Dave Bush hired as pitching coach

[notin]

No they use sarcasm as a legitimate rhetorical debate device.

 

 

And do they ultimately use it to send the message that the opposition is being idiotic?

[Elktonnick]

And do they ultimately use it to send the message that the opposition is being idiotic?

LOL!!! Without being so crude. You know they used to say the best debaters are those who can tell their opponents to "go to hell" in such a way that they look forward to the trip.

[notin]

LOL!!! Without being so crude. You know they used to say the best debaters are those who can tell their opponents to "go to hell" in such a way that they look forward to the trip.

 

 

First of all, I have to award a couple points for not falling for some of my blatantly sarcastic answers. But as they were blatant, I cannot award maximum points.

 

The bottom line is we both called each other’s ideas idiotic. I was blunt. You were sarcastic. Same message, which is what is important.

 

Now if you are answering me from England, that’s one thing. But otherwise if you’re in the USA, using the excuses that it’s acceptable in other cultures and that’s a big difference is a weak defense to separate. When you burp and fart at the dinner table, do you tell your family “What?! It’s good manners in Japan!” Or do you just excuse yourself like the rest of us?

[Elktonnick]

First of all, I have to award a couple points for not falling for some of my blatantly sarcastic answers. But as they were blatant, I cannot award maximum points.

 

The bottom line is we both called each other’s ideas idiotic. I was blunt. You were sarcastic. Same message, which is what is important.

 

Now if you are answering me from England, that’s one thing. But otherwise if you’re in the USA, using the excuses that it’s acceptable in other cultures and that’s a big difference is a weak defense to separate. When you burp and fart at the dinner table, do you tell your family “What?! It’s good manners in Japan!” Or do you just excuse yourself like the rest of us?

I was trained in debate. I confess it was a long time ago. Our rhetoric instructor taught us irony, sarcastic and sardonic techniques were not only acceptable but would score better than blunt less witted rejoinders. What has happened in today's America is the we have lost the art of reasoned debate as we have seen by what is happening on today's campuses.

Moreover I have lived all over the world. So I know cultural sensitivity. What I am saying is in my neighborhood growing up sarcasm was how we argued. It is also used quite freely in Spain and Argentina. I know I have had many fun times debating my Argentine and Spanish friends when we lived there. Unfortunately here in America we not only have lost the art of debate but of conversation as well. So sad. We have become an uptight prig of a nation dominated by boring folks who think exchanging tweets is having an intelligent conversation.

[moonslav59]

Directly calling some one an idiot is crude. Sarcasm is a respected form of rhetoric. used in debate. Just watch the debates in the House of Commons. The greatest orator of the 20th century regularly used sarcasm in his speeches. I speak of course of Winston Churchill.

 

"Earth to notin" = calling an opinion (not the person) "idiotic."

[moonslav59]

I was trained in debate. .

 

Is that sarcasm?

[Elktonnick]

Is that sarcasm?

 

Ah Dr Talc, I presume.

[Bellhorn04]

I have only seen the Canadian House of Commons debate once or twice. Is question time in Canada as "interesting" as that in the UK?

 

The Canadian House of Commons is kind of embarrassing. When someone is talking, they often have a chorus of hecklers from the Opposition.

[Jack Flap]

The red sox themselves admitted that they needed to revamp their entire approach toward pitching. The fact that Boston's last home grown successful starter was John Lester speaks for itself. One would have thought that their hiring of Bloom was a sign that they wanted a fresh outside approach. Bush's signing appears to run contrary to their previous statements and the Bloom hire.

 

I don't know how you got from this post to then arguing against the need for a strong farm system later in the thread.

 

Anyway, you seem to have gone really far out on a limb searching for things to be angry about here (when there will probably be plenty of legitimate reasons soon enough)... why not at least give Dave Bush the chance to do something to piss you off first?

[Elktonnick]

I don't know how you got from this post to then arguing against the need for a strong farm system later in the thread.

 

Anyway, you seem to have gone really far out on a limb searching for things to be angry about here (when there will probably be plenty of legitimate reasons soon enough)... why not at least give Dave Bush the chance to do something to piss you off first?

