Dombrowski in Cherington Out

[Bellhorn04]

Kimmi, you're giving me a pass? Why thank you so much dearie, lol. What I wrote was correct. His moves fell incredibly flat. You cannot have high profile move after high profile move flop. And the "experts" had the sox winning the division mostly because the division was supposed to be a gigantic chasm of suck. Nobody expected NY to be as good as they have been all season and nobody expected Toronto to go all in and make the right moves at the right time. Up until a week ago, you had 4 of the 5 teams in the division over .500. The "experts" were wrong again. a700 was right. The team was built to be an offensive machine, which is something they really have become over the last 2 months, but they also were built to require career seasons from their rotation. Which they didn't get. This was Ben's issue. You cannot dismantle a phenomenal pitching staff and then have the staff be your downfall

 

I wouldn't say he dismantled a 'phenomenal pitching staff'. What he mainly did was get rid of our two best starters. The other loss was Miller from the pen.

[Kimmi]

The career standards of this group were much more favorable than their 2014 performance. IMO the 2014 standard is the better indicator of what they would do in 2015 -- a collective 4.53 ERA.

 

Once again, there is a reason why you have to dig deeper into the stats. Perhaps injury played a part in some of those high ERAs in 2014? Perhaps poor defense? No one expected them to be great, but there was good reason to expect improvement from some of them. Overall, they should have been good enough to keep the team in most games.

[Kimmi]

Was Hanley a good signing on paper?

 

If you look at his career OPS, yes.

 

If you look at his durability history, not so much.

 

If you look at his consistency history, not so much.

 

(The last time he played more than 128 games AND posted an OPS higher than .759 was 2010.)

 

If you look at his attitude history, which admittedly is based a lot on perception, not so much.

 

If you look at the change of position, who knew?

 

If you look at his WAR over the past 3 years despite all of those other things you stated, not to mention that offense was a big weakness for the team in 2014, then yes, his signing looked very good on paper.

[Spudboy]

Ugh.

[Kimmi]

Personally I don't think the team looked all that good on paper. It was deeply flawed in a number of ways right from the outset. Some of them won't show up in a position by position analysis but will show up when you identify how things synergize, or in the case of the 2014-15 Red Sox teams, how they don't.

 

Just as an example: We had a fundamental lack of range and fielding ability on the entire left side of our defensive diamond. IIRC only Bogaerts was consistently over replacement level, and you need more than "replacement level" from the shortstop's position anyway. The impacts are obvious; when right handed hitters can pull happily with better than the usual results what did you expect our contact-friendly pitching staff to accomplish?

 

He did a good job of furnishing quality players in each position on paper but a synergistic analysis reveals several flaws like that in the way the team was put together -- to the point were it looks like the analysis of defensive synergy was all but completely ignored. Those synergies turned out to matter -- a lot.

 

Pablo was supposed to be an above average defender, even in terms of range. This year has been an anomaly for him defensively.

 

As far as Hanley's defense goes, the FO knew he was likely going to cost the team some runs defensively, but that was supposed to be more than offset by his offensive production. On top of that, when you put together a staff of "ground ball" pitchers, the OF defense should not be a huge factor.

[Kimmi]

So you didn't believe it was a good plan either? Well you were right and the so called experts were wrong and frankly I agreed with you. How could anybody not? We were in last place last year and we "improved" by getting rid of our very best pitcher (Lester) and kept a guy who, at the time was getting hurt and was underperforming (Buchholz). Yes we acquired some other pitchers but were they supposed to bring us from worst to first again? And Robbie Ross was the only new bullpen acquisition and living in Texas, I wasn't that impressed with him then, unlike Uehara, another Ranger, who I was very impressed with before he pitched an inning for Boston. So that leads us to Hanley and Sandoval being the saviors. They weren't nearly good enough to overcome a pitching staff that was a downgrade, on paper, than a last place team the year before.

 

I didn't say that it was not a good plan. In fact, I have been defending the plan as a good plan all season. My preference would be to build a team around a strong pitching staff rather than around a strong offense. But even though the FO went with a plan that was against my preferences, it was a plan that should have worked.

