Dave Dombrowski

[Bellhorn04]

The teams that won under Dombrowski are compliments of Theo and Ben.

 

If it's that simple, the team that won under Ben was compliments of Theo. And the teams that won under Theo were compliments of Duquette.

 

No, I don't think that's quite fair.

[Dojji]

And 3 years later, this is still revisionist history...

 

No it isn't. Arguing from the outcome is different from revisionist history. It's accurate that Cherington's teams vastly underperformed, usually due to poor starting pitching. This is a direct consequence of his reluctance to compete for high end starting pitching, so overall it's a very valid criticism.

 

If we hoped that the offense could overcome the weak pitching, that didn't make the pitching magically not weak. Cherington did a very poor job of assembling a competitive pitching staff, and that compounded the matter of the Jon Lester trade, which honestly probably did not need to happen as the man was more than worth the money he demanded and we had to spend virtually the same money on Porcello who's a fine pitcher but clearly inferior to Lester.

 

So, final analysis of that trade by Cherington: We saved a few mil, gained very little talent, and lost a durable top end starter in exchange for a guy who is historically more of a middle of the rotation inning chewer -- a good one, but not as good as what he replaced by any means (Rick Porcello has outperformed Jon Lester in ERA+ in exactly 0 of the three years he's been here). That's not a move you make to put the team over the top. That's a move you make when you're deliberately punting away a couple seasons in order to improve your draft position and want to get younger and start to reposition the team around a new young core -- a textbook move in many markets but exactly what you DON'T do in a media fishbowl like Boston.

 

Final analysis, Cherington didn't realize what GMing for Boston entailed, and tried to run this team like a midmarket squad. He showed no flexibility in dealing with the special circumstances of running a baseball team a big media market and tried to do things by the book. He is probably a competent GM, but was not ready to GM in Boston. I think if a team somewhere in the rust belt tried to give him a chance they'd find him capable. He didn't work out here in the long run.

[Kimmi]

The sting of losing hurts as much as the glory of winning.

 

Give me a competitive team with the potential to win it all for the next 10 years over 2 rings and 8 last place finishes.

 

I agree on both counts.

 

As to your second statement, Ben was doing just that, and in fact won a ring in the process.

 

Dombrowski's win now method is more apt to give you the latter scenario.

[mvp 78]

I agree on both counts.

 

As to your second statement, Ben was doing just that, and in fact won a ring in the process.

 

Dombrowski's win now method is more apt to give you the latter scenario.

 

Ben's method was more apt to give you last place finishes. I'm good with DD for now. He just needs to retain the right players.

 

Kimmi, someday you'll come around to my POV. Slowly but surely. I just need to keep breaking you down with more poorly thought up arguments. Someday you'll slip.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shoulda traded Pedroia!!!!!!!!!

[Kimmi]

If it's that simple, the team that won under Ben was compliments of Theo. And the teams that won under Theo were compliments of Duquette.

 

No, I don't think that's quite fair.

 

I have posted before that Duquette gets a lot of credit for Theo's success here and that Theo gets a lot of credit for Ben's success.

 

Just don't tell me that Dombrowski came in here and 'saved the day' with his brilliance. The team was going to be competitive in 2016 regardless.

[mvp 78]

I have posted before that Duquette gets a lot of credit for Theo's success here and that Theo gets a lot of credit for Ben's success.

 

Just don't tell me that Dombrowski came in here and 'saved the day' with his brilliance. The team was going to be competitive in 2016 regardless.

 

What was the 2016 pitching staff going to be under Ben? Does Ben stick with the "don't sign pitchers over 30" thinking and create another big hole in the rotation?

 

Who would be the closer?

[Dojji]

I have posted before that Duquette gets a lot of credit for Theo's success here and that Theo gets a lot of credit for Ben's success.

 

Just don't tell me that Dombrowski came in here and 'saved the day' with his brilliance. The team was going to be competitive in 2016 regardless.

 

The team "was going" to be competitive in 14 and 15 too.

 

Unless we spent what it cost to upgrade the pitching staff, we were going to continue to struggle somewhere in the middle and bottom of the division.

 

DD was willing to spend what it took to improve the pitching staff.

