The search for an ace

[Kimmi]

Tomase picks and chooses very well. Putting faith in this piece of writing, a person has to assume that the current Sox situation is the same as last year. That the free agent market is the same as well. It isn't whether anyone likes it or not. Saying that you would not pursue the best pitchers available because of a team philosophy when you have the funds would be ridiculous. Team needs this time around say that we need to go after the best we can. If we can get two of them, even better. Probably won't happen, but it would not bother me and I do not believe that it would hurt the future development of this team at all. Just my opinion. Also, I am willing to give Ben all of the credit that he deserves for the young players that we have in our system but with respect to his free agent signings - not so much. If he gets credit for the farm, he takes the blame for the free agents he signed and didn't sign.

 

We didn't pursue the best pitching available last offseason, including one of our own guys, because Henry was against giving out a huge contract to a pitcher in his 30s. He is still against it, but it seems that after what he saw last season, he has decided that the team needs to get a number one pitcher, no matter the cost.

 

You can't blame Ben for not signing an ace last offseason if he was not given the go ahead to do so. He had to find other avenues with which to spend that money. Once again, the consensus among several baseball executives is that the decisions Ben made were the result of directives from higher up.

[Kimmi]

Tomase is right that the Red Sox organization has flipped-flopped with their 'philosophy'. Personally, I don't care. What does that really matter? There's no guaranteed way to success in MLB. There are a lot of teams in the hunt and a lot of money in the game. Every move you make carries risks.

 

I care, because IMO, the approach that they seem to be taking now is going to harm the team in the long term. We may be good for 3-4 years, but if we continue on this course of this seemingly new philosophy, we will go through a long drought after that.

[cp176]

We didn't pursue the best pitching available last offseason, including one of our own guys, because Henry was against giving out a huge contract to a pitcher in his 30s. He is still against it, but it seems that after what he saw last season, he has decided that the team needs to get a number one pitcher, no matter the cost.

 

You can't blame Ben for not signing an ace last offseason if he was not given the go ahead to do so. He had to find other avenues with which to spend that money. Once again, the consensus among several baseball executives is that the decisions Ben made were the result of directives from higher up.

 

I do not blame Ben actually for anything that he did. I don't think blame is the right world. Ben is no longer here and I hope that he is happy. I am glad that we appear headed in a little different direction.

[Kimmi]

We heavily disagree here. You're underselling the value of IP. Not only that, Buch has the ability to not only not pitch a lot of innings, but also get terrible results in the process, or pitch decent innings but get terrible results, as he did in 2012 and 2014. There's value in consistency, and Buchholz is nothing if not inconsistent.

 

My statement was based on the way they pitched last year. I would take 1/2 year of the way Buchholz pitched last season over a full year of the way Miley pitched last season. So from that stand, it has nothing to do with Miley's overall consistency versus Buchholz' inconsistency.

 

I do not undersell the value of innings pitched. I understand the value of innings. I am one who always defends guys like Miley, and defends fWAR for pitchers, which puts a lot of weight on innings pitched. If it came down to the Sox having to trade one of Miley or Buchholz this offseason, I would trade Buchholz.

 

My post was in no way a knock on Miley, but rather a defense of Buchholz. I really just don't understand being averse to picking up Buchholz' option and/or having him on the team in addition to getting a #1, not in lieu of getting a #1.

[Kimmi]

I do not blame Ben actually for anything that he did. I don't think blame is the right world. Ben is no longer here and I hope that he is happy. I am glad that we appear headed in a little different direction.

 

I don't think 'blame' is the right word either, but he receives a lot of unfair criticism, IMO.

 

It's too early to know exactly what direction this team is headed in. If it's a win now at any cost philosophy, I will be against it. Sure, I'll be as happy as anyone if we win a championship in the next few years, but I do not like that approach to building a baseball team.

[cp176]

I think that you are right about much of the criticism directed at Ben. I have to say though that I would be very surprised if it becomes a win at all cost philosophy all of a sudden. Just need to make better decisions overall.

[Bellhorn04]

I care, because IMO, the approach that they seem to be taking now is going to harm the team in the long term. We may be good for 3-4 years, but if we continue on this course of this seemingly new philosophy, we will go through a long drought after that.

 

If the two moves they make are the Kimbrel trade and the signing of Price, I don't think they are selling out the future of the team. They will have retained all the top prospects but Margot and Guerra, and not given up any draft picks.

[Spudboy]

We heavily disagree here. You're underselling the value of IP. Not only that, Buch has the ability to not only not pitch a lot of innings, but also get terrible results in the process, or pitch decent innings but get terrible results, as he did in 2012 and 2014. There's value in consistency, and Buchholz is nothing if not inconsistent.

 

This is a good articulation of how I see it.

 

It does no one in the org any good when you fail to show up for work.

[Spudboy]

It's not the lack of payroll. Henry has always been willing to spend, and Ben had plenty of money to work with during his time as GM. However, Henry has been quite open about his reluctance to giving long term contracts to pitchers in their 30s.

