Breathability: Not a Word, But a Concept
I have developed a theory over the last few months that I really wish someone in the Royals' front office shared with me, or at the very least, understood. The theory? System breathability.
I briefly shared this theory in a fanshot earlier today discussing the Royals' bullpen options.
Let's get one thing straight: this is a lost season. For the Royals to contend, they need sustained over-production from players that Dayton Moore acquired in the off-season. Right now, they are actually getting that, but the bullpen has managed to flush all of it down the drain, so regression is likely impending. If (and that's a huge if) the bullpen settles in and gives the rest of the team a little support and the "singles assault" continues, the season for the R's could be somewhat entertaining, but I would venture to say most competent baseball fans see that possibility as vastly improbable.
So as a general manager, if you could lay the ground-work for a competitive team in upcoming seasons and concurrently sell tickets for the present season, wouldn't you make that move? For me, it would be a no-brainer.
Here is what I am suggesting: use the weapons you already have in the farm system and save your money for precise strategic moves. Then fill any holes that become obvious over the course of a season with that saved cash.
Players that perform at or around replacement level that are seasoned enough to justify such a move have the following pros: 1) they are young and almost always have upside, 2) they're "homers" and fans love homers; they will come to watch them develop, 3) value; because they don't have established tenure at the highest level, they come cheap.
Now, there's one last pro I'd like to add to that list that may not be as obvious to the average baseball fan and is certainly not obvious to the "conventional wisdom" of baseball. This is where my theory comes into the equation. I'll pose this question: if the Royals filled roster spots at the top of the organization with young farm guys (i.e. Mike Aviles, Kila Ka`aihue, Mitch Maier, Brayan Pena, Chris Hayes, Blake Wood, Bryan Bullington, Carlos Rosa, Irving Falu, Wilson Betemit, etc.) instead of bringing in "veterans", wouldn't it allow more young farmhands either a) to develop more quickly or b) a chance to prove themselves on the field at a higher level that they might not otherwise have? I believe the simple and concise answer is, "yes".
This might not be a move you make any other year, but in a year when things need to be shaken up, letting the system "breathe" would be one way to do it.
Thoughts?
31 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I often feel the same way, wrt money
and I see it from time to time mentioned on baseball sites, that is to say the idea of saving money one season, to spend it the next
unfortunately, for whatever reason, teams just NEVER seem to do this. I literally cannot think of a single instance of this happening.
anyway, I’m tempted to say that the Royals could still call up and play some of the guys you mentioned later this season, but i’m not expecting it
budgeting guys won't let them do it
you have X dollars to spend this year, and if you don’t spend it, it just gets declared as profits and taken out of the company
-
Right
There is a similar problem with budgeting in the American government. Departments spend every cent of the money they are apportioned because if they don’t, the budget committee will just give them less money the next year. In order to stay relevant, every department has to spend more and more.
by Soria's Unibrow on Apr 15, 2010 1:41 AM EDT up reply actions
I think you're referring
to surplus. At the end of a fiscal year, a company, government agency or institution often takes a percentage of what went unused (surplus) and gives management/officials a bonus and uses that number to set the budget for the next fiscal year.
But….
The baseball season is not 365 days long. In fact, there is time before and after the season when moves can be made to utilize any unspent money. Why is it absolutely necessary to spend it all leading into the season? Maybe that’s the part I’m missing.
by i before e except after Grrr on Apr 15, 2010 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions
See:
The Office (Season 5; Episode 9)
by i before e except after Grrr on Apr 15, 2010 5:43 PM EDT up reply actions
But there are no stockholders with the Royals
Why can’t the profits of one year be plunged the next year as a capital investment?
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Makes perfect sense
Soren Petro has been beating that drum for years now.
We always did feel the same, We just saw it from a different point of view, Tangled up in blue.
-Bob Dylan
by Royal Kingdom on Apr 15, 2010 10:09 AM EDT up reply actions
Assuming it's true
this is where the old “Glass can’t profit if he sells the team” provision comes into play. If he knows he’s not getting a windfall on the day he sells, then isn’t he motivated to take as much cash as annual profit as he can before he does sell? Again, if true, this is another reason why such a provision was completely asinine.
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
"I was doing this when BJ was in his father's nutsack." -Renzo Gracie
by Sweep_the_Leg on Apr 15, 2010 10:22 AM EDT up reply actions
+1
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Apr 15, 2010 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions
A comment about budgeting from one accountant
In what world does it make sense to have an annual budget, when your assets will be expended over a considerably longer time span?
I have always argued for rolling budgets for baseball teams; i.e., give the GM a set amount over x number of years – and the timeframe (“x”) should be tied in some fashion to whatever “plan” or “process” the GM envisions for developing a champion. This way, wins can theoretically maximized at the point for which they produce the most revenue; i.e., the GM must incorporate the “value added” analysis of each win as compared to the cost of producing each win. In other words, a win that moves you from 88 to 89 wins is FAR more valuable than one that moves you from 75 wins to 76 wins.
This approach is not needed in Boston, New York, Chicago, LA, etc. – but to me, makes a whole hell of a lot of sense in a small market such as KC.
Small ball - that was a good plan in 1910, not 2010. Thanks, Dayton.
It makes sense
if your primary motivation is deploying a long-term, winning strategy that builds the innate, unrealized value of your franchise. If you’re restricted from ever realizing that increase in value (as Glass apparently is), then your primary motivation is probably going to be simply maximizing your operating profits from year-to-year. Any money you set back for “capital improvements” in MLB payroll or otherwise, is a risky play, as you may not see enough operating profit in the next year or two years to see enough of a return on the investment.
