Wade Miley: Not bad actually

[Kimmi]

I am in the minority camp of thinking that they have and will have all of the money that they need to get the players that will help them win. I am sure that they have numbers that they don't want ti exceed. Call it a budget if you like, I don't. I am much more concerned with them wasting contracts on players that will remain on the team for X number of years due to the nature of guaranteed contracts. If they are going to block a younger better player by hiring a slob then they need to eat the contracts or do some trading. I was not totally opposed to extending Porcello. I just think that they gave him too much. Hind sight makes Sandoval's contract look bad. The Ramirez signing came with questions from day one. Their "budget" won't be the cause of them not being successful. Their success or lack thereof will be determined by who they want on the field every year. I really hope they can make some decisions that at least look really good from the beginning. I don't think that it will have anything to do with how much money we think they do or don't have. They have the money.

 

This very thing could happen when Price is at the end of his contract. He would most likely remain on the team because of his guaranteed contract, and he very well could block a younger, better pitcher when that happens.

[Kimmi]

I agree with you. This organization has wasted more money on bad contracts than some teams have to allocate to contracts in general. Nothing they spend now will have a negative impact on what they do 5 plus years out. The only way they could hurt themselves might be by a failure to lock up a few rising stars if they get the chance.

 

It is simply not true that nothing they spend now will have a negative impact on what they do 5 years out.

[a700hitter]

I get that everyone would rather sign Price than Hanley or Pablo. The issue is not which signing would be better. The issue is the problem with large contracts, period. Just because signing Price would make more sense to most than signing Hanley or Pablo doesn't make the risks of siging Price to a huge contract any better.

 

Many of the young players that we currently have will be either in their last arb years or will become free agents at roughly the same time Price's contract is likely to be more of a burden than good. Those youngsters will no longer be inexpensive if they continue to perform and develop.

And you saw the wisdom of signing Hanley and Pablo. Those contracts didn't seem to bother you very much.

[cp176]

It is simply not true that nothing they spend now will have a negative impact on what they do 5 years out.

 

It could have a very positive impact. We have no way of knowing.

[cp176]

This very thing could happen when Price is at the end of his contract. He would most likely remain on the team because of his guaranteed contract, and he very well could block a younger, better pitcher when that happens.

 

I'm guessing that it will never happen with a pitcher particularly in Boston. If you think that my choice of words might support your position it is all good. I can only speak here for myself but I see no parallels between signing a proven top of the rotation pitcher to what our Red Sox did this year.

[Kimmi]

And you saw the wisdom of signing Hanley and Pablo. Those contracts didn't seem to bother you very much.

 

I understand the rationale behind both signings. I had no problem with Hanley's contract which, given its relatively short length, I thought was a reasonable contract. However, I have stated many times that I am not a fan of Pablo's contract, and that I thought there were better options for 3B.

 

I understand the rationale behind signing Price. I will not be a fan of his contract if we do sign him, but I will be a fan of the player.

[Kimmi]

It could have a very positive impact. We have no way of knowing.

 

No, we have no way of knowing. And as I've said before, it's quite possible that Price will pitch well for the duration of his contract.

 

I'm not saying that the Sox should not sign him. We need a strong #1 in our rotation next year and I understand it's going to cost us. I am just stating my dislike and wariness of long contracts.

[a700hitter]

I understand the rationale behind both signings. I had no problem with Hanley's contract which, given its relatively short length, I thought was a reasonable contract. However, I have stated many times that I am not a fan of Pablo's contract, and that I thought there were better options for 3B.

 

I understand the rationale behind signing Price. I will not be a fan of his contract if we do sign him, but I will be a fan of the player.

I am not a fan of any of their contracts. They are all in the realm of stupid--just more evidence of the collective incompetence of baseball management. That being said, it is the world of baseball that we live in. So, I guess that I will support any big moves that DD makes while publicly stating that the size of the contracts disturb me, thus reserving my right to hammer the crap out of him if it goes bad. LOL!!! Edited October 22, 2015 by a700hitter
typo

[Kimmi]

I am not a fan of any of their contracts. They are all in the realm of stupid--just more evidence of the collective incompetence of baseball management. That being said, it is the world of baseball that we live in. So, I guess that I will support any big moves that DD makes while publicly stating that the size of the contracts disturb me, thus reserving my right to hammer the crap out of him if it goes bad. LOL!!!

 

I don't know what is so difficult about the idea of being happy as a fan if the Sox sign a good player even though you might not like the contract.

 

If the decision were up to me, I would not sign Price for the $200 mil contract that he is likely to get. Even though I usually prefer not having to give up prospects, this is a case where I think trading for a younger, cost-controlled pitcher would be the better option, as I've stated before.

 

Regardless, if Dombrowski does sign Price, I will be happy as a fan. I know that the team needs pitching, and I know that Price will make the team better, at least at the front end of the contract. Why would I not be happy about that?

 

If the contract goes bad, I will not hammer Dombrowski. I did not like Pablo's contract, but I was happy to have him on the team. That deal looks horrible right now. Have I hammered either Ben or Pablo for that signing? I'm pretty sure I'm the only one here who is still defending that signing, even though I didn't like the contract and I preferred Headley over Pablo.

 

That's the difference between you and me. I can understand and accept the rationale behind moves even if I don't agree with them. And just because they turn out bad, it doesn't mean that it was the wrong thing to do at the time it was done.

[Kimmi]

That said, if Dombrowski goes all out with a 'win now at any cost' approach and mortgages the future of this team for many years to come, I will be critical of him. Theo and Ben have the absolute right philosophy when it comes to building a franchise. Dombrowski should not take a 180 on that philosophy.

[Bellhorn04]

I don't know what is so difficult about the idea of being happy as a fan if the Sox sign a good player even though you might not like the contract.

 

If the decision were up to me, I would not sign Price for the $200 mil contract that he is likely to get. Even though I usually prefer not having to give up prospects, this is a case where I think trading for a younger, cost-controlled pitcher would be the better option, as I've stated before.

 

Regardless, if Dombrowski does sign Price, I will be happy as a fan. I know that the team needs pitching, and I know that Price will make the team better, at least at the front end of the contract. Why would I not be happy about that?

 

If the contract goes bad, I will not hammer Dombrowski. I did not like Pablo's contract, but I was happy to have him on the team. That deal looks horrible right now. Have I hammered either Ben or Pablo for that signing? I'm pretty sure I'm the only one here who is still defending that signing, even though I didn't like the contract and I preferred Headley over Pablo.

 

That's the difference between you and me. I can understand and accept the rationale behind moves even if I don't agree with them. And just because they turn out bad, it doesn't mean that it was the wrong thing to do at the time it was done.

 

I liked the Pablo signing for the most part. But I was very surprised that they signed Pablo and Hanley at virtually the same time. It seemed strange - definitely felt like one of those 'let's make a splash' situations.

[jacksonianmarch]

Kimmi, you are talking as if you are a Ben Cherington stooge. Seriously, get a new script. Ben did not have the right philosophy. His philosophy was schizophrenic when it came to long term contracts. He wouldn't give one to a Boston proven ace with playoff chops but he was willing to give one to an oft injured prima donna who was switching positions to something he has never played before? He isn't willing to go long for a starting pitcher, but he is willing to go long on an ever expanding 3b who was a fluke October away from not even getting a qualifying offer? Ben may have said some things about long term deals, but he spent like a drunken sailor in other areas that are going to hamstring your team for years to come. And the funny thing is, you had a better, younger and cheaper player already in the system at the position (Holt, Shaw, Bradley).

