Dombrowski in Cherington Out

[Kimmi]

I have never been a fan of any FO personnel. I think they are a bunch of overpaid knuckleheads that are in charge of a product that pretty much sells itself. To that extent, I have no bias. I will criticize them all. As for Ben, he was abject failure in leading the organization. That is not a bias. That is his record. I hope DD does better, but I will join you in criticizing him if he fails too.

 

You think the FO is a bunch of overpaid knuckleheads who don't really deserve credit when things go right, but deserve all the criticism when things go wrong? Ben cannot control what happens on the field.

[iortiz]

You think the FO is a bunch of overpaid knuckleheads who don't really deserve credit when things go right, but deserve all the criticism when things go wrong? Ben cannot control what happens on the field.

 

Yes he can, by putting the the right coaching staff and players, thing that have failed in this team in recent years.

[a700hitter]

You think the FO is a bunch of overpaid knuckleheads who don't really deserve credit when things go right, but deserve all the criticism when things go wrong? Ben cannot control what happens on the field.

My philosophy is that bad teams are the fault of bad team building and bad on field coaching. I think the players have certain abilities and that they are trying their best. I don't fault them because they are not talented or because their performance is limited by their talent. It was a FO error in judgment that they expected too much from the players assembled and essentially misjudged their projected performance.

[Jasonbay44]

I'm curious:

 

Are fans expecting the new regime to off load the contracts of Ramirez, Sandoval, Porcello AND Miley?

 

Will they be failures if they don't?

 

This off season should be fun to watch...

I really don't think any GM can clean up that mess of s***** contracts. In a best case scenario, the Sox are able to find a taker for Hanley or Pablo, or maybe both, but I don't think the latter is likely. I don't see them trading Miley (although I would be for it) and the odds of them trading Porcello with that awful contract is extremely unlikely.

[sk7326]

Some good chatter on the moves in Boston http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=13467549

 

Cherington's ouster is still a stunner. 17 years and whatnot. He will find work without much difficulty if he wants to.

 

That said, very smart to get Dombrowski in right now - and use the month to evaluate. The front office has a lot of talent (talent which spawned shops in Chicago and LA) - the turnover will be interesting.

Edited August 19, 2015 by sk7326

[Jasonbay44]

My philosophy is that bad teams are the fault of bad team building and bad on field coaching. I think the players have certain abilities and that they are trying their best. I don't fault them because they are not talented or because their performance is limited by their talent. It was a FO error in judgment that they expected too much from the players assembled and essentially misjudged their projected performance.

 

I agree with this.. I mean going into the season there was a lot of questionable moves that looked bad on paper that ending up being awful, its not bad luck that Pablo is fat, the rotation has been awful and Hanley being a s***** LF, all of that was pretty predictable.

[Kimmi]

Kimmi turning on the FO? I'll have to see that to believe it.

 

I give criticism when criticism is due. I have criticized the FO many times for the Lester debacle. That said, I am a strong believer in the philosphy that this FO has employed since Henry and company took over. That is reason #1 why you haven't heard a lot of criticsim from me. Reason #2, even when I disagree with a move (Sandoval), I look for the rationale behind it, which usually makes sense, whether I agree with it or not. Reason #3, when I do feel there is reason to criticize, I don't feel the need to say the same thing 10 times a day every day, forever.

 

I am not a fan of big contracts. I am not a fan of trading away the farm system. If that becomes the norm, I will not be happy. However, I understand that there are times when these things need to be done. This offseason, we will either need to give a fat contract or trade away prospects in order to get a SP.

[a700hitter]

I give criticism when criticism is due. I have criticized the FO many times for the Lester debacle. That said, I am a strong believer in the philosphy that this FO has employed since Henry and company took over. That is reason #1 why you haven't heard a lot of criticsim from me. Reason #2, even when I disagree with a move (Sandoval), I look for the rationale behind it, which usually makes sense, whether I agree with it or not. Reason #3, when I do feel there is reason to criticize, I don't feel the need to say the same thing 10 times a day every day, forever.

 

I am not a fan of big contracts. I am not a fan of trading away the farm system. If that becomes the norm, I will not be happy. However, I understand that there are times when these things need to be done. This offseason, we will either need to give a fat contract or trade away prospects in order to get a SP.

Looking for the rationale behind a bad move is necessary to figure out why the move went wrong and take steps to avoid those pitfalls in the future, not to provide an excuse for a bad move as that serves no purpose at all.

