| 0 |
Subject: Rate the GMs
Posted by: blue hen
- Leader [710321114] Tue, Dec 12, 2006, 14:23
There's a listranker for rating the GMs up today.
My ballot includes:
1. Beane
2. Epstein
3. Shapiro
4. Byrnes
5. Daniels
6. Ricciardi
7. Cashman
8. Dombrowski
9. Minaya
10. Schuerholz
26. Gillick
27. Littlefield
28. Flanagan
29. Bowden
30. Coletti
I am already second-guessing myself. Switch #8 and #9. But you get the idea.
|
| 1 | J
Leader
ID: 049346417
Tue, Dec 12, 2006, 14:55
|
Is Beane really worthy of #1 without winning a WS?
|
| 2 | barilko6
ID: 291120516
Tue, Dec 12, 2006, 15:06
|
People in Seattle are wondering why Bavasi wasn't gauranteed a spot in the bottom 3...
|
| 3 | Species
Leader
ID: 07724916
Tue, Dec 12, 2006, 15:07
|
What is the criteria? ESPN has made it too fuzzy, IMO. As it stands now it's just perception.
Random observations:
Beane deserves a lot of points for guiding Oakland to a stellar winning percentage over his tenure with 30-50% of the budget of the big boys.....then again so does Terry Ryan.
Byrnes, while a good GM inherited much of AZ's treasure trove of position players (although he swindled CWS out of Young) - how much credit does he deserve for that?
Colletti's 1-year tenure has a Division Championship on it - how is he the worst? While he's made some questionable signings, outside of Pierre most have been 3-year deals that won't cripple the franchise for years (a la CHC) while he hasn't traded away any prime prospects (yet).
Ricciardi is overrated, IMO.
|
| 4 | barilko6
ID: 291120516
Tue, Dec 12, 2006, 15:35
|
I agree with Colleti? How is he last? I agree, he's only been there short term, but all his moves last year panned out pretty well.
And what about Terry Ryan? Keeping small market Minnesota competitive year after year, he deserves a higher mark than JP, Daniels (who hasn't done really anything in my opinion), and Byrnes.
I would also rank Jocketty top 10. I do like seeing Pat "Overrated" Gillick in your bottom 5 though.
|
| 5 | barilko6
ID: 291120516
Tue, Dec 12, 2006, 15:40
|
I guess if I comment on yours, I should post mine so it can be ripped apart.
My Top 10: (In no particular order)
Kenny Williams
Billy Beane
Omar Minaya
Terry Ryan
Walt Jocketty
Dave Dombroski
Mark Shapiro
John Schuerholz
Brian Cashman (for putting up with the Boss)
Theo Epstein (for keeping the Sox competitive and making good drafts)
|
| 6 | blue hen
Leader
ID: 710321114
Tue, Dec 12, 2006, 16:53
|
Coletti is simple. He won a division championship because of Paul DePodesta. Is that statement going to spark controversy and discussion around here? For sure. But I will stand by it.
Plus, he was using a Giants-issued cell phone at the winter meetings as GM of the Dodgers. Is it any wonder it got turned off? Genius.
Terry Ryan, Walt Jocketty, and Kenny Williams have pretty good track records. Ryan has made a lot of good moves, although Santana and Mauer, his two best players currently, were pure luck. He gets a lot of credit for Liriano and Nathan in my book. He's close to these guys.
Jocketty has made good moves, but has always had a lot of money to work with, and has made a few bad moves (see Encarnacion, Juan). He's not too far down either.
Williams hasn't really showed me anything outside of Jermaine Dye. But he won a World Series.
Byrnes continues to do well in my book. Even the recent Doug Davis trade is a good effort.
Bavasi is pretty bad, but he makes some good deals occasionally. Beltre costs him a whole bunch of points, but he's not quite in the class of the other guys.
