caulfield12

This whole thing with KW and JR is just to give Williams a BIT of cover with the fans...it's a PR move, pure and simple. KW wasn't likely to be going anywhere because it wasn't such a secret that Ozzie was on his way out...and that one of them had to go. And it's a lot easier to change your manager than your GM (although JR learned a hard lesson with the LaRussa/Harrelson fiasco decades earlier). In the end, KW doesn't connect well with fans. He's not one of them. He's nothing like Bill Veeck. That can be a good thing...it often is. But when times are down, it's certainly not. Because people want to give someone they've grown to feel is "one of them" more time and patience and leeway to fix things in times of struggle. We root for the great comeback story. Some executives have that ability to communicate and be "loved" by the everyday or average people (or fans in the case of sport). In politics, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush had this "charisma" button they could push. Or there are many leaders in the Obama, Romney or John Kerry mode who project the image of "difference/aloofness" that provides them more thin ice to skate on than more instinctive leaders who know how to get people on their side. I think we can all agree that in about 90% of his tenure, Williams has done absolutely the wrong thing in terms of PR and perception, even when he was "right." Frank Thomas, for example. He can't seem to keep his foot out of his mouth. And we had 2 guys like that for the last eight years. It was enough, and it was clearly dysfunctional as a business model going forward. Personally, I hope KW succeeds, because I'm a Sox fan. I've defended most of his moves this past offseason...but, that said, fresh blood in the form of Hahn or any of a number of other candidates out there with a different perspective would suit many of the fanbase just fine. I'd guess very FEW would be upset if KW was out tomorrow, I'll put it that way.

If Tebow and Brady can do it, KW can face the fans at SoxFest for more than one session. For the prices they charge, isn't that part of the intrigue of SoxFest, the possibility you might get your moment in the sun to put him on the hot seat and momentarily hold him accountable in a public setting? How many sessions did he do after the 2005 and 2008 seasons? I'm sure there is a discrepancy. If anything...KW, Boyer, those guys should be even more visible...Rongey, etc., not disappearing from the face of the Earth.

That's where Greg enters the conversation. Ozzie, love him or hate him, comes across as more "real" or more "genuine," he's the guy you would actually prefer to eat at Applebee's or Chili's with, or have a beer with, etc. KW just has that aloof attitude, that cockiness and arrogance...it reminds me of the the comment that came out about not caring about the "really rich" and "really poor" people from the primary season. KW doesn't care about the average Sox fan or message board poster at all. He should be a little more in tune with the fanbase, IMO. He always seems to put his foot in his mouth, and everyone's tired of his "crying poor" act and blaming the fans for not supporting the lousy product which he produced and is responsible for. Not that Hahn is any less arrogant or overconfident or full of himself, they both have that quality, which is probably why they get along so well together, as long as Hahn "stays in his place." Ozzie didn't know how to do that....the last 6 years have been more about proving who's the most important/integral/critical to the organization, Ozzie or Kenny. I've never loved Williams the person, but I at least have to accord him respect for what he did in 2005. But that's where it ends...and six years is now quite a long time ago. The clock is ticking....as Maximus says to Commodus in Gladiator, "the time for honoring yourself will soon be at an end."

QUOTE (Andrew @ Feb 7, 2012 -> 03:35 PM) What? Maybe Stephen Covey or Abraham Lincoln would have been better examples than a "self-help" guru in the Deepak Chopra mode.

The better question is how much do we blame our.... 1) college/high school amateur draft scouts 2) minor league development people (Bell now) 3) major league coaching staff, especially Ozzie and Walker 4) front office, KW and Hahn specifically You can say "the buck stops here" and it's ultimately KW's responsibility, with scouts merely providing advice and counsel, guidance and their combined years of collective wisdom (I think Moneyball suggesting it's 150 years is a bit much, don't remember Abner Doubleday or Alexander Cartwright doing much scouting during the Civil War)...

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Feb 6, 2012 -> 11:23 PM) So pay Mark nearly $15 million a year for the next 4 years so he can be the next Moyer when/if he makes it to 40? Yeah, not very smart. Greg, how has Dye, Jenks and Wise fared since leaving the Sox? About as well as Juan Pierre.