[Kimmi]

Kimmi, you're giving me a pass? Why thank you so much dearie, lol. What I wrote was correct. His moves fell incredibly flat. You cannot have high profile move after high profile move flop. And the "experts" had the sox winning the division mostly because the division was supposed to be a gigantic chasm of suck. Nobody expected NY to be as good as they have been all season and nobody expected Toronto to go all in and make the right moves at the right time. Up until a week ago, you had 4 of the 5 teams in the division over .500. The "experts" were wrong again. a700 was right. The team was built to be an offensive machine, which is something they really have become over the last 2 months, but they also were built to require career seasons from their rotation. Which they didn't get. This was Ben's issue. You cannot dismantle a phenomenal pitching staff and then have the staff be your downfall

 

First off, it doesn't matter why the experts had the Sox winning the division, nor that they ended up being wrong. They had the Sox as the best team in the division (and one of the best 6 teams in baseball, I might add) going into the season. That tells me that Ben did his job.

 

And you lost me in that previous post when you started talking about how all the playes on the Sox were cancers in the clubhouse.

[Kimmi]

Ugh.

 

LOL This post really made me giggle.

[mvp 78]

Should have signed Pablo OR Hanley, not both. Made no sense then. Makes less sense now.

[a700hitter]

Once again, there is a reason why you have to dig deeper into the stats. Perhaps injury played a part in some of those high ERAs in 2014? Perhaps poor defense? No one expected them to be great, but there was good reason to expect improvement from some of them. Overall, they should have been good enough to keep the team in most games.

They weren't even good enough to keep Ben in the game.

[reYoukilis]

Personally I don't think the team looked all that good on paper. It was deeply flawed in a number of ways right from the outset. Some of them won't show up in a position by position analysis but will show up when you identify how things synergize, or in the case of the 2014-15 Red Sox teams, how they don't.

 

Just as an example: We had a fundamental lack of range and fielding ability on the entire left side of our defensive diamond. IIRC only Bogaerts was consistently over replacement level, and you need more than "replacement level" from the shortstop's position anyway. The impacts are obvious; when right handed hitters can pull happily with better than the usual results what did you expect our contact-friendly pitching staff to accomplish?

 

He did a good job of furnishing quality players in each position on paper but a synergistic analysis reveals several flaws like that in the way the team was put together -- to the point were it looks like the analysis of defensive synergy was all but completely ignored. Those synergies turned out to matter -- a lot.

Yes, acquiring contact friendly pitching and then getting Hanley Ramirez to play LF, a position he never played no less, are two strategies that dont fit together. This is why I wonder if it was Cheringtons doing, unless he was so deep into the stats that he didn't see the obvious big picture

[reYoukilis]

Pablo was supposed to be an above average defender, even in terms of range. This year has been an anomaly for him defensively.

 

As far as Hanley's defense goes, the FO knew he was likely going to cost the team some runs defensively, but that was supposed to be more than offset by his offensive production. On top of that, when you put together a staff of "ground ball" pitchers, the OF defense should not be a huge factor.

I see what you're saying but pitching for contact you should be sound defensively everywhere. True we needed more offense and true Ramirez is better than he has shown but even considering all that, to take LF so lightly with the type of pitching we got, even if Ramirez hit up to par it was a bad move. Reason being is that I believe good defense relaxes the pitcher and gives him confidence, but the defense needs to be airtight, somewhat.

[Kimmi]

Should have signed Pablo OR Hanley, not both. Made no sense then. Makes less sense now.

 

 

At the time, it made sense. I agree that right now, after seeing Hanley play LF, it makes little sense.

[Kimmi]

They weren't even good enough to keep Ben in the game.

 

I realize that. They should have been good enough. That they weren't is an enigma.

[Kimmi]

I see what you're saying but pitching for contact you should be sound defensively everywhere. True we needed more offense and true Ramirez is better than he has shown but even considering all that, to take LF so lightly with the type of pitching we got, even if Ramirez hit up to par it was a bad move. Reason being is that I believe good defense relaxes the pitcher and gives him confidence, but the defense needs to be airtight, somewhat.

 

You don't have to sell me on the importance of defense. I am a strong proponent of good defense, despite my support of Hanley's signing.

 

I don't think the FO took LF lightly. I just think they really believed Hanley would be "adequate", meaning he wouldn't be a great liability. We have not had strong defenders in LF recently with the likes of Manny, Bay, and Gomes, and the team has overcome that just fine.