And as for J's post #1 - absolutely. For as Beane himself would say, abso-bleeping-lutely. Dumb luck, my friend.
|
| 7 | Nerfherders
ID: 501035289
Tue, Dec 12, 2006, 16:54
|
I did my top ten there before I saw this thread:
1. Schuerholz
2. Beane
3. Epstein
4. Williams
5. Beinfist
6. Dombrowski
7. Towers
8. Ryan
9. Stoneman
10. Sabean
|
| 8 | Razor
ID: 2107611
Tue, Dec 12, 2006, 16:55
|
Depodesta did not have as much to winning the division as Dan Evans did, and neither of them had as much to do with it as Logan White did. Colletti did well to get Ethier for Bradley, sign Furcal and acquire Maddux for the stretch run, among other moves, but the real heart of the team was the youth that Logan White drafted.
|
| 9 | Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418
Tue, Dec 12, 2006, 17:14
|
Ryan has made a lot of good moves, although Santana and Mauer, his two best players currently, were pure luck.
WHAT! Joe Mauer was a local high school athlete extraordinaire who was the obvious choice for the Twins when they decided that they could not pay Mark Prior his contract demands. Your comments have reached the rarefied air of suck awesomely. :)
|
| 10 | Razor
ID: 2107611
Tue, Dec 12, 2006, 17:21
|
No GM that has not even been to a World Series can be considered the best. The goal is not to make the playoffs, it is to win once you get there. Schuerholz, for his ability to win despite and ever changing roster, is #1 for me by a mile.
Sabean shouldn't be anywhere near anyone's top 10. His great moves have amounted to trading for Jason Schmidt and ignoring Barry Bonds' steroid abuse. Other than that, he's done pretty much nothing to contribute to the Giants' success (which is waning as Bonds fades, surprise, surprise) and a lot to jeopardize their future. Their inability to draft and develop players has been startlingly poor.
|
| 11 | blue hen
Leader
ID: 710321114
Tue, Dec 12, 2006, 17:48
|
Zen, I think you missed the point of my comment. Mauer was clearly a standout talent in high school. However, this well-produced page tells us that no fewer than FIVE teams had records as bad or worse than the Twins in 2000. It was clearly a lot of luck that the Twins got the top pick and took the local guy.
And Razor contradicts himself in the same sentence: No GM that has not even been to a World Series can be considered the best. The goal is not to make the playoffs, it is to win once you get there. Schuerholz, for his ability to win despite and ever changing roster, is #1 for me by a mile.
I'll give Schuerholz his due, but the fact that Beane won consistently with 1. so many fiscal restraints and 2. the stigma of the book (fewer trading partners) puts him over the top for me. Even this year, Frank Thomas was signed at a bargain basement price and produced near MVP levels. And remember the Mark Mulder trade? In fact, I don't think there's much debate that Oakland kept the right member of the Big Three.
Schuerholz can definitely put together a winner, but I'm not a big fan of quite a few of his moves. And, as Razor notes, he only won ONE World Series with 14 division titles.
I do agree wholeheartedly on Razor's Sabean comments. He was #25 on my list, but I guess he's been worse than Gillick.
On guy I rated far too low, in retrospect, is Doug Melvin. Perhaps it was a brain fart that put him at #24 on my list. He probably belongs right up there with the big boys.
|
| 12 | Species
Leader
ID: 07724916
Tue, Dec 12, 2006, 18:02
|
I hate that the Giants ignored the farm system during Sabean's tenure as much as anyone. If the criteria for rating the GM's is something that includes Winning Percentage, I would imagine that Sabean's WP would rank only behind Cashman and Schuerholz amongst those with very long tenures.
Considering the direction that Giants ownership told him to take - that being:
- Build around Bonds
- Spend every available dime on the major league team to support him
- Get to as many playoffs as you can so we can fill the stadium/get a stadium/keep the stadium full
......I think Sabean deserves a lot of credit for building a team that contended for the playoffs almost every single years for 10 years.
If your criteria centers upon what GM has placed their team in the best position to contend for 2007 through 2010, Sabean ranks DEAD LAST!
|
| 13 | Razor
ID: 2611341117
Tue, Dec 12, 2006, 19:34
|
Regarding Sabean, the only reason his clubs were in contention so frequently was because Bonds was juiced out his mind. Look at the team's lack of success since Bonds has started to fade. That's what would've happened to the team 5 years ago sans BALCO. Of course, Sabean is STILL tons of money at Bonds, proving to me that he just doesn't know any better. He can't possibly think that throwing $16+ mil is going to help him win when the team has big needs to fill, but anyway.
