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

Dare I say, the Phillies are headed for a cliff.

50 minutes ago, Duran Is The Man said:

the Astros' farm is dead last. did DD run them off a cliff too?

Winning makes it hard keep a farm strong.

The Astros farm did a job no Sox farm has done since the days of Clemens, Hurst, Ojeda and others: produce quality SP'er, and more than 5, at the same time at some points, in recent years.

F Valdez

Keuchel

McCullers Jr

H Brown

Javier

L Garcia, Urquidy, McHugh, Arrighetti & Blanco

Plus, they helped breathe some life into Cole, Morton, Verlander and others.

They also had a farm that was able to refill the losses of Springer & Correa.

I hope our farm can set us up for an 8 year window.

3 hours ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Maybe now Dave will get a chance to show if he can dig his way out of it, which he didn't get with the Sox.

Amazing article in the OP that confirms my criticism of DD over the last several years of postings on talksox.

The article is far more insightful than I've been, but it brings out two themes of mine which absolutely no one else on talksox ever agreed with.  

The first was that the Sox were an irreparable disaster in 2019, which is why DD got fired.  I hasten to add they were brilliant in 2018, for which DD should definitely receive credit.  But after the 2019 season--when the Sox already had the biggest payroll in MLB--it was going to be impossible to keep Mookie Betts away from the far wealthier and healthier (as a franchise) Dodgers, to keep paying the huge salaries of Price and Sale, both of whom were IL candidates, and to replace them with two more pricey starters.  Thus did JH decide to go in a completely different direction with Chaim Bloom of the Tampa Bay Rays.

The second theme was this year's Sox who finished at 81-81, which was just 5 games back of two teams, the Royals and Tigers, who made the postseason with 86-76 records. 

I dubbed this year's Sox the "no-names," by which I meant exactly what the article refers to near the end as homegrown and therefore low-salaried players.  How many times, for example, did I point out that the entire Sox rotation in 2024 were paid less than the Sox closer Jansen?  Plus by far the best position player--highest WAR of 8.7--was $750K/year 4th year player Jarren Duran.  $30M/year Devers was 2d with an OPS of 3.7, less than half of Duran's.  Then came Abreu (OPS 3.5), Rafaela (OPS 2.8), Hamilton (2.6), Wong (1.6), and Gonzalez (1.0).  Plus let's not forget that a freak injury kept bargain basement excellent hitter Casas off the roster for about 100 games.  

Reinforcing my 2d point, I also reminded everyone--and was repudiated endlessly--that no less than 8 freaking MLB teams with lower payrolls than the Sox made it to the postseason:  Arizona, San Diego, KC, Milwaukee, Baltimore, Cleveland, and Detroit.  I could have thrown in Seattle, 85-77, whose payroll was 15th to the Sox 11th, and Tampa Bay, 80-82 (just one game back of the Sox), whose payroll was 28th.  

I was in fact the only contributor to talksox who said that spending lots and lots of money wasn't necessarily the best solution, and I said that because I thought DD had inadvertently made that point for me in 2019.  

Max, nobody said you were wrong about lower spending teams making the playoffs.

Several posters have also pointed out that a team does not have to spend a lot to do well. You are not the "only one."

Many posters saw the writing on the wall for the Sox after 2018. There was a fierce debate over the "C" word. Some of us still grateful for what DD did those 3 years, despite the price we paid, afterwards. It's not always as black and white as you make it out to be.

DD did what he was told to do. He was good at it.

He even did better at building the farm than many thought he did, at the time. 

He traded a bunch of top prospects that amounted to squat and kept the few good ones, including Devers.

He spent what he was allowed to spend and rarely missed on bid signings and trades.

Dislike him all you want. Drive that bandwagon into the sunset.

1 hour ago, dgalehouse said:

The dislike of Dombrowski defies all common sense. He took over a team that had finished dead last two years running. He saw what was needed , took action and turned the team around immediately. Beat the Yankees ( isn't that always the goal) and won the Division three straight years, ending with a world championship. The team stumbled in 2019 due to pitching injuries and a weak bullpen. Firing him was a mistake that we are still trying to recover from.  

It's hard to know how DD would have fared with the same budgets Bloom was handed.

The budget demands were the bigger aspect than firing DD, IMO.

1 hour ago, moonslav59 said:

Max, nobody said you were wrong about lower spending teams making the playoffs.

Several posters have also pointed out that a team does not have to spend a lot to do well. You are not the "only one."

Many posters saw the writing on the wall for the Sox after 2018. There was a fierce debate over the "C" word. Some of us still grateful for what DD did those 3 years, despite the price we paid, afterwards. It's not always as black and white as you make it out to be.

DD did what he was told to do. He was good at it.

He even did better at building the farm than many thought he did, at the time. 

