Astros Success

[Fan_since_Boggs]

Maybe the Red Sox's next GM will come from the Astros organization. I would love to see that, the sooner the better.

[Northern Star]

Sports Illustrated called it in this 2014 cover story:

 

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2017/10/mlb-world-series-astros-sports-illustrated-cover-2014

 

Holy s***.

[Kimmi]

And Springer was awful in the ALCS ... clutchiness changed

 

!!!

[Kimmi]

The big lesson is that the postseason is awesome - but yes, a crapshoot. The Astros won the games - and winning titles is why you do this. But this shows the fragility - and luck you need to win the 11-12 games.

 

Double !!!

[Kimmi]

This

 

The signing of veterans to attain 'transient mediocrity' worked out pretty well for the Sox in 2013. Not so much in '14 and '15.

[Kimmi]

There's also a huge difference between an 84 loss season (which will rarely net you last place) and stringing 3 consecutive seasons of 106, 107 and 111 losses.

 

There's also a huge difference in a team that was expected to win the division but didn't perform up to expectations and a team that was expected to finish in last.

[harmony]

The signing of veterans to attain 'transient mediocrity' worked out pretty well for the Sox in 2013. Not so much in '14 and '15.

The 2013 Red Sox season was an outlier.

[cp176]

The big lesson is that the postseason is awesome - but yes, a crapshoot. The Astros won the games - and winning titles is why you do this. But this shows the fragility - and luck you need to win the 11-12 games.

 

I agree with you for sure and that what makes getting there any way that you can so very important. Relying on one specific way to get to the post season and to just be able to compete for a championship is not a recipe for success. It really is why I truly enjoy the hunt - the battle just to be able to play late. I love the fact that this is the approach that our team seems to take. Some times it works and some times it doesn't. Going in to full rebuild mode just guarantees you nothing.

[Kimmi]

The 2013 Red Sox season was an outlier.

 

Perhaps, but the fact that the Sox were able to win a World Series while 'rebuilding' is pretty impressive. Go Ben!

[TylerD]

Alex Cora will turn us into the new Astros

 

 

 

 

Maybe.....

[mvp 78]

Maybe the Red Sox's next GM will come from the Astros organization. I would love to see that, the sooner the better.

 

Why are we focused on the "next GM" when the current one took a back to back last place team and made them a back to back first place team?

[Jack Flap]

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/what-if-more-teams-follow-the-astros-extreme-roadmap/

[a700hitter]

Why are we focused on the "next GM" when the current one took a back to back last place team and made them a back to back first place team?

And no one on this board, not even bosoxmal, can remember back to back first place finishes. It is so ridiculous that people are calling for the head of a GM who has had two first place finishes in his first two seasons, especially while singing the praises of a guy that put us through 3 brutal last place finishes in 4 years. It is beyond stupid, bordering on mental illness.

[OH FOY]

Correa will hit over 30+ HRS next year, probably close to 40. That's the biggest difference between the 2 teams. Even DH not that different. Only played 109 games this year. When he came back Astros took off again.

Just turned 23.

Edited November 3, 2017 by OH FOY!

[OH FOY]

Astros GM was assistant for the Cards. Mozeliak.

Who would you rather have Springer or JBJ?

[mvp 78]

Astros GM was assistant for the Cards. Mozeliak.

Who would you rather have Springer or JBJ?

 

I'd rather have a FO that wasn't hacked.

[harmony]

Astros GM was assistant for the Cards. Mozeliak.

Who would you rather have Springer or JBJ?

Jackie Bradley Jr. has posted 9.9 fWAR in 527 MLB games while George Springer, who is seven months older, has posted 14.6 fWAR in 482 games.

 

Each center fielder remains under team control for three more arbitration seasons, Bradley with a projected 2018 salary of $5.9 million and Springer with a projected 2018 salary of $8.9 million.

 

Bradley ranked 46th and Springer 18th on the FanGraphs midseason trade value list:

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2017-trade-value-1-to-10/

 

Bradley was the 40th pick and Springer the 11th pick in the June 2011 draft, Bradley out of the University of South Carolina and Springer out of the University of Connecticut.

Edited November 3, 2017 by harmony

[oldtimer]

Jackie Bradley Jr. has posted 9.9 fWAR in 527 MLB games while George Springer, who is seven months older, has posted 14.6 fWAR in 482 games.

 

Each center fielder remains under team control for three more arbitration seasons, Bradley with a projected 2018 salary of $5.9 million and Springer with a projected 2018 salary of $8.9 million.

