Paul DePodesta to be Fired

[DBAHO]

Wow, and to think they only won the division there in 2004.

 

The Dodgers are set to fire general manager Paul DePodesta, highly placed sources in the organization told the Los Angeles Times.

DePodesta was just such a moron to let Adrian Beltre, Steve Finley, Shawn Green and Alex Cora go. Sure, the Dodgers wouldn't have had any better of a record if they had been kept and would be in worse position entering 2006, but the press would be content and that's what matters. Not only is DePodesta being terminated after just two seasons, but in the first of those seasons, his team won the division. If the Dodgers can replace DePodesta with Pat Gillick, they'd likely be OK. They'll probably hire someone a lot worse. Oct. 29 - 3:47 am et

 

http://www.latimes.com/sports/baseball/mlb...&track=morenews

[Milkman delivers]

Wow, a moron? That's pretty harsh.

[DonkeyKongerko]

Maybe the success of the Angels is making them a bit desperate?

[Gene Honda Civic]

I thought he was gonna get the axe this season. They just got him a little early.

[Punch and Judy Garland]

Depodesta was in over his head. The Dodgers are a mess right now. The JD Drew acquisition was brutal and trading for Milton Bradley showed that he placed little value on chemistry. Even Gagne wants out of there now. With Weaver ready to bolt, this team has a bleak outlook for 06. They ran a very good manager out of town, that is pretty common with Saber-gm's too. Depodesta needs to go.

[Rex Hudler]

I'll echo your sentiments punch....

 

Perhaps they just realize that DePodesta wasn't cut out for it. I am sure the Angels success didn't help him. But the fact is, that when they fired Dan Evans, the Dodgers were headed in the right direction. It seems to me that as of today, they are not.

 

On a side note.....

 

The Sox WS win seems to me to disprove much of what the Moneyballers professed. The Sox stole bases, they bunted, their team was greater than sum of its parts. I think most anyone who followed the Sox this year would now agree that chemistry, while not everything, certainly makes a difference in winning and losing. You can't base a team of human beings on strictly numbers.

 

I wonder how Billy Beane feels now after watching the guy he gave up, basically as a throw-in, become a dominant reliever helping the Sox win the WS?? A left-handed reliever at that.

[Jimbo's Drinker]

Theo epstein in LA??

[Punch and Judy Garland]

I think, or at least it seems reasonable to me, that McCourt would go away from a moneyball gm here. Kind of like how you only replace fiery managers with laidback guys and vice-versa.

[Punch and Judy Garland]

BTW

[CWSGuy406]

The Sox WS win seems to me to disprove much of what the Moneyballers professed.  The Sox stole bases, they bunted, their team was greater than sum of its parts.  I think most anyone who followed the Sox this year would now agree that chemistry, while not everything, certainly makes a difference in winning and losing.  You can't base a team of human beings on strictly numbers.

 

Actually, the White Sox and Athletics were awfully similar this year. Offensive theories aside...

 

-Both ranked near the top of the league in team defense -- Defensive Efficiency, which I believe is the number of balls in play converted into outs, had Oakland and the Sox ranked #1 and #2. I think defense is going to start becoming very popular amongst the saber-oriented teams, especially as better ways of valuing it begin to emerge.

 

-Both ranked near the top of the leagues in pitching. Both teams carried five above average starters, along with a dominant closer (Street vs. Hermy/Jenks) and setup man (Duchscherer vs. Cotts & Politte). Of course, in both cases, we were slightly better (starting pitching) or deeper (bullpen).

 

-And, finally, neither offense were very good. Oakland scored 30 more runs than the Sox scored. Both teams were able to be in their respective positions because of strong pitching and superb defenses behind them.

 

 

I am, however, a little surprised by the DePodesta decision. I don't know how to judge his offseason moves -- the main guys he brought in didn't do terribly (Kent, Lowe, and Drew were all very good -- you can argue about Drew, but still, a HBP on the wrist? Maybe if he strained a hammy in the OF, but a HBP strikes me as sort of a freak incident), and the guys he let go, for the most part, were awful (Finley and Beltre were awful, but Green was pretty good -- although, the Dodgers have their future catcher now).

 

I don't know, regardless of whether or not you think sabermetrics is the way to go, or whether or not you think DePo is a good GM -- the axe after two years, one of which was a playoff year? Seems harsh to me, but that's the way it is, I guess.

[Punch and Judy Garland]

Actually, the White Sox and Athletics were awfully similar this year.  Offensive theories aside...

 

-Both ranked near the top of the league in team defense -- Defensive Efficiency, which I believe is the number of balls in play converted into outs, had Oakland and the Sox ranked #1 and #2.  I think defense is going to start becoming very popular amongst the saber-oriented teams, especially as better ways of valuing it begin to emerge.

