Carl Pavano's Contract Is Actually Very Reasonable
by royalsreview on Jan 7, 2009 11:12 PM EST
66 comments
I'd hate to have a new-school GM like Shapiro. When did he ever work for the Braves?
As per Cot's:
- 1 year/$1.5M (2009)
- signed by Cleveland as a free agent 1/6/09
- $5.3M in performance bonuses:
- starts: $0.1M each for 18, 20, 22; $0.2M each for 26, 28; $0.25M for 30; $0.3M for 32; $0.35M each for 33, 34; $0.4M for 35
- innings: $0.1M each for 130, 140, 150; $0.15M each for 160, 170; $0.2M for 180; $0.25M each for 190, 200, 210; $0.3M for 215; $0.4M for 225; $0.5M for 235
(I find it amazing that the MLBPA allows contracts like this, but not pure stats-incentives.)
You know the only comparable deal like this Dayton Moore has made?
The bizarre Ross Gload re-signing and the essentially un-necessary Miguel Olivo deal, two complete non-upside guys at all. If anything, the most reasonable Gload contract would include salary descalators (made that up) if you end up playing him much.
But hey, Olivo's contract was good for a few mid-season bitchfests when Miguel started realizing he wasn't going to hit some of his bonuses, which took everyone's attention off of whatever Jose Guillen was mad about that week.
1 recs |
66 comments
Email
Print
Comments
As I remarked elsewhere, this is a cheap upside deal for CLE (see how hip I am? I just use the acros)
just looking at his RARs (and where the %$#@ did Glass Carl’s 2003 and 2004 come from?), even if Ragu only manages say, to pitching barely above replacement level for 50 innings (say, over 12 starts), and accumulates about 5 runs above replacement, that’s half a win, or about $2.5M in value for the Indians — that’s $1M surplus value and did didn’t even reach his incentives.
Of course, pitching 50 is a real chore for CP, but still… after about 3.5 RAR, it’s all surplus for Cleveland until he hits his incentives, and if he sucks/gets hurt, he won’t reach them anyway, and if he does, he’ll almost certainly be pitching well enough for those to be worth it.
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by devil_fingers on Jan 7, 2009 11:20 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
the more i think about it
its amazing to be that, for such a pitching guru, moore hasn’t tried things like this
for position players, especially non-elite guys like gload and olivo, there’s not much value in them being “dependable” and eating playing time, but for pitchers, where you’re always two injuries from a AA guy making starts for you, a guy can be pretty damn useful just in not sucking and being present
oh well
by royalsreview on Jan 7, 2009 11:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
A few sporadic (but thoughtful) notes:
- What do the Ross Gload and Miguel Olivo contracts have to do with the Indians’ signing of Carl Pavano? Cherry picking acquisitions and contracts never got us anywhere.
- Moore has acquired high-upside guys and then flipped them at the deadline. See Octavio Dotel and David Riske.
- And what does Shapiro’s employment – or non-employment – with the Braves have to do with how our organization is run?
- Will, you seem vividly upset about Jose Guillen’s attitude in the clubhouse. Strange for someone who repeatedly insinuates that such an activity is highly inconsequential. Bias?
Don’t even begin to discuss ‘power arms.’ Brian Bannister? The jettisoning of Mike MacDougal, Ambiorix Burgos, and Andrew Sisco? Meche, Davies, and Tomko are each low-to-mid 90’s guys. Not exactly Denny Bautistas.
As a blogger who has criticized Moore where it is due – sometimes more than so – I’ll just say it. The negativity surrounding this club has gone a bit far this offseason, and it’s evident in this post. Sorry, Will.
by Royals Nation on Jan 7, 2009 11:49 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
+1
Founder of the Johnny Giavotella fan club.
by doublestix on Jan 7, 2009 11:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
some valid points
mostly its january and i’m just messin’ around
specifically on Guillen, you are right, I really don’t care, but when you factor in the reality that he isn’t a good player either, well… whats the point of dealing with him? lastly, as I think i said last year, there’s a distinction to be made between a guy that has problems with the media and a guy who consistently has problems with his teammates and coaches
don’t get me wrong, i DONT think team chemistry gets you more than maybe 1 extra win a year…
by royalsreview on Jan 8, 2009 1:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
OK, I came a little harsh in the response above
I almost always enjoy your analysis, but I thought there were several thoughts in the above post that didn’t make sense.