 

Bradley ranked 46th and Springer 18th on the FanGraphs midseason trade value list:

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2017-trade-value-1-to-10/

Bra

Bradley was the 40th pick and Springer the 11th pick in the June 2011 draft, Bradley out of the University of South Carolina and Springer out of the University of Connecticut.

 

Springer's defense didn't look that impressive but he did hit for power and was the WS MVP. Nothing to sneeze at. Bradley's hitting has been erratic and more often than not a slump waqiting to happen. Unless a new hitting coach can turn him around (I don't expect that), we are likely to see more of the same in 2018.

[notin]

Springer's defense didn't look that impressive but he did hit for power and was the WS MVP. Nothing to sneeze at. Bradley's hitting has been erratic and more often than not a slump waqiting to happen. Unless a new hitting coach can turn him around (I don't expect that), we are likely to see more of the same in 2018.

 

And I'm fine with that. Bradley is a terrific all around player...

[Larry Cook]

What is very weird is that when both were in college, Bradley was a much better player than springer,

 

But then Bradley got hit by a pitch and has never been the same.

[harmony]

What is very weird is that when both were in college, Bradley was a much better player than springer,

 

But then Bradley got hit by a pitch and has never been the same.

 

http://www.gamecocksonline.com/sports/m-basebl/mtt/bradleyjr_jackie00.html

 

http://www.uconnhuskies.com/sports/m-basebl/mtt/george_springer_391110.html

[Dojji]

You know what? The Red Sox did the right thing in building this team. We didn't do it all that differently from the Astros, with the exception of our really bad luck/judgment/mojo/whatever about developing starting pitching. We've got a good team that we built largely from within, the Astros just got a little luckier with player development.

 

I think it's important to avoid the grass--is-greener mentality. Ben Cherington did a really good job at getting the rebuild kicked off, and DD is doing alright in trying to finish it off. I doubt Ben would have been aggressive enough to get us the rest of the way, I doubt DD will be patient enough to muster a rebuild of any strength. Both types of GM serve a purpose.

 

The Astros played the small market strategy. Built entirely from within, supplimenting with veterans while a few years go into the tank until the young strength can take over. We played a large market strategy, trying to compete with mercenaries while the youth grew into place. Both can work. Both can fail. It comes down to execution and identifying talent.

 

I think it's obvious that Cherington wanted to play the small market strategy. Just as obviously, Henry disagreed, which is why we have DD now. The small market strategy does not work with big markets and skittish owners. Cherington's failure was not tailoring his strategy to ownership and failing to execute well when ownership put its foot down.

Edited November 4, 2017 by Dojji

[Bellhorn04]

You know what? The Red Sox did the right thing in building this team. We didn't do it all that differently from the Astros, with the exception of our really bad luck/judgment/mojo/whatever about developing starting pitching. We've got a good team that we built largely from within, the Astros just got a little luckier with player development.

 

I think it's important to avoid the grass--is-greener mentality. Ben Cherington did a really good job at getting the rebuild kicked off, and DD is doing alright in trying to finish it off. I doubt Ben would have been aggressive enough to get us the rest of the way, I doubt DD will be patient enough to muster a rebuild of any strength. Both types of GM serve a purpose.

 

The Astros played the small market strategy. Built entirely from within, supplimenting with veterans while a few years go into the tank until the young strength can take over. We played a large market strategy, trying to compete with mercenaries while the youth grew into place. Both can work. Both can fail. It comes down to execution and identifying talent.

 

I think it's obvious that Cherington wanted to play the small market strategy. Just as obviously, Henry disagreed, which is why we have DD now. The small market strategy does not work with big markets and skittish owners. Cherington's failure was not tailoring his strategy to ownership and failing to execute well when ownership put its foot down.

 

Good post Dojji.

[Kimmi]

You know what? The Red Sox did the right thing in building this team. We didn't do it all that differently from the Astros, with the exception of our really bad luck/judgment/mojo/whatever about developing starting pitching. We've got a good team that we built largely from within, the Astros just got a little luckier with player development.

 

I think it's important to avoid the grass--is-greener mentality. Ben Cherington did a really good job at getting the rebuild kicked off, and DD is doing alright in trying to finish it off. I doubt Ben would have been aggressive enough to get us the rest of the way, I doubt DD will be patient enough to muster a rebuild of any strength. Both types of GM serve a purpose.