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
"I was doing this when BJ was in his father's nutsack." -Renzo Gracie
by Sweep_the_Leg on Apr 15, 2010 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions
But wouldn't he ultimately see a bigger return on his investment if the team had successive good seasons?
It would be a risk, but unless he’s planning on selling in the near future, isn’t he going to make more money if the team is pulling in more money consistently? I’d think it would be a risk worth taking for at least a couple years which could then be recouped in the years after even if the plan didn’t work.
But of course my credit card bills prove I’m a financial idiot, so maybe I don’t know what I’m talking about.
You have to have an annual budget don't you?
What “asset” exists—whether baseball-related or not—that isn’t expended over a timespan longer than a year? A budget is simply a guide, anyway, isn’t it? It’s my understanding that incentive bonuses are placed in a salary contract in order to create a quasi-rolling budget. Maybe I’m not quite understanding what you mean, but I definitely agree that
the GM must incorporate “value added” analysis of each win as compared to the cost of producing each win, whether that be with an incentives-laden contract or a “rolling budget”.
by i before e except after Grrr on Apr 15, 2010 6:30 PM EDT up reply actions
what if you went straight up incentive-based contracts for the entire team.
choose you metrics, then let everyone get paid for what they produce. how crazy would that be? a base salary based on your fielding and other “intangibles.”
then everyone gets the same bonus for a hit, hr, walk, etc.
Really not a bad idea!
by i before e except after Grrr on Apr 16, 2010 11:55 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Also not a word
But I’m almost certain it’s been trademarked and/or patented.
And yes, I’m almost certain there’s no shortage of that in KC.
by i before e except after Grrr on Apr 15, 2010 5:41 PM EDT up reply actions
why
Why would we want to spend our time seeing if our prospects work out when we can instead sign more expensive reruns we know won’t work out?
At least Wally Joyner's not on the team....
by tcon125 on Apr 15, 2010 1:28 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
Now You're Talking
Some sense.
Sincerely,
Dayton
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Apr 15, 2010 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions
The fact that this FO is inclined to allow players to prove themselves
in AAA before promoting them to the big leagues is one of the few things they do that I really like.
Baird was the king of the ‘AA jump to MLB shorten the learning curve’ promotion, but what ended up happening is that you’d get sub-par performances and from the players who would be good, you either chipped away at their confidence or started their arb clock early.
As a fan, it’s less fun to look at minor league boxscores than to watch prospects at the MLB level, but in the long run, I think it makes sense to establish a policy that if you want to make the MLB team from the Royals minor leagues, you’ll have to perform well at the highest levels in the minor leagues.
Now, if your’e not a Royals minor league prospect, you can apparently make the Royals roster any number of ways. My personal favorite would be to put up a 4.5 ERA in AAA as a reliever in the Rangers system.
by kcdc1 on Apr 15, 2010 4:19 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
Okay...
What about guys who have proved themselves and still don’t get a shot? Has Kila not proved he deserves to be on the 25-man? Have Aviles and MITCH not proved they should be starting? Has [pick a farm system reliever] not proved he deserves a spot in the bullpen over [pick a KC bullpen reliever save Soria (pun intended)].
I mean, I agree with you to some degree. I think it’s great that the Royals did not cave to the temptation to put Crow in the rotation. There are some things they do right; but the fact that there are several position players and pitchers sitting in the minors right now who have done enough is practically inarguable.
by i before e except after Grrr on Apr 15, 2010 5:51 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Oh and
rec’d because of
Now, if your’e not a Royals minor league prospect, you can apparently make the Royals roster any number of ways. My personal favorite would be to put up a 4.5 ERA in AAA as a reliever in the Rangers system.
by i before e except after Grrr on Apr 15, 2010 6:17 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
rec'd because of
rec’d because of
Now, if your’e not a Royals minor league prospect, you can apparently make the Royals roster any number of ways. My personal favorite would be to put up a 4.5 ERA in AAA as a reliever in the Rangers system.
I thought this might generate a little more
conversation and controversy, but maybe it didn’t make sense to people.
Generalized heavily, here’s an example of how I thought it might pan out: Let’s say (leaving the pitchers out of the discussion for time’s sake) Podz, Ankiel, Kendall, Getz and Fields all disappeared along with their salaries and Yuni and Guillen are DFA’d (with or without salary; who cares anyway?) In their place respectively, you have Maier, Falu, B. Pena (backed up by whoever the next best catcher is), Callaspo, Aviles and Kila and then a couple of utility back-ups. Betemit and someone else who I can’t recall at the moment I think would be the best options. Moves like this could drop the team salary from roughly 70 mil to somewhere between 55 and 60 mil (a complete shot in the dark and assuming similar moves with the pitchers).
Okay now… I would venture to say you will get good to average production from these guys and the ones you don’t get production from are the holes you target with with 10 to 15 mil you save. So you are getting huge value from the one’s who prove to be successful and you spend money on big names to fill the void created by the ones who aren’t as successful.
Obviously, there are factors that come into play like free agency, no-trade clauses, remaining minor league options, organizational budget, etc. But the general concept is there.
by i before e except after Grrr on Apr 15, 2010 6:15 PM EDT reply actions
sure, it sounds easy
we’ve all been talking about this type of thing for a long time.
I just wonder if it’s not much easier said than done—if there’re a lot more variables to which we ain’t privy.
yeah, i really think it comes down to glass wanted to perform as best as he can each year
it doesn’t make sense to us, but whatevs…. that’s just the way it is

by 






















