Thursday, May 16, 2013
TB Times: Crash victim works to forgive former Ray Bush
(blogs.tampabay.com)
Been through the Bushmills…
Read More...Tony Tufano tries not to be bitter, but there are days, like Wednesday, when he struggles to get out of bed and he can’t help it.
Tufano, 73, is grateful to be alive after he was nearly killed last year on March 22 in North Port, when his motorcycle was struck by a Dodge Durango driven by former Rays right-handed pitcher Matt Bush. Bush, 27, baseball’s top overall pick in 2004, is in jail serving a 51-month sentence after pleading no contest in December to driving ...
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 1 of 3 pages
1 2 3 >Another GM job? Yes, that is what people think.
This is clearly evidence that Moore knows what he's doing.
But it's valid to question his integrity after this trade. If he did this primarily to save his job, that's a violation of his professional responsibilities.
This is clearly evidence that Moore knows what he's doing.
And more evidence that he doesn't give a damn what happens in KC in 2015-17 if he's not the GM.
I agree. I can't shake this feeling that Shields is going to be very good and that Myers is going to be an averagish corner OF.
We have no way to know if Moore is lying, none at all. I think snapper is right that it's a valid question but if I were Moore and someone raised that question I'd be pretty pissed. Frankly I suspect Moore is looking at Baltimore and Oakland last year and the fact that his division was won with less than 90 wins and thinking "yeah, we can do that." Between a lack of integrity and a lack of competence I'll take the latter in the case of Moore.
But I don't know that prioritizing the next few years as oppossed to years 4 to 6 (or whatever) is any sort of violation at all. In fact I am not sure working to save his job is much of a violation. Everyone who has a contract works to further the interests of themselves and their employer over the duration of the contract.
If his employer has decided to send signals (by not extending him, comments to him or the press and so on) that his job is in danger if things don't change, how is he violating his responsibility by reacting to those signals and trying to change things?
Employer: Change or I won't renew your contract.
Employee: Makes trade for short term benefit, which results in a change in the Employer given time window.
Third party: The employee no longer has the employers best interest at heart, bad employee.
The above is simplified, but still declaring the job saving trade unethical is I think a bit shortsighted and completely lets the employer off the hook for any responsibility.
I'm not even sure about this. Myers and Odorizzi were both in AAA. They should be ready, or close.
I think it's even money that putting Myers in for Francoeur, Odorizzi as your 5th SP, and having $13M to spend on another SP gives you a better team than adding Shields and Davis.
Is there more risk, sure. But a team in KC's position should be embracing risk, not paying to get rid of it.
If his employer has decided to send signals (by not extending him, comments to him or the press and so on) that his job is in danger if things don't change, how is he violating his responsibility by reacting to those signals and trying to change things?
Employer: Change or I won't renew your contract.
Employee: Makes trade for short term benefit, which results in a change in the Employer given time window.
Third party: The employee no longer has the employers best interest at heart, bad employee.
The above is simplified, but still declaring the job saving trade unethical is I think a bit shortsighted and completely lets the employer off the hook for any responsibility.
Maybe it's because I work in Finance, and have seen what taking decisions to maximize short-term results brings, but I can't agree.
If your boss wants to make a stupid trade for short term benefit, then you make him order you to do it. That's the only way Moore is off the hook with; if Glass directly ordered him to improve in 2013, damn the long-term.
Not at this stage of their business. Trading risk at its market top for near-top-end pitching dependability is wise strategically. As always, the trade can be questioned tactically.
I agree. But Moore clearly thinks it's in the best interest for the next two years.
I'm not saying that he lacks integrity, but he's lying if he says that his contract situation didn't influence his decision. It would influence my decision as well. Moore's job depends on the teams performance over the next two years and that's going to pressure him into prioritizing those over the far future. Moore's a human and cannot avoid being effected by those factors. Why can't you statnerds understand that these guys are human???
How do you think Walt Jocketty feels about the Votto extension? He's not going to be GMing for then in 10 years, so he won't have to deal with the bad years of the contract, but can reap all of the immediate good PR.
What the actual #### does this mean? Also "pitching dependability" is a ####### oxymoron. God damnit why did I un-ignore you?
It's over your head. Stick with your core competencies.
This is pushing the argument too far. Yes, pitching is risky. And, yes, many young pitching prospects flame out. But that doesn't mean that we have no idea what most pitchers are likely to do, especially those over 25.
No. Thats's what a projected 92-win team does to shore up its playoff odds.
A projected 75-80 win team needs to take risk to get another 10 wins. Also, if you were an actual good MLB talent evaluator, like TB, you see the opportunity in getting more expected value at a lower price b/c of the risk.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/big-leaguers-prospects-and-uncertainty/
Edit: you know what you're gonna get with Shields, except he could get injured or he could have another season like 2010 where he was basically replacement level.
That said, I think it was a poor trade since they could have signed an FA pitcher in Shields ballpark.
Not for the money and years left on Shields's deal. He's underpaid. His cost, expected return, and risk are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to replicate in either the FA market or the actually available for trade market.
