The Official Dead Horse Topics Thread

[jung]

But that is the point.....toss that many X factors on one 25 man roster and you are just asking for it. There was close to nothing you could really rely upon as anything more than quicksand under your feet in the construction of the 2015 effort. Too many guys changing leagues, too may guys being exposed to pressures they had never seen before in their careers, too many outright dice rolls in the form of Hanley in left carrying around 20 more pounds of bulk he had purposefully put on (not too bright) while offering that he would "work" to become a LFer (sure you are Hanley), Panda signed here without a weight clause when SF wouldn't do that sounds like something that should not have been ignored. Anybody that thinks carrying around all that tonnage does not become more of an issue as the player ages has absconded with Alice's looking glass, Porcello suddenly thrust into the spotlight because we just had to extend him offering him what would likely have been every single greenback he could have expected to have attracted in a FA market best case scenario. Castillo....another mystery, dice role signing.

 

You can claim that there are too many X factors but somebody put those X factors all on the same roster and did it without exercising much in the way of a rational thought process. Now we are stuck with a switch hitter that can no longer switch hit because his swing looks like he is wrapped in bungee cord when he bats from the Right Side, doomed to bat LHed. That means he becomes even more of a singles hitter in this ballpark, trundling around the bases trying to keep his pants from splitting. We have a guy that simply does not want to play anywhere in the field but we have to find someplace for him and HOPE. Oh by the way, now the aforementioned tubby gets to throw across the diamond to the guy that really does not want to play anywhere. Then there is Castillo, a guy for whom we just keep our fingers and toes crossed turns out to be any kind of baseball player AT ALL while he carts home his millions. Lets not even talk about Clark who we will conveniently forget still gets a check every week and now gets a mighty big check at that.

 

This could only have been the concoction of bad management personnel shoehorned into a bad organizational structure. Thank God both the structure and the personnel are gone. The shame of it is that Larry might have been the Best President this Organization ever had...just not suited to also be the defacto Pres of Baseball Ops overseeing BC. BC for his part might have been the best Director of Player Personnel the organization ever had. But if he should have been the GM, JH would not have had to make Larry his baby sitter.

 

Now we are strapped with boatloads of sunk cost in players going nowhere fast, with radioactive contracts that nobody will touch with a ten foot pole in an MLB that has slowly but surely been mitigating that good ole' fashioned big market team advantage to the point where it is just about no advantage at all. I think DD has done a terrific job with a bad BAD situation. I also think it will take more than one off season of work no matter how brilliant to correct this mess.

[Elktonnick]

But that is the point.....toss that many X factors on one 25 man roster and you are just asking for it. There was close to nothing you could really rely upon as anything more than quicksand under your feet in the construction of the 2015 effort. Too many guys changing leagues, too may guys being exposed to pressures they had never seen before in their careers, too many outright dice rolls in the form of Hanley in left carrying around 20 more pounds of bulk he had purposefully put on (not too bright) while offering that he would "work" to become a LFer (sure you are Hanley), Panda signed here without a weight clause when SF wouldn't do that sounds like something that should not have been ignored. Anybody that thinks carrying around all that tonnage does not become more of an issue as the player ages has absconded with Alice's looking glass, Porcello suddenly thrust into the spotlight because we just had to extend him offering him what would likely have been every single greenback he could have expected to have attracted in a FA market best case scenario. Castillo....another mystery, dice role signing.

 

You can claim that there are too many X factors but somebody put those X factors all on the same roster and did it without exercising much in the way of a rational thought process. Now we are stuck with a switch hitter that can no longer switch hit because his swing looks like he is wrapped in bungee cord when he bats from the Right Side, doomed to bat LHed. That means he becomes even more of a singles hitter in this ballpark, trundling around the bases trying to keep his pants from splitting. We have a guy that simply does not want to play anywhere in the field but we have to find someplace for him and HOPE. Oh by the way, now the aforementioned tubby gets to throw across the diamond to the guy that really does not want to play anywhere. Then there is Castillo, a guy for whom we just keep our fingers and toes crossed turns out to be any kind of baseball player AT ALL while he carts home his millions. Lets not even talk about Clark who we will conveniently forget still gets a check every week and now gets a mighty big check at that.