 

That is funny because I am not angry about Bush being hired. I merely would have preferred some one from outside the organization. Bush certainly may prove to be fine or he could prove to be another dud, only time will tell.

 

BTWI am not arguing against a strong farm system nor I am arguing for one but again pointed out that DD used the farm system as Henry thought he would namelyto get players to clinch the deal and win the title.

 

What I did say was the farm system needs to be only strong enough to produce a few players periodically. The NATs farm system was ranked 17th this past year and 20th last year, clearly below average as farm systems go but good enough to suit their purposes. Again the goal of a major league franchise is not to have the best farm system but rather to win titles. The former does not necessarily lead to the latter and most fans have no idea how good a particular farm system is and could care less.

 

It is a bit off the topic but the big controversy facing the minor leagues is MLBs proposal to eliminate minor league teams, " According to Baseball America. MLB has proposed eliminating 25 percent of minor league teams, dropping the total number of clubs from about 160 to approximately 120.Oct 19, 2019"

 

I guess MLB doesn't consider a strong minor league system to be that important after all. If they did it seems to be an odd way to show it.

Edited November 4, 2019 by Elktonnick

[jacksonianmarch]

That is funny because I am not angry about Bush being hired. I merely would have preferred some one from outside the organization. Bush certainly may prove to be fine or he could prove to be another dud, only time will tell.

 

BTWI am not arguing against a strong farm system nor I am arguing for one but again pointed out that DD used the farm system as Henry thought he would namelyto get players to clinch the deal and win the title.

 

What I did say was the farm system needs to be only strong enough to produce a few players periodically. The NATs farm system was ranked 17th this past year and 20th last year, clearly below average as farm systems go but good enough to suit their purposes. Again the goal of a major league franchise is not to have the best farm system but rather to win titles. The former does not necessarily lead to the latter and most fans have no idea how good a particular farm system is and could care less.

 

It is a bit off the topic but the big controversy facing the minor leagues is MLBs proposal to eliminate minor league teams, " According to Baseball America. MLB has proposed eliminating 25 percent of minor league teams, dropping the total number of clubs from about 160 to approximately 120.Oct 19, 2019"

 

I guess MLB doesn't consider a strong minor league system to be that important after all. If they did it seems to be an odd way to show it.

 

There is some truth to this situation. There are TONS of guys that are held on to just as roster fillers or organizational guys playing out their last fantasies to play professional ball until they realize that they aren't gonna see the bigs. Guys whose entire existence in the minors is to get the real prospects ready for the show. If you essentially eliminated a level, you'd need to keep less of those guys and allow them to jump into their actual careers sooner. The flip side to that is the coaches in the lower levels are the guys who miss out. Plenty of guys who go through the ranks as coaches lower down can earn their keep at upper levels or in the bigs if they just get the opportunity. This would eliminate opportunities

[Elktonnick]

You're way off the mark. She has criticized many a move, most notably the replacement of Ben by DD.

 

There is some truth to this situation. There are TONS of guys that are held on to just as roster fillers or organizational guys playing out their last fantasies to play professional ball until they realize that they aren't gonna see the bigs. Guys whose entire existence in the minors is to get the real prospects ready for the show. If you essentially eliminated a level, you'd need to keep less of those guys and allow them to jump into their actual careers sooner. The flip side to that is the coaches in the lower levels are the guys who miss out. Plenty of guys who go through the ranks as coaches lower down can earn their keep at upper levels or in the bigs if they just get the opportunity. This would eliminate opportunities

 

I certainly concur I also think the improvement in the level play in college baseball and the rise of the independent leagues have changed the landscape as well. Teams believe that don't need as long to develop their top prospects now as in years past.

[jacksonianmarch]

I certainly concur I also think the improvement in the level play in college baseball and the rise of the independent leagues have changed the landscape as well. Teams believe that don't need as long to develop their top prospects now as in years past.

 

I honestly think that is new age cockiness thinking that you can use numbers to predict the outcome of a player who is 20 yrs old. You just cannot. It is entirely an inexact science.