Cherington kept getting sticker shock at the cost and refusing to take the starting staff nearly as seriously as it needed to be taken. He would NOT spend top dollar for top starting pitchers and that's exactly why those teams did poorly.

 

You get what you pay for. If you don't pay for top quality, don't expect top results. And we certainly did not get top results from our starting staff under Ben Cherington. and that's without the absolutely retarded lowballing of Jon Lester factored in (see above: "sticker shock").

 

DD realized that to get premium pitching you have to pay a premium. That concept was absolutely alien to Cherington, and it was his downfall.

 

and if the farm system had to be emptied to pay that premium. personally I'll chalk that down to the shoddy state of our rotation and the need by DD to pay through the nose to build the rotation from the ground up in a buyers' market. That's also partially down to Cherington, for not maintaining the starting rotation properly in his tenure. DD had to pay for the pound of cure for want of Cherington's ounce of prevention, if you will.

Edited July 11, 2018 by Dojji

[SPLENDIDSPLINTER]

The team "was going" to be competitive in 14 and 15 too.

 

Unless we spent what it cost to upgrade the pitching staff, we were going to continue to struggle somewhere in the middle and bottom of the division.

 

DD was willing to spend what it took to improve the pitching staff.

Cherington kept getting sticker shock at the cost and refusing to take the starting staff nearly as seriously as it needed to be taken. He would NOT spend top dollar for top starting pitchers and that's exactly why those teams did poorly.

 

You get what you pay for. If you don't pay for top quality, don't expect top results. And we certainly did not get top results from our starting staff under Ben Cherington. and that's without the absolutely retarded lowballing of Jon Lester factored in (see above: "sticker shock").

 

DD realized that to get premium pitching you have to pay a premium. That concept was absolutely alien to Cherington, and it was his downfall.

 

and if the farm system had to be emptied to pay that premium. personally I'll chalk that down to the shoddy state of our rotation and the need by DD to pay through the nose to build the rotation from the ground up in a buyers' market. That's also partially down to Cherington, for not maintaining the starting rotation properly in his tenure. DD had to pay for the pound of cure for want of Cherington's ounce of prevention, if you will.

 

In the case of JD that's very true. In the case of Price that's very questionable..

[notin]

No it isn't. Arguing from the outcome is different from revisionist history. It's accurate that Cherington's teams vastly underperformed, usually due to poor starting pitching. This is a direct consequence of his reluctance to compete for high end starting pitching, so overall it's a very valid criticism.

 

If we hoped that the offense could overcome the weak pitching, that didn't make the pitching magically not weak. Cherington did a very poor job of assembling a competitive pitching staff, and that compounded the matter of the Jon Lester trade, which honestly probably did not need to happen as the man was more than worth the money he demanded and we had to spend virtually the same money on Porcello who's a fine pitcher but clearly inferior to Lester.

 

So, final analysis of that trade by Cherington: We saved a few mil, gained very little talent, and lost a durable top end starter in exchange for a guy who is historically more of a middle of the rotation inning chewer -- a good one, but not as good as what he replaced by any means (Rick Porcello has outperformed Jon Lester in ERA+ in exactly 0 of the three years he's been here). That's not a move you make to put the team over the top. That's a move you make when you're deliberately punting away a couple seasons in order to improve your draft position and want to get younger and start to reposition the team around a new young core -- a textbook move in many markets but exactly what you DON'T do in a media fishbowl like Boston.

 

Final analysis, Cherington didn't realize what GMing for Boston entailed, and tried to run this team like a midmarket squad. He showed no flexibility in dealing with the special circumstances of running a baseball team a big media market and tried to do things by the book. He is probably a competent GM, but was not ready to GM in Boston. I think if a team somewhere in the rust belt tried to give him a chance they'd find him capable. He didn't work out here in the long run.

 

It’s revisionist history that Cherington was fired and revisionist that he is a coffee boy. He’s a VP of Baseball Operations, a job neither of us is qualified for.

 

And speculative that he couldn’t get another GM job because no team would trust him with their payroll.

 

However, it is unfair of me to reply this way without acknowledging that this particular post is your most even-handed and fair assessment of the entire situation...