[mvp 78]

At the time, it made sense. I agree that right now, after seeing Hanley play LF, it makes little sense.

 

At the time, it made no sense to me.

[Bellhorn04]

Renteria

Crawford

Hanley

Panda

 

This is 4 high-profile free agent signings in 11 years that have been immediate disasters. Can anyone make any sense of why these players have crashed so spectacularly in Boston? Is it that tough of a place to play?

 

Also, is it fair to say that the FO failed to learn anything from history when they signed Hanley and Panda?

[mvp 78]

Renteria wasn't that high profile...

[sk7326]

Renteria

Crawford

Hanley

Panda

 

This is 4 high-profile free agent signings in 11 years that have been immediate disasters. Can anyone make any sense of why these players have crashed so spectacularly in Boston? Is it that tough of a place to play?

 

 

Also, is it fair to say that the FO failed to learn anything from history when they signed Hanley and Panda?

 

what is interesting is all of those crash and burns were (effectively) over one season. Boston is tough - but the franchise has largely cut bait very quickly. As it turned out Renteria (who was the best FA SS in that class) immediately went to being good again after being dealt.

 

Panda there is a legit question at the time whether he was actually that good to begin with.

[Station 13]

Panda is highly overrated because of his playoff. Should had just sign Headley for less.

[a700hitter]

Panda is highly overrated because of his playoff. Should had just sign Headley for less.

 

Panda is OPSing at .467 against lefties. Anyone would have done better.

[Kimmi]

Panda is OPSing at .467 against lefties. Anyone would have done better.

 

Panda was a 3 WAR player last season, not including the postseason.

 

Yes, the contract is too large, and I preferred Headley, but signing him was hardly insane.

[a700hitter]

Panda was a 3 WAR player last season, not including the postseason.

 

Yes, the contract is too large, and I preferred Headley, but signing him was hardly insane.

All of the contracts are insane. Contract aside, he is terrible against lefties and that trend was in place when he was signed. Plus, he is a meh fielder at best. He was a bad acquisition at any price.

[Kimmi]

All of the contracts are insane. Contract aside, he is terrible against lefties and that trend was in place when he was signed. Plus, he is a meh fielder at best. He was a bad acquisition at any price.

 

As I said, I thought there were better options. But his "meh" defense and his OPS against lefties doesn't erase the fact that he was still a 3 WAR player last season. Yes, you have to consider aging and natural decline from season to season, but even with that, it was not an insane contract. Too long, but not insane.

[a700hitter]

As I said, I thought there were better options. But his "meh" defense and his OPS against lefties doesn't erase the fact that he was still a 3 WAR player last season. Yes, you have to consider aging and natural decline from season to season, but even with that, it was not an insane contract. Too long, but not insane.

 

Bad acquisition period.

 

Edit: Except for all the Panda merchandise sold that we we share in equalybwith the other 29 teams.

[Kimmi]

Bad acquisition period.

 

Edit: Except for all the Panda merchandise sold that we we share in equalybwith the other 29 teams.

 

To date it's been a bad acquistion. At the time of the signing, it was not, no matter how many times you say otherwise.

[Bellhorn04]

I would say there was quite a bit of questioning of the Panda signing at the time. Nobody was saying it was a disastrous signing, but it seemed like all the smart fans were saying Headley would have been a much better choice.

[Kimmi]

I would say there was quite a bit of questioning of the Panda signing at the time. Nobody was saying it was a disastrous signing, but it seemed like all the smart fans were saying Headley would have been a much better choice.

 

That's all I'm saying. I questioned it myself. IMO, there were better options. Despite that, it was not a disastrous, or as others would say, an insane signing.

[a700hitter]

That's all I'm saying. I questioned it myself. IMO, there were better options. Despite that, it was not a disastrous, or as others would say, an insane signing.

 

Nothing is disastrous when you have the resources of the Red Sox. His signing was not helpful to the team.

[cp176]

That's all I'm saying. I questioned it myself. IMO, there were better options. Despite that, it was not a disastrous, or as others would say, an insane signing.

 

 

I think that signing him made much more sense than The Ramirez signing. We needed a third baseman. It wasn't going to be Wil Middlebrows for sure. In hindsight maybe it does look like other options would have been better but he isn't the reason this team has had such a miserable year. Could we have done better - probably but who knew.