Shapiro's Latin American Endeavors
by ClarkM on Jun 24, 2009 12:38 AM EDT
Email
PrintI think Jay’s theory #2 (our scouting is mediocre) of why Cleveland is where it is seems to make the most sense. To take it even further, I’m not sure that the Shapiro regime has been very successful in Latin America
Using Retrosheet, these are the only amateur free agents we have signed since 2001 to make the big leagues:
Argenis Reyes, Edward Mujica, Rafael Perez
My understanding is that Retrosheet only has this information for guys that made it to the big leagues so I can't tell how many guys we signed in those years, only that these are the only players to make it.
Raffy was a valuable member of the pen for two years, but this can't be the kind of production one wants to see. Granted, there is a bit of a lag here as most of these guys are signed when they are 16 so the oldest would be somewhere around 24. Interestingly enough, however, these three guys were all older than 16 when they signed.
In the pipeline, Hector Rondon, probably our best Latin American prospect signed in 2004. Jeanmar Gomez and Kelvin De La Cruz, assuming they signed when they were 16 were also from the 2004 class. Another fairly prominent prospect, Carlos Rivero signed in 2005. Abner Abreu and Alexander Perez are still a little far away for me to start thinking too much about.
Looking at this, the question is what happened in 2001 (transition year), 2002 and 2003? I’m not sure if they spent a bunch of money and missed or they decided not to spend much in the region. And what about the guys in the pipeline, how much better are they? The problem is, when it comes to Latin America, there is so much that I don’t know. I have no idea how much money it cost to sign these guys, how much money we have spent total, how much comparative to other teams, etc.
In case anyone was wondering, Fausto, Victor, and Jhonny were all signed prior to Shapiro taking over. The other Latin American players, on the team and in the minors, were all received in trades.
I made this a fanpost as the last thread was way too long for my internet connection.
69 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Here’s a question I’ve been kicking around.
Is it a scouting department’s job to identify good prospects or good future players? Obviously in order to be a good prospect you need to have a certain potential projectability as a good player. But I wonder where scouting ends and player development begins.
Does Marte’s failure in the major leagues mean the majority of scouts erred? Was everyone in the universe wrong about Alex Escobar? J.D. Martin? Fernando Cabrera? Tthe list goes on.
I have a feeling, call it a gut feeling , the major problems the Indians have lie in the development department.
this is actually a credited point. granted, as far as the farm system goes, the buck still has to stop at shapiro—he’s the guy charged with assembling all the pieces of a player drafting and development machine. still, this is an important distinction for the indians’ organization to make. we don’t want to replace good scouts because our coaching/player development failed, or vice versa.
i do think that most of the problems with the amateur draft have been in scouting, rather than player development. this is basically because, for most of shapiro’s tenure, we targeted fairly polished collegiate players with our first few picks (guys like miller and lofgren being the exceptions). looking at picks like aubrey or sowers, their physical tools are pretty weak and just don’t offer much projection..
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jun 24, 2009 7:45 PM EDT up reply actions
Shapiro did come up through player development. It’s not as though somebody laid Fausto’s profile on his desk when he became GM and said, “Check out this guy!” I don’t mean to say Shapiro deserves credit for Fausto, just that he doesn’t deserve NO credit for Fausto.
by fleerdon on Jun 24, 2009 1:35 PM EDT reply actions
This has nothing to do with giving credit to Shapiro, it’s about trying to figure out why the club hasn’t been more successful.
Maybe the persons responsible for signing Fausto are still in the organization. I don’t know. However, it does appear that the Latin American program has noticeably dropped off since 2001.
In the years ‘98-00, the Indians signed Jhonny Peralta, Fausto Carmona, Maicer Izturis, and Willy Taveras. Since, it’s produced Rafael Perez. Willy Taveras, the butt of a ton of jokes, would be more valuable than any player we’ve produce since Shapiro took over, if one were to look at in terms of WAR. Perez and Taveras are currently doing their best to subtract from their career totals.