The question isn't what he will do so much, and there's a good possibility he does have a productive couple of seasons....it's that the White Sox can't afford to pay him the rate the Marlins are going forward. That's it. Whether it's fair or right or just that we are losing Mark because of Dunn/Rios/Peavy, it really doesn't matter. If it makes you hate KW because he backed himself into this position by some of his ill-fated moves, then it's up to you if you want to support another team because of your anger/ire with the GM. Or you can be angry with JR and the ownership group/partners for not shelling out the money and putting themselves into a financial straightjacket. I guess the only way to really understand is to play some type of simulation game where you get to be the owner of the White Sox and you have to take out a personal loan/lien on your house in order to keep Mark Buehrle around for 4 more years or you do what's in your financial best interest and let him walk and don't expose yourself to an inordinate degree of financial risk going forward. Basically, KW leveraged the White Sox into upping the payroll to $127-128 million and it's going to take 2-3 more years to completely deleverage....or Rios/Dunn simply performing at the level they're paid to, that would be a nice surprise as well.

Greg Oden also comes to mind...but seems to me the 2nd and 3rd tier players in the NBA have a lot less protection in their contracts than say the 20th-25th players on an MLB roster (if they are veterans).

QUOTE (ptatc @ Feb 6, 2012 -> 11:03 PM) I agree with everything you said but I don't it's a flaw in the KW model as much as it's his philosophy from his point of view. Most prospects don't turn out successfully so if you can package them for someone who has had success, you have a better chance of being good. This is the way KW looks at things. Both philosophies have advantages and disadvantages. I'm not sure there is a "right way to play" the game other than busting your rear all the time. There are many philosphies on the right way. http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ti-femalegm070308 Also thought this article on Kim Ng (even though written 3 1/2 years ago) is quite insightful.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Feb 6, 2012 -> 11:03 PM) I agree with everything you said but I don't it's a flaw in the KW model as much as it's his philosophy from his point of view. Most prospects don't turn out successfully so if you can package them for someone who has had success, you have a better chance of being good. This is the way KW looks at things. Both philosophies have advantages and disadvantages. I'm not sure there is a "right way to play" the game other than busting your rear all the time. There are many philosphies on the right way. SR: I was actually just talking about that with Helen [Zelman; Diamondback's baseball operations assistant] and one of our scouts. In terms of looking at and projecting amateur players, [we often] look at their athleticism, we look at their performance and physical tools, trying to assess whether or not they'll be good professional players. And one of the harder parts is assessing what kind of aptitude they have to learn as they progress up the professional baseball chain. People automatically gravitate to things like, 'What is their GPA at Georgia Tech?' or 'Where did they go to high school and were they on the honor roll?' But sometimes the difference between athletic aptitude, the ability to take something you watch happen, or something the coach asks you to do, and immediately do it, might be different than if you can solve an equation for X. I think this is one of the more interesting quotes in the article....and it really goes to the failures the White Sox have endured with Josh Fields, Borchard, Brian Anderson and all the uncertainty about Beckham's future as well. Then there's that leadership element....the "this player makes the players surrounding him XXX times better just by his presence in the line-up and clubhouse" factor that's so hard to measure accurately. For example, how much will the White Sox miss Mark Buehrle because of that "value-added" element to his game that Greg likes to point out? How much will we suffer when AJ is no longer the full-time catcher? How much did Everett and Rowand provide the team in terms of leadership in 2005? How much did losing Juan Uribe or Joe Crede have to do with our "failures" in 2009-10-11? On the negative side, how much does Rios hurt the team chemistry, above and beyond his actual performance...or even with a manager who was obviously not fully engaged and loyal?

