You're The General Manager

[RealityChuck]

MFS62 wrote: * = I don't care if he would become another Lou Brock - Halliday will be better than Ernie Broglio. This team needs a shakeup.

People always seem to think the trade was a bad idea, but really, the Cubs were correct in trading Brock. People forget Brock was a terrible fielder (you can argue the importance of fielding average, but I don't think anyone would argue that an outfielder like Brock who fielded .959 is a good fielder -- and other fielding statistics confirm this). The only position he was able to play was LF -- and the Cubs had arguably a better player there (lifetime .OPS 100 points better; OPS+ of 133 vs. Brock's 109). Brock was traded mostly because there was no place to play him, not because he was great (or even potentially great) at his position.

Broglio OTOH won 18 games the year before the trade and had a lifetime ERA+ up to that point of 120. No way anyone would have predicted he'd fall apart in Chicago.

The moral: a perfectly reasonable trade (like the ones people are suggesting here) can look pretty terrible years later. If we were Cubs fans back in 1963, we'd be thinking that this was a steal.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Ashie62 wrote: LWFS Says Reyes is as valuable as Brock was ? Is that a joke.

Brock was a mildly-overrated offensive player-- the speed and baserunning ability were superlative, but he didn't hit much, get on that much and appears from all sides-- see RealityChuck's bit-- to have been a terrible defender, speed inclusive.

And this has been covered elsewhere much better, but the Hall gatesmen haven't always done the best job sifting "great" from "pretty good for a while." Even leaving out the VC choices-- chock full of Rizzutos and Schoendiensts and Everses and Maranvilles-- you've got Aparicios and Suttons and Perezes to deal with.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Brock stayed healthy, played a long time, got 3,000 hits, and retired (and came before the Hall of Fame) with two high-profile records. It's a shame that his thread is becoming about him, because whether or not Reyes is traded shouldn't really be a based on whether or not he is better 'n' Lou Brock. We're going to fall into tangents on peak value and career value and league context and how many different contexts Lou's career spanned and whatnot.

A healthy Reyes is a valuable thing --- not to mention signed through 2011 --- and not something to be dealt lightly. I'd be particularly wary of trading him after an injury-shattered year.

If his legs come out healthy during the first half, I might get to work on an extension. I'd really like to see him dropped a bit in the order, because he has to look seriously at embracing the point in his career where his legs are not his bread and butter, but his skillz.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Lou Brock is a deserving Hall of Famer � but an overrated Hall of Famer. And more than mildly so. In fact, if Lou Brock were active today, and the same age as Jose Reyes, I�d rather have Reyes on my team instead of Brock if forced to choose between one of the two without the benefit of knowing Brock�s future performance beyond Reyes� present chronological age, but mainly because Brock ain�t no shortstop.

And speaking of Reyes and leadoff-hitters, I might as well segue into the theme of this thread with my one move, which would be to keep Luis Castillo and move him into the leadoff spot in the batting order. Castillo, as flawed as he is, is still the best damn leadoff hitter the Mets have had in the last ten years ever since Rickey Henderson�s 1999 season: he�s certainly a more qualified leadoff hitter than Reyes. Reyes,�my proposed number two hitter who draws less walks than Castillo but drives the ball better than Luis - would be able to move Castillo around the bases far more efficiently than Castillo ever advanced Reyes. I have zero expectations of the Mets ever making this move even though, to my thinking, it�s unquestionably the right move. I�m becoming resigned to the fact that the Mets are run by a bunch off nincompoops who probably care more about the marketing of Jose Reyes and his image as a stolen base guy than actual production and that those two reasons alone will keep Reyes in the leadoff spot.

Plus, one added benefit of having Castillo bat leadoff is that you�ll almost never ever see Castillo squaring around to bunt about 45 seconds before the pitcher goes into his windup anymore. I suppose that nobody, not even the Mets, not even Wee Willie Small Ball�s Mets would ask their leadoff hitter to sac bunt with nobody out and nobody on base.

[metirish]

Jesus , Mary and Chirst look what the cat dragged in.

