sk7326

$88M was invested on his bat - as noted many times before the Benny Hill soundtracked performance in left field would be tractable (and the subject of some funny fan limericks) if you were looking at a guy who was putting up a .270/.350/.450 sort of thing ... if there has been a failure, it's on the former end as much as anything. That said, he has always had a good approach - and he did not take stupid pills overnight. The bat should recover reasonably next season.

It is all about what ownership priorities are. Dombrowski was worked at varying levels of aggression. Could trading Betts for a Harvey work? Sure, although since New York ... from what I've heard ... is a large city ... that might not be the most gettable target. Chris Sale would make sense continually since while Chicago is not small, the team is bad. I think the alignments you have here makes sense - and Justin Upton would be a good corner OF to go after - but for the most part trading future stars is not a great idea. Of course, Dombrowski has had a knack for identifying them.

We had the league's two worst defenders on the left side - that has to get better. Catcher will be fine, no matter how it turns out. But decent starting + good defense + good bullpen works. I don't think the team is actually that far away.

Their run prevention needs to improve. Your call is correct if the starting is all you want to address.

Personally? Rodriguez stays - he's one of our top 5 starters and the best bet to be really special. Has to learn how to prevent innings from spiraling. Owens stays - clear swing and miss stuff, that start last week where he shook off the horrible start to deliver 6 innings was very professional. Porcello stays - Whatever you argue about his ceiling, he is just not this bad. Buchholz stays - for the lack of durability, the cost control is very attractive Wright stays - knuckleballers aren't trade sweeterners to begin with, but he can provide versatility and reasonable bulk Miley stays - durable bulk Barnes goes - his starts have shown there is a big league starter there - not a special one, but a competent one. But he is clearly someone who fits in a trade. Brian Johnson fits here too. But you take the first five, add at the minimum one quality starter (I'd also add another bulk guy) and those seven starters look like a competitive staff. Of course this gets backed up by a good 'pen.

Long contracts are not ideal in isolation. Of course, from a buyer side, you'd like to go transaction to transaction. But we know the practical limitations. Long contracts are sometimes necessary to win an auction - and you have to evaluate whether the end state of the deal is acceptable. The Pedroia deal for instance, you know at the end of it he is not going to be an All-Star, but if you think he can be an average-below average 2nd baseman, the salary (taking into account baseball inflation) is pretty reasonable. (not a bargain, but not a ripoff) I was in favor of a long Lester deal because I thought his stuff aged well enough that by the end you'd be paying $27M for a durable low-end #3, which is still a useful guy. The administration's general belief I think is that longer deals are better bets for position players than pitchers, which is certainly sensible and true, but there are no absolutes. Seeing Cherington's work here as something a bit more complex than good or bad, a devotee or a hater - is also sensible, but clearly some of the angry posters on the topic have a bit of "Hulk Smash!" in their thought process. The biggest mistake Cherington administration made was wussing out on playing the children. Letting Ellsbury walk because you had Bradley did make sense - you knew you were not getting 6 wins out of Bradley, but you also knew that Ellsbury was a very very low likelihood to be that too. What did NOT make sense was signing Grady Sizemore's broken down, past sell-date body and then giving him a starting gig over a spring's worth of at-bats. Moving Bogaerts off of shortstop was another of those things too - although that was a little more sensible seeing what a wasteland 3B was, and Drew was a good SS for us in 2013 - but still skittishness that the kids would not all turn into Mike Trout at-once. AJ Pierzynski was another - although there were sound reasons for keeping Vasquez on the farm. The team has an elite development machine, let it do its thing and be confident in your own evals. I mean, you look at the last few weeks and the team has shown some life. It's fun - the kids are working through things which can only be learned at the big league level - and you get some information. Now, a team like Boston can afford to only want their premium guys playing for the big club - instead of Tampa who needs farm kids of all stripes to be affordable at all - but go ahead and play them. This was something Bobby Cox did to great effect in Atlanta, and something Epstein and Francona knew how to handle as well. (the best example being staying with Pedroia despite how overwhelmed he was when he first arrived)

Stat is not indicative of anytrhing specific. I think 2nd or 3rd is fine for now - so his power can develop naturally.

The system is full of guys who probably can play baseball for a living right now - Barnes, Bradley, Merrero, Cecchini, Travis Shaw, Rusney Castillo ... trick is to figure out who the stars are and who the trade bulk is. I think this run has shown evidence that Bradley could get to the .320 OBP sort of thresshold which would make him a quality starter-fringy all-star level CF. What he needs to be good overall is not a hell of a lot.

He was one of the leads in player development when those players came up. So that counts. All of those players were here AFTER Ben showed up. It's not like he was not here - and so the delineation is silly. 2012 was simply a matter of all their good players getting hurt, and 2013 those good players weren't. It's really obvious.

It's not a crazy idea - but Betts is probably the best choice. On base is not idea ... but average-ish, which is not bad for 22. His approach is strong. For the bitterness that has lined the board as the season has gone down the toilet, kids have kept things fun lately.