Re: Guillen, I think a .290/.350/.480 line was a realistic possibility, before last year. Now, admittedly, it’s less realistic. I placed a little extra weight on needing a ‘protection’ bat for the inevitable Gordon/Butler breakthrough, and we needed that bat sooner rather than later. Also, coming off a pathetic 2007 offense, I adopted the ‘We need bats now!’ mentality. In retrospect, yes, Moore would have been smarter to wait….trade Nunez for perhaps a Josh Willingham instead, and then maybe signed Pat Burrell for a 3/22 (something substantially larger than the offer the Rays gave him). If not Burrell, then go hard after and land either Bradley or Dunn.
Either way, it’s an inconvenient situation. Since our budget has increased somewhat this season and because I expect payroll to continue to increase as we move closer to contention, slight overpayments won’t matter as much. I think the Guillen move was correct at the time. Unfortunately, I (and the front office) was wrong. It’s not a damning indictment against them, though, no matter how much some of us want it to be.
by Royals Nation on Jan 8, 2009 1:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
you might be right with Guillen
honestly, until more of the numbers started coming out, i really just viewed him as a meh kinda player, albeit another hacker
we’ll have to see, he’ll be 33 next year… so many outcomes are possible
by royalsreview on Jan 8, 2009 1:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm juss playin
by Official Arrowhead Pride Parade on Jan 8, 2009 11:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oops
Couldn’t embed this gem summing up the situation.
by Official Arrowhead Pride Parade on Jan 8, 2009 11:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Just to nitpick
I don’t recall Riske being flipped.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Jan 8, 2009 11:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
wasn't flipped
but same type of thing.
hey, he got us mike montgomery. that’s probably better than whatever trade offers were on the table anyways.
Founder of the Johnny Giavotella fan club.
by doublestix on Jan 8, 2009 6:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
but the Royals mighta coulda got Miguel Cairo for him!
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by devil_fingers on Jan 8, 2009 6:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
we could use another first baseman!
Founder of the Johnny Giavotella fan club.
by doublestix on Jan 8, 2009 6:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think Vidro's available, I know you're thinking it...
PLATOON!
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by devil_fingers on Jan 8, 2009 6:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Many of Moore's contract have included these kinds of performance incentives
Gload, Olivo, Risk, Yabuta, H. Ramirez.
Those kinds of things are great to include when you can. But players and their agents usually aren’t willing to have so much compensation be conditional. Pavano had to do that because of his horrific, repeated, consistent injury history. It’s not like Moore could do this with every FA he signed, but just decided to guarantee every penny just for fun. You get what you can get in a contract negotiation. That isn’t to say that Moore has done well in every contract negotiation. He clearly hasn’t. But it’s not like players are volunteering to make their compensation conditional on performance.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Jan 7, 2009 11:53 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Ho-Ram will almost certainly out earn pavano
I had no idea his contract had so many bonuses:
- 1 year/$1.8M (2009)
* signed as a free agent by Kansas City 12/11/08
* annual performance bonuses:
o $0.15M each for 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30 starts
o $50,000 each for 185, 190 IP; $0.1M for 200 IP
o $0.1M each for 17, 25, 33, 42, 50 relief appearances
seriously
WHAT THE HELL
who were we bidding against???
by royalsreview on Jan 8, 2009 1:19 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Moore paid too much for H. Ramirez
But do you think no one else was interested in him? Do you think he wouldn’t have gotten more than $1M from any other team? I’m certain he would have. I think we overpaid, but not crazily like we did with Farnsworth.
And yes, I think HoRam will make more than Pavano, because it’s not at all unlikely that Pavano won’t play enough to make any of his performance incentives. For instance, if he goes down with a season ending injury in spring training, he’s going to get $1.5M, compared to HoRam’s, $1.8M+. Would that surprise anyone?
