Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, October 28, 2011

Jerry DiPoto to be Angels GM

It’s delovely, it’s dynamic, it’s…DiPoto?

Arizona Diamondbacks executive Jerry DiPoto will be the next general manager of the Los Angeles Angels, according to multiple media reports.

DiPoto has been senior vice president of scouting and player development for Arizona. He replaces Tony Reagins, who resigned in September.

MLB executive Kim Ng, Tampa Bay Rays executive vice president of baseball operations Andrew Friedman, New York Yankees executive Damon Oppenheimer and Texas Rangers assistant GM Thad Levine were among the names mentioned for the job.

Repoz Posted: October 28, 2011 at 04:36 PM | 97 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: angels

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. Weeks T. Olive Posted: October 28, 2011 at 05:06 PM (#3979805)
Ng is never going to get a shot at a GM job, is she?

Not saying she should have gotten this one, but it seems like she has been touted as a potential/next GM by the media for 5+ years now, if not longer, and it seems like she never even gets particularly close.
   2. CraigK Posted: October 28, 2011 at 05:11 PM (#3979812)
"So, Jerry, why do you feel that you're the best candidate for our General Manager position?"
"I gave you Dan Haren for jack ####."
"..............You're hired!"
   3. Shredder Posted: October 28, 2011 at 05:25 PM (#3979842)
"I gave you Dan Haren for jack ####."
Only if jack #### = the guy who is the Diamondbacks top prospect, and Baseball America's top Cal Leage Prospect.
   4. Javy Joan Baez (chris h.) Posted: October 28, 2011 at 05:40 PM (#3979887)
Ng is never going to get a shot at a GM job, is she?

Not saying she should have gotten this one, but it seems like she has been touted as a potential/next GM by the media for 5+ years now, if not longer, and it seems like she never even gets particularly close.

I think it's very difficult for us to evaluate potential GM candidates who haven't been GMs yet. Ng may be supremely qualified, or she may not be qualified at all; would any of us have any idea?

Also, the "touted" thing is mostly a media creation, yes?
   5. Weeks T. Olive Posted: October 28, 2011 at 05:47 PM (#3979907)
I think it's very difficult for us to evaluate potential GM candidates who haven't been GMs yet. Ng may be supremely qualified, or she may not be qualified at all; would any of us have any idea?

Also, the "touted" thing is mostly a media creation, yes?


Maybe, and I'm not even saying it's unfair - I have no idea whether she'd be a good GM or not and I'm certainly not claiming she's been passed over unfairly. I have no clue

Just seems odd to me that someone who's basically been referred to as "Future GM" for a half-decade plus has yet to land the job or really even come close. Given that, I do agree that at this point it does seem like her candidacy is largely media driven.
   6. Hombre Brotani Posted: October 28, 2011 at 05:52 PM (#3979917)
Good hire. I was worried the Orioles would offer DiPoto the job before the Angels did.
   7. JimMusComp misses old primer... Posted: October 28, 2011 at 05:52 PM (#3979919)
Hmmmm.....

Not my first choice. Not by a lot. I really wanted Friedman or even Ng - any non-player who was into analysis would have made me happy. As of now, I'm pretty much "blehhhh" on this move. Hope I'm proven wrong and I hope he can stand up to Scioscia. It would also be great if he could use advanced metrics as more than lip service.

Any thoughts from Diamondback fans?
   8. billyshears Posted: October 28, 2011 at 05:53 PM (#3979923)
I was really rooting for Omar Minaya.
   9. PreservedFish Posted: October 28, 2011 at 05:53 PM (#3979924)
Also, the "touted" thing is mostly a media creation, yes?


Do you mean that Ng gets more credit as a GM prospect than she deserves, or more than the actual baseball community gives her? I suppose it might be. But unless you have insider knowledge, how else are you supposed to judge these things?

I became aware of Ng years ago when either Baseball Prospectus or Rob Neyer wrote about her. She might have a higher profile in the stathead community. All I know is that she is interviewed for just about every single job (and thus is possibly a victim of the must-interview-one-minority rule).
   10. Randy Jones Posted: October 28, 2011 at 05:54 PM (#3979925)
Now, I hate the Angels, so I hope DiPoto is just a puppet like Reagins. However, if he has a brain and some guts, the first thing he should do is trade or just DFA Mathis.
   11. JJ1986 Posted: October 28, 2011 at 05:57 PM (#3979932)
any non-player who was into analysis would have made me happy.


I think DiPoto was the guy who hired Carlos Gomez so he's somewhat into analysis.
   12. Shredder Posted: October 28, 2011 at 05:58 PM (#3979937)
However, if he has a brain and some guts, the first thing he should do is trade or just DFA Mathis.
Someone on Halos Heaven had a better idea. Send a secret agent to Taiwan to steal Mathis' passport.
thus is possibly a victim of the must-interview-one-minority rule
Does she qualify? Maybe as a woman, but as someone who grew up in Southern California, I've never really considered Asians to be "minorities" in the affirmative action or other racially sensitive employment context.
   13. PreservedFish Posted: October 28, 2011 at 06:05 PM (#3979951)
Does she qualify? Maybe as a woman, but as someone who grew up in Southern California, I've never really considered Asians to be "minorities" in the affirmative action or other racially sensitive employment context.


I don't know the answer to this. I think it unlikely, however, that MLB's lawyers would write a law that specified "black/hispanic."
   14. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: October 28, 2011 at 06:05 PM (#3979953)
but as someone who grew up in Southern California, I've never really considered Asians to be "minorities" in the affirmative action or other racially sensitive employment context.


Generally, Asians are discriminated against in affirmative action programs.
   15. JimMusComp misses old primer... Posted: October 28, 2011 at 06:17 PM (#3979974)
I have been doing some digging, and I am much happier with this than I was 30 minutes ago. I still think Friedman was the best choice, but DiPoto seems just fine and enough into stats for me - at this point anyway...
   16. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: October 28, 2011 at 06:40 PM (#3980014)

Not saying she should have gotten this one, but it seems like she has been touted as a potential/next GM by the media for 5+ years now, if not longer, and it seems like she never even gets particularly close.