QUOTE (The Baconator @ Feb 6, 2012 -> 09:49 PM) Refinance. Too bad Rios/Dunn/Peavy aren't eligible for TARP financing or the remodified/restructured salary program like SOME homebuyers....we could use the reverse, where instead of modifying the loans to more favorable terms, we could adjust down their contracts based on their underperformance vis a vis expected results. Sometimes you wish MLB was more like the NFL or even the NBA in terms of play for performance.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Feb 6, 2012 -> 09:24 PM) It will be interesting to see his philosophy. KW is as as different as you can get from Schueler who held onto all of his prospects of which most don't turn out. I have a feeling Hahn will be more like KW and trade for established veterans and use the farm system more as trading currency than prospects for the Sox. A little more conservative and risk-averse, I could see their farm system ranking in 12-18 range instead of the bottom 2 or 3 organizations. Of course, a lot of that's going to be determined by how well the team finishes in 2012 and 2013, in terms of slotting and draft position for the first round picks. If we are in the 70's (especially lower 70's) for wins the next two seasons, then it's pretty hard to imagine not improving that farm system...and bringing in Soler or Cespedes would also have a huge impact, obviously. Where KW is 90% MLB results and 10% farm system development, nurturing, I think we'll see more of a 70/30 split in favor of the results at the major league level and balancing payroll/profitability with long-term sustainability. The flaw in the KW model has always been consistency and year to year fluctuations caused by his changing the chemistry and make-up of the roster around so much...and not having a wave of "Sox bred" players being promoted year after year from within, players who have learned to play the game the right way as opposed to learning 90% of it at the major league level, when results always have to be prioritized over teaching/development.

I would imagine his salary is right up there and even ahead of some of the GM's of the bottom 5-7 teams in the majors...that JR has basically promised him an opportunity and that KW will have from 1-3 years to fix things. On the other hand, with how poorly everything's turned out for KW the last 3 seasons, you have to think the luck will start turning his way and that the White Sox will somehow be competitive again by Year 2 or Year 3, in which case he (Hahn) would still be stuck waiting in line for the GM job...or passed over for LaRussa, potentially. The grass is always greener on the other side, though.

Retrench, reload, retool, reboot, renew?

