Article: Checking In On Dave Dombrowski, Five Years After He Left The Red Sox

[mvp 78]

3 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

The ironic thing is that Bloom, like Dombrowski, seemed to do exactly what he was hired to do but was shown the door anyway.  They each made expensive mistakes, but so does every CBO of a big market team.  The GOAT Epstein made 'em too.

Bloom did half the job. He helped rebuild the farm, partially, but didn't keep up the bargain on the MLB side. He really didn't develop much pitching wise and let the MLB team fall into disarray. While the farm became highly ranked later on, it wasn't enough to keep his job. It would be enough if he was the CBO of the Rockies or a lesser team. 

[Bellhorn04]

4 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Bloom did half the job. He helped rebuild the farm, partially, but didn't keep up the bargain on the MLB side. He really didn't develop much pitching wise and let the MLB team fall into disarray. While the farm became highly ranked later on, it wasn't enough to keep his job. It would be enough if he was the CBO of the Rockies or a lesser team. 

But we are a lesser team now, in terms of commitment.  That's Henry again. 

And I think he's OK with using the CBO as his scapegoat...

[Hugh2]

17 hours ago, notin said:

We nitpick moves from every CBO or GM.  So do you.  Why is Dombrowski supposed to be exempt? 

And GM's should be nitpicked, but also not blamed for what's not their fault at the same time. 

But that won't happen in it's entirety ever, much like politics the current GM/POBO will always get credit/blame for the current team no matter how much of it was built by them. 

Dave was good...BUT.

Mookie Betts/Xander Bogaerts/Jackie Bradley JR/Dustin Pedrioa/David Ortiz/Rick Porcello/David Price/Stephen Wright/Hanley Ramirez.

Those were the top 10 performers in 2016, Dave was only responsible for Price, who vastly underperformed his contract.  To say he came in and is responsible for turning a last place team into a first place team when 9 of their top 10 performers were already there is a gross manipulation of the truth. 

[Hugh2]

2 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

But we are a lesser team now, in terms of commitment.  That's Henry again. 

And I think he's OK with using the CBO as his scapegoat...

Oh, he apparently has no shame in it.  At this point, if he fired Breslow after a year or two and blamed him for the team after a few more years of no big moves....who bites?

[Bellhorn04]

1 minute ago, Hugh2 said:

And GM's should be nitpicked, but also not blamed for what's not their fault at the same time. 

But that won't happen in it's entirety ever, much like politics the current GM/POBO will always get credit/blame for the current team no matter how much of it was built by them. 

Dave was good...BUT.

Mookie Betts/Xander Bogaerts/Jackie Bradley JR/Dustin Pedrioa/David Ortiz/Rick Porcello/David Price/Stephen Wright/Hanley Ramirez.

Those were the top 10 performers in 2016, Dave was only responsible for Price, who vastly underperformed his contract.  To say he came in and is responsible for turning a last place team into a first place team without acknowledging all the talent was already there, it just had to blossom and get healthy, is a gross manipulation of the truth. 

He did what was necessary.  Price/Sale/Kimbrel - that was 3 of the elite pitchers in the game added to the staff.  You could call it doing the obvious and expensive thing, but that's kind of his approach, and it has produced results.  We've had too many "creative" moves since he left... 

 

 

 

[moonslav59]

3 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Ben Cherington did spend. He won a 2013 WS with FA acquisitions. His problem was he spent poorly: Hanley, Pablo, Rusney so he had the keys taken away. 

Yes, he did, but over the 4 years, he did not spend what DD did.

He spent less in 2013 than Theo did in 2010 to 2011. (That's not counting inflation.)

Ben did increase spending after 2013, and quite significantly, so your point is solid.

The team was at about $165M, the two years before Ben, and he dipped to $154M in '13 before ending at $184M. From start to finish, he went from $168M (Theo in 2011) to $184M- up $1`6M

DD went  to $197M yr 1 & 2, then  1, $234K in 2018 (1 rank) and $236M in '19. His total add was $$52M in 4 yrs.

Bloom from $236M to $181M or -$55M.

Brez down $10M in 1 year.

[Bellhorn04]

5 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

Oh, he apparently has no shame in it.  At this point, if he fired Breslow after a year or two and blamed him for the team after a few more years of no big moves....who bites?

The aversion of many candidates to the Sox CBO job this time around was real... 