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Jan 8, 2009 1:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
really, for us to speculate is kinda foolhardy
you could easily be right, but i have a hard time just automatically granting that moore only overpaid by 10% or 20% or whatever the case may be
despite all the talk, sometimes we don’t really know what the market actually will spit out… two months ago everyone thought manny would be getting $22 M per… now, it may be half that
ho ram didn’t look like a december signing to me, much less for 2 M (basically)
by royalsreview on Jan 8, 2009 1:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
you could easily be right, but i have a hard time just automatically granting that moore only overpaid by 10% or 20% or whatever the case may be
It’s certainly true that we don’t know. But maybe he overspent by $500K or maybe even $800K. Is that much a big deal for any team? I’m just saying let’s look at the magnitude of the mistake. A one-year deal where he overspent on a player by less than $1M really isn’t that big of a deal. It may offend our sense of efficiency and propriety, but it didn’t really hurt the team.
It is a bad, fairly small element of the larger mistake of an offseason poorly conceived and poorly executed, but on its own merits, it’s a relatively small miss.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Jan 8, 2009 1:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
no, its really not
I class it like the discussions we get into about game tactics from the manager or lineup order: its less important in terms of the actual results than it as an insight into the thought processes of the powers that be
by royalsreview on Jan 8, 2009 1:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think a small one-year contract to HoRam isn't that telling
The big two-year contract to Farnsworth is the more telling and worrisome move.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Jan 8, 2009 1:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My question is this:
Will, what happened tonight to get you so riled all of the sudden? Was it really the Pavano signing? The Royals would likely have had to give him at least $2M guaranteed plus those incentives to get him. Would you really have been happy with the Royals giving $2M guaranteed to a pitcher who will be 33 years old next year and who averaged less than 15 major league innings pitched over the last three years? Not only does no one know if he’ll be healthy or for how long. We also don’t know if his stuff has survived his perpetual injuries. In 2005, his average fastball velocity was 89.4 mph. Last year it was down to 87.9 mph. I really don’t think the potential reward for Pavano is that high, nor do I think he’s a good bet to achieve that upside. And again, it would have been for one non-contending year for the Royals.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Jan 8, 2009 1:59 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
it was seeing the incentives/insurance aspect and a jealousy of Shapiro
remember, I’d latched onto that aspect of the Gload deal during the season, when I started tracking his bonuses
as for if the royals had signed pavano… i really don’t know how i would have reacted… actually, a part of me thinks the royals maybe should go into “win now” mode, if not for next year than certainly for 2010
by royalsreview on Jan 8, 2009 2:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My point isn't really about how you would have reacted
My point is that one shouldn’t think that Pavano is this great gamble of a potentially very high reward. I think the reward is likely limited, even if he’s healthy, and he’s not likely to be healthy enough to realize that upside.
And I understand being jealous of Shaprio. I think he’s a better GM than Moore. But thinking these performance incentives have anything to do with it a little bizarre to me. GM’s do that when they think they can. The give away as little guaranteed money as they can get away with. Usually it isn’t a real option. Sometimes it is. When it is, you go for it.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Jan 8, 2009 2:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The Royals were bidding against the same teams
that passed Horacio Ramirez up as a minor league free agent after Seattle released him and saw him revert into the same crappy pitcher as always after his first 15 innings with the Royals.
by Gopherballs on Jan 8, 2009 11:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Too bad Carl Pavano sucks
I saw maybe 4 of his 7 total starts and the dude was doing it with smoke and mirrors.
He faced the Orioles, Bluejays, and the Rays twice with a start against the Angels thrown in.
With the Orioles and Blue Jays you have two bad offenses and he got away with a nice start from each. The Rays and Angels didn’t let him get passed the 6th inning.
Whatever, guaranteed 1.5 million isn’t bad but he’s not going to be helping the team in any capacity. He’ll have negative value like Lima Time
by Royal from Queens on Jan 7, 2009 11:54 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Rec'd for pegging the snark-meter
That was some serious mega-snark. It would have been more appropriate after Moore did something stupid.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Jan 8, 2009 12:28 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
he did
he just did it a year ago
not saying the complaints were timely…
by royalsreview on Jan 8, 2009 1:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The overall problem with this rant was...