[Kimmi]

I agree with this.. I mean going into the season there was a lot of questionable moves that looked bad on paper that ending up being awful, its not bad luck that Pablo is fat, the rotation has been awful and Hanley being a s***** LF, all of that was pretty predictable.

 

The moves did not look bad on paper. They also did not look bad to most scouts and talent evaluators. By a large majority, this team was favored to win the division. The people who do baseball for a living, analytics guys and scouting types, did not see all of this as being pretty predictable. In fact, they predicted a very good team. And I'm not talking about just Boston guys, I'm talking across baseball.

[Northern Star]

The moves did not look bad on paper. They also did not look bad to most scouts and talent evaluators. By a large majority, this team was favored to win the division. The people who do baseball for a living, analytics guys and scouting types, did not see all of this as being pretty predictable. In fact, they predicted a very good team. And I'm not talking about just Boston guys, I'm talking across baseball.

 

Hanley to LF DID look bad on paper, and the results are almost inevitable.

[Kimmi]

Looking for the rationale behind a bad move is necessary to figure out why the move went wrong and take steps to avoid those pitfalls in the future, not to provide an excuse for a bad move as that serves no purpose at all.

 

Stating the rationale behind a move is not looking for an excuse. It's understanding why a move was made. If the move fails, then it is the task to figure out why and to avoid the pitfalls in the future. However, a sound rationale and a failed move are not mutually exclusive.

[Kimmi]

Hanley to LF DID look bad on paper, and the results are almost inevitable.

 

No, it really didn't. No one was expecting a Gold Glover, but on paper, he should have been a 3 WAR player.

[Spudboy]

I'm curious:

 

Are fans expecting the new regime to off load the contracts of Ramirez, Sandoval, Porcello AND Miley?

 

Will they be failures if they don't?

 

This off season should be fun to watch...

 

I expect that Dombrowski will attempt to undo some of the mistakes made. Hopefully he will try to unload the two big stiffs first. Starting with Hanley. He has no role on this team at all.

 

If possible get rid of Fatboy too.

 

I don't see Miley as a big mistake. He is serviceable and reasonably priced.

 

Porcello? I still have hopes that he can be another serviceable rotation piece. The extension was premature and unnecessary. I don't know what can be done about that.

[Spudboy]

I'd be satisfied if they moved one of Hanley or Panda.

 

I don't think anybody who thinks about it wants them to move Miley.

 

I think most people realize it's not a realistic option to move Porcello.

 

Agreed Bell.

[SoxnCycles]

Hanley to LF DID look bad on paper, and the results are almost inevitable.

 

Please. If Hanley were hitting, no one would care if he misread a fly ball per game.

 

No one cared when Manny muffed a play.

No one cared when Jeter couldn't get out of his own way at SS.

[sk7326]

Hanley to LF DID look bad on paper, and the results are almost inevitable.

 

Moving Hanley to a position Manny Ramirez, Ryan Klesko, Albert Belle, Kevin Mitchell and several potted plants at various points have navigated without killing themselves is not inevitable. LF and 1B are very much the traditional "whew, well at least he can hit!" positions.

Edited August 19, 2015 by sk7326

[Jasonbay44]

The moves did not look bad on paper. They also did not look bad to most scouts and talent evaluators. By a large majority, this team was favored to win the division. The people who do baseball for a living, analytics guys and scouting types, did not see all of this as being pretty predictable. In fact, they predicted a very good team. And I'm not talking about just Boston guys, I'm talking across baseball.

 

You really thought this rotation coming into the season looked good on paper?

[a700hitter]

Stating the rationale behind a move is not looking for an excuse. It's understanding why a move was made. If the move fails, then it is the task to figure out why and to avoid the pitfalls in the future. However, a sound rationale and a failed move are not mutually exclusive.

No they are not, but usually a sound rationale and a failed move is the result of injury. But for injury, there was a miscalculation regarding the player.

[a700hitter]

No, it really didn't. No one was expecting a Gold Glover, but on paper, he should have been a 3 WAR player.

Based on never having played the position? That doesn't sound very reliable.

[Kimmi]

You really thought this rotation coming into the season looked good on paper?

 

The team as a whole looked good. The rotation was not supposed to be 'good', merely mediocre. The offense and the defense were supposed to bail the pitching out. On paper, I thought the pitching staff looked average, with a chance to be above average. I thought the offense looked like a #1 offense and the defense looked top 5.

 

Obviously, I was very wrong. However, I was, by far, not alone in my opinion.