[Elktonnick]

I honestly think that is new age cockiness thinking that you can use numbers to predict the outcome of a player who is 20 yrs old. You just cannot. It is entirely an inexact science.

 

amen

[Bellhorn04]

Cherington deserves far more credit for Dombrowski's title than Dombrowski deserves.

 

But Kimmi, if we do that we also have to take away a lot of Ben's credit for 2013.

 

The 2013 team was made up of players inherited from Theo plus a few key free agent acquisitions.

 

Why do we have to play the discredit game at all?

[moonslav59]

But Kimmi, if we do that we also have to take away a lot of Ben's credit for 2013.

 

The 2013 team was made up of players inherited from Theo plus a few key free agent acquisitions.

 

Why do we have to play the discredit game at all?

 

The credit taken away for 2013 is equal to that gained by 2018.

 

DD did not leave anything for the next guy but high debts and a near barren farm.

 

Plus, Ben left DD a better farm than he inherited, although the young core of non prospects was pretty damn awesome.

[Bellhorn04]

The credit taken away for 2013 is equal to that gained by 2018.

 

DD did not leave anything for the next guy but high debts and a near barren farm.

 

So now we have no talent at the major league level?

[moonslav59]

So now we have no talent at the major league level?

 

I didn't mention that, but I'd say the core of young cost-controlled players is less than when Ben and DD took over.

 

Devers, DHern and Bogey at a reasonable cost is about it.

 

I'm not counting guys like Betts & ERod who have 1-2 years left and are no longer young or a "core" for the extended future.

[Bellhorn04]

I didn't mention that, but I'd say the core of young cost-controlled players is less than when Ben and DD took over.

 

Devers, DHern and Bogey at a reasonable cost is about it.

 

I'm not counting guys like Betts & ERod who have 1-2 years left and are no longer young or a "core" for the extended future.

 

I don't disagree, but this is beside the point of who deserves credit for titles.

[S5Dewey]

 

DD did not leave anything for the next guy but high debts and a near barren farm.

 

 

You forgot something. He also left behind a flag for the next guy - and the fans - to look at every day when they go to the park.

[Bellhorn04]

DD may have 'decimated' the farm, but if you look at each individual trade he made, they all had a pretty specific and justifiable purpose. They were almost all for pitching or for help at the deadline. He did overpay in some cases, no doubt. But he wasn't just throwing assets away for nothing.

[oldtimer]

DD may have 'decimated' the farm, but if you look at each individual trade he made, they all had a pretty specific and justifiable purpose. They were almost all for pitching or for help at the deadline. He did overpay in some cases, no doubt. But he wasn't just throwing assets away for nothing.

 

DD's strategy was win now and the hell with remaining competitive on a sustainable basis. The Sox ownership went along but now have decided on a different path, which is, get back to being competitive on a sustainable basis. I hope they will take the chance of overspending when they look like they have a real chance of winning it all.

[Elktonnick]

DD's strategy was win now and the hell with remaining competitive on a sustainable basis. The Sox ownership went along but now have decided on a different path, which is, get back to being competitive on a sustainable basis. I hope they will take the chance of overspending when they look like they have a real chance of winning it all.

 

You are spot on. DD was hired to do exactly what he did. After the win Henry promised to renew DD's contract then after their dismal 2019 start he changed his mind, none of which had anything to do with the state of the farm. If you believe Boston sportswriters such as Dan Shaughnessy it had to do with DDs communication style. The whole business of the state of the farm is interesting but irrelevant as to why DD is no longer in Boston.

[Bellhorn04]

You are spot on. DD was hired to do exactly what he did. After the win Henry promised to renew DD's contract then after their dismal 2019 start he changed his mind, none of which had anything to do with the state of the farm. If you believe Boston sportswriters such as Dan Shaughnessy it had to do with DDs communication style. The whole business of the state of the farm is interesting but irrelevant as to why DD is no longer in Boston.

 

I don't think the state of the farm is irrelevant to it-maybe more like a case of killing two birds with one stone. And the hiring of Bloom certainly indicates a whole different team-building approach to DD's.

[moonslav59]

You forgot something. He also left behind a flag for the next guy - and the fans - to look at every day when they go to the park.

