|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 17, 2021 12:16:26 GMT -5
Matt, there is a reason that in companies, departments heads fight to get more money in their budgets. They want to accomplish as much as they can, to be "successful" at what they do. If they are successful in making their case and they DO get more money, they run the risk that expectations will increase. If the bosses weren't expecting more, they wouldn't give out more money. What would be their motivation.
Yet, again, department heads fight to get more money so they can do their jobs with pride. They have expectations of THEMSELVES and their department. If a person shies from added expectations with a bigger budget, he almost certainly isn't the guy you want doing the job.
You took the time to put together a long argument, which I appreciate, and I would like to dissect its primary points.
|
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Nov 17, 2021 12:24:27 GMT -5
The reward Ned Colletti got for assembling those NL West Championship teams was to be reassigned to a “special assistant “ job.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 17, 2021 12:30:23 GMT -5
You initially said that Beane would likely win more games if given more money. That could be true, but when you're playing with more money there IS added pressure from the ownership, media and fans to get results. With more money the failures are also more highlighted. My other point is that Brian Sabean's success during the 2010-2014 seasons was in large part due to being frugal with money. Some of his best moves in his entire tenure with the Giants were trades, drafting and finding gems. The biggest criticisms of Sabean were mostly when he spent money. So my point is, yes, more money is nice to have as Reed mentioned with the ability to fix mistakes, but it also increases and highlights your failures.
It not only COULD be true that if Beane had twice as much money to spend, he would win more games, it is highly likely. If we look at the teams in the playoffs, they're mostly the big spenders. If we look at the teams with the worst records, they're mostly teams that didn't spend anywhere near as much. If you find evidence to the contrary, please let me know.
If Billy Beane had twice as much money to spend, his goal would have remained the same: To make the playoffs to provide a chance to win a World Championship. Remember, Brian Sabean didn't HAVE to spend all the money the Giants gave him to spend. What do you think they would have said if he had told them he could consistently make the playoffs by spending only half the money? You don't think ownership would have said, well, you have to make the playoffs consistently, but have at it? You don't think that if Brian could indeed have consistently made the playoffs while spending only half as much money, he couldn't have asked the Giants to double his salary and had it doubled? Do you honestly think they would have told him, yes, you saved us tens of millions of dollars and still consistently achieved your goal, but we're not going to pay you a couple of extra million as a reward? Let's put it this way: If the Giants wouldn't have done so, other teams would have. Trade a few million for tens of millions, while still making the playoffs consistently? Why not?
Beane DID get a much bigger offer to leave the A's and go to the Red Sox, but he chose instead to stay near his daughter.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 17, 2021 12:56:19 GMT -5
I mentioned what I dislike about the free agent market, often times you're paying too much for big names because of what they've done in the past, not what they're expected to do in the future. Essentially you're paying the new car price for a used car. This is why I hesitate to believe a GM would be more successful when pressured to sign big name free agents. I have a feeling Brian Sabean started to see this too, but because of the pressure from the ownership and the media he was forced into making questionable decisions.
I think Brian Sabean is a very strong person. I doubt he has been FORCED to do anything very often. A question: After Brian signed Aaron Rowand and Barry Zito -- both mistakes, but neither of anywhere close to the magnitude of say the signing by the Rockies of Mike Hampton -- was he more successful or less successful than before the signings?
To answer my own question, the Giants signed Zito in 2007 and Rowand in 2008. Their records from 2005 through 2012 were:
2005 75-87
2006 76-85
2007 71-91
2008 72-90
2009 88-74
2010 92-70
2011 86-76
2012 94-68
Do you think Brian Sabean enjoyed himself more before signing Zito and Rowand or after? Brian OVERSPENT for both players, but each still contributed something. According to Fan Graphs, Zito was worth 6.5 Wins Above Replacement as a Giant, and Rowand was worth 3.8. Even if he hadn't signed either Zito or Rowand, Sabean still would have spent MUCH more than Beane had available to spend.
As an aside, not that Zito or Rowand were marvelous contributors, but if the Giants hadn't had them on their 2010 roster, it is quite possible -- probably likely -- that they wouldn't have made the playoffs. Remember, they didn't make the playoffs until the final day of the season. I feel rather confident that if they hadn't made the playoffs, they wouldn't have broken their 55 year drought.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 17, 2021 12:59:50 GMT -5
But up until that point Zito was considered one of the worst, if not THE worst signing in the history of major league baseball.
There have been quite a few major league signings that were worse than Zito. This doesn't have a lot of direct bearing on our discussion, but Zito wasn't horrible -- he was mostly overpaid, which one can afford to do on occasion if he has enough money to help cover up his mistakes. It's the poor GM's of the minor market teams that have to pray for luck, since the financial odds are stacked against them.
That's why most of the playoff teams come from the teams paying above-average salaries.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 17, 2021 13:01:30 GMT -5
If not for the good drafting of Cain, Lincecum, Bumgarner, Posey, Sandoval, Romo, Wilson etc etc and the good value signings of Vogelsong, Torres, Huff...the bad signings of Zito and Rowand would have not disappeared within each the World Series parade.