Criticizing Moore for not doing more contracts that involve low base salaries and lots of performance incentives is like criticizing a GM for not signing more good players to league minimum contracts. All GM’s would love to do that. They’d love nothing more than signing good players to contracts with $400K guaranteed with everything else as a performance incentive. It’s just not possible to do that with most players. Players obviously prefer guaranteed money and as much as they can get.
Do you think Shapiro has recognized some great new tactic. “Hey, I can just give these guys a little base pay and make the rest based on them actually playing so if they go down with an injury, we’re not wasting money!”
I’m sure Grady Sizemore’s contract will be just like that.
[new sarcasm font]
Moore does this when he can. Shapiro does this when he can. Don’t you think Shapiro would have loved to make a lot of Wood’s contract performance based? Of course he would, but he couldn’t because he wanted Wood and Wood wanted all of the money guaranteed. So he ended up giving over $20M guaranteed to a closer who isn’t likely to pitch a full season for either year of his contract. That’s how the negotiation goes sometimes.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Jan 8, 2009 1:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wood & Pavano
I see a GM taking smart gambles. There’s upside in both moves, and both contracts are dampened by injury risk.
What did GMDM do this off-season? He went (in his mind) with sure things like ho ram & farnsworth, and didn’t even get them cheaply.
by royalsreview on Jan 8, 2009 1:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ok, so was your post about performance incentives in contracts (which is what it looked like) or that Moore had a bad offseason? It’s clear that Moore had a poor offseason. If you had made that point in your post, I would have readily agreed. But it looked more like “Smart GM’s sign players to contracts with lots of performance incentives to lessen risk. Moore rarely does this, so he’s not a smart GM.” I think your point got a little lost in the snarkfest. Not that I’m against a good snarkfest.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Jan 8, 2009 1:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
honestly, i'm not totally sure, b/c i'm not sure what moore was doing either
seriously, go back to the Gload deal, it gets more baffling with each second glance
now, i suppose the idea was: i want gload back, but am worried about getting out-bid. so, to save some cash, i’ll make it incentive-based
all that just seems like a lot of attention to detail for Gload. As soon as Dayton feared “i might be outbid” that should have been his clue to stop worrying and let it happen. Because there was never, any, reason, to have Gload back in the first place. And that would be just as true as if Gload had hit .320/.400/.450.
Now switch to Shapiro. What I see is a blend of risk assessment, insurance and aggression. I know he’s supposed to be a flake and isn’t super, but there is actually an up-side to Pavano. Clearly, by your logic above, these bonuses are probably the key to getting him as to having someone else sign him.
by royalsreview on Jan 8, 2009 1:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The Pavano deal is actually much better than the Wood deal
[yes, I’ve gone totally to the dark side]
What would you rather have, given your current income, and their relative utility a Gremlin for $1.5 million in payments, or a Trans Am for $20 million?
/Tango
[Side note: The Yankees really should have hired Tom. Tango and Cash would be unstoppable, no?]
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by devil_fingers on Jan 8, 2009 2:38 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
It's late here too, so you're losing me
Crap for little money or something good for too much money. Both seem bad options to me. Tell me why you think one is better than the other. Metaphors are too much for me to understand right now.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Jan 8, 2009 2:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i think the wood signing was probably smarter at the time
than it ended up being, after collusion, errr “the economic downturn” set it and K-rod ended up getting about half of what everyone thought
wood however… i mean his peripherals are sick… sick
by royalsreview on Jan 8, 2009 2:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He's very good when he plays
“when he plays” being the operative phrase. But even if you didn’t know the market was going to lower salaries, is the smartest way to rebuild your bullpen to spend $10M per year for two guaranteed years on a good but usually injured closer?
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Jan 8, 2009 2:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
overpaying for a closer
didn’t you see the half-assed analysis somewhere that Kyle liked so much he hired me?
