What Exactly did Dave Dombrowski do Wrong?

The Red Sox have parted ways with Dave Dombrowski, less than a year after the team he built won the World Series following a record season. Then he brought back almost the same team, and watched them flounder.

So, how was he so right last year, but apparently so wrong this year? What changed?

The results.

That’s really it. Last year, everyone performed up to their

abilities...and then some. This year? Not so much. Could even the best GM have gotten Chris Sale to win fifteen games? Or Rick Porcello to go an inning without giving up a home run every once in a while? I don’t think so.

Did Dombrowski make moves that didn’t pan out? Absolutely. Were they the right moves at the time? Almost always.

People who complain about the bullpen he assembled seem to forget that he’s traded for at least three quality relievers during his time here. Craig Kimbrel panned out pretty well, until most fans wanted him run out of town. After being the closer on a World Champion. But, the Sox also traded for Carson Smith and Tyler Thornburg. Both young star relievers who should have solidified the bullpen for a couple years. Both got hurt almost instantly. Both never did anything of note as a result. Was Dombrowski supposed to see into the future? Is he incapable of building a bullpen? Or, just unlucky?

He also gets complaints about gutting the farm system. Which player did Dombrowski trade away that you wish the Sox had back? From that list, which ones would you rather have the guy he was traded for? Even where the Sox got busts in return...Smith, Pomeranz maybe...do you miss the guy they gave away? So, he gutted the farm system of inferior talent? Sounds like a smart move to me. And, last I checked Devers, Bogaerts, Benintendi, and Chavez are still on the team. He even got rid of Swihart, and kept Vazquez. That sounds like a pretty good record of making the right call with prospects.

I have two possible complaints about Dombrowski, and they’re pretty minor. 

I didn’t like his comments at the trade deadline. He didn’t make any major moves, probably correctly. Remember, none of the other contenders really made moves either...which implies there wasn’t much to be had. He did get Cashner, which made a lot of sense...but didn’t work out. But, he made the comment that if the team were closer in the standings, he may have been more inclined to make a move. What did that mean? Not only is that pretty crappy for morale...you guys aren’t good enough to bother improving….but it was ill-defined. If the Sox were one game out at the deadline, what move was out there? What trade did he turn down because the Sox were too far gone? Did he not even try?

There’s also something that you can’t put you finger on with the pitching staff. Why are they all terrible? Why did they all forget how to pitch this year? Why did Cashner go from being a solid potential #5 starter to being absolute garbage as soon as he put on a Sox uniform? Is it coaching? Is it the medical staff? Is it a combination? As the president, I think he needed to figure out what the problem was, and fix that.

But, that’s really all I can fault him for. A bad comment once, and not fixing someone else’s problem. That’s probably not the sort of thing that should get you fired. Especially the year after a record setting championship season.

Unless I’m missing something?

Trade Deadline Deals

Remember when everyone was pretty annoyed with Dave Dombrowski at the trade deadline? Everyone insisted that the Red Sox needed bullpen help. Like really needed bullpen help. But, Dombrowski didn't listen. He traded to fill in some other holes instead. Nathan Eovaldi and Steve Pearce were added to the team to help out. A good bat off the bench, and a great tweener starter who might just help the bullpen in the playoffs. Pearce has been every bit of that, including hitting the go ahead home run in a crucial game three last night. Eovaldi got the start and the win last night. He's been the Red Sox most consistent and effective starter in the playoffs. He's even been able to help the bullpen after all. Because he took over the third starter role, Rick Porcello has been able to pitch the eighth inning in two Red Sox victories.

Oh, and the big bullpen arm that the Astros picked up? He gave up five runs, including a grand slam, after hitting consecutive batters in the eighth inning to blow the game wide open.

It's almost like Dombrowski knows what he's doing.

So the Red Sox now sit having taken back home field advantage. The pressure is now all on the Houston Astros. There are two more games in Texas, and the Red Sox really only need to win one of those to put a stranglehold on the series. The Astros are pretty much in must-win territory from here on out.