 

Theo is different. He developed the team from the ground up. But he also knew when to throw his hat into the ring and go all in. Hence why he has Lester under contract and Boston doesn't. Yes, he had some failed moves like Edwin Jackson, but he also masterfully dealt a peaking Jeff Samardzija for his cornerstone SS of the future and also made the shrewd move to get Arrieta away from the O's. He waited to strike on the FA market until his team was right on the cusp. Cherington shot his wad early and for the wrong players. Hence why he is without a job and why Theo looks to be building a balanced team ready for multiple playoff berths in the future.

 

Dombrowski is there to turn your team into a winner and fast. And to do that, he will need to move some young pieces and may need to take on a rough contract or two. You know, the exact thing Theo did to get Beckett. Sometimes your prospects turn into Casey Fossum and sometimes they don't.

[a700hitter]

That said, if Dombrowski goes all out with a 'win now at any cost' approach and mortgages the future of this team for many years to come, I will be critical of him. Theo and Ben have the absolute right philosophy when it comes to building a franchise. Dombrowski should not take a 180 on that philosophy.

 

And this right after you make a lengthy post about not hammering DD. Lol! Will you wait until the future plays out before you hammer him? Until the future plays out, I don't know how you could hammer him based on your future projections.

[Spudboy]

lol

[cp176]

I liked the Pablo signing for the most part. But I was very surprised that they signed Pablo and Hanley at virtually the same time. It seemed strange - definitely felt like one of those 'let's make a splash' situations.

 

You and I might be the only two on here who felt as though the Sandoval signing made sense. Hind sight might indicate otherwise but maybe not. We shall see.

[sk7326]

Kimmi, you are talking as if you are a Ben Cherington stooge. Seriously, get a new script. Ben did not have the right philosophy. His philosophy was schizophrenic when it came to long term contracts. He wouldn't give one to a Boston proven ace with playoff chops but he was willing to give one to an oft injured prima donna who was switching positions to something he has never played before? He isn't willing to go long for a starting pitcher, but he is willing to go long on an ever expanding 3b who was a fluke October away from not even getting a qualifying offer? Ben may have said some things about long term deals, but he spent like a drunken sailor in other areas that are going to hamstring your team for years to come. And the funny thing is, you had a better, younger and cheaper player already in the system at the position (Holt, Shaw, Bradley).

 

Theo is different. He developed the team from the ground up. But he also knew when to throw his hat into the ring and go all in. Hence why he has Lester under contract and Boston doesn't. Yes, he had some failed moves like Edwin Jackson, but he also masterfully dealt a peaking Jeff Samardzija for his cornerstone SS of the future and also made the shrewd move to get Arrieta away from the O's. He waited to strike on the FA market until his team was right on the cusp. Cherington shot his wad early and for the wrong players. Hence why he is without a job and why Theo looks to be building a balanced team ready for multiple playoff berths in the future.

 

Dombrowski is there to turn your team into a winner and fast. And to do that, he will need to move some young pieces and may need to take on a rough contract or two. You know, the exact thing Theo did to get Beckett. Sometimes your prospects turn into Casey Fossum and sometimes they don't.

 

Technically Hoyer and Cherington did the Beckett thing

[Kimmi]

I liked the Pablo signing for the most part. But I was very surprised that they signed Pablo and Hanley at virtually the same time. It seemed strange - definitely felt like one of those 'let's make a splash' situations.

 

I didn't think it was strange at all. I was surprised by it, but I didn't think it was strange. Offense was a weakness in 2014. Hitting was at a premium that offseason. The Sox signed two of the best offensive free agents (or what was supposed to be the best) to address their weakness from the previous season.

[Kimmi]

Kimmi, you are talking as if you are a Ben Cherington stooge. Seriously, get a new script. Ben did not have the right philosophy. His philosophy was schizophrenic when it came to long term contracts. He wouldn't give one to a Boston proven ace with playoff chops but he was willing to give one to an oft injured prima donna who was switching positions to something he has never played before? He isn't willing to go long for a starting pitcher, but he is willing to go long on an ever expanding 3b who was a fluke October away from not even getting a qualifying offer? Ben may have said some things about long term deals, but he spent like a drunken sailor in other areas that are going to hamstring your team for years to come. And the funny thing is, you had a better, younger and cheaper player already in the system at the position (Holt, Shaw, Bradley).