[Kimmi]

No they are not, but usually a sound rationale and a failed move is the result of injury. But for injury, there was a miscalculation regarding the player.

 

Not always the result of an injury. Sometimes it really is an enigma.

[Spudboy]

I assume that Kimmi said a 3 War player was expected because of what Hanley was supposed to do at the plate.

 

I was expecting near league average D from the stiff. I was wrong. He has been just awful. I can be let off the hook because I had not seen Hanley play D at any position more than a few times. The industry experts should get no Mulligan. They should have known better.

 

To me, if you are about 30 and you have been playing MLB ball for about 7 years, you should be able to read and field a ball in the outfield even if you have been an infielder for your entire career.

 

The guy is a f***ing joke and should be jettisoned.

[Kimmi]

Based on never having played the position? That doesn't sound very reliable.

 

Based on the responses that SK and Cycles gave.

[sk7326]

You really thought this rotation coming into the season looked good on paper?

 

I thought the RUN PREVENTION on paper looked okay and that the rotation could be upgraded if the standings dictated it. I thought this team through 110 games could be some sort of 57-53 with more 13-9 losses than I'd prefer ... so you go harvest Johnny Cueto from the Enterprise Pitcher Rental shop and go for the finish

 

In 2013 we were counting on two starters coming off of >4.50 ERA seasons and one who had a surgically repaired elbow and was the worst qualified starter in the American League before that. Some days you win.

Edited August 19, 2015 by sk7326

[Kimmi]

I assume that Kimmi said a 3 War player was expected because of what Hanley was supposed to do at the plate.

 

I was expecting near league average D from the stiff. I was wrong. He has been just awful. I can be let off the hook because I had not seen Hanley play D at any position more than a few times. The industry experts should get no Mulligan. They should have known better.

 

To me, if you are about 30 and you have been playing MLB ball for about 7 years, you should be able to read and field a ball in the outfield even if you have been an infielder for your entire career.

 

The guy is a f***ing joke and should be jettisoned.

 

That's what the hope would be, and not an unrealistic expectation.

 

I was not expecting any miracles defensively, only slightly improved defense over what he did at SS. What he was supposed to be able to produce offensively was supposed to more than offset the defensive deficiency.

[cp176]

Reasons for concern about Dombrowski, and what appears to be a 180 turn from the Red Sox philosophy:

 

1. Large contracts given to free agents.

2. Trading away the farm.

3. Does not really value analytics.

4. Does not see the importance of defense.

 

I'm sure there are other reasons, but what I've listed is enough.

 

I'm willing to give Dombrowski a chance. He has not done anything yet, good or bad, so I will keep an open mind. I will say, however, that my initial reaction is not a warm, fuzzy one, but rather one of deep concern. I certainly hope this is not a panic move to the other extreme that will end up backfiring, much like the Bobby Valentine move.

 

 

Kimmi - Come on

 

Ben Cherington

 

1. Large contracts given to free agents

2. Not trading prospects and reluctantly bringing them up to the big club

3. Too much reliance on analytics - not enough balance

4. Does not recognize the importance of solid pitching and solid defense

 

Ben Cherington is an excellent person by all accounts. Good luck to him. Time for a change.

[SoxnCycles]

Kimmi - Come on

 

Ben Cherington

 

1. Large contracts given to free agents

2. Not trading prospects and reluctantly bringing them up to the big club

3. Too much reliance on analytics - not enough balance

4. Does not recognize the importance of solid pitching and solid defense

 

Ben Cherington is an excellent person by all accounts. Good luck to him. Time for a change.

 

So, Dombrowski MUST be better?

 

Right...

[sk7326]

Kimmi - Come on

 

Ben Cherington

 

1. Large contracts given to free agents

2. Not trading prospects and reluctantly bringing them up to the big club

3. Too much reliance on analytics - not enough balance

4. Does not recognize the importance of solid pitching and solid defense

 

Ben Cherington is an excellent person by all accounts. Good luck to him. Time for a change.

 

Do you really think a career player development director who traded two blue chip prospects for Josh Beckett doesn't know #4?

[Bellhorn04]

Here's a good analysis on Ben's downfall by Dave Cameron.

 

http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/just-a-bit-outside/story/boston-red-sox-general-manager-ben-cherington-downfall-hanley-ramirez-081915

[Spudboy]

Here's a good analysis on Ben's downfall by Dave Cameron.

 

http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/just-a-bit-outside/story/boston-red-sox-general-manager-ben-cherington-downfall-hanley-ramirez-081915

 

That article lets Ben off easy.