Which gives the Red Sox the luxury of having options. This is especially nice with the health questions with Chris Sale. While I prefer stomach issues to shoulder issues, neither one is great if you’re in a dire situation. But, now the Sox aren't in a terrible spot if Sale is waiting until game six, or even seven, before taking the mound. While you certainly want to win as many games as you can as soon as you can, it's nice to be able to think ahead. So it's good to be on top.

Being on top 3-1 is even better, which is why tonight's game is pretty big on its own. I can only imagine that Rick Porcello will show up huge. He's been on fire this postseason. Since the Red Sox got to Morton when they faced him earlier in the year...without Mookie...I like their chances against him tonight.

Let's see how it goes!

What do Presidents Really Do?

I find it interesting, because every time there's a new one the credit and the blame seem to be put in different places. Either on him or others. I can't really find a good reason for the shifts. So, is it personality? The media? The results?

Take the first president for this current regime, Larry Lucchino. He was the team president and, I presume, ran things at Fenway Park. Underneath him, he had a general manager, Theo Epstein. Generally, it was assumed that Theo was making most of the decisions when it came to the team. The "general managing" if you will. I didn't hear many people give Lucchino credit when things went well. He really only got slammed when things went really wrong. But, I think it was pretty clear that Theo ran the team, and Larry ran everything else.

Then Theo left for the Cubs to become their team president. Chicago was all excited. Theo was coming to change the team, and get them back to winning. At the time, that seemed odd to me. After all, he was going there as president. There was a general manager. Why wasn't he going to be getting the credit? If the team president was really that important, wouldn't Chicago want Lucchino? He's the one who had been team president for multiple World Series winners. Not Theo. I was confused.

Back in Boston, Lucchino went right on being team president over Ben Cherington. Again, Ben got most of the credit, with Lucchino really only ever getting the blame. It was all his decision to hire Bobby Valentine, but all Cherington's decision to sign all the players leading to the 2013 title. It was annoying, but pretty typical. Just like a field manager gets blame but little credit. 

So, maybe that's just a difference between Chicago and Boston? Maybe Boston gave the GM more power over personnel than Chicago did.

But, then came Dave Dombrowski. When Lucchino stepped back from his role, the Red Sox created a new position. They gave Lucchino's President title to Sam Kennedy. Made sense. he was an up and comer in FSG. Then they created a new position, President of Baseball Ops and gave that to Dombrowski. Huh. A new president? Cherington saw the writing on the wall, and went on his merry way soon after the signing. The Red Sox hired Mike Hazen as their GM, and I think that was the last time I've heard his name. Basically every move since then has been credited exclusively to Dombrowski. Whether it was an unpopular one like trading away a top pitching prospect, or a popular one like bringing in a new ace. Twice. 

Suddenly, the Sox had the Chicago mindset. The president was, apparently, making all the moves. The GM was just there to write out the contracts, I guess. Why the shift?

I'd be tempted to say it was because of the talent of Dave Dombrowski. But, Larry Lucchino was no slouch. He should have had a resume plenty long enough to warrant decision making ability. Was he too busy with the Fenway Park improvements to worry about personnel decisions? Did he just not enjoy that aspect of it? Why the change? Was it Theo? Did he grab more of the spotlight than other GMs get? Was it a combination? Was Dombrowski really brought in as GM, but needed to be given the president title to make the hiring work? Would it have looked to bad to fire Cherington, so they massaged the organization by adding a president of baseball ops? How did it happen?

And why?

Managing with Farrell

Torey Lovullo was introduced as the new manager of the Arizona Diamondbacks today. That officially puts an end to his tenure as bench coach for the Red Sox under John Farrell. This news seems to have lots of people aghast, or upset, or both. Many people thought that Lovullo was the next Red Sox manager in waiting. After the Sox gave him a huge contract last season to bench coach, many people assumed it was because he would become manager when (not if) Farrell was fired. Obviously, not only was Farrell not fired, he was given a vote of confidence from Dave Dombrowski almost immediately following the season. He is coming back. It seems clear that Lovullo was being kept not as a safety net in case the Sox no longer wanted Farrell to manage, but in case Farrell’s health no longer allowed him to manage. Once that seemed to not be an issue, Lovullo was allowed to move on.