I don't think that's all that unusual is it? Chris Antonetti was "the top GM candidate" forever. Rick Hahn has been mentioned for several years. Probably lots of guys were really qualified and had to wait forever - there are only 30 jobs available. Ng just sticks out because she has gotten more media attention due to her gender. I think its pretty clear she'll get hired eventually, she's gotten interviewed enough times it seems inevitable.
   17. Steve Sparks Flying Everywhere Posted: October 28, 2011 at 06:45 PM (#3980020)
I'm glad to see DiPoto get the job. A few years back I emailed a number of front offices about internships and Jerry DiPoto was one of the few guys to actually return my email. Seems like a good dude.
   18. Hombre Brotani Posted: October 28, 2011 at 06:56 PM (#3980036)
I have been doing some digging, and I am much happier with this than I was 30 minutes ago. I still think Friedman was the best choice, but DiPoto seems just fine and enough into stats for me - at this point anyway...
I don't/didn't believe Friedman was leaving Tampa (at least not for either Anaheim or Baltimore), so DiPoto was my first choice for the job. He'll be the first guy in Angel front office leadership who hasn't been openly hostile to new-fangled metrics, a real blind spot the Angels have developed over the last decade. He's clearly better than the known quantity (Minya) and probably better and definitely more experienced than the unknown quantity (Ng). I don't know enough about Oppenheimer to say either way; I'd probably stack him slightly ahead of Ng.
   19. JimMusComp misses old primer... Posted: October 28, 2011 at 07:05 PM (#3980054)
I don't/didn't believe Friedman was leaving Tampa (at least not for either Anaheim or Baltimore)


Right, he might have been Arte's first choice, but not willing to go anywhere...
   20. Walt Davis Posted: October 28, 2011 at 08:52 PM (#3980232)
And I am curious what this means for CBW. There must be a pretty good chance that DiPoto brings him along (with a promotion) or he gets promoted by the DBacks given DiPoto's departure. Or is CBW no longer with the DBacks?
   21. BWV 1129 Posted: October 28, 2011 at 08:55 PM (#3980234)
How am I supposed to feel about this?
   22. BWV 1129 Posted: October 28, 2011 at 08:58 PM (#3980238)
I will trust Person of Anaheim's judgment. Yay hire!
   23. Hombre Brotani Posted: October 28, 2011 at 08:59 PM (#3980240)
Feel good. The Angels just improved their GM position by about six miles. Granted, they started from a hole five miles deep, so we'll see where they end up...
   24. Repoz Posted: October 28, 2011 at 09:16 PM (#3980260)
Bump for Ned Colletti...
   25. valuearbitrageur Posted: October 28, 2011 at 10:09 PM (#3980318)
DiPoto is a very good guy. He did a great job in an emergency situation with the Diamondbacks. He did exactly what ownership requested, he cleared a huge amount of payroll, and got good value back.

But I'm pretty sure he got the job because their perception is that he will be a good soldier and listen to Scoscia.
   26. ?Donde esta Dagoberto Campaneris? Posted: October 28, 2011 at 10:21 PM (#3980332)
But I'm pretty sure he got the job because their perception is that he will be a good soldier and listen to Scoscia.

What are you basing this on?
   27. ...and Toronto selects: Troy Tulowitzki Posted: October 28, 2011 at 10:30 PM (#3980338)
But I'm pretty sure he got the job because their perception is that he will be a good soldier and listen to Scoscia.

What are you basing this on?


God spoke to Josh Hamilton who passed the message on.
   28. bads85 Posted: October 28, 2011 at 10:36 PM (#3980350)
Chris Antonetti was "the top GM candidate" forever.


Too bad nothing lasts forever.
   29. valuearbitrageur Posted: October 28, 2011 at 10:39 PM (#3980357)
What are you basing this on?


Halos fans are misreading the situation, and distracted by immaterial facts like that DiPoto appears smart, a good judge of value, and a good guy.

He's essentially a first time GM. His previous job he came in as a hatchet man to dissemble a team. He has no track record other than the good results of that brief effort, and Moreno has no reason to trust his judgement when some of his decisions turn sour (which always happens to every GM, no one hits 100% on GM decisions).

DiPoto won't be able to fire Scoscia, but Scoscia will be able to get DiPoto fired. I suspect Scoscia believes the same, that DiPoto will be amenable to his wishes, and if they have conflict, will back down.

So if Scoscia wants to keep Mathis, Mathis will stay.

DePodesta was smart and a good judge of talent. He clashed with the long time manager, then owner, and was fired.

Josh Byrnes was smart and a good judge of talent. He clashed with a long time manager, and then ownership, and was fired.

DiPoto knows this and knows that Scoscia is far more powerful than Melvin or Tracy, and he'll perceive that getting along with Scoscia is his best route to completing his contract. This may not be bad. He may make great personnel decisions on the important issues and compromise some minor personnel decisions to keep Scoscia happy, and the results can still be outstanding.

But if I was an angels fan, I'd worry about the unbalanced weight of ownership trust/authority between Scoscia and a rookie GM.
   30. Hombre Brotani Posted: October 28, 2011 at 11:10 PM (#3980382)
But if I was an angels fan, I'd worry about the unbalanced weight of ownership trust/authority between Scoscia and a rookie GM.
DiPoto's smart, a good judge of talent, and — unlike DePodesta — seems to be respected and well-liked in the larger baseball community. Scioscia's power was going to be an issue for any GM, so the best the Angels can do is to hire the best available, and go from there. They did that.
   31. Jack Sommers Posted: October 28, 2011 at 11:38 PM (#3980409)
Angels got a really good baseball man, and strengthened their organization tremendously.

They will be just fine. And VA.....don't under estimate Jerry's ability to handle himself and assert his authority. I'm absolutely sure that will be a non issue.
   32. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 29, 2011 at 12:50 AM (#3980758)
The fact that Moreno went after someone like Friedman tells me there might have been a philosophical shift inside the Angels. Otherwise, if a new GM was sought simply to be a "yes" man for Scioscia, why would Moreno waste time going after Friedman? It's hard to imagine that Moreno's thinking was to either give increased control to someone like Friedman or find a de facto puppet for Scioscia.

As for Kim Ng, she's probably just as qualified as a lot of other GMs and GM candidates, but this growing narrative that she's been "passed over" seems overblown and entirely media-generated. For one thing, Ng is only 42 or 43 years old. It's not like she's the Susan Lucci of GM candidates. Beyond that, despite most of the stories and columns saying Ng shouldn't get hired because she's a woman or despite the fact she's a woman, that's precisely why she gets so much media coverage. I bet Ng has gotten more media coverage than all other assistant GMs added together, which is probably a mixed blessing for her.
   33. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: October 29, 2011 at 01:17 AM (#3980927)
The Angels just improved their GM position by about six miles. Granted, they started from a hole five miles deep, so we'll see where they end up...,


Yes, DiPoto should have one of those motivation posters in his office that reads "don't make the worst trade in all of baseball in the last decade" with a picture of Vernon Wells on it as a way to be an improvement over his predecessor.
   34. Dock Ellis Posted: October 29, 2011 at 03:38 AM (#3981929)
I can't help but think if Ng was "qualified" to be a GM, she'd've been hired by now. I put that in quotes because while she most certainly has the experience and credentials on paper, maybe she doesn't have the go-getter personality the position requires. Or maybe people think that while she does a terrific job, she's not well-liked on a personal level. Heck, maybe she doesn't even want to be a GM, and is happy where she is.

Anyway, I'd like to think that there are plenty of reasons that she isn't a GM now, other than she's a girl who doesn't know anything about baseball.
   35. Flynn Posted: October 29, 2011 at 03:55 AM (#3981969)
Anyway, I'd like to think that there are plenty of reasons that she isn't a GM now, other than she's a girl who doesn't know anything about baseball.


