SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
2014 Non-Red Sox MLB thread
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 14, 2014 20:23:23 GMT -5
I believe Kevin Malone was the Expos GM who traded Pedro. That trade wasn't good in hindsight because of what Pedro became, but the Expos had zero chance of resigning him and Pavano and Armas was considered a solid return at the time.
I'd be very surprised to see Minaya get another GM job. That Mets stint was pretty amazingly bad.
EDIT: Just found the info - Jim Beattie was GM for the Pedro trade. Malone had resigned in 1995. It seemed like he was there for much longer.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Oct 14, 2014 22:43:22 GMT -5
Is it correct to assume no one will ever get to pick LA's pocket the way the Sox did during Friedman's reign? Love Hatfield's tweet, and I'm sure someone's already on it. Safe to say the outfield picture will be much clearer going forward. I'm sort of glad they're on this side of the country - and in the other league. He's got to prove it to me that can do it with money. Du equette, Minaya.. All came from small budget organizations with huge credentials that they could do wonders, none were ever popular in big market towns, even delivered any goods (Maybe Duquette did) and I have to see Friedman deliver, especially with the sad shape TB's farm system has been torpedoing downhill the last couple of years. Maybe there was more than one Beane didn't want anywhere near Boston so many years ago? Note that I didn't make any general statement about his abilities, outside of the fact he would be unlikely to take on large amounts of salary while handing over two of the better pitching prospects in the organization. He didn't do that in TB and I doubt he'll do it LA. As for the two-case extrapolation, that's not much in the way of data points, and Duquette's is a stretch. We'll probably get a feel for how Friedman will operate even before the season starts, given that he has to untangle the jumble in the outfield. One thing we know: if the Dodgers really are looking to cut salary and find bargains, he does have a track record.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Oct 14, 2014 23:30:54 GMT -5
The drafting point made above in that article and i referenced also about how far the Rays system has fallen could be credited to the rays themselves also. With a deep pocketed team that has resources, He might be able to build up a system that is more able to hire out once again the people needed.
I will always remember back to '11, the last year before penalties and the cap system took place when the Rays had gotten all those type A relievers to sign deals elsewhere. Friedman had 10 of the top 60 picks that season and they ended up with really very little. Picking people they could sign rather than who was talented. Typical small market and that's not something to be expected from a deep pocketed team behind him now.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Oct 15, 2014 0:02:03 GMT -5
I think you're on the right track. He - and whatever team he puts in place - will have much more leeway to use the sort of strategies we've seen the Sox employ, or Texas and New York with their International signings. They haven't done badly with some very good position prospects in line for promotions. But the overhead is a killer, and they're probably looking at another $200+ million payroll for the next year for contracts already on the books, with no easy way to dump salary.
My take is that he was brought in to get a better cost/benefit thing going. It doesn't do any good to club teams into submission only to have them roar back by feeding off your bullpen. That's just about the easiest place to find real value at a fairly reasonable price. I think what you're looking at is real competition, not for Lester and Shields, but for guys like Luke Gregerson, and Andrew Miller over the winter.
I also think he'll be looking to cut his losses by eating salary and shipping redundant players out the door. One place where he could immediately save money is by offering Ramirez a QO, and then watching him walk out the door and getting a draft pick. That said, it's hard to know what to do about guys like Crawford. He's not a bad player, he's just not worth the 20+ million they'll be paying him, and that's probably not going to improve.
The key to staying under budget is to find talent that's worth a bit more than what you're shelling out to have it. That's where young cost-controlled players come in. The Dodgers don't have enough of those players on their 25-man right now, but they have guys like Pederson and Seager who represent just that type of value. Let's see how they proceed.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Oct 15, 2014 0:55:04 GMT -5
That was a great article you linked in and something to possibly be seen is if it's remotely possible to dump any of Ethier/CC's contract if they include one of those aforementioned kids in a deal.. yeah.. It sounds terrible, but it gives back some financial flexibility. Also with Kemp having the half season of something you never know if some team wouldn't be willing to pick up 75m or so of his money in some deal. LA wouldn't get much in return, other than flexibility again.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 15, 2014 7:59:11 GMT -5
Is it correct to assume no one will ever get to pick LA's pocket the way the Sox did during Friedman's reign? Love Hatfield's tweet, and I'm sure someone's already on it. Safe to say the outfield picture will be much clearer going forward. I'm sort of glad they're on this side of the country - and in the other league. He's got to prove it to me that can do it with money. Duequette, Minaya.. All came from small budget organizations with huge credentials that they could do wonders, none were ever popular in big market towns, even delivered any goods (Maybe Duquette did) and I have to see Friedman deliver, especially with the sad shape TB's farm system has been torpedoing downhill the last couple of years. Maybe there was more than one Beane didn't want anywhere near Boston so many years ago? There is a lot more pressure in big markets to make dumb decisions that are anti-Moneyball.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Oct 15, 2014 9:42:45 GMT -5
Dodgers have 171M committed in 2017 to Greinke, Kershaw, Gonzalez, Kemp, Crawford, Ethier, Puig, Guerrero, Ryu, and Arruebarruena.