Which, of course, drives people who think Farrell is a bad manager nuts. They pick apart his in-game managing. They point to all the games that they claim Farrell cost them. They get all prickly when they hear Dombrowski say that in-game managing might not be the most important part of the job. “See! Even he thinks Farrell is a bad manager…he’s just touchy-feely so the players like him!” But, of course, that’s not the case at all. And I would have thought that this most recent playoffs would have proven it.

First, let’s explore the need for an in-game manager, and its importance. Think of all the decisions a manager needs to make. How many of them involve strategy within the game? Batting line-ups? No. Pitching rotations? No. Stealing a base? Yes. Bunting? Yes. But, those decisions are just a small fraction of what a manager has to do. Being good at that, or not, is not what you need to make a team successful. Just ask Bobby Valentine. I’m pretty sure he was considered one of the best in-game managers around. But, his team went no-where. People (incorrectly) shudder when they hear his name. All the correct decisions he made when it came to using a bullpen suddenly aren’t that important. He blew all the other stuff.

Obviously Farrell is pretty good at all the other stuff. But, can he do the in-game managing at all? Is he costing them game after game? 

The biggest complaint I hear about Farrell is his bullpen use. He doesn’t know how to use his closers. He keeps bringing them in at the wrong times. He doesn’t know how to use the rest of his pen. He’ll bring a guy in too early. Or too late. He falls in love with a guy, and overworks him while letting another option rot from underuse. But, then we saw these playoffs. Buck Showalter was roundly criticized for using his closer exactly the way everyone thinks a closer should be used. He didn’t bring him into a tie game on the road, and saved him for a save situation. Just like everyone keeps insisting that Farrell needs to learn how to do. The fact that Showalter is getting crushed is further proof that the decisions aren’t important…the results are.

Did you see the World Series? Managed by two of the great in-game managers, Joe Maddon and Terry Francona. I seem to remember Francona being faulted for not going to his pen earlier in game seven. He should have pulled the starter sooner, but waited a batter too long, and it cost him. Of course, Maddon got the opposite complaint. He pulled a starter that was moving right along too soon. He paid the price, and it almost cost him the series.

What about that problem with falling in love with guys? Did either of them fall in love with guys? I’d say they did. Did they both fall in love with a guy? Yup. Did they fall in love with them to the point that they overused them? Yup. Did that decision cost them? Yup. The fact that Maddon went to Chapman in a blowout because he didn’t trust anyone else almost cost him the World Series. Should have cost him the World Series. While Francona had less choice when it came to overusing Miller, he did end up allowing runs the Indians sure needed to stay off the board. So, maybe Farrell isn’t the only manager who loses trust in some of his players every once in a while.

Maybe it’s just that we see Farrell manage more. Maybe it’s because we’re so vested in all of his decisions. Maybe it’s because we only remember the bad decisions. Because I just saw three of the best managers in the game (Showalter, Francona, and Maddon) make the exact mistakes that people complain about Farrell making. And then some. I saw Joe Maddon call for a bunt with two strikes and a runner on third. I saw Francona call for a bunt to move along a runner already in scoring position. Those were just the mistakes in a single postseason. Imagine if we watched those three managers all year. Maybe once we had to live with those decisions every game, we’d think they were just as bad. Maybe we’d give them nicknames like Fran-coma. Maybe that’s just how managers are thought about. Maybe Farrell’s really just as good as those other three. We just pick on him more. Or, maybe results matter more than decisions.

Either way, perhaps people who have been relentlessly calling for the dismissal of Farrell haven’t been fair. It certainly looks like we just notice his flaws more than the managers in the other dugouts. After watching this postseason, I didn’t see anything that made me say “Farrell couldn’t have done that.” 

However, I saw plenty of cases where I thought, “That’s just what Farrell would have done.”