I wonder if her lack of experience on the talent evaluation side has anything to do with it. Owners probably trust somebody who knows what an 80 changeup looks like.

That's somewhat unfair on Ng, considering she played more college ball than Theo Epstein did, but her primarily office-based experience is just that, office-based.
   36. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 29, 2011 at 04:11 AM (#3981981)
I can't help but think if Ng was "qualified" to be a GM, she'd've been hired by now.

All these discussions about who is and who isn't qualified to be GM are so subjective and speculative that they're almost pointless. There are baseball lifers almost twice Ng's age who have never been interviewed for a GM job, and then there's Andrew Friedman, who went from Wall Street to ML GM in the span of 11 months. There are so few GM jobs and the office politics remain so important that GM selection likely remains a major inefficiency.

As for Kim Ng specifically, I've always maintained that the biggest problem for an owner isn't hiring Ng; it's the specter of firing Ng. As has been said a million times, managers and GMs are hired to be fired. Guys like Paul DePodesta and Dan O'Brien can be hired and then fired a year or two later without too much uproar. But barring some sort of massive malfeasance, anyone who hires Ng will either have to go all-in for a minimum of four or five years or face a major p.r. backlash.
   37. valuearbitrageur Posted: October 29, 2011 at 04:37 AM (#3981992)
They will be just fine. And VA.....don't under estimate Jerry's ability to handle himself and assert his authority. I'm absolutely sure that will be a non issue.


I certainly hope you are right, but I find it very curious that Arte Moreno, who has little idea of how to measure a GM other than by wins, and is never shy about spending to improve his team, only went after one proven GM, Why did he not interview Epstein, Cashman, and others? Why did he allow Scoscia to contact his own favorites? it seems as if the search wasn't for the best GM, but for the best one Scoscia could accept.

Hopefully they lucked into a good one.
   38. 1k5v3L Posted: October 29, 2011 at 05:53 PM (#3982217)
@nickpiecoro: Dear internet: Now that he's a GM, let's all keep the "p" in Jerry Dipoto's last name lowercase, as it ought to be, k, thanks.
   39. 1k5v3L Posted: October 29, 2011 at 05:56 PM (#3982221)
"I gave you Dan Haren for jack ####."
"..............You're hired!"


Skaggs
Corbin

The kids will be all right
   40. Hombre Brotani Posted: October 29, 2011 at 06:09 PM (#3982228)
I certainly hope you are right, but I find it very curious that Arte Moreno, who has little idea of how to measure a GM other than by wins
We don't know this at all.
   41. Tripon Posted: October 29, 2011 at 07:02 PM (#3982253)
Mark Saxon, the beat writer for ESPN LA that covers the Angels were just on local radio (ESPN 710AM), and said the Angels have been cutting back on their scouting for a couple of years.
   42. Mike Emeigh Posted: October 29, 2011 at 07:16 PM (#3982268)
I wonder if her lack of experience on the talent evaluation side has anything to do with it.


I think that it has everything to do with it, and it's going to be a hard nut to crack. There are few women in talent evaluation positions, period, and as long as that's a major portion of the GM's job few owners are going to hand the keys over to a woman.

-- MWE
   43. valuearbitrageur Posted: October 29, 2011 at 07:30 PM (#3982273)

We don't know this at all.


Sure we do, Arte agreed to pick up a horrible player with a horrible contract, and allowed his GM to give up one of the.best hitting catchers in baseball to get the deal done. If Arte can't understand the value of players , he can't value GMs and their trades, wins is all he gots.
   44. hunting for a halo-red october Posted: October 29, 2011 at 10:49 PM (#3982441)
Sure we do, Arte agreed to pick up a horrible player with a horrible contract, and allowed his GM to give up one of the.best hitting catchers in baseball to get the deal done. If Arte can't understand the value of players , he can't value GMs and their trades, wins is all he gots.


Are you enjoying the benefit of hindsight? Twenty-eight other teams, including the Blue Jays, passed up on Napoli. So let's not go crazy there.

Beyond that, your deductive reasoning is...questionable at best. Arte also presided over signing Weaver to an extension, the signing of Torii Hunter, and approved the Dan Haren trade. The organization under Arte has unquestionably made mistakes (trading Wells being the most prominent), but that doesn't mean that he "can't understand the value of players."
   45. Tripon Posted: October 30, 2011 at 12:15 AM (#3982489)

Are you enjoying the benefit of hindsight? Twenty-eight other teams, including the Blue Jays, passed up on Napoli. So let's not go crazy there.


28 teams did not pass on Napoli. It is not as if Napoli was put on wavier wire, and no team claimed him. The Angels wanted Vernon Wells, and the Jays traded Wells for Napoli. If the Angels made it known that Napoli was on the block, baseball teams would be interested in trading for him.
   46. ...and Toronto selects: Troy Tulowitzki Posted: October 30, 2011 at 12:16 AM (#3982491)
Anthopoulos went over this again last night on radio w/ Wilner. They had Arencibia who had just won the Triple-A MVP award, and even better prospect D'Arnaud coming up right behind him. Adam Lind signed to a longterm deal, and had just signed Encarnacion whom AA gave his word would get a large number of AB's in '11. He needed good bullpen arms and would likely get a "B" compesation pick for the '12 draft from Fransico. Sucks.
   47. The District Attorney Posted: October 30, 2011 at 12:20 AM (#3982495)
had just signed Encarnacion whom AA gave his word would get a large number of AB's in '11.
Well, there's your problem right there.
   48. valuearbitrageur Posted: October 30, 2011 at 12:31 AM (#3982498)
And Napoli was indisputably one of the best hitting catchers in the majors before this season, no hindsight necessary.

Beyond that, your deductive reasoning is...questionable at best. Arte also presided over signing Weaver to an extension, the signing of Torii Hunter, and approved the Dan Haren trade. The organization under Arte has unquestionably made mistakes (trading Wells being the most prominent), but that doesn't mean that he "can't understand the value of players."


He approves good deals. He approves marginal deals. He approves awful deals. Arte has never failed to write a check to improve the team, but he doesn't have any ability to discern the value of his GM's decisions. That's not a big knock against Moreno, few owners do.

In fact, my criticism can apply generically to almost any team owner. But that's the problem with Moreno/DiPoto. Like most owners, Moreno won't be able to say "poor results, but great decisions!" So he'll say good results, good GM. Bad results, bad GM. And because DiPoto doesn't have a long and stellar track record, he's liable to judge Jerry more quickly, more harshly, and give him a shorter leash before he cans him. So DiPoto, no matter how smart he is, can't be unlucky for too long too early in his tenure, and he can't make enemies of Scoscia, who can shorten the leash further by complaining to Moreno if they conflict.