[Hugh2]

29 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

He did what was necessary.  Price/Sale/Kimbrel - that was 3 of the elite pitchers in the game added to the staff.  You could call it doing the obvious and expensive thing, but that's kind of his approach, and it has produced results.  We've had too many "creative" moves since he left... 

 

 

 

Yes, but that was the following year, the team that went from last place to first place was all built from guys before DD, he just added the sprinkles on top to take them from a first place team to a world series winner. 

My point was, he didn't make a last place team a first place team, that team was already in place. 

[Hugh2]

30 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

The aversion of many candidates to the Sox CBO job this time around was real... 

I actually still don't believe that narrative, there were plenty of people interested in the job, the media just made a whole nothing burger about the people who didn't want it. 

Easy to make a story and pile it on when you don't like someone. 

[Bellhorn04]

27 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

I actually still don't believe that narrative, there were plenty of people interested in the job, the media just made a whole nothing burger about the people who didn't want it. 

Easy to make a story and pile it on when you don't like someone. 

Disagree.  Henry firing his CBO every 4 years is not something made up, it's something that really happened.

[notin]

1 hour ago, Bellhorn04 said:

I'm just saying that blaming DD for spending is a really dumb argument.  It's what he does.  JH sort of knew that.  If you want to argue against that position, have at it.

And I’m saying he’s the only CBO where the.blame gets bumped up the ladder all the time.  
 

Earlier I made a statement about Betts not accepting what DD was offering.  This is 100% true and doesn’t put blame on either side, yet you chimed in to make sure it was Henry and not DD.  
 

Cherington made a lot of mistakes, most notably Hanley, Pablo and Rusney.  (Although I think Rusney was neglected and underutilized.). I’ve never seen anyone say “well, Henry authorized and made those payments.”

It gets silly with DD.  I was a Bloom fan for a few years, but I’ve openly criticized him multiple times, starting with the Betts trade.  But no DD fan seems to ever even permit others to criticize DD without immediately chiming in to his defense.  Did DD do some good? Absolutely.  But he also did some bad, and it doesn’t make you less of a fan to acknowledge that.  It might even make you more of one…

[notin]

42 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Disagree.  Henry firing his CBO every 4 years is not something made up, it's something that really happened.

No.  It’s not a fact. It’s a myth that’s piled on, like the Bermuda Triangle.

It happened twice. DD and Bloom.  And no one disputes Bloom deserved it.

[Hugh2]

29 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Disagree.  Henry firing his CBO every 4 years is not something made up, it's something that really happened.

I'm not disagreeing he fired multiple CBO's.  I'm disagreeing that nobody wnated the job.  I think that narrative is BS and madeup by sox nation. 

Think about it, what template do we have to compare that circus to? none.  we don't know. 

[Duran Is The Man]

21 minutes ago, notin said:

And I’m saying he’s the only CBO where the.blame gets bumped up the ladder all the time.  
 

Earlier I made a statement about Betts not accepting what DD was offering.  This is 100% true and doesn’t put blame on either side, yet you chimed in to make sure it was Henry and not DD.  
 

Cherington made a lot of mistakes, most notably Hanley, Pablo and Rusney.  (Although I think Rusney was neglected and underutilized.). I’ve never seen anyone say “well, Henry authorized and made those payments.”

It gets silly with DD.  I was a Bloom fan for a few years, but I’ve openly criticized him multiple times, starting with the Betts trade.  But no DD fan seems to ever even permit others to criticize DD without immediately chiming in to his defense.  Did DD do some good? Absolutely.  But he also did some bad, and it doesn’t make you less of a fan to acknowledge that.  It might even make you more of one…

i am a big DD fan but i remember being extremely pissed about two things: the Sale extension and trading Beeks. i was against both. i was also, at one time, a huge fan of JH. but then he turned into a ********.

[notin]

38 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

I'm not disagreeing he fired multiple CBO's.  I'm disagreeing that nobody wnated the job.  I think that narrative is BS and madeup by sox nation. 

Think about it, what template do we have to compare that circus to? none.  we don't know. 

It’s a stupid narrative that, now that you’ve made me think about it, makes no sense. 
 

Anyone who wants to be a CBO/PBO/GM knows there are only 30 places to get the job.  Why would they eliminate one that, at worst, comes with a built-in excuse if it doesn’t work out?  Getting fired from the Red Sox isn’t like getting fired from the Pirates, where you have no resources, no expectations, and at worst risk disappointing dozens of fans.  There’s a reason all of the “fired” Sox executives have found other jobs.  Can you say that about all the deposed executives from Pitt or Miami or Colorado?