Here is MLBTR’s inaugural list of the top 20 GM candidates in MLB: 1.Jerry Dipoto, Senior VP, Scouting & Player Development, Diamondbacks (former pitcher) 2.Rick Hahn, VP, AGM, White Sox 3.Thad Levine, AGM, Rangers 4.Ben Cherington, Senior VP, AGM, Red Sox (now GM) 5.David Forst, AGM, Athletics 6.Tony LaCava, VP Baseball Operations and AGM, Blue Jays 7.Mike Chernoff, AGM, Indians 8.Bryan Minniti, AGM, Nationals 9.A.J. Preller, Senior Director, Player Personnel, Rangers 10.Kim Ng, MLB (former White Sox, Dodgers exec, only female and Asian-American) 11.DeJon Watson, AGM, Player Development, Dodgers 12.Al Avila, VP, AGM, Tigers (Alex's dad) 13.Damon Oppenheimer, Scouting Director, Yankees 14.Mike Radcliff, Vice President of Player Personnel, Twins (best of the Twins' organization after Ryan, should have been named GM over Smith four years ago) 15.Bill Geivett, Sr. VP Scouting & Player Development, AGM, Rockies 16.John Ricco, VP, AGM, Mets 17.Jeff Kingston, AGM, Mariners 18.Logan White, AGM, Amateur & International Scouting, Dodgers 19.Peter Woodfork, MLB 20.Matt Klentak, Director of Baseball Operations, Orioles Honorable mentions in alphabetical order: Matt Arnold, Director, Pro Scouting (Rays), Jeff Bridich, Senior Director of Baseball Operations (Rockies), John Coppolella, Director of Baseball Administration (Braves), Dan Jennings, VP Player Personnel & AGM (Marlins), Jason McLeod, VP, AGM (Padres), J.J. Picollo, AGM, Scouting & Player Development (Royals), Shiraz Rehman, Director of Player Personnel (Diamondbacks) and Josh Stein, Director of Baseball Operations (Padres). http://www.wetfeet.com/advice-tools/intern...-do-next-summer Saw a lot of similarities (Colombia business school grad) with Shiraz Rehman (I'm assuming he's the only executive with an Arab-American background on the list) and Rick Hahn in terms of their backgrounds and roles with their respective teams. Thought this was very interesting, in light of the conversations that have been so prevalent throughout the offseason. http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=8619 David Laurila: What is your role with the Diamondbacks? Shiraz Rehman: Technically, I'm the Director of Baseball Operations, so I guess that means a lot of work on arbitration, contracts and contract structuring, and some of the negotiations. I do some statistical and financial analysis to help support team decision-making on acquiring players-trading for players, signing new players, etcetera. I kind of oversee our research efforts, and the development of our technological tools that we use across our department. I handle our entry-level hiring. And then, most of my responsibilities on a day-to-day basis revolve around the major league team. That would be major league transactions, waivers and rules compliance, 40-man roster management, etcetera. I work with the major league staff and players to get those kinds of things executed. DL: How would you describe the role analytics play in the organization? SR: I'd say it's rather large. Rather than having this particular discreet department that does analytics for us, which operates in a silo, I think that our goal is that everyone in the front office possesses the ability to sort of blend both the subjective and the objective in their decision-making. We do have certain folks that play more of a role in objective statistical analysis than others, but I'd argue that "analytics" is a term that can apply to any level of information gathering that we undertake, be it scouting, player development, payroll, or specific areas that focus around the major league team and/or game-planning. DL: There is a difference between looking at numbers and looking at the right numbers. How much time goes into parsing out which is which? SR: A tremendous amount, and that's a very good point, because it's typically garbage in and garbage out. I think that in a lot of the research we see, whether it is from the internet, or from ideas that are e-mailed to me, or some of the work that we do, we're careful to evaluate what the data is that we're looking at, rather than just jumping to a conclusion because we see a result and assume that it's 100 percent correct. We're charged with-let's put it this way: Armed with data, intellects do a great job of objectively coming to a conclusion about what happened, which can be particularly useful. What is often our job is to figure out how something happened, and I think that being particular about what numbers, and data, you're using helps you to refine your conclusion in that context. DL: What is your approach to studying predictive data? SR: It obviously depends on the particular task that we're trying to solve. I think that some of the predictive data, in terms of projections, that is out there and available in the marketplace, is pretty good. We kind of use that a fair amount. We're always looking to establish predictive relationships between statistics or trends. I think that's something that is pretty important to us, it just often becomes difficult to tease out which variables end up impacting a particular issue larger than others. Usually it's a pretty multi-varied process that is pretty complex. As with most things, it incorporates both subjective and objective measures. DL: In today's panel discussion, you said that leadership is 98 percent subjective. When you look at certain veteran players around the game, isn't it rather clear that they possess a strong leadership component? SR: I think it's important to draw a distinction between classifying something as subjective, and suggesting it does not exist, because there's no question that certain players provide leadership and help bring out the best in those around them over a long season. I'm not sure about an exact percentage, but the question posed in the discussion was specifically surrounding how you would measure it. I'm not really sure that it is possible, but it is probably one of the areas where we're looking to make more strides as far as analytics. How can we quantify that leadership or team-chemistry quotient? Can we measure it based on the impact, or marginal difference, in other teammates' production when that player is around, on the field or in the game? That's one way we try to do it, but it's a bit of uncharted territory, and as a result provides a good example of decisions we make that rely a little more on our subjective observations. By no means can everything about a player be expressed as a number, and as an industry we must be careful not to exclude a variable from any type of analysis simply because it's the toughest to quantify on paper. DL: Do you feel that a player's impact on his teammates can be quantified? SR: I think it can be, but I haven't seen a definitive, comprehensive way to do it yet. Something that we do a fair amount of trying to understand, even when we were assessing Jon Garland this year, is what that relative impact is. As an example, there's the value of what Jon Garland can bring as a starting pitcher, as a stand-alone asset with what he brings to the table for our team. Secondarily, what is the value of adding those innings into the 14 hundred-plus innings that we'll need over the course of a year, and how does that make our bullpen better, by us arguably having to rely less on them? We look at things like that. DL: Another thing you mentioned in the panel discussion