 

This could only have been the concoction of bad management personnel shoehorned into a bad organizational structure. Thank God both the structure and the personnel are gone. The shame of it is that Larry might have been the Best President this Organization ever had...just not suited to also be the defacto Pres of Baseball Ops overseeing BC. BC for his part might have been the best Director of Player Personnel the organization ever had. But if he should have been the GM, JH would not have had to make Larry his baby sitter.

 

Now we are strapped with boatloads of sunk cost in players going nowhere fast, with radioactive contracts that nobody will touch with a ten foot pole in an MLB that has slowly but surely been mitigating that good ole' fashioned big market team advantage to the point where it is just about no advantage at all. I think DD has done a terrific job with a bad BAD situation. I also think it will take more than one off season of work no matter how brilliant to correct this mess.

 

What is in explicable is the "shoehorning"(to use your term) players into positions that they were ill suited. BC tried it with Bard with disastrous results, Hanley in left and now at 1st,we can only hope. Regarding Sandoval, the warning signs were there but they choose to ignore them. His defensive WAR was never really that good (if you rely on such stats) and his refusal to want a weight clause should have given pause.

[Spudboy]

The Larry/BC regime was a stark staring mess. BC never had JH's confidence and Larry simply saw his defacto Pres of Baseball Ops position as a subset of his President of the Sox role and did the job that way.

 

Neither was responsible for 2013. By Larry's own admission, they had no idea that the 2013 team had that sort of potential and they had not built it for that purpose. It was in their eyes the very definition of a bridge and no less authority than Larry called it that publicly. Serendipity built that championship...entirely and completely unrepeatable by that route. It is virtually impossible to repeat a combination of vets each individually with something to prove with young guys about to burst on MLB, pretty solid pitching and getting 4 deep into closers before you stumble upon the best guy you had [but didn't know it] right from the start.

 

As for last year's mess......Hanley bamboozled BC to get the job...lied through his teeth in fact and fanboy handed over $20m of JH's money for the privilege. Then went on to call Hanley's efforts Heroic. Fanboys don't get much responsibility in MLB Front Offices. Panda was signed without a weight clause...something SF was not willing to do and now we have a player that is literally owned by his weight issues. Many of us saw this as soon as he was signed but hoped he would not be owned by the issue for at least a couple of years....instead of right from year 1. There was no earthly reason to extend Porcello when we did for what we did. We literally gave him more money than he could have ever hoped to have secured in FA. Lets not forget Castillo, the Mr. potential to be a JAG at best being paid millions of $$. Then there is getting fleeced by the Cards who clearly knew more about the players they were trading to us than we did.

 

No folks.....it will IMO be a long long time before somebody in MLB gives BC a job where he is making major decisions involving millions of $$. BC should have never risen above Director of Player Personnel here.

 

Excellent post.

[User Name]

No, it is not. The amount of logical fallacies in that post is enough to drive a legal logic professor to commit seppuku because of the sin his eyes have commited by reading it. Just because BC f***ed some s*** up (and he did) doesn't mean we should deny his accomplishments and make a bunch of stuff up regarding the acquisitions where he missed.

[jd98]

..Lets not even talk about Clark who we will conveniently forget...

 

That was unintentionally amusing

[SoxnCycles]

No, it is not. The amount of logical fallacies in that post is enough to drive a legal logic professor to commit seppuku because of the sin his eyes have commited by reading it. Just because BC f***ed some s*** up (and he did) doesn't mean we should deny his accomplishments and make a bunch of stuff up regarding the acquisitions where he missed.

 

LOL

If things were really that bad, Jesus Christ couldn't fix it, never mind DD.

[jung]

Don't let him bother you. He doesn't bother me. I used to engage with him and even agree with him often. But notice not once does he offer any specific counter to any specific point other than the one about Fenway and doubles which Elk quickly stomped into the pavement where it belongs.

 

There are BC apologists and Larry apologists all over the Internet. It is like THEY can't separate the good those guys did from the bad and then accuse everybody else of the same thing. Go look in a mirror. In reality most all of what BC did well he did in the position he was born for apparently. Not the GM role which he really only functioned in at Larry's good graces. That simply did not turn out to be the balancing act JH hoped it would be. I have never liked anything about the Apprentice Baseball Exec in training idea, not for a high profile job like Boston. At the end of the day, all you really have to look at is Larry's new address and BC's new address.

