The Official Dead Horse Topics Thread

[Kimmi]

Dombrowski situation in Detroit is irrelevant to Cherrington's in Boston. For the record I believe Cherrington was fired because Lucchino left. My opinion is that Cherrington was more a Lucchino protege (if that's the right word) than a Henry or Werner. Once Larry was going to move on, Henry simply didn't have confidence that Ben could do the top Baseball Ops job without a strong personality like LL overseeing him. The chain of events seem to bear that out.

 

People get fired for different reasons. Dombrowski's was CEO and had more authority in Detroit then Ben had in Boston. One could surmise that DD could have been released in Detroit as a mutual parting of the ways so he could accept the Boston job. The fact the Dombrowski was out of a job only two weeks is just too coincidental. Or Dombrowski could hve been "fired" because after so much time together he and the owner got sick of one another.

 

Ben isn't totally incompetent. He just doesn't have the requisite competency to do the job that Dombrowski now has. That isn't just my opinion but obviously John Henry's as well.

 

Sorry, but your statements sound hypocritical to me when you come up with all sorts of reasons why Dombrowski was fired, other than he did a poor job or that he was incompetent, but the only possible reason that Ben could have been fired was because he did a poor job or that he was incompetent.

 

As a700 stated in his signature, Dombrowski was not fired because he was doing a good job. It doesn't work that way.

 

As I said before, you can't have it both ways.

 

FTR, I think that Dombrowski was fired because Detroit was just ready to go in another direction, not because of incompetence. I believe the same to be true for Ben, the Sox were just ready to try a different direction. Dombrowski got another job right away because he wanted it. Ben might have had another job, and yes a #1 job, but he was not interested at the time.

[Kimmi]

I didn't mean it to be offensive or demeaning but you have a very strong point of view.

 

IMO, there was no reason for that post other than to demean my opinion or creditibility. It adds nothing to the baseball conversation.

 

Sure, I have a very strong point of view. So do you. So does most every other poster on this site.

[Kimmi]

I don't think so. DD would have gotten to pick his own GM. There is no way you hire a guy and make him head of Baseball Ops and then take both the Manager decision and the GM decision out of his hands. The Sox decided to play the Manager decision the way they did for a number of reasons that had nothing to do with DD. The Sox long history with the Jimmy Fund and whole Cancer issue as the Sox have played it in the past left them deciding to hold the job for Farrell. But taking both jobs out of DD's hands simply would not have happened. That would have left BC in some function that has nothing to do with how they title him. BC would not have been the functional GM of this team IMO even if they chose to simply sling a bunch of VP's in between DD and BC.

 

It should be obvious by now that the "titles" within the Sox organization are not as meaningful as you would hope they would be. We still have Larry in a titled role though he no longer even has a contract and is not really functioning in any real capacity directly with the Sox.

 

I disagree. IMO, Dombrowski would have kept Cherington as GM, then hired Wren under some other title as another advisor.

 

That said, Cherington knew that he was not going to have much say in the final decisions. He also knew that Dombrowski was headed in a different direction with this team. As I said, I would have left under those circumstances too.

[Kimmi]

But DD was a perfectly logical choice from a baseball perspective don't you think?

 

I agree that he was a perfectly logical choice to take this team into a win now mode.

 

I am not at all opposed to what the team looks like for the short term.

 

The jury is still out on what shape Dombrowski will have the team in for the long term. So far, he has not done anyting to hurt the team's long term outlook. So far, great job by Dombrowski.

[Elktonnick]

IMO, there was no reason for that post other than to demean my opinion or creditibility. It adds nothing to the baseball conversation.

 

Sure, I have a very strong point of view. So do you. So does most every other poster on this site.

 

To put it another way once you take a position nothing will change your mind.

[Bellhorn04]

To put it another way once you take a position nothing will change your mind.

 

That's true of virtually everyone who posts on message boards, in my experience.

[Elktonnick]

Sorry, but your statements sound hypocritical to me when you come up with all sorts of reasons why Dombrowski was fired, other than he did a poor job or that he was incompetent, but the only possible reason that Ben could have been fired was because he did a poor job or that he was incompetent.

 

As a700 stated in his signature, Dombrowski was not fired because he was doing a good job. It doesn't work that way.

 

As I said before, you can't have it both ways.

 

FTR, I think that Dombrowski was fired because Detroit was just ready to go in another direction, not because of incompetence. I believe the same to be true for Ben, the Sox were just ready to try a different direction. Dombrowski got another job right away because he wanted it. Ben might have had another job, and yes a #1 job, but he was not interested at the time.