was aptitude versus athletic aptitude. SR: I was actually just talking about that with Helen [Zelman; Diamondback's baseball operations assistant] and one of our scouts. In terms of looking at and projecting amateur players, [we often] look at their athleticism, we look at their performance and physical tools, trying to assess whether or not they'll be good professional players. And one of the harder parts is assessing what kind of aptitude they have to learn as they progress up the professional baseball chain. People automatically gravitate to things like, 'What is their GPA at Georgia Tech?' or 'Where did they go to high school and were they on the honor roll?' But sometimes the difference between athletic aptitude, the ability to take something you watch happen, or something the coach asks you to do, and immediately do it, might be different than if you can solve an equation for X. DL: Do you feel there is such a thing as a "closer mentality"? SR: I think it definitely exists. Some players are simply more armed with the tools and approach that is required to pitch in more leveraged situations. The question that exists in my mind the most would be, "Can it be learned?" Some people would submit to you that it is sort of a binary either-you-have-it-or-you-don't thing. I think it definitely exists, but I wonder if it can be learned, or acquired, over time. DL: Justin Masterson, in Boston, is a good example of a young pitcher whose ultimate role has not been decided. Where do you stand on the relative-value-of-a-starter-versus-a-late-innings-reliever question? SR: I think you make every effort you can to keep a guy who has a chance to be a starter, a starter. As he ascends the development track from A-ball to Double-A to Triple-A to the big leagues, a lot of those answers tend to sort themselves out. I, personally, would always rather have a major league starter than a major league bullpen arm. I think when you get to a Papelbon question, where it's a dominant closer versus a starter, that's a little tougher. But given Masterson's repertoire, with him being a heavy-sinker type guy, he has the possibility to be sort of an innings-eater, ground-ball machine as a starter-to the extent he has enough secondary pitches to get through a lineup two or three times. To me, that has more value than working out of the pen. DL: In looking at the construct of a team, just how important is defense to the Diamondbacks' organization? SR: I think it means a lot. It is one of the frontiers where, when people talk about inefficiencies in the marketplace, it is arguably something that doesn't get priced as well as it could. Whether it is Josh [byrnes'] acquisition of Orlando Hudson three years ago, and the value we got out of that trade, or in understanding the value we receive out of Chris Snyder above and beyond his OPS. Maybe there is an opportunity to acquire guys who are defensively gifted players that the market doesn't value as much as they should. DL: Going by The Fielding Bible rankings, the Diamondbacks were a little below average in team defense last season. How meaningful is that to you? SR: I think that defensive metrics, on the aggregate, have improved significantly in recent times, thanks to the work of John Dewan, Bill James, and others. But in fairness, they are probably still imperfect, and as a result we still rely a fair bit on some of our internal assessments and subjective valuations in that area to come up with a comprehensive look at defense. In that respect, over the last couple of seasons we have been fairly consistently above average in the outfield, and slightly below average around the infield. Ultimately our team defense is of great significance to us, as we take our ability to suppress run-scoring above and beyond the contributions of our pitching staff quite seriously. Both as a young club with some above-average athletes on the field, and in the context of our position in the marketplace, we feel like defense and baserunning are areas that we should excel at, and believe we can do so. DL: Moving over to offense, how concerned are you with the number of strikeouts your third baseman accumulated last season? SR: Well, I don't think Mark [Reynolds] was happy, and I don't think anyone wants to lead the league in strikeouts. Putting the ball in play, especially in two-strike counts, is something that is important on a team basis for us, whether it is Mark, Chris Young, Justin Upton, or any of our players. Still, with a guy like that, sometimes you need to evaluate the damage that he does do with his ability to hit the ball out of the ballpark, which is something we don't necessarily do all that much on an individual basis. But we do look at one through eight in our lineup, and our aggregate power production, and feel pretty good about it. It is a concern for me, but if Mark continues to generate the kind of extra-base power that he does, and can be an average defender at third base on the low end, we're probably willing to live with a guy who strikes out a little bit in the context of our entire club. DL: Looking at player acquisition and in-game strategy on both sides of the ball, how does Chase Field impact the Arizona Diamondbacks? SR: Clearly, Chase Field plays as a rather hitter-friendly atmosphere, arguably one of the most so in Major League Baseball. As a result, we certainly consider that in the context of players we look to acquire-fly-ball/ground-ball rates for pitchers, an ability to keep it in the park. Offensively we look to construct a team that can take advantage of not only a generic offensive advantage, but particularly the large gaps and opportunities for extra bases that exist in our outfield. DL: Looking at your projected starting lineup for 2009, seven of the eight position players are between the ages of 25 and 29. What does that tell us? SR: Probably most importantly, we're fortunate to be in that position, and we feel that is very much an intended outcome of what we are trying to accomplish. But it tells you a few things. One is that the large majority of our position players are still in the up-swing portions of their careers, and as a result we are likely to not be surprised if their actual performance differs rather significantly from their projections at this stage. Second, it is indicative of our attempts at stability in terms of roster construction. Our goal is to put together a group of talented young players at the earlier stages of their careers, and to keep them together throughout at least their years of control with the club. Our belief is that these players are able to grow, assimilate, and improve together, and more importantly are able to contend for a championship every year on a consistent basis, rather than sporadic one-year windows out of every three or four. At our relative payroll level we probably are never going to be huge players in the free-agent market, but we can be selective based on individual needs, [such as] Byrnes, Garland, Lopez, and Gordon. We inherited a talented farm system, but have developed and promoted them aggressively and relatively successfully. On a go-forward basis, drafting and developing to continue to feed the major league roster with a constant influx of young talent is an important focus for us as a group, and the 2009 draft should present us with a good opportunity to add to our inventory.