 

Theo is different. He developed the team from the ground up. But he also knew when to throw his hat into the ring and go all in. Hence why he has Lester under contract and Boston doesn't. Yes, he had some failed moves like Edwin Jackson, but he also masterfully dealt a peaking Jeff Samardzija for his cornerstone SS of the future and also made the shrewd move to get Arrieta away from the O's. He waited to strike on the FA market until his team was right on the cusp. Cherington shot his wad early and for the wrong players. Hence why he is without a job and why Theo looks to be building a balanced team ready for multiple playoff berths in the future.

 

Dombrowski is there to turn your team into a winner and fast. And to do that, he will need to move some young pieces and may need to take on a rough contract or two. You know, the exact thing Theo did to get Beckett. Sometimes your prospects turn into Casey Fossum and sometimes they don't.

 

Ben's philosophy was to build a strong franchise through building a strong farm, then supplementing the home grown players through free agency. You may not agree with the players that he chose to sign in free agency, but he stuck with his long term plan of prioritizing the farm system. The team is now in great shape for several years to come. Spot on long term philosophy.

[Kimmi]

And this right after you make a lengthy post about not hammering DD. Lol! Will you wait until the future plays out before you hammer him? Until the future plays out, I don't know how you could hammer him based on your future projections.

 

I posted about not hammering Dombrowski if he signs Price and the contract goes bad. I won't hammer him over a bad contract if I see the rationale behind the contract, which I do with Price.

 

There's a difference between signing a bad contract or two, and revamping the entire philosophy and framework of the organization. Theo's and Ben's philosophy is one that I strongly agree with because it is absolutely the right way to build a successful franchise. If Dombrowski does a 180 on the team's philosphy, I will be critical.

[a700hitter]

I posted about not hammering Dombrowski if he signs Price and the contract goes bad. I won't hammer him over a bad contract if I see the rationale behind the contract, which I do with Price.

 

There's a difference between signing a bad contract or two, and revamping the entire philosophy and framework of the organization. Theo's and Ben's philosophy is one that I strongly agree with because it is absolutely the right way to build a successful franchise. If Dombrowski does a 180 on the team's philosphy, I will be critical.

How do you judge when he has revamped the entire philosophy -- after the first move ? the second? maybe the third? If each move has a sound rationale when you analyze it, at what point do the cumulative moves represent a revamping of philosophy? I think the team needs a change in philosophy. The Red Sox need to be better at evaluating, drafting, acquiring and developing pitching in the organization. This is a deficiency that needs to change if they want to be consistently successful.

[Kimmi]

How do you judge when he has revamped the entire philosophy -- after the first move ? the second? maybe the third? If each move has a sound rationale when you analyze it, at what point do the cumulative moves represent a revamping of philosophy? I think the team needs a change in philosophy. The Red Sox need to be better at evaluating, drafting, acquiring and developing pitching in the organization. This is a deficiency that needs to change if they want to be consistently successful.

 

It depends on what the moves are. I don't know what the exact point is. Each move may or may not have a sound rationale behind it. We'll have to wait and see.

 

I am not the type to be overly critical of the Sox in any capacity. I always try to understand the rationale and support that rationale, even if I don't agree with the move. You should know that, as many times as you've called me a homer. Why you think I'm sitting around waiting to pounce on Dombrowski is beyond me. Just because I said that I will be critical if he does a 180 on the philosophy does not mean that I'm hoping for a chance or looking for a reason to hammer him.

 

IMO, the drafting has been fine, as is evidenced by the strong farm system. I agree about the changes in evaluating. I fully understand why Cherington was fired, though I don't necessarily agree with it.

[a700hitter]

It depends on what the moves are. I don't know what the exact point is. Each move may or may not have a sound rationale behind it. We'll have to wait and see.

