This Is What Stand-up GMs Do When They Make Bad Deals
So Jim Hendry made a mistake. Does he blame the fanbase for not helping him make the deal work? No, he works his @$$ off in the off-season---doing nothing else---until he rectifies the mistake. Has he hurt the Cubs somewhat this off-season by being so single minded? Perhaps. But has he earned the respect of Cubs fans and his ownership? You betcha.
The moral for GMDM? Be like JimH in relation to JoseG fiasco. - TL
about 2 years ago
timlacy
59 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Yes, being awesome for one year
is nothing compared to sucking ass for 6 years
quantity > quality
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 18, 2009 3:55 PM EST up reply actions
Also helpful for hiding mistakes
being in the NL Central
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 18, 2009 4:13 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah right. You mean where...
…your mistakes were exposed yearly by La Russa, Duncan, and (formerly) Walt Jocketty, one of the best all-time GMs? Right. … Ah, there’s nothing better than the daily overstatement by devil_fingers. – TL
There is at least one thing better
the weekly embarrassing-at-the-moment-and-will-be-even-moreso-later “analysis” by timlacy
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 18, 2009 5:16 PM EST up reply actions
But seriously, why...
…the hate for GMJH? Did he kill your cat or steal your girlfriend? …Or is it just the usual baseball-statheads-hate-all-GMs kind of thing? – TL
I don't hate him
I just think he’s terrible at his job, and I think there’s plenty of objective evidence for that
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 18, 2009 8:07 PM EST up reply actions
Bradley back in the AL
he will have more opportunities to get Ryan now.
"Things could always be worse." - Buddy Bell
by buddyball on Dec 18, 2009 3:59 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
I don't understand.
You’re saying stand-up GMs respond to bad deals by making another bad deal to make the original bad deal go away?
This space for rent.
by jonfmorse on Dec 18, 2009 4:08 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Meaning, show me the...
…alternative to getting rid of Bradley in light his “performance” in 2009 with the team? – TL
Well without looking at stats, my gut tells me the Cubs got completely hosed
Jack Z probably would have cut Silva. I cannot believe anyone in their right mind traded for him. Silva was more untouchable than Guillen. So for $9M, Jack Z made his problem go away and got a useful player in return. Hendry got bent over, he did not make a good deal.
No.
You underestimate the market for pitcher reclamation projects. JackZ would’ve never had to simply release him. There’s always another Dave Duncan-type coach who thinks he can work wonders. The Cubs have that in Rothschild—-like the Royals have it in McClure. – TL
reclamation projects
cost a spring training invite, a minor league contract, or a cheap incentive laden deal.
doubt there were many takers on a 25 m reclamation project
by wildthang on Dec 18, 2009 7:49 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Exactly.
He was untouchable because of the cost. The Cubs are still paying $15 FREAKING Million for 2 years on him. How bad is that? If he somehow manages to put up 2 WAR for both seasons they would break even. He won’t even sniff 0 WAR, though in the NL he might actually do ok, so maybe it pays off for both sides, but I highly doubt it.
Oh, Tim...
I wouldn’t have traded a used bag of balls and last night’s pizza for Silva. Simply “getting rid” of a player does not automagically create value in the transaction, especially if the player actually has ability.
The problem with Milton Bradley is not that he cannot play baseball. It’s that he’s messed up in the head and hard to get along with. Hendry could have dumped Bradley almost anywhere and managed to get something at least moderately useful; instead, he got a player who is utterly useless. He got hosed. Period.
This space for rent.
Along this line, people have to remember about all contracts signed-
they are guaranteed! Those years tacked on that make the yearly rate look better, they don’t mean a whole lot.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Read the following...
…here. When you say Hendry could’ve obtained a better deal, well, it’s just your word against his. In sum, I’m still fine with GMDM taking cues from Hendry on the honesty-integrity-blaming-himself front. – TL
Hendry gets credit for integrity and accountability here
But he doesn’t get credit for making up for a bad deal with an ok one. He traded a useful, but expensive Bradley for a useless and expensive Silva. He compounded one mistake with another.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 19, 2009 9:01 AM EST up reply actions
TIm, I'll give him credit
for actually getting some salary relief in the deal. On its own, in a vacuum, that would have been a success. And I will give him major credit for standing up and taking the blame for signing Bradley in the first place, and recognizing that he had to get out from under it somehow. But…
The problem is that the relief in question means that instead of being $500K/year more expensive than Bradley, Silva becomes $4M/year cheaper. Only it’s very likely that Bradley will outperform Silva by over $8M over the next two years.
