Dombrowski in Cherington Out

[iortiz]

Ellsbury doesn't count as "anyone"?

 

We are paying a similar AVV salary to Porcello and the difference in talent is from earth to the moon.

[mvp 78]

That Bard game was a disaster.

[mvp 78]

We are paying a similar AVV salary to Porcello and the difference in talent is from earth to the moon.

 

Porcello plays OF now?!?

[a700hitter]

How the hell am I twisting the argument? Not re-signing Ellsbury was the right move. It's not part of the reason 2014 and 2015 have sucked. That's all I've been saying all along.

 

Well then you are arguing with yourself. I haven't said that signing Ellsbury was the right move. I just said that Ben would not have done worse if he did resign him. He spent $82 million on Porcello and $88 million on Hanley for a total of $170 million for 2 complete wastes. That is how he redeployed the money saved on Ellsbury. That is a huge failure. A squandered opportunity.

[a700hitter]

Porcello plays OF now?!?

 

The money saved was redeployed for Porcello. Money is fungible.

[Yaz Fan Since 67]

I wasn't here at the time but can I assume most on this board were fine with not signing Jacoby to that insane deal? I live near Washington DC and the people here crack me up. Half way through his first year everyone was gloating about what a great signing Matt Scherzer was. I just laughed, as you guys said the time to measure the signing is not halfway through year 1, it's in years 6 and 7 when that deal will be an albatross.

[Bellhorn04]

The money saved was redeployed for Porcello. Money is fungible.

 

Porcello's extension doesn't start until next year, so the verdict is still out on that money.

[iortiz]

Porcello's extension doesn't start until next year, so the verdict is still out on that money.

 

yup, but this is just a preamble... unfortunately.

 

My bold prediction is that DD is going to get rid of him somehow. Send him to PIT, probably out there he is going to be a decent mid rotation guy.

[iortiz]

Porcello plays OF now?!?

 

mmmm nope. why the question?

 

in their own roles Ellsbury is by far more talented and it is not debatable.

[Kimmi]

Yep except for the one time he confusingly, aggrivatingly, frustratingly, mystifyingly didn't. I don't think I need to elaborate here.

 

I think that's the big reason I had so little trouble with the news Cherington was moving on while I had so many problems with the way Theo left us. Because with Theo it was clear what the plan was. His actions were usually in keeping with a consistent overall strategy. I can't say the same about Cherington. His actions and the motivations behind them were never that clear or consistent.

 

Cherington's plan was the same plan as Theo's. Build the team around a strong farm system and fill the holes through free agency, while avoiding the huge long term contracts as much as possible. In 2013 it worked. In 2014 and 2015, it didn't.

[Kimmi]

Well then you are arguing with yourself. I haven't said that signing Ellsbury was the right move. I just said that Ben would not have done worse if he did resign him. He spent $82 million on Porcello and $88 million on Hanley for a total of $170 million for 2 complete wastes. That is how he redeployed the money saved on Ellsbury. That is a huge failure. A squandered opportunity.

 

We will have to wait until the end of all of those contracts to see how they play out. We might not have been worse off this year and last with Ellbury's contract, but we might be a lot worse off in the next 5 years if we had re-signed him. It's typically the back end of those contracts that hurt.

[Kimmi]

The money saved was redeployed for Porcello. Money is fungible.

 

What some people keep forgetting is length of contract. There is a big difference in signing someone to a 4 year deal versus a 7 year deal, especially when you consider the ages at which Porcello and Ells were at the time of the signings.

[mvp 78]

The money saved was redeployed for Porcello. Money is fungible.

 

Really? They dumped Ells this offseason and replaced him with Porcello?

 

Ells' salary has been spent everywhere, but it makes more sense to equate Ells savings to Hanley. A better comp would be Lester and Porcello.

[a700hitter]

We will have to wait until the end of all of those contracts to see how they play out. We might not have been worse off this year and last with Ellbury's contract, but we might be a lot worse off in the next 5 years if we had re-signed him. It's typically the back end of those contracts that hurt.

The front end of the Porcello and Hanley contracts are looking quite bad.

[a700hitter]

Really? They dumped Ells this offseason and replaced him with Porcello?

 

Ells' salary has been spent everywhere, but it makes more sense to equate Ells savings to Hanley. A better comp would be Lester and Porcello.