[Bellhorn04]

1 hour ago, notin said:

No.  It’s not a fact. It’s a myth that’s piled on, like the Bermuda Triangle.

It happened twice. DD and Bloom.  And no one disputes Bloom deserved it.

Yeah, I know you don't like to count Cherington as getting the boot because he was "invited to stay on" as an underling.  Cherington manned up and said "eff you", for which I do admire him...

I have actually disputed that Bloom deserved it.  I think he got scapegoated.  I have said this today, in fact...

  

[Bellhorn04]

52 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

I'm not disagreeing he fired multiple CBO's.  I'm disagreeing that nobody wnated the job.  I think that narrative is BS and madeup by sox nation. 

Think about it, what template do we have to compare that circus to? none.  we don't know. 

Well, I guess we have to dig up the stories, but there were a number of candidates who were invited but declined to interview, including internal options, with more than one citing "family commitments"... 

[notin]

13 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Yeah, I know you don't like to count Cherington as getting the boot because he was "invited to stay on" as an underling.  Cherington manned up and said "eff you", for which I do admire him...

I have actually disputed that Bloom deserved it.  I think he got scapegoated.  I have said this today, in fact...

  

This isn’t a preference.   It’s a matter of historical accuracy.  No one should count Cherington for the simple reason that he wasn’t fired and he did quit.  For whatever reason and in whatever capacity, he didn’t want to work under Dombrowski.  For good or bad for the Sox.

Henry has fired multiple CBOs, going all the way back to Duquette.  But counting Cherington is only done to pervade the 4 year myth.

I was an ardent Bloom supporter, but I think he deserved it.  He built teams that stayed in contention and then repeatedly quit on them for whatever reason.  Simply inexcusable…

[Bellhorn04]

15 minutes ago, notin said:

This isn’t a preference.   It’s a matter of historical accuracy.  No one should count Cherington for the simple reason that he wasn’t fired and he did quit.  For whatever reason and in whatever capacity, he didn’t want to work under Dombrowski.  For good or bad for the Sox.

Henry has fired multiple CBOs, going all the way back to Duquette.  But counting Cherington is only done to pervade the 4 year myth.

Cherington was being replaced as CBO - agree or disagree?

[notin]

8 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Cherington was being replaced as CBO - agree or disagree?

Disagree.

Cherington was the General Manager.  Lucchino was replaced as President/CEO once he announced his retirement.  DD replaced Lucchino, not Cherington.

Dombrowski wanted to keep Cherington on board - agree or disagree?

[Bellhorn04]

17 minutes ago, notin said:

Disagree.

Cherington was the General Manager.  Lucchino was replaced as President/CEO once he announced his retirement.  DD replaced Lucchino, not Cherington.

Dombrowski wanted to keep Cherington on board - agree or disagree?

I agree that's what he said.

I believe Cherington thought he was being replaced/demoted/asked to work for DD and that's why he quit, and that a lot of guys in his position would have done the same.  I'm guessing Henry had a good idea that's what would happen-or maybe he just didn't care one way or the other.

To me it absolutely counts as changing CBOs...

  

[mvp 78]

27 minutes ago, notin said:

Disagree.

Cherington was the General Manager.  Lucchino was replaced as President/CEO once he announced his retirement.  DD replaced Lucchino, not Cherington.

Dombrowski wanted to keep Cherington on board - agree or disagree?

The role Dombrowski played was not at all analogous to the role that Lucchino played. It was clear that when Dave came on board that Ben's role was GREATLY diminished. There's a reason we're complaining about Dave Dombrowski's moves and not Mike Hazen. BOH was GM for 4 years and we haven't had a complaint sesh about him! It's clear that something changed with the hiring of Dombrowski.

[notin]

17 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

I agree that's what he said.

I believe Cherington thought he was being replaced/demoted/asked to work for DD and that's why he quit, and that a lot of guys in his position would have done the same.  I'm guessing Henry had a good idea that's what would happen-or maybe he just didn't care one way or the other.

To me it absolutely counts as changing CBOs...

  

You can count it as changing CBOs.  But it is inaccurate to count Cherington on the list of CBOs/GMs/whatever that were fired after 4 years…

[moonslav59]

2 hours ago, notin said:

And I’m saying he’s the only CBO where the.blame gets bumped up the ladder all the time.  
 