I'm essentially saying Moreno is human. We all adopt results oriented measurements in areas we don't fully understand. In a field like baseball management that has a great deal of variance due to random luck, using short term results is a terrible benchmark, it's akin to deciding who the best poker player is by the results of a single tournament.
   49. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 30, 2011 at 12:37 AM (#3982502)
whom AA gave his word would get a large number of AB's

This seems to be a repeating theme in stories out of Toronto, and not a good one at that. Production should determine playing time, not anyone's "word."

Regardless, trading an impact bat like Napoli for a relief arm was a bad move no matter how anyone slices it. Seems better to just say "We made a huge goof" and put the issue to rest than to keep trying to rationalize it. Trading Napoli for one year of Francisco plus a draft pick was too clever by half even before Napoli's stock surged in 2011.
   50. ...and Toronto selects: Troy Tulowitzki Posted: October 30, 2011 at 12:58 AM (#3982511)
Well, I don't recall it being repetitive at all actually. Far as I recall, John Buck and Encarnacion signed one year deals with AA at the rates/length they did as they were told they would receive xyz AB's to showcase for free agency again. He has stated he wants his word to be bond when he says something. The deal just to get rid of Wells is enough regardless if Napoli if came back or not. He doesn't see it a "huge goof", it just is what it was. Again, like is said by everyone regarding the Napoli/Wells/Francisco trade, if AA had the predictive abilities you perhaps have, he wouldn't have traded him considering he had a career year after the fact.
   51. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 30, 2011 at 01:06 AM (#3982514)
A lot of selective accounting being practiced here. Strange how trading Napoli is a leading exhibit of Reagins' ineptitude while Anthopoulos' dumping of Napoli doesn't even make it into the ledger.
   52. Ebessan Posted: October 30, 2011 at 01:32 AM (#3982519)
He did screw up. He just didn't trade for Vernon Wells at the same time. You could trade Vernon Wells for the demon core at Los Alamos and put it in as your shortstop; it's a good move.
   53. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 30, 2011 at 01:42 AM (#3982523)
You could trade Vernon Wells for the demon core at Los Alamos and put it in as your shortstop; it's a good move.

At this point, it's only a good move hypothetically. In terms of net WAR in 2011, the Jays would have been better off keeping Wells and acquiring Napoli than dumping both. In terms of 2012 and beyond, until the savings from Wells are spent in a way that yields more wins for the Jays, it's all just theory. Payroll flexibility gives a team the chance to get better; it doesn't make a team better.
   54. PreservedFish Posted: October 30, 2011 at 02:18 AM (#3982533)
At this point, it's only a good move hypothetically.

Nonsense. If the Jays just pocket the Wells money and give out nice Christmas bonuses, it's a good move. It's not contingent on anything else.
   55. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 30, 2011 at 02:26 AM (#3982536)
Nonsense. If the Jays just pocket the Wells money and give out nice Christmas bonuses, it's a good move. It's not contingent on anything else.

Ludicrous. If the Jays pocket the money, then there's no impact on the ML team and none of this is even worth the discussion here.
   56. PreservedFish Posted: October 30, 2011 at 02:34 AM (#3982540)
Joe, that's ridiculous.

If I win a million dollars in a bet, I made a good bet*. I can do any number of foolish or useless things with the money - I can leave it in the taxi to the airport - this does not retroactively negate the success of the bet.

*Let's suppose it really was a good bet, not just a lucky stab in the dark.
   57. Der-K's tired of these fruits from poisoned trees Posted: October 30, 2011 at 02:35 AM (#3982541)
And I am curious what this means for CBW. There must be a pretty good chance that DiPoto brings him along (with a promotion) or he gets promoted by the DBacks given DiPoto's departure. Or is CBW no longer with the DBacks?


He's still there (is now their director of int'l scouting) - and offered this roundup of international signings the other day. (For which I was grateful - I love seeing articles like this.)
   58. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 30, 2011 at 02:56 AM (#3982546)
56 - I've lost track of what you're arguing. The alleged "genius" of dumping Wells was that it provided payroll flexibility to the Jays for future improvements to the ML team. If the Jays were to "pocket the money," as you put it, then that would moot the entire affair.

Beyond that, I've never claimed that dumping Wells wasn't a smart move. My objection is to the absurd notion that dumping Wells counts as a genius move while dumping Napoli doesn't count at all. The way I see it, the Wells/Napoli trade gets an A+ and the Napoli/Francisco trade gets a D or F. Using the example in #56, the Jays won the million dollars but then tossed $900,000 of it down the sewer. They're still ahead, but not by nearly as much as they would have been if they stopped at the Wells-for-Napoli deal.
   59. PreservedFish Posted: October 30, 2011 at 03:10 AM (#3982551)
56 - I've lost track of what you're arguing. The alleged "genius" of dumping Wells was that it provided payroll flexibility to the Jays for future improvements to the ML team.


Yes, and it was a terrific move to do that. If they later squander that flexibility it does not negate the quality of the Wells trade. The Wells trade is not "hypothetically" good, pending future events. It's just good.

If the Jays were to "pocket the money," as you put it, then that would moot the entire affair.


It would change a liability into an asset. The benefits may not be obviously relevant for hot stove talk, but it's still a good move.

Beyond that, I've never claimed that dumping Wells wasn't a smart move. My objection is to the absurd notion that dumping Wells counts as a genius move while dumping Napoli doesn't count at all.


Yes, you're right about this.
   60. Der-K's tired of these fruits from poisoned trees Posted: October 30, 2011 at 03:15 AM (#3982556)
The way I see it, the Wells/Napoli trade gets an A+ and the Napoli/Francisco trade gets a D or F. Using the analogy in #56, the Jays won the million dollars but then tossed $900,000 of it down the sewer.
If I take this literally, I think you're way off on how much better getting rid of Wells was than moving Napoli for Francisco was bad (and I love me some Napoli)... but this comes back to how to value the future payroll savings/flexibility, where we clearly differ.
   61. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 30, 2011 at 03:20 AM (#3982562)
Yes, and it was a terrific move to do that. If they later squander that flexibility it does not negate the quality of the Wells trade. The Wells trade is not "hypothetically" good, pending future events. It's just good.

Well, you've shifted the goalposts again. There's a big difference between dumping Wells for payroll flexibility and dumping Wells to recoup money that's "pocketed" rather than spent to improve the ML team. The former is both smart and good within an MLB context; the latter is only good for Rogers Communications.

If I take this literally, I think you're way off on how much better getting rid of Wells was than moving Napoli for Francisco was bad (and I love me some Napoli)... but this comes back to how to value the future payroll savings/flexibility, where we clearly differ.

It's clearly both subjective and speculative, but judging by the Jays' spending, I'm guessing Napoli's offensive production will be harder for the Jays to replace than it would have been for the Jays to find additional money. As discussed elsewhere, there's simply no evidence that Wells' contract had hamstrung the Jays' baseball operations in any way.
   62. PreservedFish Posted: October 30, 2011 at 03:25 AM (#3982568)
The former is both smart and good within an MLB context;


Now it sounds like you're agreeing with me. What happened to "hypothetically" good?
   63. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: October 30, 2011 at 03:36 AM (#3982574)
The way I see it, the Wells/Napoli trade gets an A+ and the Napoli/Francisco trade gets a D or F. Using the example in #56, the Jays won the million dollars but then tossed $900,000 of it down the sewer. They're still ahead, but not by nearly as much as they would have been if they stopped at the Wells-for-Napoli deal.