Let me see…
Replacement level for relievers is 1.07 x league ERA (4.3)
Marcel projects a 3.76 ERA and 3.58 FIP over 61 innings.
ERA-RAR = 5.70, times 1.5 pLI = 8.55
FIP-RAR = 6.94, times 1.5 pLI = 10.41
Using 10 runs = 1 win for simplicity
Market value = (1.04 times 4.84) + .4 replacment salary = $5.43M = $4.6M overpayment for year 1.
somewhere in this thread
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by devil_fingers on Jan 8, 2009 2:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I was just hoping someone would like the "Tango and Cash" comment
basically, even if one thing sucks much worse than the other, if you’re overpaying more for the thing that’s better, it’s the worse deal.
Tango usually uses the real estate metaphor, so:
would you rather have a run-down house for $1.5M, or a nicer house that still isn’t a mansion for $20M?
Or something.
Basically, overpaying is overpaying.
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by devil_fingers on Jan 8, 2009 2:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It was genius
Rarely have I been so bowled over by a pun.
Hmmm, I’m disinclined to argue with Tango, but it seems like if you’re overpaying for crap at one level and overpaying for something good at a higher level, I kind of think I’d rather overpay for the something good. At least in that scenario you’re getting something positive out of the mistake. But I guess Tango’s point is that the smaller dollar value mistake still leaves you with money to do other positive things. I see the point.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Jan 8, 2009 2:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, the truth is somewhere in the middle.
If you pay a replacement level player $800,000 instead of the $400,000 he should make, it is an 100% overpayment. IF you pay $4,400,000 to a player worth 4,000,000, then you overpayed by the same amout, but only paid a 10% overpayment. If you have 25 replacement level players at that price you would pay 10 million extra for a entirely replaceement level team. If you pay 4,400,000 you will have a team that cost 110 million that is 100 million market value above the replacement team. neither team would compete, although a 200 million team that you paid 220 million for might compete. Basically, the higer the WAR of the player, and the higher that teams payroll, the more he is worth (see large market teams), WAR should not be a value of X million per WAR, players that are 3 WAR are worth a lot more then 3 players that are 1 WAR, because they do not take up 3 roster spots! Also, the more talent you have at leauge minimum, the more a WAR free agent is worth to you, because you are closer to competing. In conclusion, WAR is not a very good way to project if you got value from a player, because there are other factors WAR does not account for. It’s sort of like using OPS instead of wOBA. WAR should be a curve, not a straight line, and should be done with respect to payroll for every team, and the teams total current WAR compared to the rest of the division that they are in.
Go Royals!
by BabyBlues on Jan 8, 2009 10:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Will, don't hold back on us
If you really think Moore is this awful it’s time for you to formulate real “Fire Dayton Moore” post.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Jan 8, 2009 1:27 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
a year ago
i thought i was starting to understand moore
he was bland, a boring thinker, but with some definite strengths, my fear was that, given how low the talent base was and the salary limitations, that there was no way his old-school, GM 101 thinking would work (i.e. speed up the middle, power on the corners, etc)
now, i’m legitmately not sure i understand anymore… not saying he 100% sucks or should be gone, just…
i don’t see the wisdom anymore
by royalsreview on Jan 8, 2009 1:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I see the wisdom in his smart moves and the lack of wisdom in his stupid moves
That’s a little obvious, but I’m just saying that the evaluation of any GM includes lots of positive, negative and neutral data points. Moore has had his share of all of the above. I think he’s been pretty close to average, all told (maybe a little above).
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Jan 8, 2009 1:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
we've got Meche, Soria and a series of small victories
he wasn’t dealt a terrible hand, considering the Greinke, Gordon, Butler, Hochevar (I guess) core he had coming in… moreover, he has had a nice secondary core of DDJ, Teahen, Buck, to work with
we’ll have to see how his drafts pan out… that will make or break him
by royalsreview on Jan 8, 2009 1:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He wasn't dealt a terrible hand?