 

I'm glad we hired DD. He got us a flag. Sorry, I didn't think I had to remind anyone of that.

 

He served his purpose, and now it's time to rebuild. He was not the man for that.

 

Dan D: No rings- left a great farm and core.

 

Theo: 2 rings, left a decent farm and great core.

 

Ben: 1 ring, left a great farm and core.

 

DD: 1 ring, left a near barren farm and a decent core.

 

I have no hard feelings towards any of our last 4 GMs.

 

(There's lots of gray area, here, and I'm sure people will disagree with my over simplifications, but that's how I see it.)

[Elktonnick]

I don't think the state of the farm is irrelevant to it-maybe more like a case of killing two birds with one stone. And the hiring of Bloom certainly indicates a whole different team-building approach to DD's.

 

While the end result may have afforded Boston the opportunity to take a different approach, the reporting coming from numerous sportswriters including Peter Gammons makes it clear the decision was not over substance. Allegedly Henry had concerns about DDs communication style even before they won in 2018. Chris Russo the bombastic Mad Dog of MLB radio and TV said that there rumors of DDs personal style offending ownership all over baseball for several months in 2018. He said that he was surprised that DD lasted as long as he did. The answer was that Henry wanted the title and was. willing to accept a certain level of disharmony until the on the field results no longer made it acceptable.

[Bellhorn04]

While the end result may have afforded Boston the opportunity to take a different approach, the reporting coming from numerous sportswriters including Peter Gammons makes it clear the decision was not over substance. Allegedly Henry had concerns about DDs communication style even before they won in 2018. Chris Russo the bombastic Mad Dog of MLB radio and TV said that there rumors of DDs personal style offending ownership all over baseball for several months in 2018. He said that he was surprised that DD lasted as long as he did.

 

These allegations seem a bit odd when you consider how long DD has been around. Maybe he started drinking heavily or something.

[notin]

I'm glad we hired DD. He got us a flag. Sorry, I didn't think I had to remind anyone of that.

 

He served his purpose, and now it's time to rebuild. He was not the man for that.

 

Dan D: No rings- left a great farm and core.

 

Theo: 2 rings, left a decent farm and great core.

 

Ben: 1 ring, left a great farm and core.

 

DD: 1 ring, left a near barren farm and a decent core.

 

I have no hard feelings towards any of our last 4 GMs.

 

(There's lots of gray area, here, and I'm sure people will disagree with my over simplifications, but that's how I see it.)

 

I might argue Duquette left the Red Sox with a “great farm.”

 

Prior to his last season in 2001, the top prospects were Brad Baker (BA #76), the late Dernell Stenson (BA #77), and Tony Blanco (BA #87). After that season, the farm was headlined by Seung Song (BA #60) and Tony Blanco (BA #93).

 

Only Hanley Ramirez (BA #19 in 2003) remained among Duquette prospects to make a significant impact in the majors. After he left, the Sox added players like Jon Lester and Anibal Sanchez who became much better major leaguers...

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

DD communicated ok, but mostly only to his right-hand men like Wren and LaRussa in the end (according to Shaughnessey). Can't blame the owners for wanting more transparency and organization-wide collaboration so that all voices are valued going forward.

 

Personally, I liked DD's candor with the media, and so to the fans; he would go public with target areas of need and then go fill them. It could have been a way of advertising to other clubs that the Sox were Open For Business, but it was definitely more refreshing than past GMs who always kept intentions secretive while saying a lot that never meant much.

 

I do think DD's words at the past trade deadline seemed forced, though, when he was maybe no longer allowed to swap prospects for bullpen help... I wonder what exactly his plan was for 2020 that Henry and co. couldn't and wouldn't let happen? Anyone here have thoughts?

 

For example, what would DD be more apt to do with Betts -- lock him up with 350 million or trade him for a haul of MLB ready prospects; remember last winter, when discussing potential Sox free agents, it was DD who first said, "We can't keep all of them."

[notin]

These allegations seem a bit odd when you consider how long DD has been around. Maybe he started drinking heavily or something.

 

Maybe other ownerships were less involved and gave him more autonomy...