Schuerholz has two titles, not one. He built the 1980's Royals winner and built the 1990's Braves into a model franchise. Schuerholz's philosophy is pervasive throughout the Braves organization.
In Colletti's favor, he has signed some fine players to short contracts that have helped the team. The Furcal contract was scoffed at, even by me, but the list of shortstops that had a better year than Furcal last year was very short. Schmidt was signed to a deal that brings the team an ace but keeps them from a long term commitment, which seems impossible these days with a bum like Meche getting 5 years. Most importantly, he has retained most, if not all, of the key young players that will form the foundation of the organization for the next several years. He puts them in a position to win the job if they play well without handing it to them outright where they could fall flat on their faces. Several of the key pieces to the Dodgers 2006 playoff team (Nomar, Furcal, Ethier, Maddux, Lofton, Saito) were brought in by Colletti, most of which cost us very little.
|
| 14 | blue hen
Leader
ID: 710321114
Wed, Dec 13, 2006, 17:18
|
Schuerholz took over a powerhouse Royals team in 1981. They won division titles five out of the previous six years, and finished second or better (in the big divisions) nine out of eleven years. Granted, Schuerholz did a his job, winning the 85 series and a division title in 84, but let's not make that out to be more than it is. Schuerholz's tenure with the Royals was decent, but definitely not spectacular.
What he did with the Braves, however, is very spectacular. I'm going to go ahead and disagree with your comment:
No GM that has not even been to a World Series can be considered the best. The goal is not to make the playoffs, it is to win once you get there.
If that were the case, Schuerholz might be much lower down on the list. Fortunately, the playoffs are a crapshoot, and Schuerholz slides in at #10 on my list. He was very lucky to wind up with Glavine and Smoltz and to have an owner that would spring for Greg Maddux. But he was very smart to hold on when those guys started dominating. He brought out the best in a whole lot of players, from Terry Pendleton to Andruw Jones to John Burkett to Fred McGriff to Andres Galarraga to Russ Ortiz to J.D. Drew to Jeff Francouer. But he definitely had some good circumstances to work with.
|
| 15 | RecycledSpinalFluid
Dude
ID: 204401122
Mon, Jan 22, 2007, 18:21
|
Dayn Perry's view after reading this thread...ok, I threw in that last part.
|
| 16 | Razor
ID: 2107611
Tue, Jan 23, 2007, 09:52
|
Dayn Perry is one of the worst baseball writers you'll ever see. I'll never forget his ranking of then super prospect Greg Miller as the 7th best right handed pitching prospect in the game, when even a casual prospect follower knew both that he was more well regarded than that and a lefty. Perry constantly makes mistakes like that in his writing.
That said, I think any list that starts off with Schuerholz on top is one with some credibility. The notion that Colletti traded away a number of high-ceiling prospects is patently false. The only high-ceilinged prospect he traded away was Joel Guzman. He kept the other 8 or so elite prospects the Dodgers have, which he deserves credit for. His real fault is in his desire to overpay mediocre vets in the name of depth.
|
| 17 | Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418
Mon, Jul 23, 2007, 19:54
|
What now, smart guy?
This is a great little commentary on the crossroads that the A's face right now. Last year was the most impressive result the A's had produced under Beane, in my mind, I mean they really had an amazing finish without a ton of talent. Well, this year the smoke is clearing and the mirrors have some cracks. Whatsyagonnado, Billy?
Genius, can you decide if Rich Harden is the ace of the staff, a perennial All-Star, someone to depend on, or is he simply too fragile for the journey?
Can you tell if shortstop Bobby Crosby is the real deal or someone who teased us once but doesn't really have the skills (.229 last year, .222 this year) to be what you want him to be, a big-time player?