 

Dombrowski has more or less been given the clearance to obtain that one "big fish". Ben was never given the okay to do that. He could have easily re-signed Lester or signed Scherzer last offseason if he had that clearance.

 

That's the point of the first statement I bolded. Dombrowski will surely get a lot of praise for being able to get us an ace, while Ben is still being criticized for not getting an ace for us last offseason. Dombrowski and Ben are not operating under the same conditions though. It's unfair to criticize Ben for not being able to sign an ace when he did not have the okay to hand out a huge contract like Dombrowski has.

 

I understand your point. We really do not know for sure why the Sox failed to re-sign Lester. I suggested during Lester's 2014 season that maybe the Sox did not want him back. In any case, the Sox and/or Ben FAILED to sign Lester when they could of which is just after the 2013 season. They waited around until after ST to play footsy by offering the $70 mil deal. That was very stupid if the Sox really did want the guy.

 

So I say Ben failed unless it can be proven to me that the decision not to re-sign Lester came from someone else.

[a700hitter]

As I just posted to a700, it's not that Ben wasn't given any money to spend, and I don't think that that is the suggestion. It's that Ben was not given the okay to spend HUGE on either retaining Lester or signing a free agent stud pitcher.

 

Dombrowski has that okay, and it seems like Henry has given him a directive to get us an ace at almost any cost. If Ben had the okay to spend whatever he wanted on an ace, I'm sure he could do just as good a job of landing Price as Dombrowski can. I'm not sure that Ben would agree with it though.

It was Ben's failure as GM if he couldn't convince his boss that a portion of his very large payroll should be allocated to top pitching. It is his job to identify the needs of the team and convince the owners of the strategy. The strategy was Ben's. If you are going to give him credit for holding onto the valuable kids, you can't cherry pick and exonerate him for not making top shelf starters a priority. It's BS.

[a700hitter]

I care, because IMO, the approach that they seem to be taking now is going to harm the team in the long term. We may be good for 3-4 years, but if we continue on this course of this seemingly new philosophy, we will go through a long drought after that.

Goodness, will we do worse than 3 last place finishes in 4 years-- is that the kind of drought you speak of?

[jacksonianmarch]

Exactly. You have a fluke WS around 3 last place finishes. Kimmi wants a dynasty, but they don't really exist anymore.

[Kimmi]

If the two moves they make are the Kimbrel trade and the signing of Price, I don't think they are selling out the future of the team. They will have retained all the top prospects but Margot and Guerra, and not given up any draft picks.

 

I agree. And if this is the case, I will also not be as critical of the Kimbrel trade.

[Kimmi]

This is a good articulation of how I see it.

 

It does no one in the org any good when you fail to show up for work.

 

On the other side of that, sometimes having a player that only plays the first half of the season ends up being a blessing in disguise. Perhaps Owens needs the first half of the season in AAA to continue his development and to fine tune his skills, or just to manage his innings. Perhaps Owens joins the team when Buchholz gets injured and does a great job for us in the second half.

[Kimmi]

I understand your point. We really do not know for sure why the Sox failed to re-sign Lester. I suggested during Lester's 2014 season that maybe the Sox did not want him back. In any case, the Sox and/or Ben FAILED to sign Lester when they could of which is just after the 2013 season. They waited around until after ST to play footsy by offering the $70 mil deal. That was very stupid if the Sox really did want the guy.

 

So I say Ben failed unless it can be proven to me that the decision not to re-sign Lester came from someone else.

 

I agree that the Sox really botched the re-signing of Lester. IMO, it's rather odd that the FO would not offer him somewhere in the neighborhood of a Bailey contract, but now they are "all in" for Price.

[cp176]

I understand your point. We really do not know for sure why the Sox failed to re-sign Lester. I suggested during Lester's 2014 season that maybe the Sox did not want him back. In any case, the Sox and/or Ben FAILED to sign Lester when they could of which is just after the 2013 season. They waited around until after ST to play footsy by offering the $70 mil deal. That was very stupid if the Sox really did want the guy.

 

So I say Ben failed unless it can be proven to me that the decision not to re-sign Lester came from someone else.

 

I also suggested that it might have been possible that the Red Sox were not all in on signing Lester. I still believe that to be true. I'm also not sure that it was a horrible decision to not resign him. It hurt us for sure last year but if we are able to sign Price, it will become nothing but a memory. They could have ponied up the cash for him I just don't think they felt that spending what the Cubs spent for him was the way to go. At the time it all went down, most of us felt that they allowed this to happen with intentions of trying to actually go out and get a true number one either before or during last year's season. Personally, I gave them too much credit for actually having a good plan going forward. They might have thought that they did, but obviously they didn't.

[Kimmi]

It was Ben's failure as GM if he couldn't convince his boss that a portion of his very large payroll should be allocated to top pitching. It is his job to identify the needs of the team and convince the owners of the strategy. The strategy was Ben's. If you are going to give him credit for holding onto the valuable kids, you can't cherry pick and exonerate him for not making top shelf starters a priority. It's BS.