 

The Astros played the small market strategy. Built entirely from within, supplimenting with veterans while a few years go into the tank until the young strength can take over. We played a large market strategy, trying to compete with mercenaries while the youth grew into place. Both can work. Both can fail. It comes down to execution and identifying talent.

 

I think it's obvious that Cherington wanted to play the small market strategy. Just as obviously, Henry disagreed, which is why we have DD now. The small market strategy does not work with big markets and skittish owners. Cherington's failure was not tailoring his strategy to ownership and failing to execute well when ownership put its foot down.

 

I agree with a lot of what you're saying here. The main thing I disagree with is that Cherington wanted to play the small market strategy. It just wasn't time yet. Had he been allowed to see his plan through, I am confident that he would have been aggressive in 2016. Not as aggressive as Dombrowski, but he would have traded away some of his prospects and made other moves to get the team back into the playoffs. Dombrowski is too aggressive for my taste.

[cp176]

You know what? The Red Sox did the right thing in building this team. We didn't do it all that differently from the Astros, with the exception of our really bad luck/judgment/mojo/whatever about developing starting pitching. We've got a good team that we built largely from within, the Astros just got a little luckier with player development.

 

I think it's important to avoid the grass--is-greener mentality. Ben Cherington did a really good job at getting the rebuild kicked off, and DD is doing alright in trying to finish it off. I doubt Ben would have been aggressive enough to get us the rest of the way, I doubt DD will be patient enough to muster a rebuild of any strength. Both types of GM serve a purpose.

 

The Astros played the small market strategy. Built entirely from within, supplimenting with veterans while a few years go into the tank until the young strength can take over. We played a large market strategy, trying to compete with mercenaries while the youth grew into place. Both can work. Both can fail. It comes down to execution and identifying talent.

 

I think it's obvious that Cherington wanted to play the small market strategy. Just as obviously, Henry disagreed, which is why we have DD now. The small market strategy does not work with big markets and skittish owners. Cherington's failure was not tailoring his strategy to ownership and failing to execute well when ownership put its foot down.

 

nice job -

[OH FOY]

Springer always had more Power than JBJ, his biggest thing this season was he cut his Strikeouts down big time. Went from 178 K's in 2016 to 111 K's this year.

[Bellhorn04]

The day that really sunk Ben was the day they signed Pablo and Hanley.

 

And if Ben was truly opposed to those signings he should have said so. It might have cost him his job, but it would have shown everyone who he really was. Instead he was silent.

 

Ben also appeared to support the way the Lester negotiations were handled. That didn't make him look good either.

[Kimmi]

The day that really sunk Ben was the day they signed Pablo and Hanley.

 

And if Ben was truly opposed to those signings he should have said so. It might have cost him his job, but it would have shown everyone who he really was. Instead he was silent.

 

Ben also appeared to support the way the Lester negotiations were handled. That didn't make him look good either.

 

On the surface, speaking out against the Pablo signing (I think Ben was on board with Hanley) sounds like a smart idea, but you know it's not. Privately, absolutely. And for all we know, he did speak out against it privately. Publicly speaking out against it would not provide good optics, whether he did it before the signing, after the signing, or even after he left.

 

I tend to agree with you about Ben's support of the Lester negotiations. Well not necessarily the lowball offer, but about not necessarily wanting him back at the cost he was going to command. That was a huge mistake.

[jacksonianmarch]

I am surprised Ben hasn't landed with a small market club. If I was a club heading into the decline phase with limited funds, I'd absolutely want him to run the FO. The problem with Ben is that he is a Billy Beane type. He'd rather deal off a big leaguer than trade prospects for a veteran. Beane has been great at that and has kept the shitstorm in Oakland relevant for the better part of 2 decades. The problem is not rushing things. Beane waits until his team is good before he deals off prospects for vets. Beane also isn't afraid to deal off very young big leaguers with lots of control if he thinks the return is good enough. Cherington was basically given a mandate to win now when he had a last place club. That is why DD is here. Dave can take a team full of prospects and flush with cash and win. It isn't as easy as it sounds. Look at SD from a couple years ago for that example. They spent like drunken sailors and basically set their franchise back in doing so without any measurable increase in performance. Ben is just not cut out for the big market, yet. He may end up being the GM of the Braves, which would be a great fit for him. If he does that for a few years, he might be ready for a big market club again

[Bellhorn04]

If Ben did in fact have a '5 year plan', they sure as heck spent a lot on Pablo/Hanley/Porcello/Castillo, all on deals that were potentially at least 5 years long.