 

Nothing hypocritical at all. People are fired for different reasons. Dave and Ben held different jobs in their respective organizations. Ben never had either the authority or responsibility that David held in Detroit who was the CEO. Ben had Larry overseeing his every move. Larry was between Ben and the principal owner, John Henry There was no one between David and Mitch llitch. Ownership simply believed that Ben was not qualified to assume the role that Dombrowski now has. Only the future will tell if any owner thinks Ben is qualified to assume such a role. You hold the view that Ben could have gotten such a job if he had only interviewed for it. I don't I do think he'll get a subordinate role, We see who is right.

[Elktonnick]

That's true of virtually everyone who posts on message boards, in my experience.

 

Surely not everyone???

Edited January 2, 2016 by Elktonnick

[a700hitter]

Nothing hypocritical at all. People are fired for different reasons. Dave and Ben held different jobs in their respective organizations. Ben never had either the authority or responsibility that David held in Detroit who was the CEO. Ben had Larry overseeing his every move. Larry was between Ben and the principal owner, John Henry There was no one between David and Mitch llitch. Ownership simply believed that Ben was not qualified to assume the role that Dombrowski now has. Only the future will tell if any owner thinks Ben is qualified to assume such a role. You hold the view that Ben could have gotten such a job if he had only interviewed for it. I don't I do think he'll get a subordinate role, We see who is right.

I think the timing of DD's release and his hiring by Boston is more than coincidental. I am not sure what the terms of DD's release were with the Tigers. The reports clearly were that he was released from his contract. When you get fired, the club is still responsible for paying the employee for the remaining term of the contract. If the Tigers were no responsible for paying DD after they parted ways, then he wasn't fired and it was a mutual decision. I haven't seen any reports on the specific terms of DD's release. The demotion/firing of BC by hiring DD was clearly not a mutual decision with Red Sox management and BC. BC was clearly fired. I haven't seen definitive proof on DD's situation.

[Elktonnick]

I think the timing of DD's release and his hiring by Boston is more than coincidental. I am not sure what the terms of DD's release were with the Tigers. The reports clearly were that he was released from his contract. When you get fired, the club is still responsible for paying the employee for the remaining term of the contract. If the Tigers were no responsible for paying DD after they parted ways, then he wasn't fired and it was a mutual decision. I haven't seen any reports on the specific terms of DD's release. The demotion/firing of BC by hiring DD was clearly not a mutual decision with Red Sox management and BC. BC was clearly fired. I haven't seen definitive proof on DD's situation.

 

I don't think there is any disagreement between your view and mine on either DD.s departure from Detroit nor BC's departure from Boston.

[Bellhorn04]

The conspiracy theories are coming out now...I like it.

 

One thing about the Red Sox FO is, they know how to keep a secret. You'll have better luck finding Jimmy Hoffa's body than you will getting the full truth about the goings-on in the Yawkey Way offices.

[Elktonnick]

The conspiracy theories are coming out now...I like it.

 

One thing about the Red Sox FO is, they know how to keep a secret. You'll have better luck finding Jimmy Hoffa's body than you will getting the full truth about the goings-on in the Yawkey Way offices.

 

You mean Hoffa's body is somewhere on Yawkey Way:D

[Kimmi]

To put it another way once you take a position nothing will change your mind.

 

I admit that I have strong opinions and I won't often back down from them. That said, I will change my opinion now and then, but it will take more than speculation to change it.

 

And again, the same can be said about you, and most of the posters on this site.

[Bellhorn04]

You mean Hoffa's body is somewhere on Yawkey Way:D

 

I wouldn't rule it out.

[Kimmi]

Nothing hypocritical at all. People are fired for different reasons. Dave and Ben held different jobs in their respective organizations. Ben never had either the authority or responsibility that David held in Detroit who was the CEO. Ben had Larry overseeing his every move. Larry was between Ben and the principal owner, John Henry There was no one between David and Mitch llitch. Ownership simply believed that Ben was not qualified to assume the role that Dombrowski now has. Only the future will tell if any owner thinks Ben is qualified to assume such a role. You hold the view that Ben could have gotten such a job if he had only interviewed for it. I don't I do think he'll get a subordinate role, We see who is right.

 

All of this about why Ben and Dombrowski were fired is speculation and your opinion, as is whether Ben would have gotten a job as a #1 if he interviewed. Because you think it, does not make it fact.

[Elktonnick]

I wouldn't rule it out.

 

Must mean Lucchino was involved.

[Elktonnick]

All of this about why Ben and Dombrowski were fired is speculation and your opinion, as is whether Ben would have gotten a job as a #1 if he interviewed. Because you think it, does not make it fact.

 

I think that's what I said.