 

I really don't think JH would have preferred Exec in training either. But JH is a strange duck when it comes to what it takes to earn his trust. Theo tired of waiting for JH to get Larry off his neck and even with all their water over the dam, JH STILL would not give Theo the job he and we needed for him to have. Theo had to go to Chicago to get the job. Given Larry's reaction to that I think Larry believes JH blames him for that. Heck for a period, Larry would not let Theo back in the building!

 

Ultimately I think even when DD stumbles which is inevitable, it would always have taken somebody like DD that JH trusted in that position for its occupant to actually be able to do that job, for the organization to not be utterly chock full of cross functionality with people having responsibilities they did not want. Larry loved Marketing. He did not love IMO having the responsibility of Pres, Baseball Ops. People do what they love and can be easily manipulated when it comes to the rest.

 

What we had was a concoction totally based IMO on JH's steadfast insistence in having people spending his money that he has developed great trust in over years of interaction and his lack of trust in both BC and Theo for that matter. JH has that particular malady to a fault IMO and it really didn't do him any good in the end. JH drew a relatively meaningless line in the sand regarding pitchers over the age of thirty...in the meantime, Larry/BC were spending like drunken sailors, double dipping on Hanley/Panda as if the Agons/Crawford double dip had never happened. Nice move guys.

 

As for the 2013 effort.....Larry, a guy who hates the word bridge, called the 2013 team a bridge publicly just as the season was starting. I nearly fell off my chair. But that is how little Larry thought of the 2013 team going in. I would have thought Larry would have preferred a trip to the dentist to publicly calling any Red Sox team a bridge.

 

That is what they thought they were doing. Its a great championship and I won't be returning the flag. But it is not repeatable and therefor does not represent a "strategy" or a "process". If you want to thank somebody for 2013, thank the players first and foremost, especially the vets on that team, especially the vets who really felt they had something to prove. While the things they wanted to prove were specific to them as individuals, they saw their path through that specific team and subjugated their roles to that team, something i don't expect anytime soon from Mr. Can't push himself away from the table, let me see if I can get hooked up for a date while in the game, 3rd baseman.

 

Then when one of those guys from 2013 went down we had guys in the wings like XB and Iggy that were really on their last years as subs of any sort. It would have been nice for example if BC knew that his best closer was buried four deep on the depth chart or even had an inking. "Darn, now I have to depend on this guy Koji to close.....WHAT AM I GOING TO DO!!!

 

A year later, XB was starting and Iggy was gone. But for the remainder of the that season and in the post season, the best option at Short for that team was Drew, an experienced defensive specialist right were he needed to be for post season play, which is high on pitching and run prevention. In fact, Drew flat outplayed Iggy in their direct post season match up with Iggy making more spectacular plays but in the end hurting the Tigers by not being able to make the tough but less spectacular play. Conversely nothing got past Drew in that post season. I think he booted one ball out of countless tough plays and was a rock for the whole post season.

 

If you want to thank somebody for that championship thank the players and especially guys like Drew. As much as he is criticized here for his many failings, we don't win that crown without Drew playing Short. Every one of the "got something to prove to continue my playing career" guys were major contributors to that team's effort.

 

So I am fully able to credit BC for the job he did as Director of Player Personnel, wish he was never pulled out of that job and think there is little question that if you could just have given LL Kennedy's job now, Larry would likely still be doing it. Larry should go down as the best President the organization ever had. Just not capable when it came to the way JH decided to jury rig Baseball Ops. If anything it cost us Theo and gave us BC. BC should go down as the best Director of Player Personnel we ever had but one of its worst GM's.

[User Name]

He's talking about you, not me.

 

And what more counter do you want than the fact that your logic is terrible? Because it is. You don't get to move the goalposts when assigning blame or credit. It's the same fallacy as "if we take X month out of X player's performance, he had an excellent season". It doesn't work like that.