Genius, what are you going to do with Eric Chavez? He's never been a bad player, nearly always a good player, always a good teammate, but his apparent skills cry out for so much more than his .245 average. The A's need that superstar now, desperate they are, for a guy to replace G-man and Miggy. Chavy was supposed to be that player but for years his numbers haven't matched the expectations. Will they ever?
Can you tell what's going to happen with Huston Street?
What indeed?
|
| 18 | Peter N.
ID: 22573013
Mon, Jul 23, 2007, 21:29
|
bh, I'd love to hear your reasoning for having Daniels in the top 5. Bottom 5 should be more like it.
|
| 19 | Razor
ID: 456532218
Mon, Jul 23, 2007, 21:54
|
Also hard to figure out how the worst GM in the game is on track to go to his second straight playoff appearance in as many years.
|
| 20 | blue hen
ID: 16322314
Tue, Jul 24, 2007, 12:05
|
It's easy to figure out:
July 30, 2004: Traded Paul Lo Duca, Guillermo Mota and Juan Encarnacion to Florida for Hee Seop Choi, Brad Penny and minor leaguer Bill Murphy
I mean, that's the #1 reason. But there are a lot of other DePodesta-related reasons the Dodgers are in contention. For example: Derek Lowe, Jeff Kent, and (not Adrian Beltre).
Let's look at Coletti's side of things: I'll give him Takashi Saito and Luis Gonzalez. But he also boasts Jason Schmidt, Juan Pierre, Nomar Garciaparra, and Randy Wolf. Quite a haul there, Ned.
As for the rest of the list above, Daniels is certainly no longer in the top 10 and might not even be in the top 20. Ricciardi also falls a bit, but not TOO far.
|
| 21 | Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Tue, Jul 24, 2007, 13:23
|
He only needed those 3 average players to get an ace in Penny? That WAS a good deal!
|
| 22 | blue hen
ID: 16322314
Tue, Jul 24, 2007, 13:57
|
Plus Mota was using steroids and Lo Duca was blocking someone. Can't seem to remember who. Can't have been any good and certainly didn't make the 2007 NL All-Star team.
|
| 23 | Razor
ID: 456532218
Tue, Jul 24, 2007, 18:39
|
If you think acquiring Brad Penny is the reason why the Dodgers are good, you are even less versed on this subject than I thought. Besides the fact that Penny is having his first great season with LA in 3 years on the team, no #2 starter is that influential. Also, Lo Duca was not moved to allow Martin to come up. Depo thought that Dave Ross would rebound from his awful 1st half numbers in 2005 and put up numbers like he did in 2004. He did not. In the offseason, with Martin pretty far down on the farm, Depo traded for a more advanced, more highly regarded catching prospect in Dioner Navarro, giving up the team's former franchise player to do so. He coveted Navarro and had every intention of giving him the job permanently. It wasn't until Navarro's injury in 2006 that Martin got his shot. Depodesta acquired nearly as many bad players (Jason Phillips, Jason Grabowski, Jose Valentin, Mike Edwards) as Colletti, but he wasn't so lucky as to have stud youngsters, Dan Evans and Logan White's doing, to come up and save the day.
The 2006 and 2007 Dodgers have been built on the backs of the extraordinary drafting ability of Logan White, a couple of excellent pickups from Colletti (Nomar and Maddux in 06, Saito, Ethier, several rent-a-vets) and a couple of excellent holdovers from the Depo era (Lowe, Penny, Kent, Drew in 06). Ned has inked several bad contracts but has balanced that out by not giving away any of the excellent young talent in the system and getting some solid pieces from players that his scouting team deemed expendable. He fleeced Beane pretty solidly on the Ethier trade, for example.
|
| 24 | blue hen
ID: 16322314
Thu, Jul 26, 2007, 15:16
|
I don't have much of a response, because you've covered things well. I won't profess to know the Dodgers better than that. I just want to be heard on a few of the issues you mention.
- Logan White is great. No one doubts that on either side.
- How is this Penny's first great season in LA? Didn't he start the All-Star Game last year? Taking an overrated-and-getting-worse catcher and turning him into a two-time All-Star pitcher is a great thing. And don't tell me Penny is not a large part of the reason LA is doing well.