Edited January 3, 2016 by Elktonnick

[Kimmi]

I think the timing of DD's release and his hiring by Boston is more than coincidental. I am not sure what the terms of DD's release were with the Tigers. The reports clearly were that he was released from his contract. When you get fired, the club is still responsible for paying the employee for the remaining term of the contract. If the Tigers were no responsible for paying DD after they parted ways, then he wasn't fired and it was a mutual decision. I haven't seen any reports on the specific terms of DD's release. The demotion/firing of BC by hiring DD was clearly not a mutual decision with Red Sox management and BC. BC was clearly fired. I haven't seen definitive proof on DD's situation.

 

How about proof straight from the horse's mouth. From an interview with Sherman:

 

"There was some speculation that the parting was mutual. But, Dombrowski said in a phone call Wednesday with The Post, that was not the case."

[Elktonnick]

How about proof straight from the horse's mouth. From an interview with Sherman:

 

"There was some speculation that the parting was mutual. But, Dombrowski said in a phone call Wednesday with The Post, that was not the case."

 

I read that also and it appears to support the view that Dombrowski's departure wasn't mutual.

[Kimmi]

I think that's I said.

 

So, you speculate that Ben was fired because he was incompetent. You then turn around and speculate that Dombrowski was fired because of every reason other than incompetence. To me that sounds like an opinion formed by bias.

[Elktonnick]

So, you speculate that Ben was fired because he was incompetent. You then turn around and speculate that Dombrowski was fired because of every reason other than incompetence. To me that sounds like an opinion formed by bias.

 

Of course so does every other human being on the planet. Here are the facts I see as instructive to my opinion.. Dombrowski was the CEO in Detroit for 14 years. Upon his departure he was highly sought by several franchises. He signed in 2 weeks. Incompetent people don't last 14 years working for Mitch Llitch. Cherrington wasn't the CEO but rather the chief of baseball operations. Despite a high payroll his team finished last two years in a row. The rest you know and would be repetitious..

 

Apropos of nothing someday we should have discussion about bias. There is no such thing as a human being forming any opinion on anything with out bias. That's why it is called opinion. You may say that one can form an opinion based on facts. But the bias is in which facts one chooses to accept as reliable and valid.

[Kimmi]

The conspiracy theories are coming out now...I like it.

 

One thing about the Red Sox FO is, they know how to keep a secret. You'll have better luck finding Jimmy Hoffa's body than you will getting the full truth about the goings-on in the Yawkey Way offices.

 

And because I'm such a fair poster, I will give the conspiracy theorists this from Detroit beat writer Drew Sharp:

 

"...there remains no public explanation for what ultimately crumbled the long relationship between Dombrowski and the Ilitches. My own suspicions from speaking with various parties in and around the Tigers is that the Ilitches thought that Dombrowski had made back-channel overtures to potential suitors for when his contract ended after the season."

 

And this from Denny McLain, though he offers no sources:

 

"Dave Dombrowski was caught dipping his hand in too many cookie jars, and in the end, it cost him his job.

 

“What he was essentially doing was talking to any number of clubs,” former Tigers pitcher Denny McLain said on CBS Sports Radio’s Ferrall on the Bench. “And listen, the world of baseball, especially at the ownership level, is a very small group. We’re only talking (about) really 32 icons who own baseball teams, so what you’ve got is you’ve got a guy who thinks he’s bigger than the game because he’s had some success in a couple of places with World Series – and that’s great success. But he came over here and he really didn’t have success.”

 

Everybody knew this day was coming, but what happened is he got caught talking to too many teams and one of those icons said something to somebody, and almost in the middle of the night, (Mike) Ilitch found out abut it, called him and said you need to hit the door and don’t look back and don’t say goodbye.”"

 

 

This does not prove anything, but it does allow for the possibility that the Sox and Dombrowski were in discussion before Dombrowski was fired.

[jung]

Which is what I said and what I think Elk said both about 10 maybe 20 posts ago.

[Bellhorn04]

Must mean Lucchino was involved.

 

Oh yeah...Larry knows where a few bodies are buried.

[Elktonnick]

And because I'm such a fair poster, I will give the conspiracy theorists this from Detroit beat writer Drew Sharp:

 

"...there remains no public explanation for what ultimately crumbled the long relationship between Dombrowski and the Ilitches. My own suspicions from speaking with various parties in and around the Tigers is that the Ilitches thought that Dombrowski had made back-channel overtures to potential suitors for when his contract ended after the season."

 

And this from Denny McLain, though he offers no sources:

 

"Dave Dombrowski was caught dipping his hand in too many cookie jars, and in the end, it cost him his job.

 

“What he was essentially doing was talking to any number of clubs,” former Tigers pitcher Denny McLain said on CBS Sports Radio’s Ferrall on the Bench. “And listen, the world of baseball, especially at the ownership level, is a very small group. We’re only talking (about) really 32 icons who own baseball teams, so what you’ve got is you’ve got a guy who thinks he’s bigger than the game because he’s had some success in a couple of places with World Series – and that’s great success. But he came over here and he really didn’t have success.”