 

Why is it so hard to say that BC did a good job in 2013, but screwed up in 2014 and 2015? It's really that simple. Making a bunch of stuff up about the dynamics of the front office, or trying to psychoanalize players and FO personnel is an exercise in futility. Stick to the facts. Also, it'd be a lot easier to stick to specific points in arguments if every post you wrote wasn't an encyclopedia. It's not a criticism on posting style, you can post however, whatever and whenever you want, but it forces whoever doesn't want to write a thesis in reply to go for the blanket response.

 

Also, I didn't read Elktonnick's post (and why would I read anything he writes?) but whatever he said, he's wrong, and that's easy to prove, because there's more than enough readily available data that proves that Fenway is a homerdome for RIGHT HANDED HITTERS, which is specifically what I said.

 

So, in summary: Let's stick to the facts, let's not make stuff up and let's use common sense.

 

As a whole, Cherington's regime was not very good, that is a fact. But trying to discount the accomplishment of 2013 by any means available seems unnecesary to me.

Edited December 29, 2015 by User Name?

[User Name]

To further explain the point about Fenway and Homeruns:

 

In 2013/2014, Fenway had a 2.20% (26th) HR percentage for LHB, and a 2.90% (14th) percentage for right handed batters. The park favors RH homeruns, but absolutely nullifies LH HR power. And if you go back a couple years, when the Sox had a better lineup with more RH power, Fenway played even better as HR park for RHH. Numbers are right there.

 

https://rotogrinders.com/pages/ballpark-factors-49556

[Kimmi]

I fundamentally disagree with this. The GM's job is to assemble a team of players who perform well, not to assemble players who look good on paper.

 

Because no one can predict the future, the GM's job is to assemble a team that looks good on paper, because a team that looks good on paper is supposed to translate to a team that performs well. Of course, that doesn't always happen for a multitude of reasons. But the GM cannot control how the players perform on the field.

[Kimmi]

So are you saying that there are teams made up entirely of guys who look bad on paper who somehow perform well enough to seriously contend? Doesn't every team made up of "players who perform well" begin as a team that "looks good on paper"? I don't really get what you mean here. If a GM isn't supposed to build a team in the offseason that looks good on paper, what is he supposed to measure the offseason by?

 

You are absolutely correct YOTN.

[Kimmi]

Not trying to put words in the man's mouth but i think what Elk is saying is that a team that ONLY "looks good on paper" is tantamount to a team that is an assemblage of stats. IMO, it is just as bad a process as not paying any attention to the stats.

 

A team that is an assemblage of stats alone is no team at all. You should not be surprised when a team like that is unable to develop any sort of meaningful offensive process to score runs. More often than not, you end up with each guy going to the plate to protect his own hind end with no rhyme nor reason to what they are doing....guys with no speed that end up hitting singles and clogging up the base paths....guys with at least some power up with nobody on, guys that represent a very low possibility of hitting one out constantly swinging for the fences...stuff like that....sound familiar??? But of course we will get the Fantasy crowd utterly convinced that they can do a GM or Pres Baseball Ops job using their success in Fantasy Leagues as proof positive of that.

 

FTR, when I say a team looks good on paper, I don't mean just by their stats. The large majority of analysts, including writers who are not stats people, favored the Sox for the division. When the Sox are heavy favorites to win the division, whether you're talking about by computer projections systems or by the people who do baseball for a living, both stat gurus and non, I am confident that the GM did his job during the offseason.

 

And if you think the 2015 team was assembled based on stats alone, you're only fooling yourself.

[Kimmi]

I think the 2003 -2015 Red Sox were a team that relied heavily on stats and less on the human factors. Now the team was successful but it also had its failures. If one objectively looks at its failures they generally fall into the category of failing to adequately take into consideration those human factors when constructing a winning team.

 

They probably did rely more on stats than they did on human factors, but scouting has always been an important part of both Theo's and Ben's team building process. And is it coincidence that during that period from 2003-2015, the Sox were arguably one of the most successful teams in baseball, having won 3 World Series Championships in that span after not winning one in 86 years? I think not!

[SoxnCycles]

He's talking about you, not me.

 

 

He's sharp...

[Kimmi]

I don't know if that is universally true. Take the Washington Nationals for example. They looked good on paper but haven't performed well on the field. Their failure to perform on the field has been predicted by many analysts who recognized the poor team chemistry and bad management. There are no metrics to measure team chemistry other than results.

