes close is the fading years of Gorman in the early 90s.

Of course, that doesn't include the 2013 series run, which was magical, but it also doesn't include the Valentine year, which was the precise opposite of magical.

I don't know if Dombrowski's the answer, but the major league performance of the team during Cherington's tenure has been awful, and not just awful compared to high expectations but legitimately awful three out of four years.

I'm as excited by the farm system Cherington's built as anybody, but the Red Sox have been a bad baseball team under his watch by and large.
 

ehaz

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2007
4,948
I'm open for trading prospects, and it's probably going to happen.  Lets just hope we don't see Dombrowski's Red Sox version of Randy Johnson for two months of Mark Langston.
 

Hank Scorpio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 1, 2013
6,919
Salem, NH
BeantownIdaho said:
For the amount of support for this change, which I do agree it was needed, what will happen when a beloved youngster gets traded (As it is very well known Dom will do to upgrade the ML roster)? Obviously it depends on who that is. Looking at things TODAY - Betts, Castillo, JBJ, Vasquez, and ERod should all be off-limits - this should have been in his contract. 
 

Why? I wouldn't trade Betts or ERod, but Castillo, JBJ and Vasquez, while good young players, are either more expensive (Castillo), older (all three), or haven't shown as much at the major league level over a larger sample size (all three). Vasquez is coming off major surgery and is somewhat redundant with Swihart. If we're stuck with Hanley in LF, we only need one of JBJ or Castillo. By the time Ortiz is gone and Hanley moves to DH, Margot and/or Benintendi will be ready or close to it.
 
I'd like to have an outfield of Betts/JBJ/Castillo next year, with Swihart/Vasquez handling the catching duties, but I'd say Betts and Swihart are the only untouchables of those five players.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
BeantownIdaho said:
For the amount of support for this change, which I do agree it was needed, what will happen when a beloved youngster gets traded (As it is very well known Dom will do to upgrade the ML roster)? Obviously it depends on who that is. Looking at things TODAY - Betts, Castillo, JBJ, Vasquez, and ERod should all be off-limits - this should have been in his contract.
 
Really? So you'd turn down Betts for Harper? Castillo for Goldschmidt? JBJ for Rizzo?
 
Not that any of those deals are going to happen, of course--the point just being, again, that nobody should be off limits. You may just set a high bar for dealing certain guys because they project to provide you with great bang for buck. If somebody knocks you over with an offer that meets that high bar, you don't say "sorry, but that guy is off limits."
 
I'm as much of a prospect addict as anybody around here, but young players are awesome because they can produce cheap wins. If you can convert some of them into less cheap, but still affordable wins that are more certain or more near-term, that's a perfectly valid thing to do as long as you don't do it so much that you mortgage the long term for the short. And the whole point, or at least a large part of the point, of building a farm system as deep as ours is to give management choices of that kind. When you have Betts, JBJ and Castillo, you can deal one of them. When you have Margot, Devers and Moncada, you can deal one of them. Et cetera. Just make sure you get full value.
 
Maybe Dombrowski will do a little more of this kind of thing than some of us are comfortable with, but saying he shouldn't do it at all is asking him to run the team with one hand behind his back. Young players should not be treated like binkies or sacred cows; they're sources of value, whether they're played or cashed in.
 

jscola85

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
1,305
Many of the deals Dombrowski has done have not been prospect-laden deals - most often they are MLB for MLB swaps. And has done a good job of that by and large in his deals for the Tigers.  Maybin and Miller have become solid players now but the Cabrera deal was a heist in favor of the Tigers.  The Max Scherzer trade was another deal mainly made up with MLB players, swapping Grandy and Edwin Jackson for Scherzer, Coke and Jackson - a home run deal for Detroit.  Trading effectively Avisail Garcia for Jose Iglesias was a great trade too.  Austin Jackson and Drew Smyly have not been missed in Detroit as the centerpieces of the Price trade, nor has Willy Adames torn the cover off the ball.  And the Kinsler deal has clearly been a win.
 
In those deals, very few guys were traded who were not at or on the cusp of reaching the majors.  Really only Willy Adames was a lotto-ticket upside piece moved by the Tigers.  By and large, Dombrowski has traded away/for guys who have a length MiLB track record to evaluate and/or some experience in the majors to see how they fared.  So, in seeing that, I don't all of a sudden expect him to be dealing guys like Espinoza, Moncada, Devers, et al in order to swing a big trade.  More likely, we may see guys like Swihart, Vazquez, or even Betts/Bogaerts/Rodriguez get traded.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,277
 
 
Boston, of course, is not a vacuum. The Red Sox operate in a parallel universe, the modern-day equivalent of George Steinbrenner's Yankees, hiring and firing at a pace so frenetic, so harried, that anyone who takes a job with Boston does so aware that the guillotine undergoes regular sharpening on Yawkey Way. Gone this time is general manager Ben Cherington, who sandwiched a 2013 World Series victory in among what's likely to be three last-place finishes in '12, '14 and '15. Rather than hang around as Dombrowski's GM, Cherington chose to leave, a decision the organization didn't expect, sources told Yahoo Sports.
 