[Frayed Knot]

And speaking of Reyes and leadoff-hitters, I might as well segue into the theme of this thread with my one move, which would be to keep Luis Castillo and move him into the leadoff spot in the batting order. Castillo, as flawed as he is, is still the best damn leadoff hitter the Mets have had in the last ten years ever since Rickey Henderson�s 1999 season: he�s certainly a more qualified leadoff hitter than Reyes. Reyes,�my proposed number two hitter who draws less walks than Castillo but drives the ball better than Luis - would be able to move Castillo around the bases far more efficiently than Castillo ever advanced Reyes. I have zero expectations of the Mets ever making this move even though, to my thinking, it�s unquestionably the right move. I�m becoming resigned to the fact that the Mets are run by a bunch off nincompoops who probably care more about the marketing of Jose Reyes and his image as a stolen base guy than actual production and that those two reasons alone will keep Reyes in the leadoff spot. Plus, one added benefit of having Castillo bat leadoff is that you�ll almost never ever see Castillo squaring around to bunt about 45 seconds before the pitcher goes into his windup anymore. I suppose that nobody, not even the Mets, not even Wee Willie Small Ball�s Mets would ask their leadoff hitter to sac bunt with nobody out and nobody on base.

All that, of course, is on the manager and not the general manager.
One of the saddest episodes of last season was that after Jerry openly toyed with the idea of batting Castillo leadoff during ST (to the howls of the closed-minded everywhere) he not only turned away from the idea but did so even after Reyes went down.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Yes, that was a shame, and I do believe it has much to do with the Mets making an effort to build an identity around the idea of Reyes as their leadoff hitter.

I have to say, as abhorrent as I find the MFYs and their marketing, their strategy of using the organization itself as the selling point -- and not necessarily the individuals comprising it -- probably holds less downside. For the Mets I think this effort has tended to interfere with strategic decisions (like shifting Reyes in the order) and to an extent dictating the moves of the front office (the mets as a "superstar" driven team, cannot almost by definition shop for a relief pitcher without being obligated to pay top retail for the biggest name with the most saves, for example). It handicaps them.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Welcome backman, BML.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Edgy DC wrote: It's a shame that his thread is becoming about him, because whether or not Reyes is traded shouldn't really be a based on whether or not he is better 'n' Lou Brock.

They started it.

Now... are we gonna move Murphy or not? He's living on borrowed time over at 1B, seems better suited for a league with a DH option, and Lord knows he's not turning into Tony Perez any time soon.

(And holy hell, BML... good to "see" you.)

[batmagadanleadoff]

Frayed Knot wrote: All that, of course, is on the manager and not the general manager..

I'm not so sure. After reading Moneyball, I'm convinced that Billy Beane might've fired Willie Randolph on the spot right in the middle of a game after watching some of his shenanigans ... like, as one example, sac bunting in the first inning of a game being played in Denver, Colorado where Reyes had already reached second base before the first out was ever made and Wright, Beltran, and Delgado due up and poised to bring in the big innning. If nothing else, Moneyball illustrates that the GM does have a say into field strategy. And given the consistently questionable field strategy of the New SNY Mets, I wonder if Minaya is as much to blame, if not more so, than the field managers.

If I was the GM, I'd ring the top of Citi Field with S.W.A.T. sharpshooters trained to shoot any Met between the eyeballs if that batter so much as half- squared around to bunt in the first inning of any game. Second inning, too.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: If nothing else, Moneyball illustrates that the GM does have a say into field strategy. And given the consistently questionable field strategy of the New SNY Mets, I wonder if Minaya is as much to blame, if not more so, than the field managers.

This is a conversation unto itself. Let's just say that this seems to vary widely-- WIDELY-- from clubhouse to clubhouse. The manager's primary JOB is organizing field strategy, and very few successfully-run businesses I know-- sports-related or otherwise-- opt for management doing the jobs of their subordinates.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: If I was the GM, I'd ring the top of Citi Field with S.W.A.T. sharpshooters trained to shoot any Met between the eyeballs if that batter so much as half- squared around to bunt in the first inning of any game. Second inning, too.

You training them to distinguish between drag and sac bunts?

[Guest Edgy DC]

Watch them make the fans pay for the sharpshooters.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Mets spokesman David Howard said, "It's very consistent with what we said in the beginning. Obviously, the 'average' means there is some people paying a higher 'security tax' and some lower, but the average sharpshooter fee is no more than 5 percent. For most. We haven't heard any outrage about this, and that has nothing to do with the fact that the snipers calibrate their sights by training their rifles on the crowd."

[Frayed Knot]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Yes, that was a shame, and I do believe it has much to do with the Mets making an effort to build an identity around the idea of Reyes as their leadoff hitter. I have to say, as abhorrent as I find the MFYs and their marketing, their strategy of using the organization itself as the selling point -- and not necessarily the individuals comprising it -- probably holds less downside. For the Mets I think this effort has tended to interfere with strategic decisions (like shifting Reyes in the order) and to an extent dictating the moves of the front office (the mets as a "superstar" driven team, cannot almost by definition shop for a relief pitcher without being obligated to pay top retail for the biggest name with the most saves, for example). It handicaps them.