 

I am not the type to be overly critical of the Sox in any capacity. I always try to understand the rationale and support that rationale, even if I don't agree with the move. You should know that, as many times as you've called me a homer. Why you think I'm sitting around waiting to pounce on Dombrowski is beyond me. Just because I said that I will be critical if he does a 180 on the philosophy does not mean that I'm hoping for a chance or looking for a reason to hammer him.

 

IMO, the drafting has been fine, as is evidenced by the strong farm system. I agree about the changes in evaluating. I fully understand why Cherington was fired, though I don't necessarily agree with it.

 

I am just wondering what the tipping point is in your mind to a change of philosophy. How many big money moves will it take? If you are okay with getting Price, will you turn on DD if he gets another big pitcher for prospects other than Bogaerts or Betts? You like to do the "I understand the move, but would not have made the move myself" routine that I find amusing. I too understand that they make moves with the intent of succeeding, but if I disagree with the moves it is because I don't think they will work out well. In other words, imo the moves are wrong. If I think the moves are bad, their rationale doesn't matter to me. I have a simpler approach when judging a GM. I don't try to figure out their intent. I just look at the team results over a three year period. I might give a GM an extra couple of years if he walks into a tear down situation, but wins and losses is the best barometer. Every other method just injects excuses imo.

[Kimmi]

I am just wondering what the tipping point is in your mind to a change of philosophy. How many big money moves will it take? If you are okay with getting Price, will you turn on DD if he gets another big pitcher for prospects other than Bogaerts or Betts? You like to do the "I understand the move, but would not have made the move myself" routine that I find amusing. I too understand that they make moves with the intent of succeeding, but if I disagree with the moves it is because I don't think they will work out well. In other words, imo the moves are wrong. If I think the moves are bad, their rationale doesn't matter to me. I have a simpler approach when judging a GM. I don't try to figure out their intent. I just look at the team results over a three year period. I might give a GM an extra couple of years if he walks into a tear down situation, but wins and losses is the best barometer. Every other method just injects excuses imo.

 

I don't have a specific tipping point set. We will be able to get a better sense of what Dombrowski's philosphy and intentions are as we go through the offseason. Honestly, I think it would be very difficult for Dombrowski to strip the farm. Plus, what I'm hearing is that Betts and Bogaerts are still untouchable, along with 3 of our top prospects, so he seems to value the farm system strongly enough.

 

I'm not sure why you find my "I understand the move, but would not have made the move myself routine" so amusing. I'm not so arrogant as to think that just because I don't like a move that it must be wrong. When I say I would not have made the move, it's because I don't think that the move, on the whole, is worth the cost, be it in players, dollars, or years. It doesn't mean that the move is necessarily wrong, or that it won't work out. It means that I think there was a better option or that the risk is too great.

[a700hitter]

I don't have a specific tipping point set. We will be able to get a better sense of what Dombrowski's philosphy and intentions are as we go through the offseason. Honestly, I think it would be very difficult for Dombrowski to strip the farm. Plus, what I'm hearing is that Betts and Bogaerts are still untouchable, along with 3 of our top prospects, so he seems to value the farm system strongly enough.

 

I'm not sure why you find my "I understand the move, but would not have made the move myself routine" so amusing. I'm not so arrogant as to think that just because I don't like a move that it must be wrong. When I say I would not have made the move, it's because I don't think that the move, on the whole, is worth the cost, be it in players, dollars, or years. It doesn't mean that the move is necessarily wrong, or that it won't work out. It means that I think there was a better option or that the risk is too great.

 

You may call it arrogance. I just think of it as standing by my opinion. When I form an opinion, I think it is right, but I realize that I am not always right. When I am wrong I don't don't rationalize my mistake or try to make myself feel better by analyzing what my rationale was when I formed my opinion. I try to figure out why I was wrong and learn from it.