So what’s this mean, I have no clue. Was there in exodus of good scouts? Did their directives change? Have they just gone in a slump?
Or is this just kind of how signing 16-year-olds works?
by fleerdon on Jun 25, 2009 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Let me get this straight. When the Shapiro front office fails to sign anyone out of Latin America better than Raffy Perez in 8 years, it’s bad luck. Just the nature of signing 16 year olds.
When they fail to draft and sign anyone better than Jeremy Guthrie, it’s bad luck. Just the nature of the draft.
When they assemble some of the worst bullpens in mlb history, it’s bad luck. Just the nature of bullpens.
When the biggest contract in team history turns out to be a total dud, it’s bad luck.
When they continue to field defenses that finish in the bottom half of baseball, it’s what, bad luck? In terms of defensive efficiency, we haven’t finished better than 17th since 2005, when we were 3rd.
When they continue to underperform their pythag, it’s bad luck, again.
But, when Shapiro and Co. make shrewd trades of veterans for prospects, trades made only because they are out of playoff contention, they’re the smartest guys in the room.
by ClarkM on Jun 26, 2009 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
This is definitely worth considering.
In fairness, however, the great majority of L.A. signings are 16 years old, and the great majority of major leaguers debut at 23 or older. So you would expect that few if any would show up by 2009 who weren’t signed before 2003.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I agree with this wholeheartedly and tried to say something similar a month or so ago. I continue to believe that Shapiro et al have done a masterful job of propagandizing such that other people in baseball and intelligent fans have the highest opinion of their capabilities. Therefore, their underperformance is always attributed to luck and overperformance attributed to skill.
Propaganda is a loaded word so it’s probably not the word I’d use, but I don’t think it’s silly at all to think that the Indians front office has been guilty of exaggerating their abilities and processes over the past few years. In fact, I think it’s fairly likely that that’s the case.
Whether they do this more than any other front office, corporation, or person is another question to which I have no answer.
I don’t think of the Indians’ FO as particularly self-promoting. I mean, how would they themselves exaggerate their abilities? I think they’re just really smart guys who tend to wow writers when they come in to do a profile.
I mean, it’s a FO made up of a Princeton grad, a Georgetown grad, and an MIT grad, among others I’m sure. Considering who reporters are normally talking to for profiles I can see why the reviews of the Indians’ FO tend to be glowing. These are very, very smart, compelling guys.
None of that’s to say they’re good at their jobs; only that it’s obvious why the media fawns over them and it has nothing to do with some kind of self aggrandizement.
It’s worth remembering, I think, that MLB front offices are just littered with people who are tied to this organization — Byrnes, Huntington, that Boston whatsisface — which, right or wrong, would probably give reporters the sense that there’s some IQ dripping in the Indians’ coffee pot.
by fleerdon on Jul 1, 2009 10:19 AM EDT up reply actions
Sure, they attended Georgetown and dress up well and can do the corporate walk. But it doesn’t mean they’re actually smart. They look good. They’re anti-Jeremy Brown. The impress members of the media—old school for their corporate demeanor, new school for their analytical savvy (or their appearance of analytical savvy). Even if they’re as smart and impressive as they seem, they haven’t done as well as the Twins—and we don’t get articles about how brilliant Terry Ryan is. Smart and compelling does not equal good.
Public relations is the word, not propaganda.
by odradek on Jul 1, 2009 10:55 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
None of that’s to say they’re good at their jobs;
I would also argue that there is no question they are actually very smart. Again, that doesn’t mean they’re good at their jobs but it seems ridiculous to me to assert that Shapiro/Antonetti/Woolner aren’t smart. They all got into those schools basically on merit and you don’t end up at those schools if you’re not “actually smart.”
And part of my reaction to this is that I have a hard time believing that national writers are looking at these Indians teams and saying “That collection of talent is sub-par, but Shapiro knows best, so I’ll pick them to do well.”
