Jump to content

ROMAD1

GOOD LORD BOSTON MIGHT FIRE DAVE DOMBROWSKI!!!!

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, bobrob2004 said:

I don't think that's relevant when determining who was able to build "a long-term success."  

If Beane's strategy is so effective, why did Oakland miss the playoffs for 5 straight years from 2007-2011?  Seems like there was a "rebuilding" time period, just like there is under Dombrowski's strategy.  

Of course it is relevant.  Don't be so oblivious that it isn't relevant.

The 5 years missing the playoffs happened.  I guess that means he's a terrible GM?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To paraphrase Hillaire Belloc's The Modern Traveller viz those battles with the Oakland As

Whatever happens we have got 
The JUSTIN VERLANDER, and they have not." 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Buddha said:

how would you like to measure success?

In sports it's not that easy to determine. The games are artificial business competition.  You aren't trying to drive the other team out of business or take money away from them like a McDonalds is trying to do with Burger King.  You compete against your business partners.

If the owner tasks the GM/Baseball operations guy with a hard budget and the team meets that guideline while still competing satisfactory on the field to the owner then that's a success.  

I'm not anti DD at all... I don't get why Boston hired him and then fired him because he did exactly what he always does.   Maybe they knew this was how it would turn out.

But it's silly to ignore the advantages DD had over Beane in the goal of building a winner (which was not always Beane's primary goal in Oakland, as dictated by his boss in Oakland, not by message board people).  Billy couldn't go over slot to sign draft picks.  BIlly couldn't sign big name FA or retain his own FA all the time.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Casimir said:

Of course it is relevant.  Don't be so oblivious that it isn't relevant.

The 5 years missing the playoffs happened.  I guess that means he's a terrible GM?

That wasn't my point at all.  People are saying that Beane's strategy is the only strategy to go, but Dombrowski's strategy was just as successful.  Both also results in a "rebuilding" phase, so how exactly does Beane's strategy result in "long-term" success?  Why pick Beane over Dombrowski, especially since now Dombrowski is the one that is available?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bobrob2004 said:

That wasn't my point at all.  People are saying that Beane's strategy is the only strategy to go, but Dombrowski's strategy was just as successful.  Both also results in a "rebuilding" phase, so how exactly does Beane's strategy result in "long-term" success?  Why pick Beane over Dombrowski, especially since now Dombrowski is the one that is available?  

You could argue that DD's strategy puts the team in such a dire financial spot that the team has to "rebuild" via perennial 100 loss seasons rather than 75 loss seasons.

Oh I know I know... DRAFT PICKS.... yeah. 

This isn't the NFL. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bobrob2004 said:

That wasn't my point at all.  People are saying that Beane's strategy is the only strategy to go, but Dombrowski's strategy was just as successful.  Both also results in a "rebuilding" phase, so how exactly does Beane's strategy result in "long-term" success?  Why pick Beane over Dombrowski, especially since now Dombrowski is the one that is available?  

What does current availability have to do with whether one GM has been better than the other?  One got fired twice while the other has been retained.  Does that mean anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Oblong said:

You could argue that DD's strategy puts the team in such a dire financial spot that the team has to "rebuild" via perennial 100 loss seasons rather than 75 loss seasons.

Oh I know I know... DRAFT PICKS.... yeah. 

This isn't the NFL. 

 

Dombroski was selling Price and Cespedes during the 2015 trade deadline and then Ilitch opened up the checkbook to sign Zimmermann and Upton.  Dombrowski was choosing to rebuild, not out of financial necessity.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Buddha said:

im not chastising billy beane at all, im just reacting against this revisionist history that dombrowski is somehow a bad gm or not as good as billy beane.  he's much more successful than billy beane.

Dave Dombrowski is more successful than Billy Beane in a scorched-earth win-now kind of way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The measurement of success for me is having the Tigers play meaningful games in September.  It's not realistic to expect to be in the postseason every year, but to be in a pennant contention for the majority of the season should always be the goal. 

And you don't have to hit rock bottom every 10-15 seasons to achieve this.  I was vehemently opposed to a full-scale rebuild, but if we we're in it, let's do it spectacularly well, which is why I'm a charter member of the "tank" brigade.  However, after 3 seasons of this, my patience has worn thin.  Those yahoo's better take some measures to get back to respectability this offseason.  If our payroll is really only going to be $80 M with the current cast, you could go out and sign 4-5 solid players at $8-10 M each and play some respectable and enjoyable baseball in 2020, while integrating the few prospects we have.  $120 M payroll is still modest in today's game and $25 M comes off after Zimmerman leaves after next year.  I'd target 1B/DH platoon for Cabby, a 2B and RF, along with at least one good starting pitcher and reliever.  At least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Gehringer_2 said:

you left out the critical word: BUILD. When Dave, he left nothing behind.