He traded a bunch of top prospects that amounted to squat and kept the few good ones, including Devers.

He spent what he was allowed to spend and rarely missed on bid signings and trades.

Dislike him all you want. Drive that bandwagon into the sunset.

1 hour ago, moonslav59 said:

Max, nobody said you were wrong about lower spending teams making the playoffs.

Several posters have also pointed out that a team does not have to spend a lot to do well. You are not the "only one."

Many posters saw the writing on the wall for the Sox after 2018. There was a fierce debate over the "C" word. Some of us still grateful for what DD did those 3 years, despite the price we paid, afterwards. It's not always as black and white as you make it out to be.

DD did what he was told to do. He was good at it.

He even did better at building the farm than many thought he did, at the time. 

He traded a bunch of top prospects that amounted to squat and kept the few good ones, including Devers.

He spent what he was allowed to spend and rarely missed on bid signings and trades.

Dislike him all you want. Drive that bandwagon into the sunset.

Everybody said I was wrong about payrolls, just as everyone, including you, insisted the payrolls were going in the wrong direction.  In fact, you have provided detailed instructions on how the additional funds should be spent.  

On the other side, I admit I would be fine with a bigger payroll provided it was intelligently spent, and I further admit you and others would spend it more wisely than I ever could.  

As for DD, I'm pretty sure I wrote on one of the threads that the guy has been too good too many times--Miami, Boston, Detroit, and now Philly--to be dismissed out of hand.  I have made maybe too big a deal of the 2019 mess, but I did so because most talksoxers insisted that, when JH fired him, he was just being cheap.   I would go one step further and agree that DD has been a great tonic for the Phillies fan base because under him attendance has increased.  

One more time, my major objection to spending big is that too much money goes to too few superstars whose best years are usually before they start getting the big bucks.  And that egregious situation is even worse with respect to starting pitchers, who all seem to be waiting for their next elbow surgery and at least one season to recover.  

1 hour ago, Maxbialystock said:

 

Everybody said I was wrong about payrolls, just as everyone, including you, insisted the payrolls were going in the wrong direction.  In fact, you have provided detailed instructions on how the additional funds should be spent.  

No. You changed the subject. You said everyone said you were wrong with the facts about some low spending teams winning.

I said nothing about payrolls going in the wrong direction. I mentioned several teams going nutty and passing us.

1 hour ago, Maxbialystock said:

One more time, my major objection to spending big is that too much money goes to too few superstars whose best years are usually before they start getting the big bucks.  And that egregious situation is even worse with respect to starting pitchers, who all seem to be waiting for their next elbow surgery and at least one season to recover.  

I think many agree with this. The Sale extension is but one example, although I thought it was okay, at the time.

Nobody says DD did a perfect job up to 2018. Many felt it was overkill or "emptying the farm" to go the extra mile. As it turned out, hardly any prospects he traded did all that well, and just about every big trade worked.

When you assemble a team of stars and your young players start to near and reach free agency, the piper comes calling.

Sure, he shoulda not extended Sale or signed Nate and assured Betts stayed in BOS forever, but wouldn't paying one guy 1/5th of the budget be against your motto, too?

39 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

The Phillies certainly have had more to cheer about than the Red Sox have over the last several years, but their window may be closing soon with nothing to show for it other than one world series loss. 

As a nostalgic old-timey fan, I go back to last century in the 70s-80s-90s and a lot of good Red Sox teams loaded with star players. Many had winning records and contended for division crowns and making the postseason.

There was plenty to cheer for, and that's what they had to show for it.

Winning rings this century doesn't change my outlook into Yankee elitism by deeming each subsequent season without a World Series title a total failure.

Phillies Nation is crazy in its prime right now. Some frustrating endings -- which face every fanbase but one every year -- but Philly is always going for it, with a GM and owner showing no signs of letting up (and not half-assing like BS Boston).

9 hours ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Right.  That stretch from 1975 to 1978 just about killed me, but it was compelling to say the least.

I totally agree, and much of the beef we had was with the Sox not landing the big FAs the Yanks kept getting. Then, the Joe Rudi & Fingers deal was nixed.

We broke up a very beloved team. Let Fisk walk by sending him his contract a day too late. Traded Lynn, Burleson, Hobson, Lee, Cooper and others. Let Tiant walk. That was a sickening time for Sox fans, and maybe why I am not so harsh on JH as some.

I'm also not harsh on DD, Bloom or Brez, nor was I on Ben or Theo in the later years. These guys tried more than those back in those days.

On 10/12/2024 at 5:08 PM, moonslav59 said:

No. You changed the subject. You said everyone said you were wrong with the facts about some low spending teams winning.

I said nothing about payrolls going in the wrong direction. I mentioned several teams going nutty and passing us.

If so, I apologize--and I mean it.  