I'd say A+++++++, and a C-.

They won more like $120M and tossed $30M in the sewer.
   64. Tripon Posted: October 30, 2011 at 03:43 AM (#3982579)
I gotta find this sewer money.
   65. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 30, 2011 at 03:45 AM (#3982581)
Now it sounds like you're agreeing with me. What happened to "hypothetically" good?

I stand by the "hypothetically." From an accounting standpoint, we won't be able to close the books on the Jays' dumping of Wells for several more years, until after we see what Wells does over the remaining years of his contract and what the Jays do with the payroll flexibility they gained by moving Wells.

Remember, Wells wasn't dumped coming off a -0.3-WAR season like he had in 2011. Wells was coming off a 4.0-WAR season, which made him overpaid but not a net negative to an ML team. If he bounces back to positive territory and the Jays don't spend the savings in a way that produces a net positive above and beyond Wells' production, the whole thing will have been little more than theory.
   66. Der-K's tired of these fruits from poisoned trees Posted: October 30, 2011 at 03:53 AM (#3982584)
I'm judging Napoli based on how he looked going into the season, which isn't quite as rosy as he was talked about in some statcorners (the offensive #s were boosted by partial platooning, there were worries that he might not do well playing everyday, not a good defensive catcher by #s or rep (with the former, I'm mostly thinking wrt game calling / pitch framing). This makes him an upscale Ryan Doumit (albeit better in all respects).
Still thought Toronto erred badly in moving him to Texas, but I understood why they might feel that way. (Whereas the Wells deal was madness. Incidentally, I debit the Angels more than I credit the Jays for that one - that was more dependent on a crazy party to accept the deal than anything else).

Even if I did rate the deals on how Napoli (or Wells or Francisco or...) performed, it nets out - the Jays deal looks that much better for every bit the Rangers deal looks worse.

...the latter is only good for Rogers Communications.

His employer. It's still a feather in his cap, even if they eat the savings. ... even if you bizarrely think that saving money in one deal will have zero impact on his monetary focus for other ones (I presume the Jays have something like a budget).

Anyway, you've heard all this before... I'm not sure why you keep going back to this subject - there are other ways to come down on AA. :)

***

As for the -0.3 v. 4.0 WARs for Wells + the idea that this board (includes me) overvalues future states / the unknown ... I agree, but this trade was absolutely hammered on this site when it went down.
   67. ...and Toronto selects: Troy Tulowitzki Posted: October 30, 2011 at 03:55 AM (#3982586)
"Dumped" Napoli, and all the rest since. Funny thread.
   68. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 30, 2011 at 03:57 AM (#3982587)
They won more like $120M and tossed $30M in the sewer.

First, the Angels reportedly inherited $81M of Wells' contract, not $120M. Second, all we know so far is what happened in 2011: Jays saved ~ $18M by dumping Wells ($23M salary minus $5M sent to LAA) and then lost ~ $22M in surplus production by trading Napoli to Texas. In terms of dollars and cents, Rogers Communications has saved some money thus far, but in terms of wins and losses (and WAR), the Toronto Blue Jays are underwater. Anything beyond 2011 is purely hypothetical.

His employer. It's still a feather in his cap, even if they eat the savings. ... even if you bizarrely think that saving money in one deal will have zero impact on his monetary focus for other ones (I presume the Jays have something like a budget).

I never suggested otherwise, other than in reply to "PreservedFish's" hypothetical about Rogers pocketing the savings (which, as I pointed out, would moot the whole affair from a baseball standpoint).
   69. Der-K's tired of these fruits from poisoned trees Posted: October 30, 2011 at 04:00 AM (#3982588)
   70. ...and Toronto selects: Troy Tulowitzki Posted: October 30, 2011 at 04:02 AM (#3982590)
This week has re-taught us so much. Between this thread and FOX broadcasting, TO lost not only the Rasmus trade, but the Wells/Napoli trade as well. Tough week.
   71. Rally Posted: October 30, 2011 at 04:05 AM (#3982592)
You could trade Vernon Wells for the demon core at Los Alamos and put it in as your shortstop


Is that what Yuniesky Betancourt goes by these days?
   72. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 30, 2011 at 04:16 AM (#3982597)
This week has re-taught us so much. Between this thread and FOX broadcasting, TO lost not only the Rasmus trade, but the Wells/Napoli trade as well. Tough week.

I never said TOR lost the Wells/Napoli trade. I'm simply not burying my head in the sand and pretending the subsequent Napoli/Francisco trade never happened. A few of you in this thread handle accounting like the U.S. Congress: The good stuff counts; the bad stuff is "off budget."
   73. Dr. Vaux Posted: October 30, 2011 at 04:21 AM (#3982599)
The Cardinals radio crew said that they thought Napoli might have been the best player in the AL this year.

They also criticized some bunts and talked about how important it is to take pitches.
   74. ...and Toronto selects: Troy Tulowitzki Posted: October 30, 2011 at 04:32 AM (#3982603)
Well, whom ever your addressing, you would be incorrect to point to me. I merely repeated what the GM has said all along to have it on record or for perspective. AA's just laid out the thinking then of the front office matter-of-factly. He's not, nor feels any need to back away or frame anything in any light. It is what what it was.

When they first had Napoli I was extremely jazzed, wasn't sure how AA planned to get him into the line-up, but figured he had a plan between Lind, Arencibia, Encarnacion and the fact that they'd have no strong defensive catcher in '11 (which managers never sit well with). Not long after he was headed to Texas, and I was bummed.
   75. PreservedFish Posted: October 30, 2011 at 04:40 AM (#3982605)
A few of you in this thread handle accounting like the U.S. Congress: The good stuff counts; the bad stuff is "off budget."


I'm not sure who you're talking about. Nobody was really talking about the aggregate result of the two Napoli trades for Toronto until you brought it up.
   76. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 30, 2011 at 04:51 AM (#3982608)
Not true. I was replying to this in #50:
The deal just to get rid of Wells is enough regardless if Napoli if came back or not. He doesn't see it a "huge goof",
   77. PreservedFish Posted: October 30, 2011 at 05:26 AM (#3982615)
#76 - OK, I think I agree with you. Napoli-Francisco was clearly a "huge goof." On the other hand, I do think that the moves, when considered together, add up to one great move. If the trade was Wells-Francisco, people here still would have called it brilliant, and it would still look terrific today.
   78. Der-K's tired of these fruits from poisoned trees Posted: October 30, 2011 at 07:24 PM (#3982849)
Postscript on CBW / Carlos Gomez....
His situation drew a mention on mlbtraderumors.com / the Arizona Republic today:

"But I don't intend," Towers said, "to lose any department heads, guys like Mike or Ray or Carlos (Gomez, director of international scouting). I want to keep that infrastructure in place."