Earlier I made a statement about Betts not accepting what DD was offering.  This is 100% true and doesn’t put blame on either side, yet you chimed in to make sure it was Henry and not DD.  
 

Cherington made a lot of mistakes, most notably Hanley, Pablo and Rusney.  (Although I think Rusney was neglected and underutilized.). I’ve never seen anyone say “well, Henry authorized and made those payments.”

It gets silly with DD.  I was a Bloom fan for a few years, but I’ve openly criticized him multiple times, starting with the Betts trade.  But no DD fan seems to ever even permit others to criticize DD without immediately chiming in to his defense.  Did DD do some good? Absolutely.  But he also did some bad, and it doesn’t make you less of a fan to acknowledge that.  It might even make you more of one…

You make some good points, and you do no longer say he "decimated the farm." That is a good direction you took.

No doubt, all GMs make mistakes. Getting the team to where DD got it in 2018 took a lot of skill and investment. It also took sacrifice, which I was fine with. Others were not. Nobody is right or wrong, because the whole ball of wax is gray in color, anyway.

[notin]

2 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

The role Dombrowski played was not at all analogous to the role that Lucchino played. It was clear that when Dave came on board that Ben's role was GREATLY diminished. There's a reason we're complaining about Dave Dombrowski's moves and not Mike Hazen. BOH was GM for 4 years and we haven't had a complaint sesh about him! It's clear that something changed with the hiring of Dombrowski.

All you’re doing is explaining why Cherington quit.  Possibly with 100% accuracy.   But he wasn’t fired and adding him to the “fired  after 4 years” list is inaccurate,  regardless of why he quit…

[Bellhorn04]

6 minutes ago, notin said:

You can count it as changing CBOs.  But it is inaccurate to count Cherington on the list of CBOs/GMs/whatever that were fired after 4 years…

I think you're leaning hard on technicalities and I'm not really sure what purpose it serves.

 

 

 

[mvp 78]

2 minutes ago, notin said:

All you’re doing is explaining why Cherington quit.  Possibly with 100% accuracy.   But he wasn’t fired and adding him to the “fired  after 4 years” list is inaccurate,  regardless of why he quit…

John Henry REPLACES the GM/CBO every 4 years. Is that better? 

[notin]

36 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

I think you're leaning hard on technicalities and I'm not really sure what purpose it serves.

 

 

 

It’s not a technicality to say a guy who wasn’t fired wasn’t fired..

 

When Cherington was filling out his job application for Toronto, what do you suppose he put under “Reason for leaving last job?”  

[Hugh2]

1 hour ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Well, I guess we have to dig up the stories, but there were a number of candidates who were invited but declined to interview, including internal options, with more than one citing "family commitments"... 

This is my exact point, this story was followed with scrutiny in which I've never seen before, so we have nothing to compare it to.

Here's what I do know, I know what it's like to hire someone, I own a business and I hire people all the time.  I put out an ad and people apply.  In my experience when people apply for a job, they're typically interested in accepting it, although I have offered people a position who have ultimately declined, it happens. 

I would imagine, that if I went out and offered a position to people who already had a job, I'm going to get a lot more no's. I'm going to run into people who are happy where they are.  I would imagine that if I'm asking people to move their entire families to the other side of the country when they already have a job, I'm going to run into a lot more no's.  

Imagine you're in a sales position.  I'd imagine you end up closing a lot more deals where people COME TO YOU, rather than going out and trying to solicit business.  It's the nature of the beast, there are only 30 of these jobs on planet earth so of course you're going to have a wish list of guys you want, and I think it's natural that some are going to decline you if you're soliciting them. 

Think about this, was there ever a time when the open search for a GM/POBO was ever covered like this? When LA/NY/KC/DET/MIA/HOUS/MINN etc etc. went out and hired a new front office executive over the last couple decades were countless stories put out about every person they talked to and offered an interview to and was declined? I can't think of one, we have zero clue how normal what transpired was.  

But the media certainly had a narrative, and I don't think they really know either......so I didn't buy it. 

[notin]

34 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

John Henry REPLACES the GM/CBO every 4 years. Is that better? 

If you’re that desperate to pervade the false narrative hidden by semantics.

 

Henry might not be the best person to work for.  He might be insane and impulsive.  I don’t know.  But the 2016!front office departures were not his doing