Partly illustrated by the (IMO) over-the-top on-field celebrations for Franco's 400th save and Lenny Harris's PH record.
Not that those were mgmt-directed necessarily or mattered in the outcome of a game or season, but both (and other examples) could be seen as the result of a climate that prefers to trumpet certain individuals or accomplishments rather than the overall brand.

[Frayed Knot]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: All that, of course, is on the manager and not the general manager.. I'm not so sure. After reading Moneyball, I'm convinced that Billy Beane might've fired Willie Randolph on the spot right in the middle of a game after watching some of his shenanigans ... like, as one example, sac bunting in the first inning of a game being played in Denver, Colorado where Reyes had already reached second base before the first out was ever made and Wright, Beltran, and Delgado due up and poised to bring in the big innning. If nothing else, Moneyball illustrates that the GM does have a say into field strategy. And given the consistently questionable field strategy of the New SNY Mets, I wonder if Minaya is as much to blame, if not more so, than the field managers.

GMs have a say in strategy to the extent that they should be hiring folks who have a philosophy that they agree with.
So, no, I don't think Minaya et al are upstairs calling for specific in-game strategies; I suspect it's probably more a case where the front office is more or less indifferent (or at least neutral) to the idea that one concept is so much better than the other to the point where they're also not insisting on the converse. But I've seen Oakland teams do enough 'non-Moneyball' things also and Beane, to my knowledge, has never replaced a manager in-season or at anytime other than at the end of contract time. Maybe that's as much a case of not being able to eat the dollars as anything else but it also shows he's not dictating in-game decisions.
In the end, the batting order and dugout calls are up to Jerry.

[ashie62]

Edgy DC wrote: Watch them make the fans pay for the sharpshooters.

I'm available..

[ashie62]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Ashie62 wrote: LWFS Says Reyes is as valuable as Brock was ? Is that a joke. Brock was a mildly-overrated offensive player-- the speed and baserunning ability were superlative, but he didn't hit much, get on that much and appears from all sides-- see RealityChuck's bit-- to have been a terrible defender, speed inclusive. And this has been covered elsewhere much better, but the Hall gatesmen haven't always done the best job sifting "great" from "pretty good for a while." Even leaving out the VC choices-- chock full of Rizzutos and Schoendiensts and Everses and Maranvilles-- you've got Aparicios and Suttons and Perezes to deal with.

When Reyes gets to 1000 hits let me know. I still believe comparing Reyes to Brock is a true slap to Brock and thats all I've got.

The greater issue of healthy Reyes legs early next year?....I would trade him.

Murphy..He will be the 1B in 2010 barring a Carlos Delgado Festivus miracle

[Guest Edgy DC]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Now... are we gonna move Murphy or not? He's living on borrowed time over at 1B, seems better suited for a league with a DH option, and Lord knows he's not turning into Tony Perez any time soon.

But he certainly could still turn into Dave Magadan, and that's not a bad thing to be (bat him leadoff!). He's survived a year of adversity, finished kinda strong, did well at first, and probably should've been in AAA.

[Frayed Knot]

Ashie62 wrote: When Reyes gets to 1000 hits let me know. I still believe comparing Reyes to Brock is a true slap to Brock and thats all I've got.

You do realize the ridiculousness of comparing the totality of Brock's career to Reyes thru age 26, right?

Brock's most similar player thru age 26 = Coco Crisp

[Guest Edgy DC]

And Reyes' most similar batter is Ryne Sandberg, MVP, Hall of Famer.

Followed by

2. Jimmy Rollins, MVP
3. Larry Doyle, MVP
4. Paul Molitor, Hall of Famer
5. Alan Trammell, six-time All-Star

[metsmarathon]

brock's most similar batters after coco crisp, defiinitely not a hall of famer....

2. george wood, neither mvp nor hofer, he predated any manner of all star game by decades, but did lead the NL in saves in 1888 with two!
3. jimmy welsh, still not an all star
4. bernie williams, five-time all-star, fringe mvp candidate (0.51 mvp-shares in his career), and just shy of the hall of fame unless you're talking to a yldb
5. marquis grissom, two time all-star, fringe mvp candidate (0.45 mvp-shares in his career, and surely not a hall of famer.

i should point out unless doc is lurking out there somewhere, that similarity scores do not allow for projecting a players' future endeavors, but are handy in providing comparative context for their past accomplishments.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I wish similarity scores were calculated on an era-neutral basis.

[Guest Edgy DC]

By the way, checking out Lube Rock, I looked at 1974 MVP voting. What a bunch of crap. Bench, Mike Marshall, Schmidt, the Toy Cannon, Joe Morgan. How are these guys (maybe more) not more valuable than Steve Garvey? Was square-jawiness a legitimate voting criterion then?