 

Everybody knew this day was coming, but what happened is he got caught talking to too many teams and one of those icons said something to somebody, and almost in the middle of the night, (Mike) Ilitch found out abut it, called him and said you need to hit the door and don’t look back and don’t say goodbye.”"

 

 

This does not prove anything, but it does allow for the possibility that the Sox and Dombrowski were in discussion before Dombrowski was fired.

 

Thank you Kimmi

[Kimmi]

Of course so does every other human being on the planet. Here are the facts I see as instructive to my opinion.. Dombrowski was the CEO in Detroit for 14 years. Upon his departure he was highly sought by several franchises. He signed in 2 weeks. Incompetent people don't last 14 years working for Mitch Llitch. Cherrington wasn't the CEO but rather the chief of baseball operations. Despite a high payroll his team finished last two years in a row. The rest you know and would be repetitious..

 

Apropos of nothing someday we should have discussion about bias. There is no such thing as a human being forming any opinion on anything with out bias. That's why it is called opinion. You may say that one can form an opinion based on facts. But the bias is in which facts one chooses to accept as reliable and valid.

 

I fully admit my bias all the time. That said, I do try to remain consistent in my opinions whether I like/agree with something or dislike/disagree with something. Sometimes I just can't overcome my bias, as with the case of Boggs having his number retired. I don't think he deserves to have his number retired, but I also acknowledge that my opinion is based on nothing more than my bias against him.

 

There many opinions that are formed here that are based too much on bias or personal like/dislike of something and not enough on objective analysis.

[Elktonnick]

This just proves how manipulative and devious everyone in senior positions in baseball are.

[Elktonnick]

I fully admit my bias all the time. That said, I do try to remain consistent in my opinions whether I like/agree with something or dislike/disagree with something. Sometimes I just can't overcome my bias, as with the case of Boggs having his number retired. I don't think he deserves to have his number retired, but I also acknowledge that my opinion is based on nothing more than my bias against him.

 

There many opinions that are formed here that are based too much on bias or personal like/dislike of something and not enough on objective analysis.

 

Your bias is that you think there is such a thing as purely objective analysis. The trick is to recognize one's biases. Regarding consistency, I refer you to Ralph Waldo Emerson.

[a700hitter]

Kimmi, you throw around this term "bias" in this discussion about Ben and DD. Speaking for myself, I was forming my opinion on the facts that I know. The fan in me doesn't extend to FO personnel. I think that they are all fungible. I have already acknowledged that DD wasn't doing a good job at the end in Detroit. I also admitted to not knowing the terms surrounding DD's release from Detroit. I haven't read that article from which you quote DD, but it indicates that the parting was not mutual. I would still like to know if the terms called for the Tigers to continue to pay him. Just curiosity on my part.

 

Neither BC nor DD were doing a good job as GM when they got fired. Being that baseball Front Offices are a small closed group, the same people get recirculated. DD had the longer and more successful record of building a successful franchise so he immediately got offered an equivalent position with a premium franchise. Ben's record was at worst mainly a failure and at best it was incomplete, so he wasn't offered an equivalent position by a premier franchise. The Yankees expressed interest in him for a much lesser role and one or two lesser franchises expressed an interest in interviewing him. My opinion on Ben in my signature remains unchanged. He got fired because he was doing a bad job.

[Kimmi]

Of course so does every other human being on the planet. Here are the facts I see as instructive to my opinion.. Dombrowski was the CEO in Detroit for 14 years. Upon his departure he was highly sought by several franchises. He signed in 2 weeks. Incompetent people don't last 14 years working for Mitch Llitch. Cherrington wasn't the CEO but rather the chief of baseball operations. Despite a high payroll his team finished last two years in a row. The rest you know and would be repetitious..

 

Apropos of nothing someday we should have discussion about bias. There is no such thing as a human being forming any opinion on anything with out bias. That's why it is called opinion. You may say that one can form an opinion based on facts. But the bias is in which facts one chooses to accept as reliable and valid.

 

FTR, I never said that Dombrowski was incompetent. I agree with you that he is not incompetent. IMO, the Tigers were just ready to head in another direction.

 

I feel the same is true of Ben. With the young core in place and a strong farm system, Henry was ready to head in another direction. The on field results have not been good the past two years. I don't think that equates to incompetence when the teams looked good on paper. If the team that Ben assembled were not projected to contend by the vast majority, then I could understand the incompetence argument.

 

What I find ironic is that I think Ilitch is trying to embrace a philosophy more like the Red Sox have had, and Henry is trying to embrace one more like the Tigers have had.

 

As far as bias goes, I pretty much agree with you. I think that there are varying degrees of bias though, and some can be more objective than others.