- Nomar 07 is bad enough that he is the opposite of the reason they're doing well. He's barely better than Edwards, and much more expensive.
- I think you are also overrating Ethier. He's been good, but Bradley is pretty similar. Good for Coletti to get Ethier, but 1. it's hardly fleecing and 2. it's probably White's doing anyway.
|
| 25 | Razor
ID: 5952069
Thu, Jul 26, 2007, 15:37
|
Penny was great in the first half last year, but tanked in the second half. He has yet to eclipse 200 IP despite being in his 3rd and half season in LA. In his first half season, he only pitched two games. Penny was brought on to help shore up the rotation and almost immediately went to the DL. Swapping Lo Duca and Mota for Penny and Choi was supposed to be a short term gain as well as a long term one, but we did not benefit much from the move that season and made the playoffs in spite of it, not because of it.
Ethier is not a great player, but he is a solid one. Beane was the toast of the town when he acquired Bradley, a sabremetric favorite, and a fairly well regarded prospect in Antonio Perez in exchange for a middle tier prospect like Ethier. Two years later, Ethier is a young, cheap starter who puts up solid numbers while Bradley and his bad attitude and frail body are in San Diego. Antonio Perez is nowhere to be found. Fleeced may be a strong term, but the Dodgers are already winners in this trade and it only gets worse with every at bat Ethier takes.
Nomar's signing last year was the difference between making the playoffs and not making it. Even with a poor second half, he was still a valuable player. Nomar's re-signing this past offseason has been a hinderance to the team and is essentially wasted money as Nomar provides little, if anything, over Loney, Betemit and LaRoche.
|
| 26 | blue hen
ID: 16322314
Thu, Jul 26, 2007, 17:56
|
I am probably most impressed by the J.D. Drew signing. Everyone got on Paul's case, saying this was a very, very bad deal. In fact, it was a good deal. So good, in fact, that Drew thought he could get more elsewhere right in the middle of it.
Credit DePo for the signing, but also for leaving the door open for Drew. Drew now sticks another team with his lame years.
|
| 27 | Razor
ID: 456532218
Thu, Jul 26, 2007, 21:46
|
I don't think that was by design. His departure left a gaping hole in the lineup that forced our hand with Nomar. Drew opting out left us in the position of looking for another bat in a high priced market, one we had not allotted any money to being in. Drew was a Dodger for two years and was hurt for half of one of them. I don't think there's any doubt that he was a key piece on last year's playoff team, but he by no means lived up to his contact.
|
| 28 | Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418
Thu, Sep 13, 2007, 13:38
|
Terry Ryan out, Bill Smith in.
|
| 29 | blue hen
Leader
ID: 710321114
Thu, Sep 13, 2007, 20:59
|
I read back through this thread. I think we've covered the Giants and Dodgers, so I wanted to branch out elsewhere...
Andrew Friedman doesn't get a lot of credit, although they're going right in the toilet again this year. Byrnes is probably up to #1 at this point. Can't really argue with the way he's set the team up for now, or for the future.
And Littlefield is gone.
|
| 30 | blue hen
ID: 16322314
Thu, Sep 20, 2007, 16:51
|
Astros get tricked into hiring Ed Wade
|
| 31 | blue hen
ID: 16322314
Thu, Oct 11, 2007, 16:34
|
Schuerholz out in Atlanta.
Also Phillies not being sold
|
| 32 | barilko6
ID: 44829307
Thu, Oct 11, 2007, 16:44
|
That is misleading. He isn't out, he is stepping up to President.
|
| 33 | Razor
ID: 385371019
Sun, Jul 19, 2009, 23:55
|
So, do people still consider Billy Beane the best GM in the game or is a 3rd consecutive sub-.500 season allowed to go unnoticed?
|
| 34 | blue hen
ID: 8115717
Mon, Jul 20, 2009, 01:33
|
I should have seen that coming. Yeah, I guess it's tough to still be that high on Beane. Or that low on Neddy C.