Brandon McCarthy signed for 2/16. Edwin Jackson will probably sign for less than 2/23 (Shield's deal). As will Dempster. All of those guys are comparable for Shields talent wise.
And I'd still much rather have Sanchez at 4/60 and Myers and Odorizzi than Shields for 2/23 and no Myers or Odorizzi.
Were the A's stupid to sign Cespedes? Shields isn't an ace but he really is a tremendous improvement for the team. The majority of starts for the 2012 Royals were taken by pitchers at or below replacement level.
Also, I think that a 75-80 win team isn't so bad that they need to take on risk. Are you saying that they are not good enough to add actually good players, that they should just be taking fliers left and right on failed prospects, veterans with something to prove, etc? How good do you have to be before you can think about winning this year? 85 wins? People on this site get way too wedded to the "success cycle" narrative.
They're paying Shields and Davis $13M in 2013 and $17M in 2014.
If they had to have a SP, they could have given Jackson or Sanchez 6/90 and still had Myers in RF, and Odorizzi as a #5/#6 SP.
They already have plenty of "good" risk -- the kind that can blow up to the upside. Moustakas and Hosmer are practically the definition of the concept. You don't want to offset that "good" risk with too much "bad" risk and Shields helps accomplish that. Plus Shields's expected "return" is higher than either Myers's or whomever he's replacing in the rotation.
Cespedes is exactly the type of risk I'm talking about. The A's didn't trade elite prospects for a steady-Eddie 3 WAR OF, they rolled the dice on an unknown talent that cost only $$$,
Yes, but is Sheilds + Francoeur higher than Myers + Odorizzi? Jeff is tremendously bad.
Nonsense. Shields costs real money. The expected return on Myers is his production (basically free for 3 years), plus the talent Shield's salary would buy.
Right. I could see Sanchez making somewhere close to that, but Jackson could be had for a 2 year deal. For some reason no teams seem to like him even though he's been one of the most consistently good starters over the past 4 years.
Don't forget to add $10M p.a. to the Myers side of the ledger.
Even if you have to give Jackson four or five years to come to KC, so what. You still have Myers and Odorizzi if he goes bad. Shields is gone after '14.
The one thing the Royals can afford though is risk. They're not serious contenders yet, so they should be taking gambles. I'm surprised more hasn't been made about them not getting Tommy Hanson. He may be done for all we know, but he would have been well worth the gamble if all it took was a good young reliever (which the Royals have coming out their ears) and $4 million. McCarthy would have been another nice gamble they could have afforded. Maybe he doesn't come here, but I hope they at least looked into it. And then there are Japanese free agents which carry considerable risk but don't cost prospects at all.
I was talking about next year, which is what you were talking about. Shields's expected return for 2013 is higher than Myers's, and his risk is far lower.
Shields's 2013 cost is far less than his expected return/risk profile and far less than comps. It's not replicable on the FA market or the (actually available) trade market.
And they already have plenty of it on their roster.
Shields's 2013 cost is far less than his expected return/risk profile and far less than comps. It's not replicable on the FA market or the (actually available) trade market.
That doesn't matter. If you keep Myers, you get his production in 2013, plus what the extra $10M buys. If it costs you $12M per to get E Jackson, you get Myers and 5/6 of Jackson for the price of Shields.
You keep saying this but it's not true. Edwin Jackson projects as well as Shields and he will likely sign for less than Shield's contract. McCarthy projects slightly worse than Shields and he already signed for less. Not to mention Annibal Sacnhez, Ryan Dempster, Dan Haren... the idea that Shields is the only guy who can provide good value in the rotation is laughable.
Risk is the likelihood of something happening x the cost of it happening.
If Myers bombs, which he may, it costs you next to nothing, and comes with the benefit of not having Frenchy on the field (Myers would have to bomb really, really badly to be worse than Frenchy).
If Shields bombs, which is less likley but certainly possible (he had a 5.18 ERA in 2010), you have lost Myers and Odorizzi, and Sheilds' substantial salary.
$10M doesn't buy you much, but more importantly, the baseball player market isn't the T-bill market. It's neither efficient nor continuous. You can't just get whatever risk/return profile you want for the spare money you have laying around.
If it costs you $12M per to get E Jackson, you get Myers and 5/6 of Jackson for the price of Shields.
I know you didn't mean this literally, but there is no available asset guaranteed to be 5/6 of Jackson, and if there is, there's no assurance that the price will be 5/6 of Jackson's.
Are you thick? It's not like the Royals only have 10.5 million to spend. If they can afford Shields they can afford Jackson.
Edit: and yes, McCarthy is 5/6 of Jackson/Shields in terms of talent and 5/6 in terms of Shields in price
I think we've underdiscussed Wade Davis with this deal or, rather, relegated him in consideration to a reliever role. He is going to the rotation for KC, yes?
He'll be in the rotation, but he's not likely to be better than Odorizzi. Now add the two other decent prospects the Royals threw in!
Leonard's a throw-in. Montgomery's a hard piece to value since he almost certainly has more value to any other team than he does to KC.
Korean, Japanese, same difference. ;)
Page 1 of 3 pages
1 2 3 >You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.