 

You are going to blame Ben no matter what. Feel free. I'm going to believe that the other team's baseball execs probably have a better idea of what's going on than you or I do.

[Kimmi]

Goodness, will we do worse than 3 last place finishes in 4 years-- is that the kind of drought you speak of?

 

If the team does in fact take on a win now at any cost philosophy, the drought could very well be longer than 4 years. So, the team doesn't finish in last, but it fails to be competitive for 7-8 years. Is that any better?

 

As far as the 3 last place finishes in 4 years, there was a WS Ring in 2013. That is not an insignificant point when talking about droughts.

[a700hitter]

You are going to blame Ben no matter what. Feel free. I'm going to believe that the other team's baseball execs probably have a better idea of what's going on than you or I do.

 

And you give him a free pass for everything bad in his tenure and full credit for everything that worked well. You are the one with the biased view of him, not me.

Edited November 27, 2015 by a700hitter

[a700hitter]

If the team does in fact take on a win now at any cost philosophy, the drought could very well be longer than 4 years. So, the team doesn't finish in last, but it fails to be competitive for 7-8 years. Is that any better?

 

As far as the 3 last place finishes in 4 years, there was a WS Ring in 2013. That is not an insignificant point when talking about droughts.

 

Really, 7-8 years of drought? That is difficult to achieve if you are willing to maintain a payroll that is in the top 5 in baseball. You are projecting a catastrophe that has never happened in the history of the game in the free agent era. Anything is possible. Ben broke the mold finishing last 3 times with a top 3 payroll. I don't think anyone had done that in the history of the game. That is not a prediction of doom. It is a fact. I will take my chances that DD will not do worse even if he has a win now mentality. He produced a consistently competitive team in Detroit for 9 years.

[cp176]

If the team does in fact take on a win now at any cost philosophy, the drought could very well be longer than 4 years. So, the team doesn't finish in last, but it fails to be competitive for 7-8 years. Is that any better?

 

As far as the 3 last place finishes in 4 years, there was a WS Ring in 2013. That is not an insignificant point when talking about droughts.

 

I really do applaud your loyalty but where is this idea of winning at all cost even coming from? Would you agree that it is a little early and a little unlikely that that is going to become the scenario? Positive approach for me. The plans if that is what we should call them, did not work out for last year. We have a new GM. He gets the same chance to prove that his way works from me that Ben did. His big move to date sends no shock wave through my spine that he is going to give away the players that we really might need going forward. Can we make more trades without that happening? - of course. I am betting on the fact that DD is not a numbskull who just doesn't get it.

[mvp 78]

Tomase is right that the Red Sox organization has flipped-flopped with their 'philosophy'. Personally, I don't care. What does that really matter? There's no guaranteed way to success in MLB. There are a lot of teams in the hunt and a lot of money in the game. Every move you make carries risks.

 

They flip flopped every year since 2011. It just seems like they don't have a clear path. Maybe having DUMBrowski on board can help that. Aside from 2013, there has been a lot of horrible baseball played since September 2011.

[Bellhorn04]

They flip flopped every year since 2011. It just seems like they don't have a clear path. Maybe having DUMBrowski on board can help that. Aside from 2013, there has been a lot of horrible baseball played since September 2011.

 

That's the plain truth.

[User Name]

I think that with Larry gone, and a strong personality like DD with lots of power, the Sox will have a clear path to follow from here on out. The problem is, will it be a path that moves the needle towards a sustainably competitive team, or will he create a "short-term win window" juggernaut like he did in Detroit? A fair question if you ask me.

[mvp 78]

With Sox payroll, they should be able to win now AND build for the future. Having Betts and Xander at cheap money helps a lot. Edited November 27, 2015 by mvp 78

[Spudboy]

I agree that the Sox really botched the re-signing of Lester. IMO, it's rather odd that the FO would not offer him somewhere in the neighborhood of a Bailey contract, but now they are "all in" for Price.

 

That Bailey contract was unfortunate. Even so, I believe that the Sox could have had Lester back at about 5/120 -5/125.

 

But only if they struck right after the 2013 season.

[Bellhorn04]

I think that with Larry gone, and a strong personality like DD with lots of power, the Sox will have a clear path to follow from here on out. The problem is, will it be a path that moves the needle towards a sustainably competitive team, or will he create a "short-term win window" juggernaut like he did in Detroit? A fair question if you ask me.

 

Personally I think Dombrowski did a pretty good job with the Tigers over the last decade. 86.4 wins per season, 5 playoff appearances, 4 trips to the ALCS and 2 pennants.

[User Name]

Personally I think Dombrowski did a pretty good job with the Tigers over the last decade. 86.4 wins per season, 5 playoff appearances, 4 trips to the ALCS and 2 pennants.

 

Tigers are on life support now though.

[Bellhorn04]

Tigers are on life support now though.

 

Avila has his work cut out, that's for sure. His first couple of moves seem to have been good ones.

[mvp 78]

Tigers are on life support now though.

 

Verlander and VMart are bad contracts. Little to no farm system. Should have re-signed Max.