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Oct 15, 2014 10:03:06 GMT -5
Dodgers have 171M committed in 2017 to Greinke, Kershaw, Gonzalez, Kemp, Crawford, Ethier, Puig, Guerrero, Ryu, and Arruebarruena. So OF is covered
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 15, 2014 11:51:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 15, 2014 11:52:24 GMT -5
There is a lot more pressure in big markets to make dumb decisions that are anti-Moneyball. Pressure from whom? Dan Shaughnessy? Bill Plaschke? The fact that the Dodgers management hired Friedman has to be taken as an endorsement of his style of player evaluation. They're not going to hire a "moneyball" acolyte (if such a thing is real) and then tell him "Your job is to spend as much money as possible on every big name free agent!"
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 15, 2014 12:11:49 GMT -5
There is a lot more pressure in big markets to make dumb decisions that are anti-Moneyball. Pressure from whom? Dan Shaughnessy? Bill Plaschke? The fact that the Dodgers management hired Friedman has to be taken as an endorsement of his style of player evaluation. They're not going to hire a "moneyball" acolyte (if such a thing is real) and then tell him "Your job is to spend as much money as possible on every big name free agent!" Pressure to not do things like the A's and Rays do even when it makes sense, like letting a guy like Crawford walk instead of Boston signing him and then the Dodgers trading for him. Regardless of what Friedman will/won't do, the pressure is there to spend money if you got it. If I'm Friedman now, I dump Crawford, Ethier and Kemp. Even though Kemp seems to be one of the best hitters in baseball again, he's so bad in the field, he has to be a DH. But I bet there would be some ownership/media/fan opposition to that because they love that name recognition in LA. Regardless of how much reality there is regarding that, it will exist at some level. Friedman will have to account to fans' willingness to put up with moneyball moves to some extent. The Red Sox seem to be doing the same, knowing damn well that they cannot get away with having a $120 million payroll, so they're probably going to keep dead weight around like Victorino and Craig, even if they're not worthy of a roster spot.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Oct 15, 2014 12:20:14 GMT -5
They might keep Craig and Victorino because their value is nil, maybe Victorino is traded in a salary dump, not because they have to fill some quota of payroll for the fans.
If the moves workout fans will shut up.
I sincerely hope that teams don't make moves because some sport writer or a section of the fans is loud enough to seem like they matter.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Oct 15, 2014 12:22:04 GMT -5
Pressure from whom? Dan Shaughnessy? Bill Plaschke? The fact that the Dodgers management hired Friedman has to be taken as an endorsement of his style of player evaluation. They're not going to hire a "moneyball" acolyte (if such a thing is real) and then tell him "Your job is to spend as much money as possible on every big name free agent!" Pressure to not do things like the A's and Rays do even when it makes sense, like letting a guy like Crawford walk instead of Boston signing him and then the Dodgers trading for him. Regardless of what Friedman will/won't do, the pressure is there to spend money if you got it. If I'm Friedman now, I dump Crawford, Ethier and Kemp. Even though Kemp seems to be one of the best hitters in baseball again, he's so bad in the field, he has to be a DH. But I bet there would be some ownership/media/fan opposition to that because they love that name recognition in LA. Regardless of how much reality there is regarding that, it will exist at some level. Friedman will have to account to fans' willingness to put up with moneyball moves to some extent. The Red Sox seem to be doing the same, knowing damn well that they cannot get away with having a $120 million payroll, so they're probably going to keep dead weight around like Victorino and Craig, even if they're not worthy of a roster spot. Oh come on. The sox clearly need to have a payroll higher than 120 million next year to compete, and they obviously don't think Craig is dead weight since they traded for him
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 15, 2014 12:28:14 GMT -5
They might keep Craig and Victorino because their value is nil, maybe Victorino is traded in a salary dump, not because they have to fill some quota of payroll for the fans. If the moves workout fans will shut up. I sincerely hope that teams don't make moves because some sport writer or a section of the fans is loud enough to seem like they matter. Easy to say this with a WS win fresh in most of our minds. But if we didn't win the WS, the fans wouldn't be happy with moves like letting Ellsbury go even if it's the right decision. The Dodgers have waited quite awhile for a WS win, and they do have the celebrity/fame aspect that is important to them.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 15, 2014 15:10:38 GMT -5
There is a lot more pressure in big markets to make dumb decisions that are anti-Moneyball. Pressure from whom? Dan Shaughnessy? Bill Plaschke? The fact that the Dodgers management hired Friedman has to be taken as an endorsement of his style of player evaluation. They're not going to hire a "moneyball" acolyte (if such a thing is real) and then tell him "Your job is to spend as much money as possible on every big name free agent!" There will likely be real pressure from ownership at times to spend free agent cash to prop up flawed teams rather than go through a true rebuilding cycle. We've seen this in Boston and New York and Philadelphia-- one of the real downsides of working in large markets is that there is pressure from the highest levels on down not to have a losing season. The ownership can talk a big game about efficiency and such, but at the end of the day, they almost certainly buy into the idea that a top-2 payroll team should almost never be out of the playoff race, which is an unsustainable goal even for the richest teams. And when you have a lot of cash in hand, it's hard not to see it as the solution to all your problems, even though spending often has deleterious long-term consequences.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Oct 15, 2014 15:30:30 GMT -5
Well, I think there's an actual logical reason for the differences in pressure rather than just BS media pressure ... interest in a team like the Red Sox or Yankees is fairly elastic and that elasticity is economically important because of the size of the income streams. From attendance dollars to ad rates on NESN, a good Red Sox team makes money that a bad one doesn't. So a dollar spent on improving the team in the short term brings in a lot more for the Red Sox than it does for the Rays; the ROI is much, much higher. Interest in the Rays is relatively inelastic economically; they aren't going to fill their stadium or pull in big ad dollars through their televised games no matter what they do. This is probably even more true for the Yankees because their payroll costs are a smaller proportion of their overall costs than many teams due to their stadium financing, iirc.