[Dojji]

It’s revisionist history that Cherington was fired and revisionist that he is a coffee boy. He’s a VP of Baseball Operations, a job neither of us is qualified for.

 

He's not a GM. He has a vanity job where he's basically a glorified scout and opinion giver with no decision making power.

 

And speculative that he couldn’t get another GM job because no team would trust him with their payroll.

 

The reason is speculative, the fact that no one trusted him to run a baseball team is not.

 

However, it is unfair of me to reply this way without acknowledging that this particular post is your most even-handed and fair assessment of the entire situation...

 

Thanks. I do try

[Bellhorn04]

I have posted before that Duquette gets a lot of credit for Theo's success here and that Theo gets a lot of credit for Ben's success.

 

Just don't tell me that Dombrowski came in here and 'saved the day' with his brilliance. The team was going to be competitive in 2016 regardless.

 

I really don't think I've ever said anything close to this.

[Dojji]

On the other hand, I do actually feel that way. DD spent big but he hit on most of his spending. I'll take a guy who spends big, but accurately, over a guy who won't spend.

[mvp 78]

He's not a GM. He has a vanity job where he's basically a glorified scout and opinion giver with no decision making power.

 

I'm surprised you feel this way about that position considering how much you have liked prospects in the past. I would have thought you'd see value in what he provides to the Jays.

 

I'm the fence straddler who thinks Ben wasn't a great GM, but that his current position has a lot of value and is perfect for him.

[dgalehouse]

When you have one ring year sandwiched between three lost years , an impartial observer might conclude that , if anything was a fluke , it was probably the ring year. Here is a tip ; do not put on your resume that " things sucked for three out of my four years , but it was always the fault of someone else or just bad luck. The one good year was due to my work. After I was let go , my successor quickly turned things around , but that would have happened anyway if they had stuck with me . " Not a good idea.

[mvp 78]

When you have one ring year sandwiched between three lost years , an impartial observer might conclude that , if anything was a fluke , it was probably the ring year. Here is a tip ; do not put on your resume that " things sucked for three out of my four years , but it was always the fault of someone else or just bad luck. The one good year was due to my work. After I was let go , my successor quickly turned things around , but that would have happened anyway if they had stuck with me . " Not a good idea.

 

+3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986

[notin]

I'm surprised you feel this way about that position considering how much you have liked prospects in the past. I would have thought you'd see value in what he provides to the Jays.

 

I'm the fence straddler who thinks Ben wasn't a great GM, but that his current position has a lot of value and is perfect for him.

 

And per some reports, Dombrowski wanted to keep Cherington, very possibly in that same capacity...

[dgalehouse]

It’s revisionist history that Cherington was fired and revisionist that he is a coffee boy. He’s a VP of Baseball Operations, a job neither of us is qualified for.

 

And speculative that he couldn’t get another GM job because no team would trust him with their payroll.

 

However, it is unfair of me to reply this way without acknowledging that this particular post is your most even-handed and fair assessment of the entire situation...

 

Ben is currently finishing up his second year with Toronto. The two years have seen a sharp decline in the Jay's success after very good years in 2015 and 2016. Maybe the poor guy is just unlucky. Hopefully , he is quietly at work on a new five year plan.

[Dojji]

I'm surprised you feel this way about that position considering how much you have liked prospects in the past. I would have thought you'd see value in what he provides to the Jays.

 

I'm the fence straddler who thinks Ben wasn't a great GM, but that his current position has a lot of value and is perfect for him.

 

VP of baseball operations is an advisory position rather than an executive position. He knows a ton about prospect development, and it is a job he can definitely contribute to his team in, but it's a big step down from GM.

[Bellhorn04]

1. Some schmuck out of the 15 listed did pick the Red Sox.

 

2. Out of the 88 'experts' polled, and I quote: "In the American League East, the Boston Red Sox came out on top by receiving 36 votes followed by the Baltimore Orioles (30), Toronto Blue Jays (17), New York Yankees (4) and Tampa Bay Rays (1)."

 

3. I looked up the 3 computer projection systems that I always reference. Fangraphs had the Sox winning the division with 88 wins. PECOTA had the Sox winning the division with 87 wins, and Davenport had the Sox and Os tying for the division with 85 wins. Links provided to each site below.