As if this was clearly a 70-win team and Shapiro won everybody over with his smile. That just seems like a ridiculous conspiracy theory.
Also! We have an outside witness: PECOTA (or whatever other system you want to bring in). PECOTA agreed with the positive outlook, and I’m pretty sure it is asexual.
I think PECOTA’s just not all that into you.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jul 1, 2009 1:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Facts are stubborn things, as John Adams said. I’m not saying there’s a conspiracy. I’m saying Shapiro gets the benefit of the doubt because he’s been good at handling public relations, or media relations, or whatever. But he’s crapped out twice with teams that were supposed to be good.
I sense a hubris on the part of Shapiro. As the old saw has it, the game of baseball has a way of humbling you. I think this season will prove humbling to the Indians’ front office.
SSS, but I’ve known people who attended Princeton—as well as people who attended Georgetown—who weren’t “actually smart.”
But Shapiro/Woolner/Antonetti certainly appear smart. That’s my point. Sometimes people who appear to be smart actually aren’t, and sometimes people who come across like dimwits turn out to be quite intelligent. I’m commenting on judging by appearances.
Look, I don’t know how we’re defining smart but to get into Princeton or Georgetown, unless you’re some kind of bizarre legacy, you’ve got to be what most people would objectively call ‘smart.’ You might lack common sense, you might be unable to apply your skills but you have a high(ish) level of mental capacity.
I get what odradek is saying, because I kind of agree with him. I think that there are factors that play into college admissions that may impact the complete talent level. It probably depends more on who you know, but if you were to look at objective averages like SAT score or something like that, those schools would do very well.
I would argue very vehemently against the notion that a good SAT score is an indicator of intelligence.
by jakesinger777 on Jul 4, 2009 9:56 PM EDT up reply actions
I knew someone would say that and could have guessed it woulda been you!
I do think that a low SAT score is an indicator of likely unintelligence.
And, by the way, I did pretty well on the SATs – I hope I do as well on my GMAT on Monday.
by jakesinger777 on Jul 5, 2009 12:20 AM EDT up reply actions
So you’re saying, more or less, that high SAT scores are a necessary but not sufficient condition for intelligence?
I’m somewhat inclined to go the opposite direction: there are really intelligent people out there where either a) they aren’t good test-takers, or b) their type of intelligence isn’t measured well by the test. But it would be hard to do really well on the SAT without being intelligent in at least the ways that the test is good at measuring — which are perfectly valid, though far from the only valid, forms of intelligence.
That is, if you’re a fantastic test taker, and if you’ve taken all the practice tests there are and studied vocab lists, etc., you can probably get yourself a high score, but you won’t get an “elite” score unless you’re pretty smart.
high SAT scores are a necessary but not sufficient condition for intelligence?
I don’t think he said that, not even “more or less.”
He said, a person with a very low score likely isn’t all that bright.
The good/bad test-taker thing is highly overplayed. The far bigger problem with standardized tests is that there are elements of intelligence that they don’t even attempt to measure.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jul 5, 2009 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, he said that a low score is probably an indicator of low intelligence, which is equivalent to saying that, if not a high score, then “not a low score” is a necessary condition for intelligence. But he also said that he doesn’t believe a high score is an indicator of intelligence, so then it can’t be sufficient. Necessary but not sufficient.
I tend to agree that the good/bad test-taker thing is overplayed, but that doesn’t mean it’s a nonexistent distinction. Some people improve at cognitive tasks under stress conditions, others get worse; plus test-taking presumably produces varying levels of anxiety in the first place.
And I of course agree with the idea that standardized tests don’t attempt to measure all “valid” forms of intelligence, as I noted above. It sounds like you and I pretty much agree on this, but I’m curious about jake’s view.