Really, the ROI on a dollar spent on baseball operations should be thought about equally whether it's a long-term investment or a short-term investment, but I'm sure the pressure doesn't really play out that way.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 15, 2014 16:08:44 GMT -5
Well, I think there's an actual logical reason for the differences in pressure rather than just BS media pressure ... interest in a team like the Red Sox or Yankees is fairly elastic and that elasticity is economically important because of the size of the income streams. From attendance dollars to ad rates on NESN, a good Red Sox team makes money that a bad one doesn't. So a dollar spent on improving the team in the short term brings in a lot more for the Red Sox than it does for the Rays; the ROI is much, much higher. Interest in the Rays is relatively inelastic economically; they aren't going to fill their stadium or pull in big ad dollars through their televised games no matter what they do. This is probably even more true for the Yankees because their payroll costs are a smaller proportion of their overall costs than many teams due to their stadium financing, iirc. Really, the ROI on a dollar spent on baseball operations should be thought about equally whether it's a long-term investment or a short-term investment, but I'm sure the pressure doesn't really play out that way. That's why I didn't specify where the pressure came from. It could come from anywhere, but it is there. For small market teams, being the best team is what brings out the most fans and most money. There is more to it than that for big market teams. And the #1 goal of probably every team in sports is to make as much money as possible, which is not necessarily the same goal as to be setup to win championships 3-8 years from now. A team like the Yankees would probably make more money over those 8 years by not rebuilding and not coming close to winning either than they would by rebuilding and then winning in 5-6 years.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Oct 15, 2014 16:59:44 GMT -5
What? Afraid to face the wrath of the base because are terrified of what turds the ilk of.. Shaughnessy and Plaschke will say? Like it's ever changed before?
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 15, 2014 21:18:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Oct 15, 2014 21:52:04 GMT -5
Rios and Victorino a lot in common. Good point bringing him up now that he's free.
Vic is owed nearly 14m next season, Rios will be free to negotiate a deal and won't get half of that most likely. Both 34YO and are very similar players, only Vitorino has that BIG question mark coming back from major back surgery.
If the Sox had been thinking of moving any part of his salary, it just got tougher.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 15, 2014 22:00:30 GMT -5
Since there was about 0.00001% chance his option got picked up I don't think it really changes the calculus of a potential Victorino trade very much.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Oct 24, 2014 11:36:05 GMT -5
MLB ?@mlb 1m1 minute ago Joe Maddon has exercised an opt-out in his current contract and will not manage the #Rays in 2015.
Dodgers?
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Oct 24, 2014 12:10:01 GMT -5
MLB ?@mlb 1m1 minute ago Joe Maddon has exercised an opt-out in his current contract and will not manage the #Rays in 2015. Dodgers? Uproar in local news. Expecting it to get worse also. Was bad enough last week when Friedman left, now Maddon? Handwriting on the wall TB is a goner in this area.. Something is up. Fans don't go to see them, ownership refused to discus anything stadium wise on the "correct" side of the bay? Foolish choices all the way around, now the only 2 people (other than Longoria) the team has are gone. Reminds one of ineptitude going on somewhere else does it not? They deserve everything happening to them, as does the city of St. pete when the leave them with a trashed out dumpsterdome.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 24, 2014 12:24:12 GMT -5
Gotta throw it out there.
Farrell to a front office position - to which he's long admitted aspiring - and Maddon as new manager.
OK, turn on those flame throwers.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,665
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 24, 2014 12:43:01 GMT -5
MLB ?@mlb 1m1 minute ago Joe Maddon has exercised an opt-out in his current contract and will not manage the #Rays in 2015. Dodgers? Uproar in local news. Expecting it to get worse also. Was bad enough last week when Friedman left, now Maddon? Handwriting on the wall TB is a goner in this area.. Something is up. Fans don't go to see them, ownership refused to discus anything stadium wise on the "correct" side of the bay? Foolish choices all the way around, now the only 2 people (other than Longoria) the team has are gone. Reminds one of ineptitude going on somewhere else does it not? They deserve everything happening to them, as does the city of St. pete when the leave them with a trashed out dumpsterdome. Perhaps Madden if he doesn't wind up on the Dodgers winds up on the Cubs. And perhaps the Rays move to Montreal down the road?
|
|
|