An owner probably will hire him to do exactly what he has always done, but it won't an owner like those at the Braves or the Cards or the Astros

But there probably is a team out there where an owner believes his system is not producing as many wins as he believes the resources it already has should be producing, and that is where I would think Dombrowski  is the best fit.

But he did BUILD it from almost nothing.  Same with Expos and Marlins.  The Red Sox were the exception where a serious talent pool was already in place.  There is the gross misperception that his skill set is/was limited to getting successful teams over the hump.

I'm not claiming that DD is as good at developing a franchise as Epstein or the brain truat behind the Astros or Cards...but who the **** is???  Show me the team that has duplicated this model by hiring the "right" GM (someone other than Epstein going to the Cubs) and adopting the model successfully, and I will listen.

It's like passing up on a successful GM in football because he's not from the Patriots school, when virtually no one from that school ever gets it done outside of Bellichek and Brady.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Buddha said:

im not chastising billy beane at all, im just reacting against this revisionist history that dombrowski is somehow a bad gm or not as good as billy beane.  he's much more successful than billy beane.

Yes, this...obviously Beane is a better GM for Oakland than anyone else, and his model is more distinct and transferrable than DDs model from the Expos, Marlins and Tigers, where he DID in each case "build it" from the ground up,  but without the Beane style blueprint. 

In many ways, DD is a better GM because he has been far more creative, adaptive and successful in various places, cultures, team economics and organizational life cycles.  Beane hasnt even triwd to duplicate hos model in two places.  DD has kicked butt in four very different situations.

But, yeah, 1776, DD sucks.  Whatevs dude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chasfh said:

Dave Dombrowski is more successful than Billy Beane in a scorched-earth win-now kind of way. 

and more successful in adapting and building and winning from the ground up in numerous places.  Everybody seems to forget about that now for some reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Casimir said:

Are we really going to chastise Billy Beane for getting to the random postseason tournament more often than anyone realizes despite playing with reduced budget in the **** hole stadium but not winning the random tournament because the random events have not randomly fallen into his favor?

Dombrowski did some goods things in Detroit and guided a pretty significant turn around.  But I'd easily take Beane over Dombrowski right now.

Buddha is just trying to trigger people with that post.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, sabretooth said:

Yes, this...obviously Beane is a better GM for Oakland than anyone else, and his model is more distinct and transferrable than DDs model from the Expos, Marlins and Tigers, where he DID in each case "build it" from the ground up,  but without the Beane style blueprint. 

In many ways, DD is a better GM because he has been far more creative, adaptive and successful in various places, cultures, team economics and organizational life cycles.  Beane hasnt even triwd to duplicate hos model in two places.  DD has kicked butt in four very different situations.

But, yeah, 1776, DD sucks.  Whatevs dude.

That's a reasonable argument, but the ring argument is silly.  A GM doesn't have much control over what happens in the playoffs.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, chasfh said:

It kind of is, right? And then it took us four years to earn a wild card berth, and another five years after that to start winning divisions (and in a weak division). So we didn't start winning consistently for almost a decade after Dombrowski came on board, and even that was mainly because of owner fiat, and by the time DD got booted, the franchise has been laid waste to up and down the system for years to come. And now we have this.

I asked the question because it sounds like the main frustration fans have is that we're very terrible right now and people want to get our rebuild back into a winner fast-tracked. I'd sure like to see it go faster, too, but I don't see how bringing Dombrowski aboard is going to accelerate our current timetable of early to mid 2020s, if for no other reason than there is nothing for him to work with to get us there right away. And if sustainability of winning is important at all, then we will almost certainly not get that with Dombrowski, either, at least based on his available track record. I'm not sure we have a better chance of sustainability with Al Avila, of course, but I also wouldn't say we have a worse chance, either.

Long story short, I'm not sure what problem bringing Dombrowski aboard would solve, especially in the short term.

I don't think sustained winning matters to fans as much as championships. I live in Atlanta and the Braves fans down here who are in their mid 30's and up don't necessarily look at the 11 year or so playoff run they had that started in the mid 90's with fondness. Don't get me wrong, they loved those players, but they felt like major underachievers for only getting one WS title in that period. It's almost like they are ashamed of it, even though they were winning so many games during that time period. It seems like many would have traded all those division championships for another World Series ring. 