The bad signings didn't disappear anyway. But Brian Sabean had enough money to spend to overcome them. You value his three titles highly, and each of them came AFTER he overspent on Zito and Rowand.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 17, 2021 13:10:31 GMT -5
But why would you believe he would have greater success not following your business model you posted a few days ago?
Did you change your mind already?
Here was my model, Matt. I'm guessing from our discussion that you agree with most if not all of it:
. Hire smart guys at the top. (Check)
. Hire a manager who meshes with the bosses. (Check)
. Hire a coaching staff who know what the bosses and manager know, and communicate it effectively to the players. (Check)
. Build a strong farm system. (Check)
. Build a strong big league roster based on value. (Check)
. Lock up the good young players early. (First, the Giants need good, young players at the major league level! In Logan Webb, they appear to have their first.)
. Be willing to trade young players before they get too expensive. (A few years down the road.)
. Keep the cycle going. (The Giants are off to a fine start, but the cycle is just beginning.)
I believe that is a model for success that is especially important for the small-spending teams, since they have to succeed at it to have much of any chance of sustained success. In terms of empirical results though, it works even better for the big-spending teams, since they have plenty of money to compound the success of the model and enough to overcome many of the mistakes made along the way.
To me, the team that has done the best job with the model I'm suggesting is the Tampa Bay Rays. They've had to work at it from a small-market perspective, and they've fared well enough to make the playoffs each of the past three seasons and seven of the past 14 despite spending very little money. I believe Mr. Zaidi has a chance to show how well the model can work for a team with money to spend. With the huge amounts the Dodgers are spending, he needs the help of the model even though he himself is able to spend far more than the average GM.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 17, 2021 13:14:15 GMT -5
In summary, Matt, almost anyone can do more if he has more resources. It's doing more with less that is the challenge -- a challenge Billy Beane met exceptionally well. We have no guarantee that he would have done even better if he had twice as much to spend, but common sense tells us it is close to certain that would have been the case.
If not, Brian Sabean was very foolish to spend all that money when he could in theory have been just as successful spending half as much. Remember, the cumulative record of the A's and the Giants this past decade was quite close -- even though the Giants spent nearly twice as much money.
In Mr. Zaidi we trust!
|
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Nov 17, 2021 21:27:47 GMT -5
But up until that point Zito was considered one of the worst, if not THE worst signing in the history of major league baseball. There have been quite a few major league signings that were worse than Zito. This doesn't have a lot of direct bearing on our discussion, but Zito wasn't horrible -- he was mostly overpaid, which one can afford to do on occasion if he has enough money to help cover up his mistakes. It's the poor GM's of the minor market teams that have to pray for luck, since the financial odds are stacked against them. That's why most of the playoff teams come from the teams paying above-average salaries. The worst ones now are Josh Hamilton, Mike Hampton, Melvin Upton, Pablo Sandoval, Denny Neagle and Chris Davis. Trevor Bauer might have punched his way to the top of this list. |
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Nov 18, 2021 11:09:50 GMT -5
Rog- Matt, there is a reason that in companies, departments heads fight to get more money in their budgets. They want to accomplish as much as they can, to be "successful" at what they do. If they are successful in making their case and they DO get more money, they run the risk that expectations will increase. If the bosses weren't expecting more, they wouldn't give out more money. What would be their motivation.
Boagie- This is your best analogy? The department heads are looking to get new supplies or equipment to help production, not for overpriced used equipment. That's what I equate the free agent market as - used overpriced equipment. They would only get used equipment if it was priced accordingly.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 18, 2021 14:27:09 GMT -5
Remember how one of our posters, who apparently is no longer here, thought re-signing Pablo Sandoval was a good idea and was highly critical of the Giants for not re-signing him? In reality, the Giants offered him too much, but the Red Sox bailed them out.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 18, 2021 14:46:20 GMT -5
A few points here, Matt.
First, you are right that free agents are almost always "overpriced." Baseball's free agent system has made that the case. Pre-arb players are the bargains. Players who qualify for arbitration are payed closest to average price for performance. Free agents are the only players who operate in a relatively free market. (How can a pro-capitalism person like Boly feel free agents are overpaid, when they are by far the closest to enjoying a free economy of all the players?) Because it can take a player as long as 13 years in a team's system to qualify to become a free agent, free agents are scarce. In a capitalistic society, prices are determined by supply and demand. When the supply is lows, as is the case with free agents, prices become high.
Second, because the idea is to build a roster that is as far above replacement value as is feasible, players' values increase a bit disproportionately as their value becomes a higher standard deviation away from replacement value, making them rarer and thus in even higher demand and more "valuable." Let's take, for instance, a really well-balanced team where all the key players are one win above replacement. If the team needs to become five wins better to be where they want to, they can add five two-win players, who may or may not be available and likely vary in performance from year to year, adding to their risk, or they can add one six-win player. Six-win players are rare. For instance, as great as he has been, Buster Posey has been basically a four win player. A compromise would be to pick up a three-win players (an added two wins) and a four-win player (an added three wins, for a total of five extra wins), but they're not cheap either.