Don’ forget, guys, that we’re talking just about the SAT here, not every standardized test. I think they all test different things, they are all not perfect and they all do not test intelligence in any direct (or indirect, really) manner.
My problem with the SAT was with the verbal – it seemed to be a vocabulary test more than anything else. You could get a question you knew how to answer but didn’t understand any of the 5 options! I don’t really think a vocabulary test is any form of intelligence test.
SAT math is similarly not perfect. In my mind it tests a fairly average level of math, maybe a 10th or 11th grade level. Without trying to sound conceited, I took the SATs twice and never got a math question wrong. I didn’t go on to major in math nor do I consider myself some kind of math whiz, I was just able to conquer SAT math. I think the test for which I’m studying now, the GMAT, does a much better job of testing critical reasoning ability, both in math and verbal, which, while not necessarily a wonderful indicator of intelligence, is a more useful one than vocabulary.
The bottom line, for me, is that if you can improve your test score in any test through cramming, studying vocab lists etc..doesn’t that necessarily prohibit it from being considered an intelligence test?
by jakesinger777 on Jul 5, 2009 6:59 PM EDT up reply actions
The SAT isn’t an intelligence test – even the College Board doesn’t claim that. They don’t even call it an aptitude test any more. it’s designed to tell whether you have the skills necessary to succeed in college, which is not at all the same thing as intelligence. There are plenty of tests that do a very good job in testing intelligence – I just shelled out a bunch of money to have the WISC administered to one of my children, to give just one example.
To add to the discussion, there’s a correlation between income and SAT score which makes an increasing number of colleges and universities uncomfortable about using those scores in admissions decisions.
http://blog.cleveland.com/pdgraphics/2008/04/11CGADMITONLINE.pdf
Of course there is a correlation between income and SAT score. There is an expected correlation between income and college preparedness in general.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jul 6, 2009 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Of course there is a correlation between income and SAT score. There is an expected correlation between income and college preparedness in general.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jul 6, 2009 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Right. The original question concerned whether SAT scores measure intelligence. They may measure college preparedness (although apparently grades are a better measure of this: http://chronicle.com/news/index.php?id=2527). But, it’s pretty clear that intelligence isn’t the same as college preparedness. I’m not arguing with you — just trying to support the view that SAT scores aren’t intelligence scores.
Yeah, all of this is right, of course. That’s not to say, though, that SAT scores can’t help you predict intelligence (i.e., they correlate, even though they’re not measuring it very directly), since college preparedness presumably correlates with intelligence, all else equal. I don’t know what percentage of the variance in intelligence can be predicted by SAT scores, but it’s not going to be zero, and it’s probably not even going to be all that small…
As a result, if you have very high SAT score, you’re quite unlikely to be dumb (though you aren’t necessarily a genius); and if you have a really low score, you’re quite unlikely to be smart (though you aren’t necessarily an imbecile). If you have a sort of low SAT score, though, you might still be pretty smart — especially in ways that don’t translate well to math and reading.
I should emphasize, also, that when I’m saying “likely” and “unlikely”, I mean that if you look at an SAT score and don’t know anything else about the person, you won’t be wrong a large percentage of the time, though you will be wrong sometimes. If you find out, say, that a person comes from a low income family, or some other relevant factor, your prediction might change.
Sure. Exaggerated and ridiculous columns, even.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jul 1, 2009 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Maybe Shapiro. I think we tend to overthink how everyone else portrays them because we really only care about the articles written about the Indians. How many of us are really interested in reading a nice article about the GM of a team that is in the NL for example? If I saw a link to that, I would be inclined to ignore it
The DBacks GM is really well liked.
I think Shap and that DBacks guy, as well as Theo, are favorites, in part, because they have the Beane sexy-smart factor but they didn’t have the book written about them and, because of that and some other reasons, they are viewed as smart and sexy like Beane but not as arrogant like Beane.
Also, that Rangers’ GM. He seems to be a favorite.