I will say again: Hendry could have done a better deal here. He could have sent Bradley and $10M to a team in return for a couple of AAAA guys, and come out ahead — and there aren’t many teams in baseball who would actually have turned down the chance to get Bradley for — in effect — $6M a year. Instead, he got himself screwed. Okay, so he saves $8M. That’s nice. But he could have saved $10M and got better players.
(I suspect a major hangup in a possible Guillen deal with KC was that Hendry didn’t want to trade one $11M malcontent for another, and there was no way KC was going to send money back. NOT doing a Guillen deal under those circumstances was actually smart, so I’ll give him credit there too.)
This space for rent.
To me, Seattle wins this trade BIG
Seattle had $25m in sunk costs owed to Silva – since he is likely to perform at or below replacement value.
Bradley is due to make $22m over the next two years.
Seattle sent $9m to the Cubs.
Seattle saves $16m ($25m minus $9m sent to Cubs)
Seattle commits to spend $22m on Bradley.
Essentially, they signed Bradley to a 2 year deal for $3m per season. I think that is an appropriate gamble for Bradley – if he stays healthy and under control (admittedly, 2 big ifs), then this represents a STEAL for Seattle.
Now, I don’t know if the Cubs would have turned it down – but I sure would like to hope that Moore at least explored this type of deal dangling Guillen and his mere $12m sunk cost. I hate to be negative, but somehow I doubt he even explored it.
I am really becoming very envious of the Seattle fanbase. I fear the stalemate in the Battle for Grass Creek will soon become a route, with us on the wrong side.
Mr Glass, this is a pro sports team, not a retail store - run it like one!
Maybe Seattle is getting a better player
But they are still paying $15.5MM per year for him ($22MM + $9MM). That’s not necessarily a bargain, but it’s better than paying $12.5MM per year for Silva. The Cubs do not lose this deal, because they end up paying $8MM per year for Silva, which is still overpaying, but it saves them some money and they got rid of a guy they didn’t want on their team.
So either both teams are losers or both teams are winners, but it’s too early to know if one team is going to end up with a better return.
I’d love to see the Royals pull off a ballsy trade like this, but Guillen probably helps a team less than someone like Silva. So, DM would have to eat more money per year in any trade. They Royals can’t afford to take on a bigger contract than the one Guillen has, even in an effort to move Guillen, so I don’t see a trade like this happening. It’s better to just release him. I think we have a better chance of trading Farnsworth or Cruz.
by rph on Dec 18, 2009 7:29 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
No - the cost to the Mariners for Bradley is $6 million for 2 years.
Instead of paying $25 to Silva, they pay $22 to Bradley + $9 to Chicago.
Net difference is $3/year. If it helps, consider that the two teams simply swapped sunk cost obligations, with the Mariners kicking in an extra $9 in the process.
As noted, this is a low risk gamble for the Mariners. Silva was done in Seattle; and he’s likely done as a useful pitcher entirely. His destiny was to either be cut or to take Miguel Batista’s place as the mop up man.
By paying $3/yr more, the Mariners have a chance of turning a totally useless asset into a something of value.
To put it in different terms, it as if you have an overweight, rusted out F-250 that guzzles gas, burns a quart of oil every 25 miles, has blown out tires, ripped upholstery. The radiator leaks, there’s gunk deposits blocking the coolant circulation inside the engine block. The transaxle is shot.
Meanwhile your buddy has an old 911 that hauls ass but every 50 miles of so the steering linkage, causing the vehicle to careen out of control and crash. In between episodes, though, it runs beautifully.
So, you agree to give your buddy the Nova and $1000 in exchange for the Porsche.
by Steve Nelson on Dec 22, 2009 4:28 PM EST up reply actions
So give me a solution
Now that Silva is off the market, what bizarre acquisitions do the Royals need to be making?
After releasing Guillen
How about trading Farnsworth and $5MM to the Rays for Burrell.
No.
We still need various and sundry stiffs and bums for Jack to pawn off on other teams.
And he could start by sending some of the players we don’t send to Seattle in the first place… to Seattle for some of their good players. I mean, it’s not like he can’t swindle their new GM.
This space for rent.
(In fact...
…I think we’d have to keep all the former Braves and Mariners on the roster for that very purpose.)
This space for rent.
by jonfmorse on Dec 18, 2009 11:02 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Silva is replacement level coming off shoulder surgery
Silva does not get strikeouts, gives up home runs, gives up lots of line drives, and does not get groundballs anymore.
His WAR using tRA (which adds line drives allowed and other batted ball data to FIP) is -0.4 over the first two years of his contract.
The Cubs might have saved $6 million over just releasing Bradley, but they are getting no added value to this deal.
a mentor for young up-and-coming hurler ted lilly!
haven’t thought about Lilly in a long time. Weird. Used to really like him.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 18, 2009 9:06 PM EST up reply actions
And, drumroll please, Lilly has...