I may be a little biased, but Ruben Amaro seems about as good as it gets right now. In addition to the major league moves, the farm system is thriving as well, which was his role before being the GM.
And that guy in Seattle no one can spell appears to be doing some good too.
|
| 35 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 721308
Mon, Jul 20, 2009, 13:32
|
So, do people still consider Billy Beane the best GM in the game or is a 3rd consecutive sub-.500 season allowed to go unnoticed?
Personally, I think judging a GM's effectiveness based on the team record is a bit like judging a pitcher's effectiveness based on his W-L. There's much more to both than just the simple stat of W-L.
Looking at 2008 (didn't look further because I suspect it's a lot of the same), OAK had the 3rd lowest $M/Win. In other words, only two teams spent less money per win than OAK.
I don't think he's THE best GM in the game, but give Beane more money and I suspect OAK would regularly be competing for the AL West crown.
On a funny side note, if NYY kept their $2.349M/Win rate and only had FLA's budget ($21.811M), that would have translated to a record of 9-153 last year.
|
| 36 | blue hen
Dude
ID: 710321114
Mon, Jul 20, 2009, 13:46
|
KKB, that's a very interesting stat. It needs to be taken with a grain of salt, but would definitely be interesting. Do it. Especially for 2009.
What about Billy's moves? Here are some recent ones:
Traded Carlos Gonzalez, Greg Smith and Huston Street to the Colorado Rockies. Received Matt Holliday.
Signed Jason Giambi as a free agent.
Traded Marco Scutaro to the Toronto Blue Jays. Received Graham Godfrey (minors) and Kristian Bell (minors).
As part of a 3-team trade, traded . Received a player to be named later from the Arizona Diamondbacks. In addition, the Chicago White Sox sent Chris Carter (minors) to the Arizona Diamondbacks; and the Arizona Diamondbacks sent Carlos Quentin to the Chicago White Sox. The Arizona Diamondbacks sent Chris Carter (minors) (December 14, 2007) to the Oakland Athletics to complete the trade.
Traded Danny Haren and Connor Robertson to the Arizona Diamondbacks. Received Brett Anderson (minors), Aaron Cunningham, Dana Eveland, Carlos Gonzalez and Greg Smith.
Traded Nick Swisher to the Chicago White Sox. Received Fautino De Los Santos (minors), Gio Gonzalez and Ryan Sweeney.
Traded Mark Kotsay to the Atlanta Braves. Received Jamie Richmond (minors), Joey Devine and cash .
Traded Chad Gaudin and Rich Harden to the Chicago Cubs. Received Josh Donaldson (minors), Sean Gallagher, Matt Murton and Eric Patterson.
Traded Joe Blanton to the Philadelphia Phillies. Received Adrian Cardenas (minors), Matthew Spencer (minors) and Josh Outman.
|
| 37 | blue hen
Dude
ID: 710321114
Mon, Jul 20, 2009, 13:48
|
That said, what do we think of Bill James? Came to the Red Sox in 2002. In six years, won two World Series, lost two LCS's in seven games and only missed the playoffs once. Plus they seem well positioned with young players and young pitching. Are you impressed? I am.
|
| 38 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 721308
Mon, Jul 20, 2009, 15:50
|
I actually don't know if it's a grain-of-salt stat. It seems pretty reasonable to me that if a team's success is determined by the number of wins they accumulated, then how much a team paid for those wins should be a pretty darn good reflection of their GM.
One looks at NYY and realizes they're just throwing cash on the field in hopes that they find something that works.... eventually. And when you take enough shots, you're eventually going to hit something.
Looking at 2009 (prorated for the number of games played to date), NYY and NYM are paying the most for their wins at $2.095M/Win and $1.951M/Win, respectively.
The average $M/Win is $1.087, which is in line with 2008. And, just like in 2008, FLA is the best bargain with $0.459M/Win (Yes, that's $459,683.57 per win). And, once again, OAK is towards the bottom of the list (22nd) with $0.910M/Win, which is a bit higher than last year's $0.639M/Win.