 
 
 
That's not Dombrowski. He draws plaudits from around the sport for his leadership skills, and while Boston needs exactly that sort of person, the question is whether he'll be given the breathing room to thrive, the autonomy to escape the vortex into which even the most talented people in Boston find themselves sucked. Dombrowski is going to hire a GM, with Frank Wren or Dan O'Dowd the most prominent possibilities, according to sources, and from there he'll import a new inner circle.
 
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/short-sightedness-of-the-red-sox-will-work-only-if-they-give-dave-dombrowski-autonomy-long-065034098.html
 

OCD SS

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
FanSinceBoggs said:
Interesting article here, very much in support of the Dombrowski hiring:
http://www.overthemonster.com/2015/8/19/9175243/dave-dombrowski-red-sox-ben-cherington-fired
 
Um, this:
 
 
And all things considered, none of these contracts looks worse than the signings of Hanley RamirezPablo Sandoval or Rick Porcello.
doesn't necessarily track. Even with the bad years they've had I'm much more optimistic about the shorter term contracts the Sox gave out to guys on a better spot of the aging curve than I am for the mammoth amounts of money owed in what are inarguably going to be post-peak years.
 

DanoooME

above replacement level
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2008
19,831
Henderson, NV
One thing that will come out of this change is DD won't be beholden to keeping any of the overpaid perceived dead wood on the roster like Pablo, Hanley, Castillo, Porcello, Craig.  This will make it easier to make deals, since these aren't DD's "guys".  It doesn't necessarily mean they are getting traded; it just means he doesn't have an attachment to those guys that Ben would because they weren't his signings.  I would hope if DD is going to deal those players he does try and get some value for them.  
 
So the people calling for these guys to dealt in all of the other threads here on the board should be happy because the possibility of those potential deals happening just went up from infinitesimal to at least a positive integer.
 
Personally I am on the fence about the DD hiring, because I need to research his situations further.  He's had opportunities to build in all of his stops and has done well for the most part, but this team really needs tweaking rather than a complete overhaul.  It's not like he needs to bring in tons of prospects because for the most part there's a ton of good young talent already here.  The talent does need to be shaped into being more of a good major league team, and I don't know if he has really done that terribly well.  This sounds like a good article idea for the .com (although I am not the guy to write it).
 

czar

fanboy
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
4,312
Ann Arbor
FanSinceBoggs said:
Interesting article here, very much in support of the Dombrowski hiring:
http://www.overthemonster.com/2015/8/19/9175243/dave-dombrowski-red-sox-ben-cherington-fired
 
Again, I'm not sure using raw WAR is a good indicator of anything.
 
Trading away two prospects who each put up 1.0 WAR for 6 cheap years each is not a good deal for the right to pay someone a lot of money to give you 3.0 WAR for 6 years. Yes, you come out ahead in that deal raw #'s wise, but the trade likely isn't the most effective use of resources.
 
Maybe it's different if you have an essentially limitless payroll, but I think the jury is still out on how the Sox will handle spending moving forward.
 

czar

fanboy
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
4,312
Ann Arbor
OCD SS said:
 
Um, this:
 
doesn't necessarily track. Even with the bad years they've had I'm much more optimistic about the shorter term contracts the Sox gave out to guys on a better spot of the aging curve than I am for the mammoth amounts of money owed in what are inarguably going to be post-peak years.
 
Inflation aside, 41-year-old Miguel Cabrera will only be earning about $4m less than 29-yo Sandoval and 31 year-old Hanley are making COMBINED this year.
 
The Cabrera contract is just ludicrous, especially with the massive shift in age decline we have seen post-wild-PED years. I mean, the Tigers are profiting $10-20m a year on it right now (per FG), but I'm terrified on the drain that could be on my team in 3-4 years, let alone 8-10.
 
EDIT: The Tigers will pay more for Justin Verlander's age 35-38 seasons than the Red Sox did for Rick Porcello's 27-31. Verlander's contract was profitable (again, FG valuation) for exactly one season. Yeesh.
 

threecy

Cosbologist
SoSH Member
Sep 1, 2006
1,587
Tamworth, NH
Punting and clearing house when a team isn't going to make the playoffs seems to be something some are pinning on Cherington.
 
About a quarter of a century ago, Tom Werner ruffled feathers when he pushed this practice as owner of the San Diego Padres.
 

jscola85

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
1,305
Well, to be fair, the first Cabrera deal they signed has become an absolute slam-dunk homer.  They spent $152M for Cabrera from 08-15 and collected 46 WAR.  At $6M/WAR, that's $276M of value, or ~$125M of surplus value to his contract.
 
At $30M/yr, that's going to be tough to match, but not every long-term deal is a bad one.  Plus, with both the Cabrera extension and the Verlander extension, there may have been heavy influence from Ilitch to get those deals done, as Ilitch is desperate to win a title before he dies.
 