The entirety of the hand he was dealt was shit. He had Greinke, Gordon, Butler, Hochevar and DDJ. DDJ was developing into a sure thing as a good player. Gordon looked like a sure thing, but as a prospect you never know. Same for Butler, but less of a sure thing. Hochevar looked like a good prospect but you really never know about pitchers. That’s not much to work with. The lineup was full of holes. The pitching staff was truly an abomination. The minor league system was bereft of real talent outside of Butler and Gordon: that includes both pitchers and position players. It’s hard to imagine an incoming GM coming into a worse position.
He has had to rebuild a team and an entire minor league organization without the benefit of even some players he could trade for a bunch of good prospects. How many big victories could one expect? He couldn’t get huge victories in trades because he didn’t have much to trade with. He got one big victory and one big failure in free agency. He hasn’t had a whole lot to work with.
So I think he’s roughly average. But complaining that there have only been two big victories is more than a little unrealistic. Would a great GM have been able to pull more rabbits out of his hat and created talent from whole cloth. I think a much better GM would have avoided many of the mistakes that Moore has made, but there have been limited opportunities for big victories given the resources that the Royals have had (both in talent and money).
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Jan 8, 2009 1:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree
The entirety of the hand he was dealt was shit.
I’m not a prospect maven, but I really doubt that it’s entirely common for an incoming GM to inherit a # of potentially elite players like that. What was the system’s BA rank in 06? Top 5? Moreover, the Major League roster really only had one bad contract (Sweeney) and a number of interchangable, cheap guys.
by royalsreview on Jan 8, 2009 2:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
farm system
ya, it ranked high because we had three elite prospects and a couple good ones (Buckner, Lubanski…). beyond that it was complete shit.
Founder of the Johnny Giavotella fan club.
by doublestix on Jan 8, 2009 2:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, I didn't think the Royals system was highly ranked when Moore took over
So I looked up my 2006 BA prospect handbook and the Royals system was ranked 23rd. Of course, the next year it was ranked higher, in part because of some of the moves made by Moore in the summer of 2006.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Jan 8, 2009 5:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There were a few good prospects and that's it in the minor league system
And the only above average player on the major league team was DDJ (with Greinke having the upside to become that). And I don’t think BA had the Royals system ranked in the top 5 going into 2006. The organization was very, very short on talent. And the only really good talent was young talent that you shouldn’t trade for more young talent.
Are you really arguing that Moore had a lot to work with when he got here? Were we following the same team? The major league team and the minor league system were in complete disarray.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Jan 8, 2009 2:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yes, there was no depth
but really, to succeed, its all about producing elite players
that’s why the all-college draft model is being abandoned
imagine taking over, say, Houston next year
that would be much much more difficult
by royalsreview on Jan 8, 2009 2:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ok, so let's look at the core of elite players
So far, only Greinke has turned into that kind of players. Sure they had elite upside potential, but only Greinke has begun to realize that. Gordon has turned into a slightly above average third baseman. Butler continues to remain well below average, but with upside. Hochevar hasn’t been average yet. He looks like he’ll become anywhere from a 2-4 starter.
So it’s not like Moore inherited a few stars, or even guys who became stars since he’s been here. He inherited some upside potential, of which one has become a star and the rest are far from it. So Moore has had to try to build almost an entire team and entire minor league system from scratch. I think he’s done a mediocre job so far, but let’s not pretend that it wasn’t a tough job because he inherited some elite talent. We’re still waiting on that elite talent to arrive.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Jan 8, 2009 2:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
at the time
Greinke was FAR from a sure thing, in fact, was he even here? or taking time off? don’t really recall the timing exactly
meat
by kabrink on Jan 8, 2009 11:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Even I’ll admit one and a half years isn’t really enough time to understand a G.M. I agree with NYRoyal that he’s been a bit above average, thus far. It’s still soon to tell, though. The drafts will count astronomically for or against his favor.
by Royals Nation on Jan 8, 2009 1:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Small correction: two and a half years
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Jan 8, 2009 1:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yea...