 

I don't recall any anaylysts, much less 'many' of them, who predicted failure for the Nationals going into the season based on poor team chemistry. They were the overwhelming favorites to win their division and heavy favorites to win the World Series. Honestly, I don't recall one word about poor team chemistry.

 

Sure, once the Nationals started losing, then people started speculating about poor team chemistry, but that's usually the case when a team is losing.

 

It's like the chicken and beer thing. It was a huge issue, only because the team was losing. If the team were winning, that would have been looked at as a team chemistry type of thing amongst the pitchers.

[Kimmi]

Another element of team building that uses the stats without using them to exclusion of everything else is building the team to the confines and characteristics of your own park. Do you guys really think the Royals excel in their own park because of some fan enthusiasm thing or "JUST BECAUSE". They are built to excel there.

 

Conversely, only people who do not understand Fenway Park think it is a HR hitter's park. It is not. It is the best doubles park in all baseball bar none. In most of the last twenty years the Sox have been 1st in doubles and if not first 2nd and until last year there was only one exception in the last sixteen years.

 

Last year we spent most of the time mired in the bottom half of baseball in doubles...just unheard of here and ultimately struggled up to 6th I think by the end. 6th might sound impressive to some. But in truth, 6th here is almost criminal.

 

Do you really think that the stat geeks don't look at how the player is suited for Fenway?

[Kimmi]

No, it is not. The amount of logical fallacies in that post is enough to drive a legal logic professor to commit seppuku because of the sin his eyes have commited by reading it. Just because BC f***ed some s*** up (and he did) doesn't mean we should deny his accomplishments and make a bunch of stuff up regarding the acquisitions where he missed.

 

This is an excellent post.

[Kimmi]

LOL

If things were really that bad, Jesus Christ couldn't fix it, never mind DD.

 

The fact that Dombrowski only added a #1 starter and 2 back end relievers to make this team a contender in 2016 is proof that the team was not in that bad of shape to begin with.

[User Name]

I don't recall any anaylysts, much less 'many' of them, who predicted failure for the Nationals going into the season based on poor team chemistry. They were the overwhelming favorites to win their division and heavy favorites to win the World Series. Honestly, I don't recall one word about poor team chemistry.

 

Sure, once the Nationals started losing, then people started speculating about poor team chemistry, but that's usually the case when a team is losing.

 

It's like the chicken and beer thing. It was a huge issue, only because the team was losing. If the team were winning, that would have been looked at as a team chemistry type of thing amongst the pitchers.

 

The Nationals were widely regarded as WS contenders by pretty much every reputable baseball analyst/outlet. This is why I say he makes stuff up. I want to see just three sources of this nonsense. Three.

[jd98]

To further explain the point about Fenway and Homeruns:

 

In 2013/2014, Fenway had a 2.20% (26th) HR percentage for LHB, and a 2.90% (14th) percentage for right handed batters. The park favors RH homeruns, but absolutely nullifies LH HR power. And if you go back a couple years, when the Sox had a better lineup with more RH power, Fenway played even better as HR park for RHH. Numbers are right there.

 

https://rotogrinders.com/pages/ballpark-factors-49556

 

This is what jung originally said..

Conversely, only people who do not understand Fenway Park think it is a HR hitter's park. It is not. It is the best doubles park in all baseball bar none.

 

Your own link shows Fenway as ranking 26th in HR, so what jung said about Fenway not being a HR park is 100% accurate. Why are you trying to argue that point by making it only about RHH? Even for RHH, it's only 13th, which isn't all that good, it's just above average. Looks like you arguing with jung for the sake of arguing on this one.

[Kimmi]

He's talking about you, not me.

 

And what more counter do you want than the fact that your logic is terrible? Because it is. You don't get to move the goalposts when assigning blame or credit. It's the same fallacy as "if we take X month out of X player's performance, he had an excellent season". It doesn't work like that.

 

Why is it so hard to say that BC did a good job in 2013, but screwed up in 2014 and 2015? It's really that simple. Making a bunch of stuff up about the dynamics of the front office, or trying to psychoanalize players and FO personnel is an exercise in futility. Stick to the facts. Also, it'd be a lot easier to stick to specific points in arguments if every post you wrote wasn't an encyclopedia. It's not a criticism on posting style, you can post however, whatever and whenever you want, but it forces whoever doesn't want to write a thesis in reply to go for the blanket response.