Do the DBacks have fans that are about to jump off a cliff as well? I don’t remember them making the playoffs for quite a few years?
They went to the NLCS is 2007. Their swoon this year actually sort of looks like ours, though I don’t really know if they were supposed to be good.
Actually, yeah the DBacks look sort of similar. They had collapses out of Chris Young and Stephen Drew, plus getting nothing out of Jon Garland (who should’ve been ok in the NL West, I’d think) and a bad bullpen.
It’s an interesting question. My first reaction is, not for very long, since a team that has good relievers but nothing else is going to flip them all at the deadline.
by fleerdon on Jul 1, 2009 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions
this is awesome. this is the brick wall of an argument i’ve been running into with shapiro supporters for the last month or so.
as i said awhile back. . . i guess that “dumb” teams like philadelphia, st. louis, anaheim, atlanta, and minnesota will just continue to blunder their way to success, while our awesome, streamlined, quantitative FO will continue to make great, acclaimed moves while being a victim of overwhelming bad luck.
i know that good results do not always indicate good decisionmaking. i also know that bad results do not always indicate bad decisionmaking. for example, the decision to sign kerry wood was still, in my opinion, a good one. however, at some point, when you continue making decisions based on a certain set of assumptions and information, and those decisions continually lead to bad results, it becomes increasingly likely that either 1) you aren’t making good decisions, or 2) you are making good decisions with bad or incomplete information, and it becomes less and less likely that you are just a victim of bad luck.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jun 26, 2009 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Let me get this straight. When the Shapiro front office fails to sign anyone out of Latin America better than Raffy Perez in 8 years, it’s bad luck. Just the nature of signing 16 year olds.
You’re shifting your argument here. Shapiro hasn’t signed anyone who’s made it to the big leagues better than Raffy Perez., yet. But like Fleerdon and others are saying, because most Latin American prospects are signing at 16 it takes longer to get to the majors. This doesn’t mean Shapiro has been sitting around twiddling his thumbs for the last eight years. It means that some of his signings are still in the pipeline, as you openly admit in your original post.
It looks like at best, your argument is Shapiro had a bad three years. Okay. And then he’s signed some quality latin america prospects from 2004 beyond. What’s the point of criticizing a problem that’s been fixed.
One last note, without looking at the player’s Shapiro signed, its impossible to fully criticize his Latin American signings. If Shapiro signed heralded prospects that just didn’t work out, the Latin American market is still doing its job. Like I keep saying, there’s a difference between acquiring a good prospect and developing a good major league player. There’s overlap but they’re not one in the same.
by world dictator on Jun 27, 2009 9:56 AM EDT up reply actions
How much of this are people really saying “it’s just bad luck”? I’m more curious than debating here. I’d agree that people have called the crappy bullpens and underperforming pythag (which kind of go hand in hand) unlucky (though not so much anymore as were seeing the sample size get big enough to say ‘yeah, something’s wrong here’), but I haven’t seen anyone refer to the defense as unlucky. And I feel its more of people recognizing that, even for the smartest guys in the room, signing 16 year olds and building bullpens are things you just can’t be very confident in doing.
Oh absolutely. All of these things. Your post articulates my exact philosophy concerning the Shapiro front office, you correctly interpreted my post to be a full-fledged, expansive defense thereof.
Or maybe I was just talking about Latin American scouting.
by fleerdon on Jun 29, 2009 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Dude, clean up your mess. You’re dripping sarcasm all over the nice clean floor.
by Logodaedalus on Jun 29, 2009 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions
That might be the eggs that Shapiro threw in a basket…and possibly a towel…
by Logodaedalus on Jun 29, 2009 7:27 PM EDT up reply actions
In the years ‘98-00, the Indians signed Jhonny Peralta, Fausto Carmona, Maicer Izturis, and Willy Taveras
How many major league players did the Indians sign out of Latin America throughout Hart’s entire term as GM. As it stands your argument is a strawman. For all we know, and I suspect, that you’re comparing the best three years of the Hart era to the worst three years of Shapiro’s era.