Third, if a GM can spend twice as much, he has a wide range of possibilities. He doesn't have to add the six-win player to make the improvement. He can use one of the other methods. But he has options. The GM who can spend only half as much has to get highly creative in his options, including thinking at least a year or two ahead so that he can replace players before they become too expensive for him.
Ask ANY GM in the game if he would like the added pressure of having more money to spend to improve his team, and if you find one who says no, he likely isn't a GM you want for your team anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 18, 2021 14:52:21 GMT -5
Matt, I asked you if you could get a better house if you had twice as much money to spend, and all you can do is come up with the idea that expectations increase. That's because you can't get away from the fact that, yes, you CAN buy a much better house if you have twice as much to spend.
I told you that almost every department head loves the idea of having twice as much money in his budget. You come back with the idea that they are looking for NEW things, and that free agents are used. Matt, every team can afford to go out and draft a player in the 10th round. But it is almost always YEARS before that player is likely to help, even if he turns out to be a huge bargain. You say a free agent is used, but in reality what he truly is that gives him value is he's proven.
You don't like my analogies not because they're not good analogies, but because they ARE good ones that demonstrate my point.
Become a facts and logic guy, Matt. You'll find the quality of your life will greatly improve, along with your morals and ethics.
|
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Nov 19, 2021 10:07:43 GMT -5
Remember how one of our posters, who apparently is no longer here, thought re-signing Pablo Sandoval was a good idea and was highly critical of the Giants for not re-signing him? In reality, the Giants offered him too much, but the Red Sox bailed them out. Playing in Boston presents a great deal of racial pressure in addition to being a demanding sports town. Sandoval was offered too much by the Giants , I will admit. The Sox did us a favor. However, I think he might have done better in San Francisco than in Boston because of the less pressured environment and playing under Bochy but not nearly enough to justify that huge contract. I've read that Pablo's contract was ranked about third worst of all time and if I recall correctly, the Giants actually offered a larger contract but it came with a weight clause. The weight clause was probably was insulting to him but he should have known that Boston fans would let him eat as much as he wanted to, either. |
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Nov 20, 2021 21:19:51 GMT -5
Maybe the Giants and Redsox offered him too much, but I believe he would have been more successful with the Giants than he was with the Redsox. The Giants knew how to handle him and his weight issues, the Redsox wanted to appear more "brown people" friendly and say Pablo didn't have to live under the watchful eye of the white master anymore, he could eat as many chimichangas as he wanted without being body shamed. It was a dumb "woke" PR move and one off-season later it blew up in their face.
|
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Nov 20, 2021 23:48:58 GMT -5
He also liked Bochy and probably would have been a little more motivated under him. He also wanted to play with his buddy Hanley Ramirez which is only slightly better than wanting to play with your buddy Kyrie Irving.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 21, 2021 14:32:24 GMT -5
All I can say is that it's probably better to be woke than asleep, and it appears the Red Sox were sleeping on the issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 21, 2021 14:34:39 GMT -5
I agree that Pablo would likely have performed better for the Giants than he did for the Red Sox (He DID perform better after the Giants signed him soon after he was released.), but as we discussed at the time, he was already headed badly downhill from the right side of the plate.
|
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Nov 21, 2021 14:46:54 GMT -5
All I can say is that it's probably better to be woke than asleep, and it appears the Red Sox were sleeping on the issue. And to help people be "woke", I will gladly take care of all of your currency with pictures of slaveowners on them. |
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Nov 21, 2021 14:52:41 GMT -5
I agree that Pablo would likely have performed better for the Giants than he did for the Red Sox (He DID perform better after the Giants signed him soon after he was released.), but as we discussed at the time, he was already headed badly downhill from the right side of the plate.  2020. I would suppose he had success on both sides of the plate and had seconds. |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 21, 2021 16:01:49 GMT -5
I thought woke meant that one had been awakened. Pablo was pretty darn heavy in 2020, wasn't he?
|
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Nov 21, 2021 17:45:24 GMT -5
That was all of us after the initial pandemic.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 21, 2021 17:54:15 GMT -5
I hate to admit that I was pretty heavy BEFORE the pandemic. Through age 45, I was in very good shape. Then my metabolism changed.
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Nov 23, 2021 10:28:03 GMT -5
All I can say is that it's probably better to be woke than asleep, and it appears the Red Sox were sleeping on the issue. And to help people be "woke", I will gladly take care of all of your currency with pictures of slaveowners on them.
Loved it! And I'll be glad to take whatever bills with slave owners on them that you haven't got the room to store! |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 23, 2021 15:13:21 GMT -5
This is probably for the other board, and Reeder made a nice joke, but we shouldn't really be joking about slave owners. Having a history of slavery is sad for our country, but our stealing the country from the Indians is even worse.
We're a great country, but our history could be better. I like most of what we are, but I don't like all the ways we got here. Especially with regard to the Indians. First we bring them diseases they have little to no immunity to, and then we more or less simply wipe them out.
|
|