 

Also, I didn't read Elktonnick's post (and why would I read anything he writes?) but whatever he said, he's wrong, and that's easy to prove, because there's more than enough readily available data that proves that Fenway is a homerdome for RIGHT HANDED HITTERS, which is specifically what I said.

 

So, in summary: Let's stick to the facts, let's not make stuff up and let's use common sense.

 

As a whole, Cherington's regime was not very good, that is a fact. But trying to discount the accomplishment of 2013 by any means available seems unnecesary to me.

 

Jung, I have to agree with this bolded part. You obviously are free to post however you want, but since I am not going to write a thesis to respond, I'm more likely not to respond at all. Maybe that's your intention?

[a700hitter]

This is an excellent post.

It is an obnoxious post. You have never posted anything that obnoxious. Why encourage him?

[User Name]

This is what jung originally said..

 

 

Your own link shows Fenway as ranking 26th in HR, so what jung said about Fenway not being a HR park is 100% accurate. Why are you trying to argue that point by making it only about RHH? Even for RHH, it's only 13th, which isn't all that good, it's just above average. Looks like you arguing with jung for the sake of arguing on this one.

 

You're missing the point, and by a wide margin. Because the point is arguing the idea that you can't build a Red Sox team around walks and homers. That's what's won the three WS the past decade!

 

The premise, in itself, is incorrect. Just look at the mashing Red Sox teams from 2004 up until Jason Bay left. The blanket statement that you can't build a HR team at Fenway is just false. Specially considering that's the exact type of team that won in 04/07/13 (the 178 HR's from the 2013 team were still a lot.)

 

Also, as I stated (and I could post it, but it's not so conveniently presented) is that, for several years , even after steroid fever started dying down, Fenway played very much up for RH homerun hitters.

[Kimmi]

A couple more points about team chemistry:

 

1. While I do agree that it exists and can help a team perform better, it still does not trump talent, nor come close to it. In other words, a player's stats are still more important to look at than his human characteristics.

 

2. One thing that makes chemistry difficult to quantify is that, like clutch, there are so many ways to define 'chemistry'.

 

3. Since chemistry can't be quantified, then the beat writers who cover the teams would probably have the best feel for how good a team's chemistry is. Most beat writers had the Sox winning the division as well, so the human aspect side of the team couldn't have been that bad.

 

4. It's often debated whether chemistry creates winning or winning creates chemistry. Almost every team talks about great chemistry going into the season. Bad team chemistry is almost never mentioned until after a team underperforms. So maybe it's the latter that is true, not the former.

[User Name]

Fenway Park Home run ranks 2010-2012:

 

2010: 169 (11th)/(As RHB) 99 (9th out of 34 total split possibilities)

2011: 168 (9th)/ (As RHB) 90 (16th out of 34)

2012: 185 (9th)/ (As RHB) 111 (10th out of 34)

 

For many years before the suck that have been 2014/2015, Fenway graded as above average even as a homerun park in general.

[jd98]

You're missing the point, and by a wide margin. Because the point is arguing the idea that you can't build a Red Sox team around walks and homers. That's what's won the three WS the past decade!

 

The premise, in itself, is incorrect. Just look at the mashing Red Sox teams from 2004 up until Jason Bay left. The blanket statement that you can't build a HR team at Fenway is just false. Specially considering that's the exact type of team that won in 04/07/13 (the 178 HR's from the 2013 team were still a lot.)

 

Also, as I stated (and I could post it, but it's not so conveniently presented) is that, for several years , even after steroid fever started dying down, Fenway played very much up for RH homerun hitters.

 

but he didn't make that statement. I guess you thought he was implying it, but I didn't see that either, which is why I didn't know why you were arguing with that post. He was just talking about building a team to suit the home park, and said Fenway is often mistakenly thought of as a HR park, when it is really a doubles and not a HR park (which is all true). Maybe he was implying it was preferable to acquire doubles hitters rather than HR hitters (but often they are one and the same). He wasn't saying it's impossible to build a successful HR team. Obviously that wouldn't be true, as you pointed out. I just think you read way too much into that post.