Personally, I think OAK will start winning at a higher rate than earlier in the season as they have been in June and July. And another good winning streak could easily take their $M/Win down to the 800s.
Some of the top and bottom in $M/Win...
2009
1. NYY, $2.095
2. NYM, $1.951
3. CHC, $1.593
22. OAK, $0.910 (added for comparison)
28. PIT, $0.683
29. SDG, $0.671
30. FLA, $0.459
2008
1. NYY, $2.349
2. SEA, $1.928
3. DET, $1.860
28. OAK, $0.639
29. TAM, $0.451
30. FLA, $0.259
2007
1. NYY, $2.017
2. CWS, $1.509
3. BOS, $1.489
15. OAK, $1.044 (added for comparison)
28. WAS, $0.511
29. FLA, $0.429
30. TAM, $0.365
2006
1. NYY, $2.006
2. CHC, $1.430
3. BOS, $1.396
26. OAK, $0.669 (added for comparison)
28. TAM, $0.580
29. COL, $0.542
30. FLA, $0.192 (!!!)
Based on this, I think most people on this message board could be a reasonably successful GM for NYY. Also, I think Michael Hill (FLA GM) deserves sainthood.
MLB Average $M/Win
2009: $1.087
2008: $1.107
2007: $1.009
2006: $0.946
OAK $M/Win as Percent of MLB Average $M/Win
2009: 83.7%
2008: 57.7%
2007: 103.4%
2006: 70.7%
To consistently do better than the MLB Average $M/Win takes a good GM, IMHO.
I didn't do the MLB average for all these years, but these are clearly still really good numbers...
OAK $M/Win 1997-2005
2005: $0.629 (NYY first to top $200M)
2004: $0.653
2003: $0.523 (NYY first to top $150M)
2002: $0.388
2001: $0.331 (NYY, BOS, LAD first to top $100M)
2000: $0.352 (NYY, LAD first to top $90M)
1999: $0.277 (NYY, TEX first to top $80M)
1998: $0.271 (BAL first to top $70M)
The problem with Beane is mostly to do with perception. When OAK was making the playoffs, everybody thought he was God's gift to baseball. Now that the team isn't making the playoffs, people are starting to think he's a bum. But, the problem with the diety/bum view is that it is based on the idea that if you don't make the playoffs, your team didn't do ANYTHING the rest of the season. It's essentially a 1/0 result. You either did or did not make the playoffs.
The truth lies somewhere in-between because, as we all know, teams can win 90+ games and still miss the playoffs. Does that mean the team was horrible? Of course not. A victim of bad luck? Yep.
Simple Example
BOS 2009: 94 wins, no playoffs
LAD 2009: 84 wins, playoffs
So we have to take a closer examination and when we really look at the numbers, we realize that Beane has been doing some good stuff with a VERY small budget. It's just that the budget doesn't show up in the Standings as one of the informative columns.
|
| 39 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 721308
Mon, Jul 20, 2009, 15:53
|
RE: #37. I'm not terribly impressed with BOS/Bill James. I think they've always been poised to do well, but now they're putting the money into to make it happen. I would be FAR more impressed if they were fielding a sub-$100M team.
|
| 40 | blue hen
ID: 710321114
Mon, Jul 20, 2009, 15:55
|
True. Let's not discount the idea that it's much easier to win few games with a small payroll than win many with a large payroll. If the Marlins miraculously turn the smaller payroll in baseball into 65 wins instead of the projected 55 or less, that's hardly an accomplishment.
|
| 41 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 721308
Mon, Jul 20, 2009, 16:00
|
RE: #40. Completely agreed.
|
| 42 | Razor
ID: 371502414
Mon, Jul 20, 2009, 16:22
|
$/Win is a horrible stat because it has no scale. A team that wins 100 games with $100 million payroll rates as well as a team that wins 50 games with a $50 million payroll. An expansion team comprised of players that no organization is willing to protect can win 50 games, but winning 100 games is difficult, no matter your payroll.