Edited October 25, 2015 by a700hitter

[Kimmi]

You may call it arrogance. I just think of it as standing by my opinion. When I form an opinion, I think it is right, but I realize that I am not always right. When I am wrong I don't don't rationalize my mistake or try to make myself feel better by analyzing what my rationale was when I formed my opinion. I try to figure out why I was wrong and learn from it.

 

There are times when I don't understand or can't see any rationale behind an opposing opinion. There are also times when I can go other either way with my opinion.

 

When anyone forms an opinion, he/she usually thinks it's right. Just because I can understand somebody else's rationale for his opinion or decision does not mean that I don't believe that my opinion is right. That said, I know that the people who hold these jobs know more about baseball than I do. I also know that they have far more information, data, and personnel to form their opinions than I do. Therefore, when I disagree with what they have done, I try to understand their reasoning behind why they did it. It's called having an open mind. Things are not as black and white as you make them out to be.

 

It's not rationalizing after the fact to make myself feel better. These are opinions and rationales that have been stated since the moves have been made, not excuses that I've come up with after the fact. Sometimes bad decisions end up working out. Sometimes good decisions don't work out.

 

It's like Gibbons' decision on whether to pull Price in the 7th inning or not. You disagreed with his decision and so you automatically conclude that it was the wrong decision. There is some very good rationale behind both decisions.

[SoxnCycles]

you may call it arrogance. I just think of it as standing by my opinion. When i form an opinion, i think it is right, but i realize that i am not always right. when i am wrong i don't don't rationalize my mistake or try to make myself feel better by analyzing what my rationale was when i formed my opinion. I try to figure out why i was wrong and learn from it.

 

lmfao.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbMKjLe-RFA

Edited October 27, 2015 by SoxnCycles

[Dojji]

Ben's philosophy was to build a strong franchise through building a strong farm, then supplementing the home grown players through free agency. You may not agree with the players that he chose to sign in free agency, but he stuck with his long term plan of prioritizing the farm system. The team is now in great shape for several years to come. Spot on long term philosophy.

 

Indeed. I actually really like the condition of the farm system, but in Boston, you have to manage both successfully, and Ben lost the confidence of the team when it comes to his work on the big league product. He could probably get a GM job in a smaller market franchise and do fine for himself based on this body of work, they're more tolerant of poor on field product while the farm is putting itself together. It worked for Dayton Moore who would be an abject disaster in a big market but is now getting a lot of credit for putting the Royals where they are.

[Kimmi]

Indeed. I actually really like the condition of the farm system, but in Boston, you have to manage both successfully, and Ben lost the confidence of the team when it comes to his work on the big league product. He could probably get a GM job in a smaller market franchise and do fine for himself based on this body of work, they're more tolerant of poor on field product while the farm is putting itself together. It worked for Dayton Moore who would be an abject disaster in a big market but is now getting a lot of credit for putting the Royals where they are.

 

I've said before that Cherington didn't have the luxury of telling his fanbase to be "patient" while the farm develops, like Theo and Moore did. He had to keep the team competitive while rebuilding the farm. He did a great job of it in 2013. His free agent moves didn't work out the other two years, but the farm system is pretty much where he envisioned it to be. It's too bad he can't be around to see how this team plays out the next few years.

[a700hitter]

The

I've said before that Cherington didn't have the luxury of telling his fanbase to be "patient" while the farm develops, like Theo and Moore did. He had to keep the team competitive while rebuilding the farm. He did a great job of it in 2013. His free agent moves didn't work out the other two years, but the farm system is pretty much where he envisioned it to be. It's too bad he can't be around to see how this team plays out the next few years.

His flaw was building a pitching staff. That was his blind spot and no matter how good your offense is, you need pitching to win. Ben couldn't finish the job.

[Kimmi]

The His flaw was building a pitching staff. That was his blind spot and no matter how good your offense is, you need pitching to win. Ben couldn't finish the job.

 

His philosophy of building a team with a strong offense and a mediocre pitching staff should have worked. When all areas of the team underperform significantly for the first half of the season, it's hard to blame the GM.