…been awesome for the Cubs. I never would’ve believed that a fly-ball pitcher would do as well in a HR-nonflyball-friendly park like Wrigley. …But Lilly is a different cat altogether. – TL
He's been really good
that’s why I like him.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 18, 2009 9:35 PM EST up reply actions
it must be Christmas
timlacy and devil_fingers agree on something!
"Things could always be worse." - Buddy Bell
Here's an excellent analysis of...
…the Bradley-Silva transaction and what it means for Jim Hendry. I agree that Hendry will be on a short leash for 2010 because the expensive core of the team has to rebound to make the investments pay off. Because there were injury problems to that core in 2009, i agree that the analysis is incomplete until October 2010. That’s when we’ll have a final analysis on the whole Jim Hendry era.
In the meantime, I still stand by my statement at the top of this post that the Bradley-Silva deal and Hendry’s handling of it provides a solid example for GMDM on what to aim for with Jose Guillen. – TL
Sure, getting something for Guillen would be nice
But Carlos Silva is not something, he’s nothing, and an expensive nothing at that.
Or, perhaps more helpful
A smart GM in this situation would realize that Guillen is Silva , not Bradley
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 20, 2009 9:35 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
This is how GMDM should handle Jose Guillen?
Trade him for a worse player who is also owed a lot of money? Pass. That’s called compounding one error with another.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 21, 2009 1:47 PM EST up reply actions
NYRoyal, you know as well as...
…everyone else that the final story on Silva has not been written. Bradley, however, has had like 9 unexplained lives. But I truly feel that the TX-to-Cubs fall has pretty much ruined him. I’d be surprised if he ever recovers his TX numbers in Seattle. But the scouting reports on Silva this winter have been reasonably good. Sure, he’ll never be worth his numbers. But if he returns to something near his older, successful self, he’ll be a serviceable 5th starter—-even in Wrigley—-so long as Rothschild is Silva’s mentor. – TL
He was never that good to begin with
I don’t know how he fooled people.
His FIP has never been under 4.18 except his very first year with the Phillies which was 84 IP in relief.
He’s basically a league average pitcher at best, and entering his Age 31 season, I wouldn’t bet on him getting better.
He's Fooled People
Who don’t know what FIP is, or even WHIP, K/9 and anything other than W/L and ERA. That’s still a lot of MLB execs. In other words, a few more years of seasoning and he will be ours.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Dec 21, 2009 4:44 PM EST up reply actions
A quick look at a pitcher's WHIP is something I live and die by in fantasy baseball.
Above 1.30, do not want.
1.20-1.30 ok.
Under 1.20, great!
Around 1.00 or better, studly!
Silva is consistently in the “DO NOT WANT!” range. In fact, in the entirety of his career he’s had just 1 season under 1.30, which was 1.17 in 2005 with the Twins. Complete fluke. His BABIP that year was a career low, and his LOB% was a career high! How much luckier can a man get? He parlayed that into being a very, very rich man.
If past performance tells us anything at all about future performance (and it does)
…then Bradley projects to be a useful player (not at his Ranger level, but certainly quite useful), while Silva projects to be useless. You cite good winter scouting reports for Silva? Really? He’s suddenly going to become a different pitcher at age 30? Because of a new jersey, or a new pitching coach? I’m sorry, but that is wishcasting that doesn’t even have a toe in reality.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 21, 2009 5:24 PM EST up reply actions
You really don't,,,
…know what you’re talking about. Read the article: The Cubs have scouted him, he appears healthy this winter, so maybe they can nurse him back to something like his high level. It’s not about age 30, jerseys, or my wishcasting. And new pitching coaches do help. McClure has helped others. So have Rothschild and Duncan. – TL
Ha!
so maybe they can nurse him back to something like his high level
There was never a high level Carlos Silva. There was an extremely lucky Silva in 2005. Every other year he has been below league average.
There was never a high level Carlos Silva. There was an extremely lucky Silva in 2005
Well, the Cubs are known for their great luck and everything breaking just right for them!
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 22, 2009 8:33 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Granted.
But, and this is the beauty of baseball, luck plays some part in every team’s success every year—-from the Yanks down to the Pirates. – TL
at this point it's good to review some basic management theory:
from Winning Decisions:
As I see your arguments above, you are saying in essence that this isn’t a bad deal because the Cubs might get lucky. Personally, I think that as a blueprint for long-term success teams are better of striving for “deserved success” rather than “dumb luck”.
Further, I believe that the heart of much of the criticism of DMGM revolves around the sense that the team is operating with bad process, and that when a measure of success does come due to dumb luck, that will be regarded by many as evidence of good process.
by Steve Nelson on Dec 22, 2009 4:39 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