 

-Both ranked near the top of the leagues in pitching.  Both teams carried five above average starters, along with a dominant closer (Street vs. Hermy/Jenks) and setup man (Duchscherer vs. Cotts & Politte).  Of course, in both cases, we were slightly better (starting pitching) or deeper (bullpen).

 

-And, finally, neither offense were very good.  Oakland scored 30 more runs than the Sox scored.  Both teams were able to be in their respective positions because of strong pitching and superb defenses behind them.

I am, however, a little surprised by the DePodesta decision.  I don't know how to judge his offseason moves -- the main guys he brought in didn't do terribly (Kent, Lowe, and Drew were all very good -- you can argue about Drew, but still, a HBP on the wrist?  Maybe if he strained a hammy in the OF, but a HBP strikes me as sort of a freak incident), and the guys he let go, for the most part, were awful (Finley and Beltre were awful, but Green was pretty good -- although, the Dodgers have their future catcher now).

 

I don't know, regardless of whether or not you think sabermetrics is the way to go, or whether or not you think DePo is a good GM -- the axe after two years, one of which was a playoff year?  Seems harsh to me, but that's the way it is, I guess.

 

 

There was a mutiny this year in LA and the GM has to be accountable for that. Normally, you would say the manager but the GM brought those guys in and the team knew that the GM wanted the manager gone. Gammons hypothesizes that Orel and Bobby V are possibilities for LA. I think Bobby V would be an excellent choice. He's not an LA guy but he'd bring something the Dodgers have lacked. Lastly, after reading Three Nights in August and hearing about JD in Atlanta, I'd have no interest in him on my team-stats be damned

[CWSGuy406]

There was a mutiny this year in LA and the GM has to be accountable for that. Normally, you would say the manager but the GM brought those guys in and the team knew that the GM wanted the manager gone. Gammons hypothesizes that Orel and Bobby V are possibilities for LA. I think Bobby V would be an excellent choice. He's not an LA guy but he'd bring something the Dodgers have lacked.  Lastly, after reading Three Nights in August and hearing about JD in Atlanta, I'd have no interest in him on my team-stats be damned

 

The whole situation in LA is screwed up. There's rumblings about how McCourt didn't want the guy that DePo wanted (Collins), and how DePo didn't meet face-to-face with Hershiser (sp?). Plus, the media out there pretty much despised DePodesta the day he was hired -- that doesn't help, either.

 

Either way, though, you can't say that two years is enough to judge a GM. It wasn't even two years, though -- he didn't even get the 2003-2004 off-season -- the only moves he really made were trading for Milton Bradley, and the 2004 deadline moves of Penny/LoDuca and Finley/(whomever). And, of course, his 2005 moves.

 

Personally, just from reading about DePodesta, I don't think he's a very good 'people' person, and I think that's killing him. But, again -- that's just what I've read, which, admittedly, isn't enough to make a full-fledged stance on either side. I just believe that two years really isn't enough.

[Punch and Judy Garland]

The whole situation in LA is screwed up.  There's rumblings about how McCourt didn't want the guy that DePo wanted (Collins), and how DePo didn't meet face-to-face with Hershiser (sp?).  Plus, the media out there pretty much despised DePodesta the day he was hired -- that doesn't help, either.

 

Either way, though, you can't say that two years is enough to judge a GM.  It wasn't even two years, though -- he didn't even get the 2003-2004 off-season -- the only moves he really made were trading for Milton Bradley, and the 2004 deadline moves of Penny/LoDuca and Finley/(whomever).  And, of course, his 2005 moves. 

 

Personally, just from reading about DePodesta, I don't think he's a very good 'people' person, and I think that's killing him.  But, again -- that's just what I've read, which, admittedly, isn't enough to make a full-fledged stance on either side.  I just believe that two years really isn't enough.

 

I agree that it is hard to judge too much of a guy on such a small tenure. That said, you hit the nail on the head with the people person part. I think that he lost the credibiility with his peers when he backed out of the Randy Johnson 3-way deal (I think it was RJ). Even if that is the owner's fault, it reflects poorly ont he gm to renege.

[Wedge]

Actually, the White Sox and Athletics were awfully similar this year.  Offensive theories aside...

 

-Both ranked near the top of the league in team defense -- Defensive Efficiency, which I believe is the number of balls in play converted into outs, had Oakland and the Sox ranked #1 and #2.  I think defense is going to start becoming very popular amongst the saber-oriented teams, especially as better ways of valuing it begin to emerge.