 

https://imgur.com/a/NasJN#VdSlkXU

 

http://www.edgevegas.com/2015-mlb-season-win-total-pecota-projections/

 

http://claydavenport.com/projections/2015/PROJHOME.shtml

 

 

4. I didn't look any further than that, but I think I'd find more of the same.

 

What were the Red Sox projections for 2013 BTW?

[mvp 78]

VP of baseball operations is an advisory position rather than an executive position. He knows a ton about prospect development, and it is a job he can definitely contribute to his team in, but it's a big step down from GM.

 

Calling it a coffee boy is rather ham fisted tho.

[notin]

When you have one ring year sandwiched between three lost years , an impartial observer might conclude that , if anything was a fluke , it was probably the ring year. Here is a tip ; do not put on your resume that " things sucked for three out of my four years , but it was always the fault of someone else or just bad luck. The one good year was due to my work. After I was let go , my successor quickly turned things around , but that would have happened anyway if they had stuck with me . " Not a good idea.

 

Ever seen Dombrowski’s first 4 years in Detroit? The team averaged about 60 wins per season. Does that mean he did a horrible job too? Or should we take into account what he was taking over?

 

Cherington took over a team that quit on the manager and owner. He had talent but he also had a lot of attitude problems. His first season was a last place one, but isn’t his reset button trade a huge factor there? He managed to unload some horrific contracts, one of which I believe is still current.

 

Then he won a World Series one year later. In 2014, the same team that won the Series came in last. While expecting a repeat was probably too much, did anyone expect last place? I expected at the very least that that team should have been competitive.

[notin]

VP of baseball operations is an advisory position rather than an executive position. He knows a ton about prospect development, and it is a job he can definitely contribute to his team in, but it's a big step down from GM.

 

Well we had Ruben Amaro Jr as a first base coach. That is a big step down. VP of Baseball Ops isn’t so bad

[a700hitter]

Well we had Ruben Amaro Jr as a first base coach. That is a big step down. VP of Baseball Ops isn’t so bad

Amaro was as bad as you get for a GM.

[Dojji]

Calling it a coffee boy is rather ham fisted tho.

 

Oh agreed

[a700hitter]

Ever seen Dombrowski’s first 4 years in Detroit? The team averaged about 60 wins per season. Does that mean he did a horrible job too? Or should we take into account what he was taking over?

 

Cherington took over a team that quit on the manager and owner. He had talent but he also had a lot of attitude problems. His first season was a last place one, but isn’t his reset button trade a huge factor there? He managed to unload some horrific contracts, one of which I believe is still current.

 

Then he won a World Series one year later. In 2014, the same team that won the Series came in last. While expecting a repeat was probably too much, did anyone expect last place? I expected at the very least that that team should have been competitive.

DD also didn’t have the 2nd or 3rd highest payroll in those initial seasons. Ben had $200 million payrolls and was finished last. To paraphrase Joe Castiglione: that was a big multi year squander. If you want to rebuild and finish down in the standings, you can’t have a top payroll and finish last. That’s just a bad job. There are no ifs, buts or what’s about it. To argue otherwise is foolishness. And that the guy is still not a GM confirms that he wasn’t good at the job. The market is the objective indicator.

[Spudboy]

VP of baseball operations is an advisory position rather than an executive position. He knows a ton about prospect development, and it is a job he can definitely contribute to his team in, but it's a big step down from GM.

 

Exactly how is it known that Ben "knows a ton about prospect development"? Exactly how has this been determined? And who made this determination?

[a700hitter]

Calling it a coffee boy is rather ham fisted tho.

It is stark, as is the difference between GM and his current job. Let’s not tip toe around it.

[notin]

Amaro was as bad as you get for a GM.

 

Jim Hendry and I disagree.

 

So does Chuck LaMar...

[notin]

Exactly how is it known that Ben "knows a ton about prospect development"? Exactly how has this been determined? And who made this determination?

 

His track record, for one..,

[a700hitter]

And yet, they were projected to win their division.

 

That they sucked is not Ben's fault.

Three last place finishes are not flukes. Enigmas are not that common. That would fly in the face of the laws Law of Randomness to an extent that would destroy the usefulness statistical study.