Dipoto brought Gomez into the organization as a pro scout after the 2007 season and is known to think highly of him. It's expected he would be one of the names he would ask Towers about.

"That'd be a tough one," Towers said. "He's good. International guys are hard to find, especially young guys. He is under contract. I plan on offering him even a second year. That would be tough one to replace. Not that any of them are easy, but international guys are tough to come by. He's already developed a relationship with our scouts down there, with Junior (Noboa). That's not easy to find that person."
   79. Greg K Posted: October 30, 2011 at 08:38 PM (#3982874)
Beyond that, I've never claimed that dumping Wells wasn't a smart move. My objection is to the absurd notion that dumping Wells counts as a genius move while dumping Napoli doesn't count at all.

Does anyone argue this though? As far as I can tell #46 is fairly representative in that it explains AA's logic behind a move that was ultimately a mistake. I may be recalling incorrectly, but the reaction to the trades seemed to be "WOOOOO HOOOOOOO Got rid of Wells, genius", followed by mild disappointment with what the Jays got for Napoli.

Personally I could see the logic of moving Napoli for the reasons outlined above. He wasn't a great fit in Toronto. At the time I didn't think it was a mistake to trade Napoli, I thought it was a mistake to trade Napoli for such a little return. As it turns out I don't think you could have got anything in a trade that would have matched his 2011 production, so in that retrospective sense trading him was a mistake.

As far as I know no one's claimed that the Napoli trade doesn't matter in an evaluation of AA as a GM. I think the Wells trade will have a more positive effect than the Napoli one will have negatively. It at least gives the Jays the option to make good moves, which in isolation makes it a positive. I think the more interesting trade in evaluating AA is going to be the Rasmus one. It certainly looked like genius right off the bat, but by the end of the year the Cardinals are looking like the huge winners of that one. Aside from the pitching the Cards got, especially in the bullpen, giving Rasmus a handful of at bats instead of Jay in the last half could very well have lost them their spot in the playoffs. I'm really curious to see how Rasmus turns out and I think this is the trade that could stand out in AA's resume. Either as a smart GM, or a flash-in-the-pan guy who looked like a genius for a week, but ended up disappointing. My normally pessimistic outlook makes me think Rasmus may never pan out. But considering that the Jays didn't really give up any keys to their future (maybe Rzep), I don't think we'll ever be able to look at the trade as a disaster, just disappointing.
   80. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 30, 2011 at 10:46 PM (#3982927)
Does anyone argue this though? ... As far as I know no one's claimed that the Napoli trade doesn't matter in an evaluation of AA as a GM.

I just quoted one such person in #76, there are several similar comments in the thread, and the other, longer thread a couple weeks ago probably had five or ten people invoking a similar sentiment (the thread in which Anthopoulos was being called "GM of the year" and even "GM of the decade").

Again, I'm not anti-Anthopoulos. I just find some of the analysis of the Jays' 2011 to be oddly selective in nature.
   81. Greg K Posted: October 30, 2011 at 11:06 PM (#3982939)
Maybe I'm being too generous but I read that as

Wells trade - positive
Napoli trade - negative
Net Wells/Napoli trades - positive (though less positive)

GM of the year would be an interesting argument (I don't even know how you would decide something like that. Does a GM win the award because some draft picks he made 3 years ago pan out this year? Or because he made a big trade that we think is likely to pay off 3 years from now? Because they are working in such long terms I think it's almost impossible to say how good a GM has been in any one year). GM of the decade is obviously crazy at this point. I will say AA gets my vote for most EXCITING GM of the year.

I think the selectivity comes from the fact that the Wells trade (or to a lesser extent the Rasmus trade) were out of nowhere surprises. And in the case of Wells highly unlikely as he topped most "untradeable" lists. The Napoli trade was just a garden variety bad trade, lost in the shadow of the big Wells one, and was also overshadowed by the whole Angels-Rangers narrative. ie. trading Napoli hurt the Angels more because had they not done that they could conceivably stayed in the division hunt, whereas for the Jays it was the difference between 81 wins and 4th place and 85 wins and 4th place. None of which are GOOD reasons to ignore the fact that AA made a bad trade, but just explanations.
   82. ...and Toronto selects: Troy Tulowitzki Posted: October 30, 2011 at 11:44 PM (#3982950)
The Rasmus deal is a good one regardless of how he turns out. Joe Kehoskie apparently wouldn't see it that way down the road based on how he views the Napoli deal in hindsight. Anthopoulos has said to compete with Boston & NY annually he needs to have near All-star level players at every position on the field (or something said similar to that). I believe he's also on record as saying that if he has to take some gambles/chances to acquire high upside guys, he will. He did what he could to acquire Rasmus at a point when his value was low and he/they might have been available (as was done with Escobar, Lawrie sorta too maybe). AA can't or won't to this point in his Jays rebuild do a Boston type deal to acquire established superstars like Adrian Gonzalez, where numerous excellent prospects & huge $$$ are required.

I guess what I was saying earlier is that I really don't care what came of whomever was acquired for Wells. The incredible thing was just being able to get rid of him and that contract which was thought unimaginable by EVERYONE. That feat, as with Rios in '09, is too good to be true, anything else to me, is a bonus. Again, I wished then that Napoli would have been kept. I have never cared for Lind as one of your main thumpers and personally would have preferred AA flip him and make Napoli a 1B, but that's not what he wanted at the time (plus he needed relief guys, and loves hoarding draft picks, etc).
   83. PreservedFish Posted: October 31, 2011 at 12:42 AM (#3982977)
The Rasmus deal is a good one regardless of how he turns out. Joe Kehoskie apparently wouldn't see it that way down the road based on how he views the Napoli deal in hindsight.


This is something I forgot to mention last night. It just popped into my head this morning.

On this site, for better or for worse, people tend to evaluate trades based on how they looked the day that they were made. I myself think like this a lot.

If Scott Kazmir fell apart with the Rays, and Victor Zambrano turned in a bunch of nice seasons for the Mets, the BTF spin on that trade would probably be: the Mets made a horrible trade, but they were lucky and it turned out great for them.

You're probably aware of this. The analogy would be: if you pinch hit Rafael Belliard for Barry Bonds, you've made a bad move, even if Belliard hits a homerun.
   84. PreservedFish Posted: October 31, 2011 at 12:44 AM (#3982978)
Also, that stuff about Carlos Gomez is incredible. I had no idea he had risen so far in that organization already. I can't wait until he's a GM and we all know that he's reading the Transaction Oracle comment threads on his moves.
   85. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: October 31, 2011 at 12:48 AM (#3982981)
First, the Angels reportedly inherited $81M of Wells' contract, not $120M. Second, all we know so far is what happened in 2011: Jays saved ~ $18M by dumping Wells ($23M salary minus $5M sent to LAA) and then lost ~ $22M in surplus production by trading Napoli to Texas. In terms of dollars and cents, Rogers Communications has saved some money thus far, but in terms of wins and losses (and WAR), the Toronto Blue Jays are underwater. Anything beyond 2011 is purely hypothetical.