[User Name]

but he didn't make that statement. I guess you thought he was implying it, but I didn't see that either, which is why I didn't know why you were arguing with that post. He was just talking about building a team to suit the home park, and said Fenway is often mistakenly thought of as a HR park, when it is really a doubles and not a HR park (which is all true). Maybe he was implying it was preferable to acquire doubles hitters rather than HR hitters (but often they are one and the same). He wasn't saying it's impossible to build a successful HR team. Obviously that wouldn't be true, as you pointed out. I just think you read way too much into that post.

 

Fair enough, you're probably right. Since we've had similar discussions regarding team building and how Fenway isn't a HR park etc etc, I may have instictively rehashed that old argument. The point, in the end, (since the discussion is about Cherington after all), that his philosophy on building an MLB team was correct, but his execution clearly wasn't.

[Bellhorn04]

The fact that Dombrowski only added a #1 starter and 2 back end relievers to make this team a contender in 2016 is proof that the team was not in that bad of shape to begin with.

 

I'm not sure there is a consensus that the moves so far make us a contender in 2016.

 

Adding Price, Kimbrel, Smith and Young should probably add 10 wins. That would take us from 78 wins to 88 wins.

 

A number of people here think we still need to add a good #2 pitcher.

 

If they're right, it means we had to add a #1, a #2 and 2 premier relievers. That's a fair amount of upgrading to the pitching staff.

[jacksonianmarch]

The fact that Dombrowski only added a #1 starter and 2 back end relievers to make this team a contender in 2016 is proof that the team was not in that bad of shape to begin with.

 

Could it also be because you are in a division where you stole the best pitcher from the #1 team, the #2 team could implode under their collective age, the #3 team isn't that good to begin with and will lose its best starter and hitter, and the #4 team seems intent on a rebuild? I think the sox are considered contenders because they are in a division of crapshoots, don't have to add much offensively, and just added the ace they've needed since dealing Lester and the closer they have needed since Koji remembered his birthdate. The sox were a collection of parts. Shiny parts at that. They were not a team. Dombrowski went out and retooled the pen due to their middling SP depth and strong prospect depth. He added a shutdown ace to the top due to their deep pockets. I can pick out a few teams that would do pretty damn well if you added Kimbrel, Smith, and Price to them.

 

Kim, cut the crap. Ben is gone. He brought in a lot of talent that couldn't play well and demolished a rotation that won a world series and turned it into the laughing stock of baseball. His farm system build will be a huge boon to DD's time in Boston. But his 3 last place finishes surrounding a unicorn WS title cost him his job. Live with it. Get over it. Embrace DD. Move on

[Elktonnick]

I don't recall any anaylysts, much less 'many' of them, who predicted failure for the Nationals going into the season based on poor team chemistry. They were the overwhelming favorites to win their division and heavy favorites to win the World Series. Honestly, I don't recall one word about poor team chemistry.

 

Sure, once the Nationals started losing, then people started speculating about poor team chemistry, but that's usually the case when a team is losing.

 

It's like the chicken and beer thing. It was a huge issue, only because the team was losing. If the team were winning, that would have been looked at as a team chemistry type of thing amongst the pitchers.

 

I listen to MLB radio daily and live outside the metro Baltimore/Washington area. It was a common enough topic Just because you aren't aware of it doesn't mean it wasn't discussed.

 

 

BTW I never said it was exclusive to 2015. This has been a longstanding problem with the Nats going on for several years. At the end of 2014 concerns were raised about Matt Williams handling of the bullpen and his pitchers causing resentment in the clubhouse which would explode in 2015 as we all saw. In March of 2014 "The players voting Harper overrated is just a byproduct of his unnecessarily bad reputation." again which exploded after his fight with Papelbon the next year.

 

In January 2015 . This appeared: "While his on-field upside is high, is it reasonable for Mike Rizzo to add the same thing that has hurt the Nats in years past? As a team, these Washington Nationals are affected by clubhouse issues. Look at 2013, when there were constant arguments and even a live exhibition between Jayson Werth and Gio Gonzalez.

 

It’s not right for Mike Rizzo to bring in a guy that could damper the bonds created by last season’s success. What’s done is done, but Yunel Escobar is likely to cause more harm than help." And so true it was.

Edited December 30, 2015 by Elktonnick