User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 0.2113 seconds
54 querie(s) executed
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.
1. Jim (jimmuscomp) Posted: March 21, 2010 at 03:03 PM (#3483093)Just saying...
They won't share it with the Mets.
Yes, that was the case. Towers wanted Stephen Drew.
It wasn't such a hot draft. The only guy taken in the top 10 who is clearly better than Drew at this point is Verlander, and the only ones who have a realistic shot to surpass him are Niemann and Bailey.
Correct. It was a deliberate attempt to save on the draft bonus, while grabbing a home-town guy.
The closest recent comparison would probably be Joe Mauer in Minnesota, although Mauer was at least a consensus top-2 guy (or a 1a and 1b situation). Bush, even before he was picked, had a lot of scouts concerned as to whether he'd be able to hit enough to play, and was seen as a big overdraft.
Considering that Verlander only signed for around $4 million, the Padres 'saved' $900,000 by drafting Bush over Verlander.
Agree. I think the "imperial GM", like the "imperial CEO", is a pretty poor model.
I'd much rather have 3 or 4 GM-calibre senior exec's making decisions on a consensus basis. Less possibility for gigantic screwups.
That's what they had in San Diego for a number of years. Kevin Towers responded by trying to undermine DePodesta when he could.
Also less possibility for gigantic strokes of genius.
For the Red Sox or the Yankees (or certain other clubs with piles of money available), the 3 or 4 GM-calibre senior execs model probably works better - these teams generally just need moves to work out at a reasonable level, as they can pay market rates for players.
Teams like the Royals (or Pittsburgh, or the Rays or Marlins) need to strike it big. For teams like that, they can't as easily afford to go with consensus (which is typically the "safe" move) - they need the big splash, high-risk high-reward types.
Isn't this the Yankees' model during Steinbrenner's ownership (at least until 2005 or so)? Additionally, this is what led the Mets to make the Kazmir trade, no?
For the Red Sox or the Yankees (or certain other clubs with piles of money available), the 3 or 4 GM-calibre senior execs model probably works better - these teams generally just need moves to work out at a reasonable level, as they can pay market rates for players.
Teams like the Royals (or Pittsburgh, or the Rays or Marlins) need to strike it big. For teams like that, they can't as easily afford to go with consensus (which is typically the "safe" move) - they need the big splash, high-risk high-reward types.
I'm not sure I agree about that. You can have group decision making focused on taking high risk, high reward chances, if you know that's what you need to succeed.
What I think having several senior voices around the table achieves is preventing the batshit insane decisions like Kasmir/Zambrano or the Royals trading for Yuniesky Betancourt. You need someone with the seniority to tell the GM when he's being a doofus, and not fear being fired.
Their model was all over the place. There was always one GM, but George would randomly intervene based on advice he got from other executives. When George didn't intervene (the Gene Michaels years) it worked well. When he did, Johnson/Beltran, Sheffield/Guerrero, it tended to go badly.
This was not a situation of decision by committee, it was a meddlesome owner, with lots of underlings seeking to get his ear to elevate their status.
Additionally, this is what led the Mets to make the Kazmir trade, no?
No, I think the Mets' situation is the same as the old Yankee one. A meddlesome owner's son (Jeff Wilpon) and a bunch of lower level execs (e.g. Tony Bernazard) trying to influence him to achiev prominence.
What I'm talking about is a functional model with a GM, and a staff or senior advisors: maybe 1-2 ex-GM, 2-3 scouting types, and 1-2 stats guys. The GM would still be in charge, but, if any decision was strongly opposed by several of the senior advisors, it would have a second review, possibly involving ownership.
The GM would still have final say, but there would be checks and balances.
That's what I'd do if I owned a team.
To be fair, Sheffield worked out pretty well for the Yanks and _everybody_ was avoiding Guerrero like the plague due to injury concerns. Near as we can tell, the Angels were the only team willing to offer him 4 years. The Mets make the bigger mistake with Guerrero.
Only if you ignore defense, and his 2006 lost season. Sheffield was horrific in the field for the Yankees (-23 R/150 UZR in a little over 2 years). And, I knew that at the time, before I'd even heard of UZR.
Sheffield was a key part of the 5 DH defense with Giambi, Williams, Matsui and the actual DH that doomed the mid-00's Yankees
Using Fangraphs numbers, from 2004-06 Sheffield was worth a total 6 WAR to NY, for $36.8M. Guerrero delivered 13.9 WAR for $37M.
Dodgers were willing to go 5 years on Guerrero, but the sale to McCourt held up things and the only thing McCourt could promise at the time was a personal service contract.
The multiGM'ed Orioles made Vlad a five year offer almost before he took off his Expo uniform.
The Jays after Bavasi did pretty well as a consensus driven organization. Helps that the people in question appear to have been broadly speaking on the same page of course.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main