I could make a case that Beane lucked into a lot of his success in the same way that Ned Colletti has - by inheriting a wealth of high draft picks and talent in the minor league system. The A's have taken a nosedive since the last of the Big 3 left Oakland. Meanwhile, the fruits of Logan White's drafts are seen every night in LA at 3 positions on the field and 2 front-of-the-rotation starters and an All-Star closer.
|
| 43 | Mith
ID: 01629107
Mon, Jul 20, 2009, 17:28
|
Agreed. Useless oversimplification.
|
| 44 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 12353217
Mon, Jul 20, 2009, 18:55
|
Propose a different scale then because $M/Win is a far better judge of a GM than simply team wins. Looking at team wins without looking at payroll is just being blind to the business.
Somehow I knew MITH would disagree with everything I wrote. No big surprise there. :)
|
| 45 | blue hen
ID: 710321114
Mon, Jul 20, 2009, 18:59
|
How about future win shares traded out vs. future win shares traded in?
|
| 46 | Seattle Zen
ID: 416372018
Mon, Jul 20, 2009, 19:39
|
Propose a different scale
How about a bunch of grumpy old guys pointing fingers and grunting, nodding, sighing, spitting, and half syllables?
I'll start:
Billy Beane? Eh...
He's a great trader, average drafter at best. I have no reason to believe that simply because he is a great trader that he would create a winner with a high payroll. The A's reside in the easiest division in baseball (of late).
|
| 47 | Species
ID: 07724916
Mon, Jul 20, 2009, 19:44
|
How about future win shares traded out vs. future win shares traded in?
Does not take context into account. If I make a trade that wins me the World Series and I give up a future all-star, does that make me a bad GM? Depends on context. Did I already have an All-Star at that position? Did I have 2 other top prospects at that position when I made that deal?
This all seems too subjective. What Brian Cashman might do with the Twins is a lot different than what he does with the Yankees. There seem to be way too many variables to rate this based upon a single metric.
|
| 48 | Seattle Zen
ID: 10732616
Fri, Aug 05, 2011, 14:28
|
Moneyball has become such a period piece it might as well have cast Helen Mirren or deployed the Ken Burns Effect on sepia-tinged photographs.
Next month, as portrayed by Brad Pitt in the movie Moneyball, Beane will be coming to a theatre near you, but, for a fifth straight year, not to the playoffs, let alone even a winning record. The movie will come across as an historical piece, so far removed are the Athletics from any success and baseball from the era when Beane made up for a lack of resources with an edge in information that was chronicled in Michael Lewis' book upon which the film is based.
|
| 49 | blue hen
Dude
ID: 710321114
Mon, Aug 08, 2011, 10:32
|
Yeah, I can't wait for the movie to come out.
Interesting that I rated Gillick at the bottom - he's a Hall of Famer now.
And obviously, #1 on this list has to be Ruben Amaro...
|
| 50 | Barilko6
ID: 164392011
Mon, Aug 08, 2011, 11:43
|
No way the fact that AA found a way to dump the Vernon Wells contract and recieve a positive asset back automatically vaults him to number 1!!! (not to mention trading a bunch of relievers for Colby Rasmus and acquiring Yunel on the cheap.)
Ok. Maybe too early to include AA in the conversation but dumping that contract is a huge boost to his ranking.
|
| 51 | Great One
ID: 574139
Mon, Aug 08, 2011, 11:44
|
And whoever the GM is in Anaheim should go down for wanting Vernon Wells.
|
| 52 | blue hen
Dude
ID: 710321114
Mon, Aug 08, 2011, 11:47
|
Actually, I'd probably put him in my top 5 right now. AA, Amaro, and Jon Daniels are three guys who really show they are great.
Friedman, Cashman, Epstein, Beane, and Antonetti (with help from Shapiro, of course) are probably the next level.
|
| 53 | C1-NRB
ID: 564251210
Mon, Aug 08, 2011, 12:02
|
Best scene from the "Moneyball" trailer:
BB to Scott Hatteburg: We want you at first base.
SH: I won't even play at catcher.
BB: It's not that hard, Scott. Tell him, Wash.
Ron Washington: It's incredibly hard.
Trailer available on youtube. (Sorry, no link.)
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message:
|
|