[ashie62]

Frayed Knot wrote: Ashie62 wrote: When Reyes gets to 1000 hits let me know. I still believe comparing Reyes to Brock is a true slap to Brock and thats all I've got. You do realize the ridiculousness of comparing the totality of Brock's career to Reyes thru age 26, right? Brock's most similar player thru age 26 = Coco Crisp

Do you realize the ridiculousness of comparing a player known mostly for getting hurt and choking in September to someone who had 3000 hits. We may not agree some some in the HOF but it is for the very very great, not the very very good. Will Jose Reyes get there? He's not even on the path

Yes, this won't be played out for quite some time but lay off the Reyes-Kool-Aid

[Benjamin Grimm]

Calling Reyes a future Hall of Famer is certainly very premature.

But calling him a pimple is the other extreme. He's been a very good player, one of the best non-pitchers the Mets have ever had.

[ashie62]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Calling Reyes a future Hall of Famer is certainly very premature. But calling him a pimple is the other extreme. He's been a very good player, one of the best non-pitchers the Mets have ever had.

agreed

[Guest Edgy DC]

Reyes is not "known mostly for getting hurt and choking in September."

And he's not comparing them. MFS62 was.

[Frayed Knot]

Ashie62 wrote: Ashie62 wrote: When Reyes gets to 1000 hits let me know. I still believe comparing Reyes to Brock is a true slap to Brock and thats all I've got. You do realize the ridiculousness of comparing the totality of Brock's career to Reyes thru age 26, right? Brock's most similar player thru age 26 = Coco Crisp Do you realize the ridiculousness of comparing a player known mostly for getting hurt and choking in September to someone who had 3000 hits. We may not agree some some in the HOF but it is for the very very great, not the very very good. Will Jose Reyes get there? He's not even on the path Yes, this won't be played out for quite some time but lay off the Reyes-Kool-Aid

At this point I've started to lose track of how and why this comparison even started, but it seems to me that YOU are the only one comparing the accomplishments of a still-young player to the entirety of another player's career and acting as if you've found something profound when the two don't match.
And you might want to check on the comparisons at similar points in their respective careers before you decide that he's "not even on the path". Reyes compares favorably across the board - including being significantly better in both SBs & SB%. Yes the different eras skews things in Jose's favor but one of those guys is a good SS while the other a below-average LFer.

[batmagadanleadoff]

metirish wrote: Jesus , Mary and Chirst look what the cat dragged in.

Must be the same cat that�s had my tongue for the past few months.
Meow.

Edgy DC wrote: Welcome backman, BML.

(And holy hell, BML... good to "see" you.)

Thanks, guys.

If nothing else, Moneyball illustrates that the GM does have a say into field strategy. And given the consistently questionable field strategy of the New SNY Mets, I wonder if Minaya is as much to blame, if not more so, than the field managers. This is a conversation unto itself. Let's just say that this seems to vary widely-- WIDELY-- from clubhouse to clubhouse. The manager's primary JOB is organizing field strategy, and very few successfully-run businesses I know-- sports-related or otherwise-- opt for management doing the jobs of their subordinates.

And most businesses --sports related or otherwise�fail when lower management can�t do its� job. What�s good for Billy Beane should be good for the Mets.

[You training them to distinguish between drag and sac bunts?

Let�s just say that the bunter better be safe at first.

Edgy DC wrote: But [Daniel Murphy] certainly could still turn into Dave Magadan, and that's not a bad thing to be (bat him leadoff!).

Hey! I thought that David Wright is now the new David Magadan.

[batmagadanleadoff]

By the way, checking out Lube Rock, I looked at 1974 MVP voting. What a bunch of crap. Bench, Mike Marshall, Schmidt, the Toy Cannon, Joe Morgan. How are these guys (maybe more) not more valuable than Steve Garvey? Was square-jawiness a legitimate voting criterion then?

The 1974 NL MVP is one of my least favorites. In a perfect world, 1974 NL MVP Steve Garvey wouldn't have received a single vote: the voters can only select their top 10 candidates and in 1974, there were at least 15 NL'ers who had a better season than Garvey. Therefore, if Garvey wasn't one of the leagues 10 best players, he shouldn't have appeared on any voter's ballot. Garvey wasn't even the best player on his own team in 1974. The Dodgers best player that season was 1974 SI cover boy and the perenially screwed over in MVP voting guy -- Jimmy Wynn.



I would have given the '74 MVP to Joe ("how can such a smart baseball player be so stupid otherwise?") Morgan, thus eventually giving Morgan a run of three consecutive MVP's.