we spend 99% of our time talking about the big league moves, but certainly most of them have been really inconsequential
by royalsreview on Jan 8, 2009 2:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Also, it’s probably worth noting that, despite being an astute G.M., Shapiro has also made his share of irrational moves. He often puts himself in a position to not overpay, but not always (Blake & Wood come to the top of my head). He’s done a commendible job building a farm system. You know, our G.M. has done pretty damn well in the draft the last couple years, and has had historical amounts to spend as well.
by Royals Nation on Jan 8, 2009 2:15 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
and there's the awful Hafner deal
which has like a decade remaining
by royalsreview on Jan 8, 2009 2:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
ok, four years left
09:$11.5M,
10:$11.5M,
11:$13M,
12:$13M,
13:$13M club option ($2.75M buyout)
by royalsreview on Jan 8, 2009 2:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Doesn’t Shapiro understand body type and old player vs. young player skills?!!!
Even the best G.M.‘s make faulty or, dare I say it, irrational moves. I have certainly given Moore hardships over both. I still think he underemphasizes certain facets of the game – his priorities of the following appear preliminarily a little out of whack (defense, OBP, bullpen, starting pitching, speed, power). doublestix is correct that a good farm system goes an astronomically long way. Or maybe that’s just self promotion! :) (Kidding)
by Royals Nation on Jan 8, 2009 2:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think this points to the dual nature of the Indians front office
They make some very progressive, new-analysis, sabermetric moves, and they also make some clearly tools-based, old school traditional moves that ignore important principles of new analysis. Their complete failure to recognize the risk that Hafner’s statistical profile, body type and skill set presented shows a significant hole in their analytical/evaluative processes.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Jan 8, 2009 2:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
and they have a caveman manager, that the GM mysteirously loves
the only new school thing Wedge does is not bunt a ton, but, he lets on he wishes he could more, and it is a CONSTANT gripe with the cleveland media
everything else is all grit, tools, magical closers in the 9th and setup men who are much better in the 8th no matter what…
by royalsreview on Jan 8, 2009 2:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, the manager is clearly stuck in the 1970's with most MLB managers
But the front office moves show a real duality, or schizophrenia if you will.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Jan 8, 2009 2:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
truly, and then we you tack on the layer of PR and the way the manager uses the parts...
who knows…
its like how making joe borowski your closer can go from a new school move to an old school one in about six months
by royalsreview on Jan 8, 2009 3:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And I actually think 2/$20M for an oft injured closer wasn't a good deal
I would have hoped that a smart, forward thinking, not entirely traditional GM would see that you don’t need to pay $10M for a closer. But to do that and for a guy who is in his 30’s and who has averaged 37 ip per year over the last 3 years? While win-now moves make sense for the Indians, is that really the best way to spend $10M per year to win now? To say the very least, this was not a shrewd, efficient deal.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Jan 8, 2009 2:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
having lived in cleveland...
i really sometimes wonder if shapiro is limited by ownership from time to time, b/c i found it to be a pretty unsophisticated baseball town… if a player supposedly couldn’t bunt it would be a two day talk radio topic
passionate, but as old-school and generic as they come
there’s also a pretty poisonous environment regarding the economics of baseball, yankee-hating, etc.hating ownership too… probably not too dissimilar to KC
it really would not surprise me if, something like with what happened with sweeney, the hafner deal was a bit of “ok, look, we’ll sign this guy” from ownership and it totally turned out to be just the wrong guy to sign
but here i am, sounding like JoePo on Baird
by royalsreview on Jan 8, 2009 2:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess we'll really only know how good DMGM is
after he gets fired, and we can see which team hires him as an Assistant GM
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by devil_fingers on Jan 8, 2009 2:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How is Kansas City
…..as far as sophisticated-ness among the fans: dedicated and casual together. I’ve heard it regarded as a “blue collar town”, but what does that really mean?
Anyone want to take a jab? I don’t think Will has ever lived in K.C., so maybe someone else can answer. (Or him, I don’t care).
by Royals Nation on Jan 8, 2009 5:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
you mean like giving away Brandon Phillips for nothing!?!
not good…
Founder of the Johnny Giavotella fan club.
by doublestix on Jan 8, 2009 2:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Royals Review
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