Well, we have the Phil Rogers hype for Wilkins, only 2+ years away...and a marginal prospect at best. C'mon Cubans, do something.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AkI6...se_draft_020412 Article on the Dominican scouting/talent pool situation....

This just goes to show the value of someone like Uribe that can play all those positions well defensively. Omar couldn't play SS anymore (effectively), and you have the same type of issues with Lillibridge, Escobar, Ozzie Martinez and Kuhn being moved to different infield positions that they're not accustomed as well. For all the Kuhn hype last year, he's still probably more CJ Retherford than Aaron Miles Lite.

Another example here would be developing a lower draft pick (McCarthy) for a first rounder in Danks... Gio was a sandwich pick or second rounder, right? In the end, if we somehow ended up with Soler or Cespedes, everyone would feel much better...even though the odds would seem to be against it at the current moment, with the insane bidding wars taking place over "premium" Cuban talent.

But how can we really say that this Cuban kid for $7 million is clearly going to be better than the lefty we got from the Padres for Quentin (Hernandez)? From everything you read, pretty similar stuff. There's a question about him (our lefty, Pedro Hernandez) ever being more than a loogy or at best, a replacement for Thornton, but that's more money than Joe Borchard and close to Dayan Viciedo territory for someone projected as a back of the rotation starter.

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Feb 3, 2012 -> 06:47 PM) Fewer than I expected too but it makes sense with the contracts. Sold high on Santos and sold probably as high as we could on Quentin. Job well done in my book. But next year we hopefully get to sell higher on Peavy, sell Rios somehow hopefully, and AJ will come off the books. That'll give us a pretty high turnover over a 2-3 year stretch counting Morel, De Aza, Lilli, Viciedo, Flowers and Bacon. Add to that these new pitchers sliding into spots. If our kids start panning out we could be young n stocked for a long time. Not ready to send KW to the firey furnaces yet. Let's all just hope Ozzie was holding everyone back and now we are fixed. With that costly buyout, we're not going to get anything but salary relief and a C prospect for Peavy...unless he pitches like the 2007 version, in which case KW would undoubtedly hold onto him if we were within 5-7 games of first place around the ASB. Rios...who knows, and you're assuming Dunn rebounds as well, yes? If Rios plays at the level he did last year, you're looking at a Zambrano-esque distraction in terms of his behavior/attitude, influence on the clubhouse/chemistry...it might be the biggest challenge for Ventura, how to coax better performances out of the non-performers from last year. There's only so much he can realistically do to "motivate" them, but Ozzie being gone gives everyone a clean slate and do-over from 2011.

Based on expectations, it's hard to be upset with either Humber or Santos. Maybe they "upped the ante" so much in the first half, that their fall offs in the 2nd half created the perception they were disappointments, Santos in particular with the two big blown saves against the Tiggers, which started the Marty campaign against him and his eventually banishment. Joking...well, I'm enjoying a beautiful day in Singapore, there's that. My new favorite country.

How in God's name can the Tigers afford Cespedes as well after signing Fielder? Is Little Caesar's Pizza taking off in profitability in the last 2-3 years?

Because you were one of his only defenders and cheerleaders? Sox Ship Headed Into Headwinds?

No, no, Ozzie simply had to play him, he makes the big bucks. (The Rongey/Dunn argument, along with no player can ever break a slump sitting on the bench.) It's KW's fault for acquiring and thinking he could stand up to full-time play at the leadoff spot and be productive at this point in his career. Ozzie bears no blame or fault here.