 

-Both ranked near the top of the leagues in pitching.  Both teams carried five above average starters, along with a dominant closer (Street vs. Hermy/Jenks) and setup man (Duchscherer vs. Cotts & Politte).  Of course, in both cases, we were slightly better (starting pitching) or deeper (bullpen).

 

-And, finally, neither offense were very good.  Oakland scored 30 more runs than the Sox scored.  Both teams were able to be in their respective positions because of strong pitching and superb defenses behind them.

I am, however, a little surprised by the DePodesta decision.  I don't know how to judge his offseason moves -- the main guys he brought in didn't do terribly (Kent, Lowe, and Drew were all very good -- you can argue about Drew, but still, a HBP on the wrist?  Maybe if he strained a hammy in the OF, but a HBP strikes me as sort of a freak incident), and the guys he let go, for the most part, were awful (Finley and Beltre were awful, but Green was pretty good -- although, the Dodgers have their future catcher now).

 

I don't know, regardless of whether or not you think sabermetrics is the way to go, or whether or not you think DePo is a good GM -- the axe after two years, one of which was a playoff year?  Seems harsh to me, but that's the way it is, I guess.

 

Moneyball is a lot of hype, but those Oakland teams always boiled down to having some damn good starting pitching and scrapping together a bullpen and offense. Ultimately, they lacked the star power to succeed in the playoffs.

 

The theory behind Moneyball can be summarized accurately as follows: "you want batters that don't make outs and pitchers that do". Duh!

[Punch and Judy Garland]

Moneyball is a lot of hype, but those Oakland teams always boiled down to having some damn good starting pitching and scrapping together a bullpen and offense.  Ultimately, they lacked the star power to succeed in the playoffs.

 

The theory behind Moneyball can be summarized accurately as follows: "you want batters that don't make outs and pitchers that do".  Duh!

 

I don't know if I buy that. Giambi, Damon, Tejada, Chavez-there are superstars there.

[nitetrain8601]

I don't know if I buy that. Giambi, Damon, Tejada, Chavez-there are superstars there.

 

That were all let go.

[GoodAsGould]

Did Depodesta draft their minor league prospects or are they all a product of the old gm?

[DBAHO]

That were all let go.

Except for Chavez.

[DBAHO]

Did Depodesta draft their minor league prospects or are they all a product of the old gm?

I think so, but there wasn't really a huge change in philosophy, like they still drafted quite a few high schoolers, instead of all college player.

[Balta1701]

Did Depodesta draft their minor league prospects or are they all a product of the old gm?

He had almost nothing to do with the state of their minor leagues, which is supposedly very good. He only handled the last 1 or 2 drafts, and only made a couple of trades involving the minor league guys.

[Punch and Judy Garland]

That were all let go.

 

Correct but those were guys that were in the playoffs and lost. I didn't mention Ramon Hernandez, Jermaine Dye, and Jason Isringhausen. It was said that they lost because they didn't have stars but that is certainly a falsehood

[CWSGuy406]

I think so, but there wasn't really a huge change in philosophy, like they still drafted quite a few high schoolers, instead of all college player.

 

I don't think drafting high schoolers vs. college kids is as big of a deal (now) as you make it out to be. Oakland took a bunch of high school kids, too. Perhaps another market shift?

[Punch and Judy Garland]

I don't think drafting high schoolers vs. college kids is as big of a deal (now) as you make it out to be.  Oakland took a bunch of high school kids, too.  Perhaps another market shift?

 

I agree about market shift. A lot of teams became too reliant on college kids.

[Balta1701]

I agree about market shift. A lot of teams became too reliant on college kids.

One of the problems with the whole "Moneyball" book was that people interpreted it as saying "Do everything that Oakland does" when that's not what Oakland was doing to win.

 

Oakland was taking only College talent for a long time there because Beane felt that college talent, with more experience, was a much lower risk than high school talent, and other teams were failing to recognize it. So Beane was living off the College talent and moving it up to the big leagues/trading it rapidly.

 

Now, after Moneyball was published...everyone started taking the old Beane drafting approach and valuing College performance higher, thus making up the deficit that Beane was exploiting. So now, if GM's are jumping onto the "College player" bandwagon...where would the best value most likely be found? In the other spot.

[ZoomSlowik]

Those deadline trades were just brutal. LoDuca, Mota, and Encarnacion were all valuable parts that were given up for an overrated, inconsistent, injury prone starter in Brad Penny. The whole Randy Johnson fiasco was just as brutal (not sure what all of the parts were, but I remember thinking that they were getting screwed). They now have a team with little quality talent and a very high payroll. That seems like a good way to get fired to me.