It is possible - but the terms of the gig changed ... so leaving is not a surprise. His resume was a mixed bag, but yes the two last place finishes deserve derisive finger wags (as I've noted the 2012 finish was mostly entirely injury driven). As usual, it's reductive to look at his tenure from either perspective. And since the tenure had a World Championship in it, that makes it one of the two most successful regimes in the last 97 years. And as has been noted elsewhere - the real amount of "blame" that exists will be assessed by the market, and how quickly he gets hired (assuming he wants to find a gig for 2016 - that's not television or something). Edes had a good piece on GM candidates. Frank Wren would be a terrible choice. But David Chadd perhaps wouldn't be - Dombrowski's scouting director who came to Boston and drafted Lester and Papelbon prior to being replaced by Jason McLeod. He drafted Beckett and Adrian Gonzalez too (although at #2 and #1, which typically does not require great detective work so much as owners who are not cheap). One hopes the ownership still places a good deal of emphasis on scouting and development, at least as much as they have the decade prior - and Chadd would make a lot of sense there. The GM gig fundamentally changed in Boston now - probably a reason Cherington left as much as anything. It's a genuine job reduction - since there is an El Presidente who will be in charge of - well, the moves you'd think a GM would make. But it makes sense to elevate a scouting director sort of dude - it's a GM title, but really a GM with training wheels.

Perhaps elite for the position, and has been a good defender so far - and the age gap is signficant here also. Red Sox can't lose either way really ... there is no question Vasquez has some Molina-esque projection. Just a matter of which one.

I think you're debating elite vs very good ... instead of elite vs Hanley Ramirez in LF ... neither will be a minus back there. When discussing the two catchers on this board, because Swihart is a good athlete, good enough to play an infield position competently - the discourse seems to lapse into him basically catching because of his bat, like he was Mickey Tettleton. He looks like he will be a very good defensive catcher. There is a real possibility Swihart's total package eclipses Vasquez, and the defense would be part of that package. The fascinating thing to me is Vasquez' pitch framing vs Swihart's bat - and that is probably where the decision point is ... that and whether you think Vasquez can hit better than what he has shown so far (which is not quite enough, but close)

It is possible in theory I suppose, and certainly there might not be a fit. But in the land of business as I know it - and real jobs and such ... and I do have some personal experience here ... you go to a startup from a larger firm (or whatever), you're always thinking of guys you have worked with who you like. You don't fear upsetting your applecart - just finding a fit that makes everybody happy. In the Cubs case, where Ben is a guy the entire brain trust already knows and likes ... that fit is a lot simpler. They were not able to poach him earlier anyway, because the Red Sox made him GM, and Theo had no visible promotion (let alone the compensation talks that would have been required) to offer.

Bradley's gonna be SOMEBODY's starting CF next season. We all understood - if Bradley could be a .250/.320/(who cares slg) guy, that is a quality starting CF. He is probably not "this guy" that we have seen lately, but it raises optimism he could be the .320 OBP guy, which is more than enough.

Upset the chemistry by bringing back a guy they both worked with for 9 years, who Hoyer ran a baseball operation with as partners for one of them ... and who won several baseball games under their arrangement (as well as McLeod). I am sure there will be backstabbing there.

Interestingly at this point, both guys have more or less identical ML samples: Vasquez 201 PAs .240/.308/.309 Swihart 210 PAs .259/.301/.345 Both rated well defensively. Really a question of upside and whatnot. I'd choose Swihart myself, but I would be against seeing what he can fetch because Vasquez is such a likely starter.

Swihart is the ceiling guy, Vasquez is probability. Certainly Swihart has shown at lower levels he can be very good defensively too. Clearly there is a gap in pitch framing which is sad but true (sad that it is a thing). It is a good problem for the Sox to have. Swihart earlier on looked overwhelmed, but the tools - both offensively and behind the plate - are obvious. This isn't shoehorning a bat.

Stood up? It's not like he didn't sign them. So he said that publicly and figured it out in private. Clearly he knows how to work with his bosses given having a job for so long there. He knew enough not to boink a cleaning lady and get in trouble with the boss.

It will be interesting. He has a pristine name in scouting and development, and built a machine on that end here. Great integrity, and very talented guys loved working for him. A place like Philadelphia actually would be a very good fit, where they need modernization in much of what the front office does - while McPhail provides a good complement. Minnesota where Terry Ryan is not getting younger makes sense also. Obviously the Red Sox satellite offices in Chicago and Los Angeles probably already have called.

But did Ben have final say? That is the main question which will drive the success of the Dombrowski era.

Ownership meddling is ALWAYS a risk. That is the nature of working - you do what the man who signs the checks wants. I don't blame Dombrowski for doing what ownership wants in Detroit - Ilitch wanted a title and wanted to deal kids to make sure it happened (well, you can't MAKE SURE you win a title, baseball doesn't work like that). There are only 30 jobs, it's not like you can snap your fingers and make your own startup. Now will ownership priorities be healthy?

I think Owens starts in Boston too. There is clear major league swing and miss and feel. His ability to shake off the horrible start to his last outing was a good sign. I think they need at least one more "top shelf" pitcher for the rest of the rotation to fall into place. Kelly in the pen seems obvious to me too.

Hanley at 3B ... which he should be able to handle, and maybe even be good at. Move Sandoval whose ceiling is just not that high. Make those two fixes, and you'll find that the pitching gap will be easier to close too.