Did Hart go through a time period where he didn’t make any significant signings? I’d suspect he did. This is important because it all goes to show that Latin American signings, arguably more than the draft, is somewhat of a crapshoot. You can complain about “bad luck” but this is the nature of the business.
If Michael Inoa fizzles out does Beane still get credit for making a good Latin America signing? He was a well regarded prospect by all parties, and Beane had to fend off a tough competition to sign him. Right now we’d say its a win but will we in a few years? It’s all random
by world dictator on Jun 27, 2009 10:03 AM EDT up reply actions
I think the problem with this is that as more teams have moved into Latin America, more and more guys are signing at 16. This means less guys actually make it, but even more relevant for your argument is that it means even a lot guys signed back in 2002 would only be 23 or 24 at this point. So I think your “having reached the majors” threshold is off. How many teams have more than 3 guys signed since then in the bigs. Any of the three of Rondon, De La Cruz, or Gomez would be the top pitching prospect in a lot of systems. I think it is difficult to say the Indians aren’t doing well in Latin America.
Did you read what I wrote? You are basically restating what I said.
The fact remains that the 2001, 2002, and 2003 classes have produced Raffy Perez and that’s it. Nothing else is coming from those classes. As for the three pitchers in the minors, sure, I like them but I think you are being a bit hyperbolic on their value and what have they done that, say, Jeremy Sowers or Clay Buchholz hasn’t.
By the way, what’s up with De La Cruz, did he have TJ or has he just been shut down?
I’m not sure that the Shapiro regime has been very successful in Latin America
Using Retrosheet, these are the only amateur free agents we have signed since 2001 to make the big leagues
I’m not exactly sure what I’m missing. I re-stated some of your points, but only because I think they better support my argument than yours.
The fact remains that the 2001, 2002, and 2003 classes have produced Raffy Perez and that’s it.
So basically your argument is that Shapiro had a dry spell in the Latin America market for a few years and then corrected it.
Okay…
by world dictator on Jun 27, 2009 9:49 AM EDT up reply actions
I think the disagreement here lies in the fact that I don’t think he has corrected it because I don’t think nearly as high as Rondon, Gomez, De La Cruz, and Rivero as you guys do.
From what I’ve read, there are some concerns that Rondon might not have what it takes to start, Gomez’s stuff isn’t that great, De La Cruz has pitched 12 innings this year, and Rivero isn’t hitting worth a lick. I seriously doubt that any of these guys would be in many people’s top 100 prospects in baseball.
I’d like to try to clear up any misunderstanding. By no means do I think the Latin American program is terrible, frankly, I don’t know how good it’s been, I just don’t feel like I have enough information to conclude that’s it’s been a success.
I think some people understand where I am coming from in that I’m not willing to give Shap and co. a gold star for having a few somewhat well-regarded prospects in the system.
You’re really overrating De La Cruz and Gomez. I would like to hear the list of systems wherein either of those guys would be the top pitching prospect.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jun 26, 2009 10:21 PM EDT up reply actions
A comparison in relation to other teams success/failure in the LA market would be more helpful to demonstrate whether or not Shapiro has exploited the market as well as anyone else.
Juan Salas: Smartest man in baseball?
I agree, but that would that would probably take more time than I’m willing to spend on it.
I’m think that you’d see teams that probably haven’t signed anybody that made the big leagues, you’d see teams like Minnesota, with similar production (Jose Mijares, Alex Romero), and you’d see teams like Seattle that signed Felix Hernandez, Asdrubal Cabrera, and Luis Valbuena in 2002 alone. Coincidentally enough, that was Pat Gillick’s last year there.
But as others have mentioned, it is probably too early to be evaluating the LA signings. Even for the guys that have made it to the majors, for the most part, it’s hard to tell what kind of player they’re going to be.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