Dombrowski may be losing his edge as a baseball guy  (there has to be more to his firing than what they are sharing), but if he wanted to come back to Detroit, I would hope they would welcome him back...even if it meant swallowing Avila's contract.

I'm not anti-Avila, but I feel Dombrowski is a sure thing in building a playoff contender. That's what I would like to see again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If DD had to work under the same restraints as Beane he wouldn't have gotten Verlander(bonus demands too high), Miggy(wouldn't pay for the extension), Pudge, Ordonez, VMart, Fielder or Porcello.(same reason as Verlander)

In Boston he wouldn't have gotten JD, Price and likely Sale for the same reason as Miggy.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, RandyMarsh said:

If DD had to work under the same restraints as Beane he wouldn't have gotten Verlander(bonus demands too high), Miggy(wouldn't pay for the extension), Pudge, Ordonez, VMart, Fielder or Porcello.(same reason as Verlander)

In Boston he wouldn't have gotten JD, Price and likely Sale for the same reason as Miggy.   

 

I think he still would have gotten Verlander and Miggy.  The difference is that he wouldn't have been able to sign them to extensions.  At least not as big of an extension as they got.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, sabretooth said:

But he did BUILD it from almost nothing.  Same with Expos and Marlins.  The Red Sox were the exception where a serious talent pool was already in place.  There is the gross misperception that his skill set is/was limited to getting successful teams over the hump.

I'm not claiming that DD is as good at developing a franchise as Epstein or the brain truat behind the Astros or Cards...but who the **** is???  Show me the team that has duplicated this model by hiring the "right" GM (someone other than Epstein going to the Cubs) and adopting the model successfully, and I will listen.

It's like passing up on a successful GM in football because he's not from the Patriots school, when virtually no one from that school ever gets it done outside of Bellichek and Brady.

The Dodgers did it by hiring Friedman from the Rays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bobrob2004 said:

I think he still would have gotten Verlander and Miggy.  The difference is that he wouldn't have been able to sign them to extensions.  At least not as big of an extension as they got.  

IIRC a big hang up on trading for Miggy was he needed to sign an extension.   You're not going to trade two top 10 overall prospects for 1 or 2 years of service.   That was the same scenario with Sale.   In both cases if ownership wouldn't have agreed to give out the massive extensions I doubt the trade would have gotten done.  

I have my doubts about Verlander too, the A's have had to pass on alot of guys in drafts because of bonus demands,  I think Verlander would have been another one.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, sabretooth said:

Yes, this...obviously Beane is a better GM for Oakland than anyone else, and his model is more distinct and transferrable than DDs model from the Expos, Marlins and Tigers, where he DID in each case "build it" from the ground up,  but without the Beane style blueprint. 

In many ways, DD is a better GM because he has been far more creative, adaptive and successful in various places, cultures, team economics and organizational life cycles.  Beane hasnt even triwd to duplicate hos model in two places.  DD has kicked butt in four very different situations.

But, yeah, 1776, DD sucks.  Whatevs dude.

Not sure how Beane's lack of moving around is a knock against him?

Or, alternately, DD moving around is an plus relative to Billy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Casimir said:

I want to see this team (any team that I follow) as a legitimate playoff team season in and season out.  90+ wins every regular season.  Be the organization that other teams try to copy.

I'll take Braves 15 years of winning divisions and whatever happens in the playoffs happens.

how is billy beane successful under that measure?

how many teams like that are there? red sox, yankees, braves for a while, cardinals?

i want to see them be that way too, however, i think thats not a reason to say dombrowski leading detroit to two ws appearances was not successful.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chasfh said:

Dave Dombrowski is more successful than Billy Beane in a scorched-earth win-now kind of way. 

if dombrowski was given a job for life like billy beane, he would likely be as successful as billy beane.  beane is allowed to fail for multiple years and not be fired.  oakland has sucked and rebuilt numerous times whereas dombrowski misses the ws once in boston and he's fired.

dd built multiple ws teams from nothing.  when his teams were out of it, he made some savvy trades for prospects (fulmer comes to mind, robby ray comes to mind, bonderman too).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Buddha said:

whereas dombrowski misses the ws once in boston and he's fired.

that might be an oversimplification of what transpired.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

Not sure how Beane's lack of moving around is a knock against him?

Or, alternately, DD moving around is an plus relative to Billy.

why not?  being able to take your model and succeed in more than one place is a sign of ability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tenacious D said:

that might be an oversimplification of what transpired.

fair.  you disagree with the rest of my post?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...