 

They redeploy the payroll. And Ben kept the payroll as one of the highest. As high priced players left, he redeployed the funds very poorly. We saved no money by getting rid of the guys who walked. The money $170 million spent on Hanley and Porcello could have been spent on keeping either Lester or Ells. Either one looks better than the garbage we have in the 2 guys we signed. It is just a very poor use of massively large sums of money.

[a700hitter]

Porcello's extension doesn't start until next year, so the verdict is still out on that money.

 

If the extension was not signrd, we never would have had to look at him after this season. The whole extension is a bungle before it starts.

[Orange Juiced]

If the extension was not signrd, we never would have had to look at him after this season. The whole extension is a bungle before it starts.

 

I was not at all a fan of the Porcello extension before he ever pitched an inning for the Sox. Made no sense to me. I was ok with them trading Cespedes for him but disagreed strongly with the extension. He just isn't good enough to justify that kind of financial commitment.

[cp176]

I wasn't here at the time but can I assume most on this board were fine with not signing Jacoby to that insane deal? I live near Washington DC and the people here crack me up. Half way through his first year everyone was gloating about what a great signing Matt Scherzer was. I just laughed' date=' as you guys said the time to measure the signing is not halfway through year 1, it's in years 6 and 7 when that deal will be an albatross.[/quote']

 

One big reason why Ellsbury was not resigned was because of the emergence of JBJ. It looked like an absolute no brainer. Better fielder, better arm, as good a hitter consistently at the lower levels. Not a base stealer but just as fast. Most of us felt that letting Ellsbury go was worth the risk.

[cp176]

Most of the big money owners no exactly what they are going to get when they give out the huge 5-6-7 year contracts. If they get 3 or 4 years out of these so called super stars that translates into World Series games, everybody is happy. if not for JbJ, I would not have been in favor of letting Ellsbury walk. So what's it going to be - get 3 or 4 solid years out of a real star or throw a 4 year contract worth 20 or more at someone you hope can become a number 2 starter because he is 26, or hope that you can get some healthy years out of a guy who rarely has been healthy while at the same time hoping that he can become a decent fielder in position he has never played or hope that the third baseman can stay in shape for at least just a little while. The Red Sox in their attempt to play it smart and outthink the rest of the league have wasted a lot of money. Sandoval's contract may prove to be the best of these 3.

[Bellhorn04]

Most of the big money owners no exactly what they are going to get when they give out the huge 5-6-7 year contracts. If they get 3 or 4 years out of these so called super stars that translates into World Series games, everybody is happy. if not for JbJ, I would not have been in favor of letting Ellsbury walk. So what's it going to be - get 3 or 4 solid years out of a real star or throw a 4 year contract worth 20 or more at someone you hope can become a number 2 starter because he is 26, or hope that you can get some healthy years out of a guy who rarely has been healthy while at the same time hoping that he can become a decent fielder in position he has never played or hope that the third baseman can stay in shape for at least just a little while. The Red Sox in their attempt to play it smart and outthink the rest of the league have wasted a lot of money. Sandoval's contract may prove to be the best of these 3.

 

The truth is that nobody wins on the big free agent deals except the players. Only a small % of these deals come close to value for the teams.

 

The Yankees made that huge splash before 2009 with CC, Tex and Burnett. They got a championship out of it so maybe it was worth it. But they ended up getting burned on those deals eventually which is what almost always happens.

 

The Sox approach has been a disaster the last two years.

 

There's no easy road to success even for big money teams.

[mvp 78]

One big reason why Ellsbury was not resigned was because of the emergence of JBJ. It looked like an absolute no brainer. Better fielder, better arm, as good a hitter consistently at the lower levels. Not a base stealer but just as fast. Most of us felt that letting Ellsbury go was worth the risk.

 

Not sure JBJ was the reason people were ok with him leaving. People were ok with him going to the Bronx because the money was too high for what amounts to a better version of Denard Span and Ells has an dxtensive injury history.

[Bellhorn04]

Not sure JBJ was the reason people were ok with him leaving. People were ok with him going to the Bronx because the money was too high for what amounts to a better version of Denard Span and Ells has an dxtensive injury history.

 

I would say a secondary reason for people being OK was that they thought JBJ was ready to step in.

[cp176]

Not sure JBJ was the reason people were ok with him leaving. People were ok with him going to the Bronx because the money was too high for what amounts to a better version of Denard Span and Ells has an dxtensive injury history.

 

I think that the injury history was a legit concern.