I was valuing the Wells contract at ~$85M and Napoli and Rivera at $35M. The $30M they threw in the sewer was Napoli.

If they sent $5M to LAA and you want to value Rivera at zero, make it $110M gained, $30M thrown away.
   86. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 31, 2011 at 12:50 AM (#3982983)
The Rasmus deal is a good one regardless of how he turns out. Joe Kehoskie apparently wouldn't see it that way down the road based on how he views the Napoli deal in hindsight.

There was no hindsight needed on the Napoli trade. Trading an impact bat for a reliever was a bad move long before Napoli's stock jumped even higher in 2011. I thought it's been gospel around here for years that RPs are fungible, so the whole debate is kind of strange.

Anyway, the analysis in #82 is more of the same selective accounting:

- Trading Wells for payroll flexibility that might pay off = great.
- Trading actual ML players for Rasmus, who might become a star = great.
- Trading an actual, current ML impact bat (Napoli) for an RP and losing ~ $22M in surplus 2011 production = mildly bad (or even, who cares?)

I'm all for being an optimist, but it's kind of bizarre the extent to which people here seem to assume the same team that gave away Napoli will take the savings from Wells and turn it into a treasure trove of WAR. As I've said before, I'm not anti-Jays or anti-Anthopoulos, but I'm not going to hand out "GM of the year" or "GM of the decade" trophies based on theory or process, especially when the Jays regressed in the W-L column in 2011 and project, as of today, as a 4th-place team again in 2012.
   87. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 31, 2011 at 01:10 AM (#3982993)
I was valuing the Wells contract at ~$85M and Napoli and Rivera at $35M. The $30M they threw in the sewer was Napoli.

If they sent $5M to LAA and you want to value Rivera at zero, make it $110M gained, $30M thrown away.

I'm not sure I understand this accounting. As I said in #68, we can only really close the books on 2011. The future accounting is a combination of theory and TBD.
   88. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: October 31, 2011 at 01:31 AM (#3983003)
I'm not sure I understand this accounting. As I said in #68, we can only really close the books on 2011. The future accounting is a combination of theory and TBD.

Wells contract was considered un-tradable. You couldn't give it away. Therefore, getting rid of it should be worth the full value.

Napoli's value is of course subject to next year's performance.
   89. ...and Toronto selects: Troy Tulowitzki Posted: October 31, 2011 at 01:35 AM (#3983007)
Anyway, the analysis in #82 is more of the same selective accounting:

- Trading Wells for payroll flexibility that might pay off = great.
- Trading actual ML players for Rasmus, who might become a star = great.
- Trading an actual, current ML impact bat (Napoli) for an RP and losing ~ $22M in surplus 2011 production = mildly bad (or even, who cares?)


Don't address this to me, take this to Alex Anthopoulos. Apparently no trade is worth making unless it's success is guaranteed, and mostly in your teams favor.

There was no hindsight needed on the Napoli trade. Trading an impact bat for a reliever was a bad move long before Napoli's stock jumped even higher in 2011.

Bad move in your eyes, not in Alex Anthopoulos. He apparently acquired an asset, and flipped that for someone he felt his 25 man roster had more of a need for.

I'm all for being an optimist, but it's kind of bizarre the extent to which people here seem to assume the same team that gave away Napoli will take the savings from Wells and turn it into a treasure trove of WAR.

Your are not a avid Jays fan (not sure of your club) so i'll excuse you for sounding out of touch, but you come off as someone who knows very little about the day to day coverage of this team since AA and Paul Beeston came aboard. Your cynicism is very generic my friend. I don't have the time or interest to yammer on and on about this. There's numerous folk that travel in and out of Primer, or DrunkJaysFans.com authors @AndrewStoeten and @dustinparkes or radio guy Mike Wilner (@Wilnerness590) who can more succinctly relieve your concerns. Personally, I have no issues with all elements of the current administration and the club is in far better hands than it was with Ricciardi. I enjoy the credibility and openness this executive exhibits. And whatever successes come next or lack there of, atleast the method and process is one Jays fans seem quite happy with.
   90. ...and Toronto selects: Troy Tulowitzki Posted: October 31, 2011 at 01:42 AM (#3983012)
Friday evening before game 7, Mike Wilner interviewed AA. Towards the end of the audio interview Wilner asked AA about how the Napoli flip came to be. The audio link is at the bottom of his game 7 write-up. If anyone were of interest.

http://blog.rogersbroadcasting.com/mikewilner/2011/10/29/cardinals/
   91. ...and Toronto selects: Troy Tulowitzki Posted: October 31, 2011 at 02:14 AM (#3983031)
And:

I thought it's been gospel around here for years that RPs are fungible, so the whole debate is kind of strange.

Totally. That's one of the great things about the Rasmus trade. Everything AA basically traded away was relief pitchers. 3 of 'em. Two of the three RP's coulda brought suplemental picks next year, but he traded 'em for Rasmus anyways. ;)
   92. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 31, 2011 at 02:25 AM (#3983036)
Don't address this to me, take this to Alex Anthopoulos. Apparently no trade is worth making unless it's success is guaranteed, and mostly in your teams favor.

You're being more than a little inconsistent in your comments here. The Napoli trade clearly fails the logic you used in #82 re: the Rasmus trade. Trading two years of Napoli for one year of an RP and a possible draft pick was a bad idea without any hindsight being necessary.

Sometimes two things can be true at once, but this doesn't seem like one of them. If Daniels and the Rangers were geniuses for acquiring Napoli for an RP, then, almost by definition, it must have been a horrendous trade on the TOR side.

Your are not a avid Jays fan (not sure of your club) so i'll excuse you for sounding out of touch, but you come off as someone who knows very little about the day to day coverage of this team since AA and Paul Beeston came aboard. Your cynicism is very generic my friend.

I guess I must be very out of touch, because I haven't seen any bashing of Anthopoulos anywhere. In fact, it seems like the opposite. (I've said things that I didn't even mean as criticism that drew indignant replies from Jays fans.)

Wells contract was considered un-tradable. You couldn't give it away. Therefore, getting rid of it should be worth the full value.

But "untradeable" and "zero value" are two different things. The Wells contract wasn't popular here, but I don't recall anyone projecting -0.3 WAR in 2011 or for Wells to be a net zero (or net negative) over the last four years of his contract. Highly overpaid, yes; an actual detriment to a team, no.

Totally. That's one of the great things about the Rasmus trade. Everything AA basically traded away was relief pitchers. 3 of 'em. Two of the three RP's coulda brought suplemental picks next year, but he traded 'em for Rasmus anyways. ;)

Well, yeah, but this makes the Napoli deal look all the more worse.