BeantownIdaho

New Member
Dec 5, 2005
481
Nampa, Idaho
Hank Scorpio said:
 
Why? I wouldn't trade Betts or ERod, but Castillo, JBJ and Vasquez, while good young players, are either more expensive (Castillo), older (all three), or haven't shown as much at the major league level over a larger sample size (all three). Vasquez is coming off major surgery and is somewhat redundant with Swihart. If we're stuck with Hanley in LF, we only need one of JBJ or Castillo. By the time Ortiz is gone and Hanley moves to DH, Margot and/or Benintendi will be ready or close to it.
 
I'd like to have an outfield of Betts/JBJ/Castillo next year, with Swihart/Vasquez handling the catching duties, but I'd say Betts and Swihart are the only untouchables of those five players.
I can see Swihart and Vasquez being redundant - I would like to see where Vasquez will be this coming season as he was ahead of Swihart pre-injury. So, I could go with your perspective on that one. Keep in mind that I did say "Today" - Being that I believe that we could be seeing the potential of these guys starting to become reality. An outfield as you have suggested and I have prioritized is looking very good right now. I would be surprised if Hanley doesn't at least get a look at 1st base.  
 
Savin Hillbilly said:
 
Really? So you'd turn down Betts for Harper? Castillo for Goldschmidt? JBJ for Rizzo?
 
Not that any of those deals are going to happen, of course--the point just being, again, that nobody should be off limits. You may just set a high bar for dealing certain guys because they project to provide you with great bang for buck. If somebody knocks you over with an offer that meets that high bar, you don't say "sorry, but that guy is off limits."
 
I'm as much of a prospect addict as anybody around here, but young players are awesome because they can produce cheap wins. If you can convert some of them into less cheap, but still affordable wins that are more certain or more near-term, that's a perfectly valid thing to do as long as you don't do it so much that you mortgage the long term for the short. And the whole point, or at least a large part of the point, of building a farm system as deep as ours is to give management choices of that kind. When you have Betts, JBJ and Castillo, you can deal one of them. When you have Margot, Devers and Moncada, you can deal one of them. Et cetera. Just make sure you get full value.
 
Maybe Dombrowski will do a little more of this kind of thing than some of us are comfortable with, but saying he shouldn't do it at all is asking him to run the team with one hand behind his back. Young players should not be treated like binkies or sacred cows; they're sources of value, whether they're played or cashed in.
Well yeah of course I would bring Harper to town- I can make up any scenario that won't ever happen to make a point. I can see some redundancy in the outfield, but as I posted above, I believe we may be seeing the reality of what we always thought was potential as of today. If the farm is so deep, then prioritizing our kids of the future isn't a problem when we have so many as trade chips. Yep one of , Margo, Devers and Moncada can be dealt which means two of them are priority on keeping. 
 

MyDaughterLovesTomGordon

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
14,181
WenZink said:
 
And the contracts for Ramirez, Porcello and Sandoval aren't even close to having the book written on them, but Ben Cherington took the hit for them, while Dombrowski gets a new job with Complete Control.  And all of the Sox "bad" contracts are shorter term, and, at least in the case of Panda and Porcello, you have two players under 30.  And, yes, I have paid attention to Fielder having a year as a full time DH, making $24 million per year, and having an OPS+ of 140 to David Ortiz with an OPS+ of 132.  And Fielder has 5 more years of $24 million.  That's not a great deal, even with the rebound year by Porky.
 
Can we take it easy with the fat-shaming? "super-fatty" "porky" - just stop. It doesn't appear to be inhibiting his ability to hit the baseball this year. 
 

phenweigh

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2005
1,379
Brewster, MA
Jimy Hendrix said:
If this year's winning percentage holds, 2014/2015 will be the worst two consecutive years for the Red Sox by winning percentage since 1965/1966. The only stretch in between that even comes close is the fading years of Gorman in the early 90s.
 
This is why I thought bold changes in front office leadership was needed.  I don't claim to be smart enough to know if Dombrowski is the right guy, and I'm patient enough to see how is works out.  But I'm glad it's a big change.
 
What I don't like is the use of DD as shorthand for the new president of baseball ops ... DD will always be shorthand for Dan Duquette in my book.
 

jimbobim

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2012
1,558
OCD SS said:
 
Um, this:
 
doesn't necessarily track. Even with the bad years they've had I'm much more optimistic about the shorter term contracts the Sox gave out to guys on a better spot of the aging curve than I am for the mammoth amounts of money owed in what are inarguably going to be post-peak years.
Yeah the overthemonster guys are good but the rush to declare Ramirez Sandoval and Porcello all terrible with no hope of improving next year is a bit hyperbolic. 
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
rembrat said:
 
This would be horrific. People wanted change, well here it is. 
 
Eh, this opinion is predicated on the assumption that Wren will be the next GM. Also, I'm not sure why the idea of data or scouting still persists, or why people think that the Sox moving in the direction of one or the other means they will be virtually ignoring one instead of simply adjusting the balance between the two. No front office is fully data driven or fully scout driven. They all employ both and a shift could simply be something like 60/40 to 50/50. I'm gonna hang back a comfortable distance away from the ledge until we have a lot more information.