Back to DD.  I agree that overall he has been remarkably good for at least four MLB teams--Miami, Detroit, Boston, Detroit, and Philly.  Plus he wasn't awful in Montreal. 

I think he inherited a pretty good Sox team, plus an owner willing to spend even more.  I do not think the 2016 and 2017 AL East titles were that big a deal because the Sox only won 93 games and got blown away in the ALDS both seasons.  2018, on the other hand, was special and demonstrated DD's genius, especially going out and getting Eovaldi in July.   That was the best Sox season ever, and no other Sox team comes close. 

2019 demonstrated that he was not perfect because the Sox had the biggest payroll in MLB, finished out of the playoffs, and needed a ton more money just to stay even with their 2019 subpar performance.  The 2019 situation is what convinced JH to hire Chaim Bloom and begin the process of spending less. 

14 minutes ago, Maxbialystock said:

If so, I apologize--and I mean it.  

Back to DD.  I agree that overall he has been remarkably good for at least four MLB teams--Miami, Detroit, Boston, Detroit, and Philly.  Plus he wasn't awful in Montreal. 

I think he inherited a pretty good Sox team, plus an owner willing to spend even more.  I do not think the 2016 and 2017 AL East titles were that big a deal because the Sox only won 93 games and got blown away in the ALDS both seasons.  2018, on the other hand, was special and demonstrated DD's genius, especially going out and getting Eovaldi in July.   That was the best Sox season ever, and no other Sox team comes close. 

2019 demonstrated that he was not perfect because the Sox had the biggest payroll in MLB, finished out of the playoffs, and needed a ton more money just to stay even with their 2019 subpar performance.  The 2019 situation is what convinced JH to hire Chaim Bloom and begin the process of spending less. 

 

Apology accepted and no problems from me. 

I think if you discount 2016 and 2017, you should discount how badly we played in 2019. That team was a really good team that hit hard times, all at once. He built a damn good team from 2016 to 2019. It's not easy building a 4 year team.

He caught a lot of grief for trading away about 20 prospects that were once top 20, but as it turned out, noce were as good as all the experts thought they were. On top of that, he kept Devers and some others like Houck, Duran, Rafaela, Crawford and Bello.

On the spending. It was not his fault JH gave him what he wouldnt give Ben or Bloom. But, he was spot on on just about every big signing and trade. Like he had a 90% hit rate. Nobody does that. Bloom was like 30%. Brez was 0% on his 2 biggest deals- better on the rest. Ben swung and missed wildly.

I have zero beef with DD.

We've had 5 years of about a 25% hit on our GMs biggest deals:
Pivetta, Turner, Duvall, Jansen & Martin: HIT

Kike I, Ottavino, Wacha & Hill: Meh

Giolito, Grissom, Kluber, Yoshida, Story, Richards, Barnes ext, .M Perez I, M Perez II, Kike II, Paxton: Yuck-a-doodle-doo-doo!

You can count DD's bad moves on just 2-3 fingers.

23 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

DD had a 90% hit rate? 

Sale extension was a miss. 

Eovaldi extension was a miss. 

Not extending Betts was a miss.

Thornburg trade was a miss. 

Most would say the Price signing was a miss. 

You have 45 hits to counter these? 

Okay, 90% was too high a number to throw out there. You are right, but...

I'd say the Nate extension and PomPom trade were a meh's. I'm not sure the Thornburg trade was a "major deal." Price was close to a meh. Not extending someone is pushing it, since Betts refused to extend.

The Sale extension failed. Thornburg was a miss, but I would not count that, but since Shaw did well for a couple years, I guess you can count it. If you count all the non-extensions, then Bloom & Brez's 25% becomes more like 15-20%.

HIT: Sale trade, Kimbrell, JD, Bogey ext., Nate trade, Pearce, Moreland & Nunez (not major)

MEH: Price (close to bad) Nate ext,  Pomeranz

BAD: Sale ext. & Chris Young, Thornburg  (not major?)

Deciding what is major or not is up for debate. I could have counted Re3nfroe and Strahm as plusses for Bloom, but then the JBJ trade, Andriese, Sawamura, Marwin and others as bad ones. too.

I see about 5-7 hits for DD, 2-3 mehs and 1-2 bad.

That's 8-10 Good to meh and 1-2 bad. One could argue 9-1, but 8-2 is maybe better. So 80% to 25% in DD's favor. Maybe 70% to 20%.

20 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

The problem of course is that some of those are debatable.  (One like Thornburg is not.)

 

 

 

If we count Thornburg, then do we count Moreland and Nunez as good? How about Kinsler? Do we count the Pearce ext as major (and bad?)

Lots of gray area.

I do think it's clear DD did better with major deals then B & B (and add Ben, if you want.) Of course, spending $20+M on JD & Bogey gives you a better chance at success or meh, than spending 5-10M on 1 year deals.