[cp176]

I would say a secondary reason for people being OK was that they thought JBJ was ready to step in.

 

 

JBJ definitely looked ready to go. Secondary concern or not most people who had seen him play felt pretty much the same about him. Made watching Ellsbury walk a lot easier.

[iortiz]

My bold prediction is that JBJ becomes a better player than Ells and way more durable.

[cp176]

My bold prediction is that JBJ becomes a better player than Ells and way more durable.

 

I hope that you are right. One thing known for sure is that many people who saw JBJ play in Portland and Pawtucket felt that way about him just a few years ago.

[Kimmi]

If the extension was not signrd, we never would have had to look at him after this season. The whole extension is a bungle before it starts.

 

It looks really bad in hindsight, but at the time, it was a good risk to take. It might still work out to be a good move.

[Kimmi]

Most of the big money owners no exactly what they are going to get when they give out the huge 5-6-7 year contracts. If they get 3 or 4 years out of these so called super stars that translates into World Series games, everybody is happy. if not for JbJ, I would not have been in favor of letting Ellsbury walk. So what's it going to be - get 3 or 4 solid years out of a real star or throw a 4 year contract worth 20 or more at someone you hope can become a number 2 starter because he is 26, or hope that you can get some healthy years out of a guy who rarely has been healthy while at the same time hoping that he can become a decent fielder in position he has never played or hope that the third baseman can stay in shape for at least just a little while. The Red Sox in their attempt to play it smart and outthink the rest of the league have wasted a lot of money. Sandoval's contract may prove to be the best of these 3.

 

I am not a fan of huge, long term contracts, typically anything over 4 years, though I understand the need to sometimes do that. If people prefer signing the Ellsburys and the Scherzers for these 7 year deals (I don't), then I can understand that too. What I don't like is that when these deals inevitably go south, we hear all the criticism, from the same people who are advocating such deals, of how stupid the FO was to sign such a long term deal.

 

I prefer the shorter term, higher dollar deals. If they go bad, they are easier to overcome.

[cp176]

Both points of view work here for me. First of all it is not my money. The concept of higher dollar fewer years makes a lot of sense if you are signing top quality players. I think that the Sox have been trying to be penny wise and have come up pound foolish when considering their latest moves. They will have to decide soon how badly they want to win in the near future .

[sk7326]

Long contracts are not ideal in isolation. Of course, from a buyer side, you'd like to go transaction to transaction. But we know the practical limitations. Long contracts are sometimes necessary to win an auction - and you have to evaluate whether the end state of the deal is acceptable. The Pedroia deal for instance, you know at the end of it he is not going to be an All-Star, but if you think he can be an average-below average 2nd baseman, the salary (taking into account baseball inflation) is pretty reasonable. (not a bargain, but not a ripoff) I was in favor of a long Lester deal because I thought his stuff aged well enough that by the end you'd be paying $27M for a durable low-end #3, which is still a useful guy. The administration's general belief I think is that longer deals are better bets for position players than pitchers, which is certainly sensible and true, but there are no absolutes.

 

Seeing Cherington's work here as something a bit more complex than good or bad, a devotee or a hater - is also sensible, but clearly some of the angry posters on the topic have a bit of "Hulk Smash!" in their thought process. The biggest mistake Cherington administration made was wussing out on playing the children. Letting Ellsbury walk because you had Bradley did make sense - you knew you were not getting 6 wins out of Bradley, but you also knew that Ellsbury was a very very low likelihood to be that too. What did NOT make sense was signing Grady Sizemore's broken down, past sell-date body and then giving him a starting gig over a spring's worth of at-bats. Moving Bogaerts off of shortstop was another of those things too - although that was a little more sensible seeing what a wasteland 3B was, and Drew was a good SS for us in 2013 - but still skittishness that the kids would not all turn into Mike Trout at-once. AJ Pierzynski was another - although there were sound reasons for keeping Vasquez on the farm. The team has an elite development machine, let it do its thing and be confident in your own evals.

 

I mean, you look at the last few weeks and the team has shown some life. It's fun - the kids are working through things which can only be learned at the big league level - and you get some information. Now, a team like Boston can afford to only want their premium guys playing for the big club - instead of Tampa who needs farm kids of all stripes to be affordable at all - but go ahead and play them. This was something Bobby Cox did to great effect in Atlanta, and something Epstein and Francona knew how to handle as well. (the best example being staying with Pedroia despite how overwhelmed he was when he first arrived)