I guess it all comes down to us valuing potential, prospects, and draft picks much differently. I've long believed the latter three are overvalued; others here — and the TOR front office — clearly disagree.
   93. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: October 31, 2011 at 02:29 AM (#3983039)
But "untradeable" and "zero value" are two different things. The Wells contract wasn't popular here, but I don't recall anyone projecting -0.3 WAR in 2011 or for Wells to be a net zero (or net negative) over the last four years of his contract. Highly overpaid, yes; an actual detriment to a team, no.


Well no one saw Napoli producing $20M in surplus value either. Right now, Wells looks to be worthless. Actually, probably negative value since his contract will get him pt over better options.
   94. ...and Toronto selects: Troy Tulowitzki Posted: October 31, 2011 at 03:32 AM (#3983061)
I don't think i'm being inconsistent at all. Especially because i'm offering up barely any of my own views, i'm just repeating AA's details for public consumption. What i've said, is for me personally, I wish they'd kept Napoli then, but oh well, Wells being gone is the real news and awesomeness, so I personally don't call for his head for it, or whatever it is we do in here. Everything else i'm writing is all AA's stuff. But i'm fine with what you're saying here dude and your tone sounds fine too.

I surmise: Going into a season of 162 games a GM needs players, AA needed relievers of good calibre, and those relievers you know will be good currency by July if you're not in contention. So ya, at this point they're even more fungible in July I guess. He mentioned friday night too, that when both Napoli and Francisco were/are available to be free-agents, Francisco gets there in '12, and Napoli in '13. So he'd get the supplemental pick sooner with Francisco. Dude loves his extra #1 round picks. Peace.
   95. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 31, 2011 at 04:02 AM (#3983076)
So he'd get the supplemental pick sooner with Francisco. Dude loves his extra #1 round picks.

No argument about that. I figured getting the comp pick sooner with Francisco was a factor in the deal; interesting that Anthopoulos apparently admitted as much last week (per your recap; I haven't listened to the interview you linked).
   96. Der-K's tired of these fruits from poisoned trees Posted: October 31, 2011 at 04:15 AM (#3983080)
I guess it all comes down to us valuing potential, prospects, and draft picks much differently. I've long believed the latter three are overvalued; others here — and the TOR front office — clearly disagree.


By this board, by the media, or by baseball (the industry)?
I'd guess people on this site probably do overvalue that stuff (again, I include myself here), but that the other parties don't. Important here is how much you discount future success (pretend it's assured for this question) against current success. Franchises last forever (again, let's pretend), but management jobs don't.
   97. ...and Toronto selects: Troy Tulowitzki Posted: October 31, 2011 at 05:09 AM (#3983101)
Ya, he seems to be nothing but a 100% honest guy, with solid intentions for a entire fanbase. No ego. Pragmatic. Takes responsibility for good and the bad. He often talks about it being good if both clubs make out good from trades. That way GM's will always come back and deal with you in the future, no hindrances or some such thinking I guess. Maybe an anti-Beane thing, how he was always lauded and made bigger than life by Prospectus's Transaction Analysis/Primer/Blogs when he'd "fleece" a Baird/Shapiro/Phillips, or whomev. To what degree he actually believes that, who knows, maybe he does have some private Machiavelli moments. Within in his first year GM'ing he openly admitted that he wished they'd have done more research prior to the Reds out bidding him to getting Chapman, he would have felt more comfortable going beyond the $30 million he offered up. I enjoy the honesty. But I value it with anybody.
   98. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 01, 2011 at 12:27 AM (#3983866)
Sorry for the rain delay; this thread was out of sight, out of mind today.
By this board, by the media, or by baseball (the industry)?

I'd say a majority of all three. The media definitely has jumped aboard the scouting-and-development bandwagon in a big way, to the point that teams acquiring A-ball prospects for established major leaguers are often declared a trade's "winner" based simply on potential. Moves that result in extra draft picks are also lauded, despite the relatively low return on comp picks. As for MLB teams, perhaps never before in the game's history have prospects and draft picks been hoarded as much as they are right now.

I'm curious how much of it is true belief within MLB and how much is rooted in self-interest and self-preservation. A GM who takes over and says he intends to win next year puts himself on the firing line in Year 1, while a GM who gets his owner to buy into building through scouting and development basically buys himself four or five years of job security. As such, it's no surprise that the latter has been in vogue in recent years.

Ya, he seems to be nothing but a 100% honest guy, with solid intentions for a entire fanbase. ...

As I've noted in other threads, Anthopoulos does seem to have a unique style when it comes to media relations, etc. I guess GMs are damned if they do and damned if they don't. No one likes tight-lipped, company-line GMs, while GMs who are more open with the media expose themselves to a constant fisking of their comments.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Chicago Joe
for his generous support.

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogYankees, White Sox benches clear after Josh Donaldson calls Tim Anderson 'Jackie' Robinson
(4 - 1:01am, May 22)
Last: geonose

NewsblogSeattle Mariners sign Justin Upton
(3 - 12:55am, May 22)
Last: bookbook

NewsblogRoger Angell, Who Wrote About Baseball With Passion, Dies at 101
(43 - 12:14am, May 22)
Last: Infinite Yost (Voxter)

NewsblogFormer Giants fan-favorite infielder Joe Panik retires from MLB
(10 - 12:00am, May 22)
Last: baxter

Newsblog2022 NBA Playoffs thread
(1703 - 11:40pm, May 21)
Last: spivey

NewsblogWEEKEND OMNICHATTER for May 20-22, 2022
(50 - 10:55pm, May 21)
Last: Tom Nawrocki

Sox TherapyOne Step Forward
(16 - 4:59pm, May 21)
Last: Captain Joe Bivens, Pointless and Wonderful

NewsblogOT Soccer Thread - Crowning Champions and Pro-Rel
(130 - 4:56pm, May 21)
Last: AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale

NewsblogJuan Soto trade rumors: Nationals may be 'motivated' to trade outfielder
(50 - 1:52pm, May 21)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogZach Davies’ estranged wife says MLB pitcher ghosted her for a year
(56 - 12:32pm, May 21)
Last: base ball chick

NewsblogNew York Mets' Max Scherzer out 6-8 weeks with oblique strain
(16 - 12:25pm, May 21)
Last: nick swisher hygiene

NewsblogSports Venues Create Quiet Refuge for Fans with Sensory Needs
(2 - 7:23pm, May 20)
Last: AndrewJ

NewsblogSports teams love crypto. What happens when their sponsor strikes out?
(8 - 6:50pm, May 20)
Last: Tom Nawrocki

NewsblogChris Paddack’s medical red flag killed Mets-Padres deal
(8 - 4:25pm, May 20)
Last: Karl from NY

NewsblogMLB, Not the NBA, Needs Its Own Separate In-Season Tournament
(12 - 12:00pm, May 20)
Last: Buck Coats

Page rendered in 0.9750 seconds
48 querie(s) executed