When I say 'on paper', I don't just mean statistically. I mean it in a looser sense, which includes things like team dynamic, leadership, etc. Again, it was not just the computer projection systems that thought the Sox would be good. It was also the predictions made by baseball analysts who have a very good feel for the human element of the players.Originally Posted by S5Dewey
Agreede.Did anybody here say they thought the Indians had a better team and were going to beat the Sox?
No.
We all thought the Sox had a better team. Some were worried we slumped at the very end (right after a long winning streak, I might add). Some were concerned about the farewell to Papi tour messing us up, but clearly we had what we all thought was the better team.
Yes, the Indians had 2 big pitchers hurt, and we still lost. It's hard to blame the GM, when we all thought we should have won.
We should have won and we did have a better team at the time. The players kicked the pooch. Farrell had one bad move which was removing Buch too early IMHO. With that said, Farrell was NOT the reason nor was DD. He put together a great team this offseason. The loss is on the players. Yes, Pedey was injured, but overall The team just didn't perform.
There is a lot to be said that for the old adage you are never as good as you look when you are on a hot streak nor are you ever as bad as you look when you are struggling. At some point the winning streak was going to end. it just happened to early for us.
The Indians had other ideas.
Let's be clear. the Sox were nowhere near the overall favorites this year. We were probably picked to beat the Indians, but we weren't the pick to go all the way by any stretch of the imagination.
Everyone who's watched baseball for more than about 0.5 nanoseconds knows that in a short season anything can happen. The Indians were a competitively good baseball team, and we played poorly and they did not. At the end of the day the Indians have just as much a right to beat us as anyone else. All you can do is show up in the postseason with a good team, try to keep everyone motivated, and see what happens.
I consider the season a brilliant success for Mr. Dombrowski under the circumstances, we dispelled a lot of the stink of the last 2 years, got an exciting young core coming together and learning, we went from a disastrous rotation to one that's competitive, if a bit weak on the top end, and we've got plenty of material on hand to improve. If we didn't go all the way, oh well, 28 other teams are going to be saying the same thing and the lion's share of them have less to smile about than we do.
If history tells us anything, the path to redeption for any bad baseball team is marked with a deep rotation of durable starters, a world class defense in both infield and outfield, a lineup that can generate runs in more than one way, a bullpen that won't steal defeat from the jaws of victory, and a top end catcher to hold the whole package together. These are the conditions by which victory is achieved, anything that does not accomplish these objectives is a waste of resources.
Exactly. I have not been the biggest fan of Dombrowski's philosophy, and was never a fan of the Price contract or the cost of Kimbrel, but Dombrowski cannot be blamed for any disappointment brought about by those two players. They were the best available.
If Price becomes an albatross in years 5, 6, or 7, Dombrowski does get some blame for that. But not Price's performance in the first few years of the contract.
The season was actually a brilliant success for Theo and Ben, with Dombrowski swooping in to take more credit for it than he deserves.
Henry really should have given Ben the chance to see his plan come to fruition. This is Ben's exciting young core, not Dombrowski's.
Let's be clear. the Sox were nowhere near the overall favorites this year. We were probably picked to beat the Indians, but we weren't the pick to go all the way by any stretch of the imagination.
By season's end, I think we had the highest odds for an AL team to win the WS. I seriously doubt, in all honesty, anybody here would have switched rosters with another AL team the day before the first game of the playoffs. If I am right about this, then how can anybody, now in hindsight, blame the GM for constructing a roster we all were pretty much happy with for the 2016 season? Many of us disagreed with some deals, the choice of manager, and other aspects of roster and management building, but the fact is, we looked better than any other AL team. I thought so at the beginning of the year, too. Injuries to Smith and the miserable showing by Pablo gave me some doubts, but clearly, right from the start, we had a deeper bench than anybody in the AL. Shaw did well replacing Pablo, Wright did an amazing job replacing ERod. Porcello picked up the slack for a somewhat disappointing season from Price. Leon took up the slack for a faltering Vazquez and injured Swihart. No other AL team had the in-system bench to fill in the holes that opened up over the year.
Exactly. The deals DD made were to help us win now. He made us the AL faves, but the players and manager did not follow through.
I still disagree with the three major moves DD made (Price, Kimbrel & Pomeranz), but not because it lessened our chances to win this year and over the next two year.
Theo the GOD.....he'll be given credit for next twenty years of success.....
EE's name is brought up because moving Hanley to DH then begs the question what to do with 1B and yeah don't forget about the worst mlb production at 3B.
What is our open day line up? Masking utility player Holt as a starter at another position this year? That worked out well in LF. A mediocre defensive outfielder at best. Gets tired around July 31st. He's nothing more than an utility player.
Holt is a damn good utility player, one of the best in baseball at what he does, but what he does doesn't involve starting every day. It's not fair of the team to expose him as if he were a starter, but when the team does that it's hardly Holt's fault. He's a very impressive benchie, kind of a luxury but one a championship caliber team should pay to keep around if they can.
If history tells us anything, the path to redeption for any bad baseball team is marked with a deep rotation of durable starters, a world class defense in both infield and outfield, a lineup that can generate runs in more than one way, a bullpen that won't steal defeat from the jaws of victory, and a top end catcher to hold the whole package together. These are the conditions by which victory is achieved, anything that does not accomplish these objectives is a waste of resources.
Holt's lack of ability to play FT at 3B was one of the leading reasons we signed Pablo in the first place, so I do not think we should count on him as our FT 3Bman (not that anyone has here). With Moncada and Devers in the wings, I doubt we look for anything more than a 1 year solution to our 3B need. We may just let the situation play out and address the need at the deadline, if nobody has stepped up to fill the void.
Perhaps, we'll see Pablo and Young platoon at DH next year, and Moncada, Shaw, Holt, Rutledge and Hernandez battle for 3B rights. That mean we may try to get by without any major offensive addition. My guess is that at worst, we get some sort of short term vet that can play corner IF and maybe even LF, and use our resources to build up the pitchong staff.
I still say that Mike Moustakas is an option. He's on his last year next year, and the Royals have a top prospect who looks like he's right on the verge of "getting it" playing behind him (Cheslor Cuthbert). The Royals have something we need and can potentially spare him. The question is what we have that they need.
Now what the Royals need more than anything is offense. And we have some offensive prospects we can spare. If the Royals don't get stupid (such as demanding Bradley, etc), I think a deal could get done.
Last edited by Dojji; 10-16-2016 at 02:28 PM.
If history tells us anything, the path to redeption for any bad baseball team is marked with a deep rotation of durable starters, a world class defense in both infield and outfield, a lineup that can generate runs in more than one way, a bullpen that won't steal defeat from the jaws of victory, and a top end catcher to hold the whole package together. These are the conditions by which victory is achieved, anything that does not accomplish these objectives is a waste of resources.
A lot would depend on how highly KC values our prospects. I think we might be surprised at how much variance there is from GM to GM on placing value of a particular player or prospect.
If KC viewed Moncada as a possible OF'er or 2Bman, maybe they'd try really hard to get him.
They probably are not in great need of a catcher, so Swihart and Vaz might not be someone we can dangle in front of them.
I doubt they'd value Shaw or Holt highly enough to make a big impact on the package we can offer.
We may not match up that well due to Moncada and Devers being our best young offensive players, and KC seemingly having a 3Bman waiting in the wings already. Maybe one could be moved to 1B or LF.
(Note: KC is reportedly taking offers on Wade Davis. Maybe a bigger deal could be worked out.)
Last edited by moonslav59; 10-16-2016 at 03:23 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote